People v. Bankers Ins. Co. CA4/2 (2016) · DecisionDepot
People v. Bankers Ins. Co. CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Feb 11, 2016 No. E058681Unpublished
Filed 2/11/16 P. v. Bankers Ins. Co. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E058681
v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1300294)
BANKERS INSURANCE CO., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
E. Alan Nunez and John M. Rorabaugh for Defendant and Appellant.
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and John R. Tubbs II, Deputy County Counsel,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The court entered summary judgment on a bail bond forfeiture against defendant
and appellant Bankers Insurance Co. (Surety). Surety filed a motion to set aside the
1
summary judgment. The court denied the motion. On appeal, Surety contends the court
lacked jurisdiction to declare forfeiture of the bond and that the notice of forfeiture
violated its rights of due process. We affirm the judgment.
Dist., Div. Two].) “Since the 180-day period prescribed by section 1305 is jurisdictional,
a court is powerless to vacate a forfeiture unless a motion for relief from forfeiture is
made within that time frame.” (People v. American Bankers Ins. Co. (1991) 227
Cal.App.3d 1289, 1297 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two], overruled on another ground in
National Automobile, at p. 126 [Trial court’s act in excess of its jurisdiction cannot be
equated with a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.]; accord People v. Lexington National
Ins. Co. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 370, 373-375.)
While a failure to notify a lay person of the process for garnering relief from
forfeiture and the time limits for seeking it is violative of the statute, “[m]ere reference to
the code section may suffice for professional sureties who routinely work with the section
and are presumably familiar with it. [Citation.]” (Minor v. Municipal Court (1990) 219
Cal.App.3d 1541, 1550; accord People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., Inc. (2013)
220 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1141-1145 [Strict technical compliance with section 1305
notification requirement that it recite the statutory provisions under which it was issued
and under which relief from forfeiture might be obtained not constitutionally required
11
where notice is sent to licensed insurer and professional surety which routinely works
with section 1305].)
Here, the clerk of the court issued a notice of forfeiture of defendant’s bail bond to
both Surety and the bail agent at the addresses appearing on the bail bond. The notice
contained the case number, defendant’s name, the date the court entered forfeiture of the
bail bond, the bond number, and the bond amount. The notice informed Surety of the
statute under which the bail had been forfeited and the statute under which forfeiture
could be set aside and the bond reinstated. The notice indicated Surety had 180 days
from the date of forfeiture to take remedial action.
The bail agent acknowledged defendant’s failure to appear at the hearing on May
30, 2012, which resulted in the court forfeiting defendant’s bond. The bail agent declared
he had received notice of the forfeiture on June 7, 2012. Surety, a licensed and
professional surety which routinely works within the framework of section 1305 in
issuing and enforcing bail bonds, received adequate notice of the forfeiture of defendant’s
bond reasonably calculated to inform it of the method for setting aside the forfeiture
despite any apparent error in the clerk’s inclusion of the five-day mailing period in the
deadline listed in the notice of forfeiture. (People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co.,
Inc., supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1141-1145 [Licensed insurer and professional surety
which routinely worked within the framework of section 1305 in issuing and enforcing
bail bonds not deprived of due process where forfeiture notice failed to cite statutory
provisions under which forfeiture was being declared, failed to cite statutory provisions
12
under which relief from forfeiture might be obtained, and failed to state the time limits
for seeking such relief.].) Indeed, Surety and the bail agent’s statements that it had
attempted to have the extension filed on the day of the deadline were strong indicators
they were aware December 3, 2012, was the final day on which it could be filed. The
court acted within its discretion in denying Surety’s motion to set aside summary
judgment on the forfeiture.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
MILLER J.
13
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction to forfeit the bail bond because the defendant failed to appear at a required hearing, and that the surety received adequate notice of the forfeiture despite any potential clerical errors regarding the deadline.
Issues
Did the trial court have jurisdiction to order the forfeiture of the bail bond?
Did the notice of forfeiture violate the surety's due process rights?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Defendant’s failure to appear at a hearing in a felony case at which his presence had not been waived, at which he had been ordered to appear, at which his presence was expected, and at which possible resolution of the case was expected to be discussed gave the court jurisdiction to order forfeiture of his bond.”
“Surety, a licensed and professional surety which routinely works within the framework of section 1305 in issuing and enforcing bail bonds, received adequate notice of the forfeiture of defendant’s bond reasonably calculated to inform it of the method for setting aside the forfeiture”