People v. N. River Ins. Co.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE CO., et al. Defendants and Appellants.

B296412

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

September 10, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SJ4504)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Alison Estrada, Judge. Affirmed.

Jefferson T. Stamp for Defendants and Appellants.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Adrian G. Gragas, Assistant County Counsel, and Jonathan McCaverty, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Bad Boys Bail Bonds, acting as the agent for The North River Insurance Company (collectively, North River), posted a bail bond to secure the release of a defendant in a criminal proceeding. The trial court ordered the bond forfeited when the defendant failed to appear for the preliminary hearing. The court entered summary judgment against North River under section 1306 of the Penal Code. North River appeals, and we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 3, 2017 the People charged Eduardo Cardenas with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).¹ North River posted a $50,000 bail bond to secure Cardenas's release. Cardenas appeared at the arraignment on January 24, 2017, where the trial court set the preliminary hearing for February 6, 2017 and ordered Cardenas to return on that date. Cardenas did not appear at the preliminary hearing, and the court ordered the bail forfeited.

On February 14, 2017 the trial court mailed notice of the forfeiture to North River, triggering a 185-day period for Cardenas to appear or North River to seek to set aside the forfeiture prior to the trial court entering summary judgment against North River. (See §§ 1305, subds. (b)-(c), 1306, subd. (a).) On August 15, 2017 Bad Boys Bail Bonds filed a motion to extend the appearance period, which the trial court granted on September 8, 2017, extending the period to March 7, 2018. North River did not move to set aside the forfeiture before theextended appearance period expired, and on March 19, 2018 the trial court entered summary judgment in the amount of $50,370 ($50,000 for the bond, plus $370 in court costs) against North River.

On October 18, 2018 North River filed a motion to set aside the summary judgment, vacate the forfeiture, and exonerate the bond. North River argued the judgment was void because the judge who initially declared the bond forfeited when Cardenas failed to appear at the preliminary hearing was not the same judge who subsequently signed the judgment against North River. North River also argued the bond was void because the trial court violated Cardenas's constitutional rights by setting the amount of his bail without considering either Cardenas's ability to pay or less restrictive bail conditions. The trial court denied the motion. North River timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

A "'bail bond is a contract between the surety and the government whereby the surety acts as a guarantor of the defendant's appearance in court under the risk of forfeiture of the bond.'" (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 657; accord, People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 456, 460; see People v. Bankers Ins. Co. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1011 ["'A bail bond is a contract between the government and the surety.'"].) Sections 1305 to 1306 govern bail forfeiture. Section 1305, subdivision (a)(1), provides a "court shall in open court declare forfeited the undertaking of bail . . . if, without sufficient excuse, a defendantfails to appear" for one of the proceedings enumerated in the statute. "[T]he trial court is required to declare bail forfeited" if the defendant fails to appear. (International Fidelity Ins. Co., at p. 460.) Where (as here) "the amount of the bond . . . exceeds four hundred dollars ($400)," the clerk of the court must mail notice of the forfeiture to the surety. (§ 1305, subd. (b)(1).) The mailing triggers a 185-day "appearance period" (180 days plus five days for mailing) during which "the surety on the bond is entitled to move to have the forfeiture vacated and the bond exonerated on certain grounds, such as an appearance in court by the accused." (American Contractors Indemnity Co., at p. 658; see § 1305, subds. (b)(1), (c)(1)-(3).)

Section 1306, subdivision (a), provides that, if the court has not set aside the forfeiture by the end of the appearance period, the court "shall enter a summary judgment" against the surety in "the amount of the bond plus costs." (See People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at pp. 460-461 ["If the surety fails to obtain relief from the forfeiture . . . the court shall enter summary judgment against the surety on the bond, plus costs."].) The Penal Code also requires that, for a surety to post the bond, the surety must execute a written undertaking acknowledging that, "[i]f the forfeiture of this bond be ordered by the court, judgment may be summarily made and entered forthwith against" the surety "as provided by Sections 1305 and 1306." (§§ 1278, subd. (a), 1287, subd. (a).)

Because a court enters summary judgment under section 1306 "pursuant to a contractual consent in the bond agreement" (People v. Amwest Surety Ins. Co. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 915, 919, fn. 2), the judgment "is a consent judgment which is normally not appealable" (County of Los Angeles v. American Bankers Ins. Co.(1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 792, 795). (See Merritt v. J. A. Stafford Co. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 619, 623 ["a judgment on an appeal bond may not be appealed by the surety . . . because the judgment against the surety is a consent judgment"]; People v. American Surety Co. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 380, 389 [same]; People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1056, 1059 ["Summary judgments entered on forfeitures of bail are consent judgments . . . not usually subject to challenge."].) However, "[a]n order denying a motion to set aside summary judgment on a bail bond forfeiture is an appealable order." (People v. Accredited Surety Casualty Co. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 548, 554; accord, American Surety Co., at p. 394; People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 588, 592.)

We generally review an order denying a motion to vacate a summary judgment following forfeiture of a bail bond for abuse of discretion. (See People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 797, 804 ["'Ordinarily, appellate courts review an order denying a motion to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond under an abuse of discretion standard.'"]; People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 308, 314 [same]; County of Los Angeles v. Fairmont Specialty Group (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 538, 542 ["'[t]he abuse of discretion standard applies to the trial court's resolution of a motion to set aside a bail forfeiture'"].) "'When the facts are undisputed and only legal issues are involved,'" however, we "'conduct an independent review.'" (The North River Ins. Co., at p. 804; accord, Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., at p. 314; see People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 461 [when "the issue is one of statutory construction or contract interpretation, and the evidence is undisputed, we review the order de novo"].)

B. Section 1306 Does Not Require the Judge Who Declared the Forfeiture To Enter Summary Judgment

North River argues that, because section 1306, subdivision (a), states "the court which has declared the forfeiture shall enter a summary judgment" against the surety after the end of the appearance period, the same judge who declares the forfeiture must also sign the judgment. Here, the judge who declared the forfeiture when Cardenas failed to appear for his preliminary hearing was not the same judge who signed the summary judgment against North River.

"Statutory interpretation requires us 'to ascertain and effectuate the intended legislative purpose.' [Citation.] We consider the provisions' language in its 'broader statutory context' and, where possible, harmonize that language with related provisions by interpreting them in a consistent fashion." (ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175, 189.) "'If this contextual reading of the statute's language reveals no ambiguity, we need not refer to extrinsic sources.'" (Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center (2018) 6 Cal.5th 474, 478; see United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1082, 1089-1090.) "If an ambiguity remains after this preliminary textual analysis, we may consider extrinsic sources such as legislative history and contemporaneous administrative construction." (ZB, at p. 189.)

North River essentially asks us to interpret "the court which has declared the forfeiture" as "the judge which has declared the forfeiture." As this Court held in People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 559 (North River II), however, section 1306 "does not state, and does not mean, the same judge of the court must enter both" the order declaring bailforfeited and the subsequent order entering summary judgment against the surety because "it is the court that has jurisdiction of the matter, not a particular judge." (North River II, at p. 565.)

Since 1966 the California Constitution has defined "a superior court" as all of the judges serving on that court. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 4 ["[i]n each county there is a superior court of one or more judges"];² People v. Konow (2004) 32 Cal.4th 995, 1018 ["'jurisdiction is vested by the Constitution in ...