Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC377132 Edward Ferns, Judge. Affirmed.
Ulanda White-Watkins, in propria persona, for Defendant and Appellant.
Harold Rubinfeld for Plaintiff and Respondent
WILLHITE, J.
Defendant Ulanda White-Watkins appeals from a judgment in the amount of $185,334.99, in favor of plaintiff Absolute Bonding Corporation (Absolute) in a breach of contract action. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On April 8, 2006, White-Watkins and her daughter, Norviette White (Norviette), applied to Absolute for a $125,000 bail bond to obtain the release of White-Watkins’ son, Gary Lewis White (Gary). White-Watkins and Norviette signed several documents related to the bail bond that day. One of those documents was a form “Indemnity Agreement for Surety Bail Bond,” which provided that White-Watkins and Norviette (designated “First Party”) agreed to pay Absolute (designated “Second Party”) $12,500 “per annum” for the bail bond. The agreement stated: “This Bond is renewable each year. First Party agrees to pay to Second Party a renewal premium in the amount stated above, twelve months after the date on which this Bond was executed.” The agreement also provided that Absolute had the right to surrender Gary and exonerate the bond if the renewal premium was not paid.
The record contains another form “Indemnity Agreement for Surety Bail Bond” that is not filled in, but was purportedly signed by Gary.
White-Watkins and Norviette also signed a supplemental agreement that day, which stated: “I understand in signing this bond for obtaining the release of Gary Lewis White Jr. I am responsible for him appearing in Court each time he is so ordered; also I understand I am responsible for payment of any court costs for nonappearance if he fails to follow any and all instructions or orders of the Court or forfeits this bond, and it becomes necessary to apprehend and surrender him to the Court, I understand I am responsible for any and all expenses incurred as a result of such forfeiture and further, if such a forfeiture occurs and defendant is not surrendered to the Court within time prescribed by law, I understand I am required to pay the FULL AMOUNT of the bond posted, including unpaid bail premium. [¶]... I have read the above contract and understand it, and agree to fulfill ALL the provisions therein.”
Finally, White-Watkins and Norviette signed an “Unpaid Premium Agreement,” which stated that they had paid $6,000 of the initial $12,500 premium, and they promised to pay the remaining $6,500 in 15 monthly installments of $433.33, beginning the following month.
White-Watkins had paid all 15 installments by July 8, 2007.
In July 2007, Gary failed to appear in court and bail was forfeited. Absolute contracted with an investigative company to try to locate and apprehend Gary over the next year. Despite those efforts, Gary was never located, and summary judgment on bail bond forfeiture was issued on July 18, 2008.
Absolute filed the instant action in September 2007, alleging claims for breach of contract and common counts against White-Watkins, Norviette, and Gary. Norviette was dismissed in February 2008, and a default was taken against Gary in March 2008. The case against White-Watkins was tried before the court in August 2008, with White-Watkins representing herself.
Among the witnesses called by Absolute was Rosa Zamora, a bail agent for Absolute. Zamora testified that she met with White-Watkins on April 8, 2006, that White-Watkins read and signed the form indemnity agreement and the supplemental agreement (quoted above, which was referred to as the “plain talk agreement”), that Zamora explained in detail the agreements to White-Watkins, and that White-Watkins appeared to understand the terms of the agreements. White-Watkins, who testified on her own behalf, disputed Zamora’s account. Although White-Watkins admitted that she signed the indemnity agreement and the supplemental agreement, she testified that she could not read the agreements because she did not have her glasses with her, and that Zamora did not explain the terms to her, particularly the terms regarding the renewal premium. She said that if Zamora had told her she would be obligated to pay another $12,500 premium in 12 months, she would not have agreed to the bond. She testified that she did not know about the renewal premium until May 2007, when an agent for Absolute called her and asked if she wanted to renew; she said she did not because she could not afford it.
The trial court took the matter under submission, and issued its ruling two weeks later, finding in favor of Absolute against White-Watkins and Gary. The court ruled that Absolute was entitled to damages in the amount of $160,546.25, plus prejudgment interest from July 11, 2007 to the date of the judgment, plus attorney fees of $6,480.93 and costs of $320. Judgment was entered in the amount of $185,334.99, and White-Watkins timely filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.
DISCUSSION
White-Watkins argues on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because (1) Absolute failed to explain the terms of the indemnity and supplemental agreements; (2) Absolute failed to properly perform its obligations under the agreements; and (3) the trial court was biased against her. We address each argument in turn.
White-Watkins’s first argument fails for two reasons. First, a party to a contract is charged with knowing the terms of an agreement, even if he or she does not (or cannot) read it, and is bound by those terms. (Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, 710; Randas v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 158, 163.) Second, even if Absolute had a duty to explain the terms of the contract (and we do not find such a duty in this case), Zamora testified that she did, in fact, explain in detail the terms of the agreements, and that White-Watkins appeared to understand them. While we acknowledge White-Watkins’s testimony to the contrary, “‘[o]n appeal, we... construe the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment.’ [Citation.]... [I]t is black letter law that ‘[c]onflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Curl (2009) 46 Cal.4th 339, 342, fn. 3.)
White-Watkins’s second argument fails because there was no evidence that Absolute failed to perform any obligation under the agreements. White-Watkins seems to argue that Absolute should have apprehended Gary when he made court appearances in his criminal case up to June 12, 2007. But Absolute was not required to apprehend Gary at that time. Although Absolute had a right under the indemnity agreement to surrender Gary and exonerate the bond at any time after White-Watkins failed to pay the renewal premium, it had no obligation to do so. Therefore, Absolute did not fail to perform any obligation under the agreements when it did not apprehend Gary before bail was forfeited in July 2007.
Finally, there is no support in the record for White-Watkins’s argument that the judge who presided over the trial was biased against her. To the contrary, the record shows that the judge attempted to assist White-Watkins by clarifying her questions and her own and other witnesses’ testimony. That the court ruled against her, based on the evidence presented, does not establish judicial bias.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Each side shall bear its own costs.
We concur: EPSTEIN, P. J.MANELLA, J.