Resolute Insurance v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal Oct 6, 1970 No. Civ. Nos. 26529, 26530Published

Before: Brown

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a legislative amendment extending the time period for entering a summary judgment on a forfeited bail bond is constitutional and applicable to pending matters where the original limitation period had not yet expired. Because the amendment affected only the remedy and not a vested substantive right, it did not impair the obligation of the contract.

Issues

Whether a legislative extension of the time period to enter a summary judgment on a bail bond constitutes an unconstitutional impairment of contract.
Whether an amendment enlarging a statute of limitations applies to pending matters where the original period has not yet run.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The extension of the statutory period within which an action must be brought is generally held to be valid if made before the cause of action is barred.”

[1008]Opinion

BROWN (H. C.), J. The appeals by real party in interest, the People, and the Municipal Court of the Southern Judicial District of San Mateo County are from judgments on review by the superior court. The writs of review by the superior court were issued in two independent cases with identical issues and parallel facts. In both cases the superior court decreed that the appellant municipal court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in granting summary judgments against respondent insurance company pursuant to Penal Code section 1306.

On April 28, 1966, respondent undertook to post bail in the form of a corporate surety bond in the amount of $2,750 to guarantee the appearance of one Willie Pearl Grant.1 Subsequent to that date the matter of People v. Grant was certified to the Superior Court of San Mateo County with a hearing set for August 1, 1967.2 The parties on bail failed to appear for their August 1,1967 hearing and the bail was ordered forfeited by the court.

Penal Code section 1306 provided that upon the expiration of 180 days after the court’s declaration that bail be forfeited, the court shall advise the district attorney or civil legal adviser of the board of supervisors of the forfeiture, and they shall then request a court of competent jurisdiction to enter a summary judgment against the surety for the amount of the bail.

Section 1306 further provided at the time respondent posted bail: “If, because of the failure of any court ... [or other person] to promptly perform the duties enjoined upon them pursuant to this section, summary judgment is not entered within 60 days after the date upon which it may first be entered, the right to do so expires and the bail is exonerated.” (Stats. 1965, ch. 1926, p. 4449.)

Appellant first had the right to request a summary judgment in this case on January 29, 1968, which was 180 days after the court declared the bail forfeited on August 1, 1967. Thus, pursuant to Penal Code section 1306, as it read when the bail was undertaken, appellant had until March 31, 1968, to request the summary judgment. The summary judgment was not filed, however, until April 16, 1968, some 79 days after it could have been entered. Respondent claims appellant lost the right to a summary judgment by failure to obtain the judgment within the 60 days.

During 1967, however, the state Legislature amended Penal Code section

Resolute Insurance v. Municipal Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief