People v. Fin. Cas. & Sur., Inc.

78 Cal.App.5th 879

294 Cal.Rptr.3d 163

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY, INC., Defendant and Appellant.

B309234

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Filed May 16, 2022

Law Office of John Rorabaugh and John Mark Rorabaugh, Fresno, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Adrian G. Gragas, Assistant County Counsel, and Yuan Chang, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

LAVIN, J.

INTRODUCTION

Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (Surety) provided a $100,000 bail bond for a criminal defendant who failed to appear in court as required. The court declared a forfeiture of the bond under Penal Code section 1305¹ and Surety failed to vacate the forfeiture within the statutorily specified appearance period. Accordingly, the court entered summary judgment against Surety in the amount of the bond and court costs.

Surety appeals from the denial of its motion to set aside the summary judgment on the forfeited bond. It argues the trial court prematurely entered summary judgment because an emergency rule adopted by the Judicial Council in response to the Covid-19 pandemic (Emergency rule 9), which tolled "the statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of action," also tolled the appearance period for vacating forfeitures of bail bonds. We disagree and affirm the order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In March 2019, Surety posted a bail bond of $100,000 for a criminal defendant (Vanessa Anderson) accused of three felony counts. Anderson failed to appear in court on May 17, 2019, and the court ordered the bail forfeited. The clerk mailed notice of the forfeiture on May 23, 2019, informing Surety of the court's order and notifying it that the court could set aside the forfeiture upon the filing of a timely motion under section 1305 within the appearance period, i.e., 185 days. At Surety's request, the court subsequently extended the appearance period by 180 days, to June 10, 2020, under section 1305.4.²

When the appearance period terminated on June 11, 2020, the bond forfeiture had not been set aside. Accordingly, under section 1306, the court entered summary judgment against Surety on July 31, 2020. The clerk mailed notice of entry of judgment in the amount of the bond, plus $435 in court costs, to Surety on August 3, 2020.

On August 17, 2020, Surety filed a motion to set aside the summary judgment and to reinstate and extend the bail bond under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Surety stated that the statewide shelter-in-place order issued by Governor Gavin Newsom³ interfered with its ability to locate Anderson and argued that circumstance was a judicial emergency ( Code of Civil Procedure sections 12 and 12a ) and, in addition, was an "excusable mistake" within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Surety also urged the court to set aside the judgment under its broad equitable power.

The court denied the motion on October 16, 2020. Surety timely appeals.

DISCUSSION

Surety contends the trial court prematurely entered summary judgment because Emergency rule 9, which expressly tolled "the statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of action" from April 6, 2020 to October 1, 2020, also tolled the period in which a surety may move to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond. We disagree.

1. Scope and Standard of Review

We independently review and interpret Judicial Council emergency rules.

(See People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc . (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 33, 38–39, 287 Cal.Rptr.3d 891 ( Financial Casualty ); In re M.P . (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1013, 1020, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 106.)

The well-settled rules of statutory construction apply to the California Rules of Court. ( Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 894, 902, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 534, 152 P.3d 1109 ; People v. Guerra (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 961, 966, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 99.) " ‘Our primary task in interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature's intent, giving effect to the law's purpose. [Citation.] We consider first the words of a statute, as the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] We construe the statute's words in context, and harmonize statutory provisions to avoid absurd results. [Citation.] If we find the statutory language ambiguous or subject to more than one interpretation, we may look to extrinsic aids, including legislative history or purpose to inform our views. [Citation.] We also strive to avoid construing ambiguous statutes in a manner that creates doubts as to their validity." ( John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 95–96, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 459, 369 P.3d 238.)

2. Legal Principles

2.1. Bail Forfeiture Procedure

A bail bond is a contract between the government and a surety in which the surety guarantees that a specific criminal defendant will appear in court as required during the criminal prosecution. The surety pledges to pay the court the specified bond amount if it is unable to secure the defendant's presence. (See, e.g., People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc . (2016) 2 Cal.5th 35, 42, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 79, 384 P.3d 1226.)

If the defendant subsequently fails to appear as required and the failure to appear is not excused, the court must declare the bail forfeited. ( § 1305, subd. (a) ; see County of Los Angeles v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc . (2018) 5 Cal.5th 309, 314, 234 Cal.Rptr.3d 459, 419 P.3d 934 ; People v. North River Ins. Co. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 559, 563, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 722.) After the court declares the bail forfeited and the clerk of the court mails notice to the surety, the surety has a period of 185 days (known as the appearance period) to secure the defendant's appearance in court. The surety may seek an extension of the appearance period for no more than 180 days. ( § 1305.4 ; People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., supra , 2 Cal.5th at p. 46, fn. 2, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 79, 384 P.3d 1226 [noting the total allowable extension is limited to 180 days from the date of the first extension order].) If the surety cannot produce the defendant during the appearance period, it may move to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond if it can prove that one of the limited excuses set forth in the statute is applicable. ( § 1305, subd. (c)(1) ; see People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co . (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 658, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 93 P.3d 1020.)

If the appearance period expires and the bail forfeiture has not been set aside, the court must enter a summary judgment against the surety in accordance with the terms of the bail bond. ( § 1306, subd. (a) ; People v. North River Ins. Co., supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 563, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 722.) The summary judgment following a declaration of forfeiture is a consent judgment entered without a hearing pursuant to the terms of the bail bond. ( People v. North River Ins. Co., at p. 567, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 722 ["If the forfeiture has not been vacated at the end of the appearance period, the court has no choice but to enter summary judgment in accordance with the terms stated in the bond."]; People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1047, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 881 ["A summary judgment in a bail forfeiture is a consent judgment entered without a hearing and the proceedings are not adversarial."].)

While bail bond proceedings occur in connection with criminal prosecutions, they are independent from and collateral to the prosecutions and are civil in nature. (See People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., supra , 33 Cal.4th at p. 657, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 93 P.3d 1020 ; Financial Casualty, supra , 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 39, 287 Cal.Rptr.3d 891.)

2.2. Emergency Rule 9

Emergency rule 9 was adopted by the Judicial Council and became effective on April 6, 2020. As initially adopted, Emergency rule 9 tolled "the statutes of limitations on all civil causes of action from April 6, 2020, ... until 90 days after the Governor declares that the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic is lifted." As amended on May 29, 2020, and as pertinent here, Emergency rule 9 reads: "(a) Tolling statutes of limitations over 180 days [¶] Notwithstanding any other law, the statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of action that exceed 180 days are tolled from April 6, 2020, until October 1, 2020."

The Advisory Committee comment explains the application of the rule: "Emergency rule 9 is intended to apply broadly to toll any statute of limitations on the filing of a pleading in court asserting a civil cause of action. The term ‘civil causes of action’ includes special proceedings. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 312, 363 [‘action,’ as used in title 2 of the code (Of the Time of Commencing Civil Actions), is construed ‘as including a special proceeding of a civil nature’[ ]; special proceedings of a civil nature include all proceedings in title 3 of the code, including mandamus actions under §§ 1085, 1088.5, and 1094.5—all the types of petitions for writ made for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and land use challenges]; see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21167(a) – (e) [setting limitations periods for civil ‘action[s]’ under CEQA].) [¶] The rule also applies to statutes of limitations on filing of causes of action in court found in codes other than the Code of Civil Procedure, including the limitations on causes of action found in, for example, the Family Code and Probate Code."

The Judicial Council explained the background of Emergency rule 9, and the reasons for amending it, in a Circulating Order (No. CO-20-09 found at < https://jcc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M & ID=790621 & GUID=A0ED0998-D827-4792-9BD1-A3A4FCF939AA> [as of May 6, 2022], archived at < https://perma.cc/2DFS-VB38>.)

3. Emergency rule 9 did not extend the appearance period in bond forfeiture proceedings.

As noted, Emergency rule 9 applies to "statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of action." Surety...