County of Los Angeles v. Financial Casualty & Surety CA2/1

Filed 6/26/15 County of Los Angeles v. Financial Casualty & Surety CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, B254010

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SJ3716) v.

FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lia R. Martin, Judge. Order denying interest reversed and remanded with directions. ______ John M. Rorabaugh for Defendant and Appellant. Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Ruben Baeza, Jr., Assistant County Counsel, and Joanne Nielsen, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______

Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (Financial) appeals from that portion of an order in which the trial court denied interest on its motion for restitution pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 908. Financial contends that the court abused its discretion in denying interest. We agree and thus reverse and remand the matter with directions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 11, 2011, Financial posted a $100,000 bond for the release of criminal defendant Luciano Villa. When Villa failed to appear in court on June 24, bail was forfeited. Financial moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond on the ground that Villa had been deported on June 13 and thus, under Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (d), was “permanently unable to appear in the court.” Based on a finding of “unclean hands,” the trial court (Hon. Mark A. Young) denied Financial’s motion and entered judgment on the forfeited bond. Financial appealed. On April 10, 2012, during the pendency of the appeal, Financial paid the judgment, which totaled $101,493.29, including court costs and interest, to the County of Los Angeles (County). We reversed the judgment, concluding that the trial court had applied an incorrect legal standard to deny Financial’s motion. (County of Los Angeles v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1195-1196.) Because relief from the forfeiture of bail under Penal Code section 1306 is neither discretionary nor dependent on “‘clean hands,’” we held that exoneration is mandatory so long as the defendant’s absence is “‘without the connivance of the bail,’” and no evidence existed that Financial had connived in Villa’s absence. (Ibid.) Our remittitur issued on August 1, 2013. On October 3, Financial moved under Code of Civil Procedure section 908 for restitution, including interest on the money it had paid the County. The County opposed Financial’s request for interest. On December 11, the trial court (Hon. Lia R. Martin) entered an order awarding restitution in the amount paid, $101,493.29, but denying interest. According to the court, an interest award was not equitable under the circumstances because the County had demanded payment of the judgment pursuant to Penal Code section 1306, which under subdivision (f) provides a two-year limitation