From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Seaview Ins. Co.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
Aug 29, 2023
No. G062748 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2023)

Opinion

G062748

08-29-2023

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SEAVIEW INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.

Toni L. Martinson for Defendant and Appellant. Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Kelly A. Moran and Emily C. Headlee, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Riverside No. CVBA2200045/BAF2000363, Mark E. Singerton, Judge.

Toni L. Martinson for Defendant and Appellant.

Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Kelly A. Moran and Emily C. Headlee, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

MOTOIKE, J.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Seaview Insurance Company (Seaview) posted bail bond number SV50-5103476 in the amount of $50,000 to secure the release of defendant Marleen Petra Hernandez from custody in criminal case number BAF2000363.

On May 19, 2021, Hernandez failed to appear in court, and the bail bond was forfeited. While the clerk's certificate of mailing of the notice of forfeiture is dated May 20, 2021, the envelope addressed to Seaview containing the notice of forfeiture from the court was postmarked July 28, 2021, and was received by Seaview on August 2, 2021. The notice to Seaview's bond agent was postmarked July 30, 2021, and received on August 4, 2021.

The bail bond was reinstated and continued on July 20, 2021. Hernandez again failed to appear on October 26, 2021. The clerk's certificate of mailing of a second notice of forfeiture is dated October 26, 2021.

On May 12, 2022, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5, summary judgment of the bail bond forfeiture was entered; notice of entry of judgment was filed May 26, 2022.

On June 14, 2022, Seaview filed a motion to set aside summary judgment, vacate forfeiture, and exonerate the bail bond pursuant to Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (b). The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

DISCUSSION

We review the trial court's resolution of a motion to set aside a bail bond forfeiture for abuse of discretion. (County of Orange v. Lexington Nat. Ins. Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1488, 1491 (Lexington).) However, "when a statute requires a court to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular manner, to follow a particular procedure, or to act subject to certain limitations, an act beyond those limits is in excess of its jurisdiction." (People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1384.) "'The law traditionally disfavors forfeitures and this disfavor extends to forfeiture of bail. [Citations.] Thus, Penal Code sections . . . dealing with forfeiture of bail bonds must be strictly construed in favor of the surety to avoid the harsh results of a forfeiture.' [¶] The standard of review, therefore, compels us to protect the surety, and more importantly the individual citizens who pledge to the surety their property on behalf of persons seeking release from custody, in order to obtain the corporate bond." (County of Los Angeles v. Surety Ins. Co. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 58, 62.)

If a trial court declares a bail bond forfeited, the clerk of the court must mail notice of the forfeiture to the surety and the bond agent within 30 days of entry of the forfeiture. (§ 1305, subd. (b).) If the clerk fails to mail notice of forfeiture within 30 days as specified, the surety is released of all obligations under the bail bond. (Id., subd. (b)(3)(A); see Lexington, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1493.)

Here, the clerk did not mail the notice of forfeiture to both Seaview and its bail bond agent within 30 days after the trial court declared the bail bond forfeited. Therefore, Seaview was released of all obligations under the bail bond, and the trial court should have granted Seaview's motion to set aside summary judgment, vacate forfeiture, and exonerate the bail bond pursuant to section 1305, subdivision (b). The reinstatement of the bail bond in July 2021 does not remedy the failure to provide the required notice. (Lexington, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1497.)

DISPOSITION \

The postjudgment order is reversed. Appellant to recover costs on appeal.

WE CONCUR: GOETHALS, ACTING P. J. SANCHEZ, J.


Summaries of

People v. Seaview Ins. Co.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
Aug 29, 2023
No. G062748 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2023)
Case details for

People v. Seaview Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SEAVIEW INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division

Date published: Aug 29, 2023

Citations

No. G062748 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2023)