People v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 December 2015
• Docket Number: F070771
• Citation: 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 660,242 Cal.App.4th 991
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

242 Cal.App.4th 991

195 Cal.Rptr.3d 660

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.

F070771

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

Filed December 3, 2015

Jefferson T. Stamp, Morgan Hill, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kathleen Bales–Lange, County Counsel, and Jennifer D. McNichols, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

KANE, Acting P.J.

In this bail bond case, appellant United States Fire Insurance Company (Surety) appeals from a summary judgment entered against it on a forfeited bail bond of $25,000. Surety claims the summary judgment was premature, and hence improper, because it was entered while Surety's motion for an extension of time under Penal Code section 1305.4 was pending.¹ According to Surety, the improper summary judgment was voidable and should have been set aside pursuant to Surety's timely request for that relief in the trial court. The trial court disagreed and left the summary judgment intact because it concluded that, at the time summary judgment was entered, Surety had already used all of its 180–day extension period available under section 1305.4 as a result of a previously granted extension. In reaching that conclusion, the trial court measured the previously granted extension from the end of the original 185–day exoneration period.² Surety contends that the trial court erred because, under the plain wording of the statute, an extension of time under section 1305.4 is measured from the date of the trial court's order granting the motion.³ If measured in that way, Surety alleges it had additional time available under the statute as a potential basis for the trial court to grant a further extension, and therefore summary judgment should not have been entered while Surety's motion was pending. We agree with Surety on each of these points. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to vacate the summary judgment and, for additional reasons explained below, to enter an order exonerating the bond.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 1, 2013, Surety, acting through a bail agent, posted a bail bond for criminal defendant, Jose Luis Hernandez–Guzman. The bail bond was in the amount of $25,000, and provided that the above named criminal defendant would appear on August 27, 2013, to answer the criminal charges filed against him in Tulare County Superior Court. On August 27, 2013, Hernandez–Guzman failed to appear in court as required, and the trial court declared the forfeiture of bail in open court. On August 28, 2013, a " NOTICE OF ORDER FORFEITING BAIL " (notice of forfeiture) was filed by the court clerk and served by mail on Surety.

In accordance with applicable statutes, unless an order forfeiting bail is set aside within 180 days from the date of service of the notice of forfeiture, plus an additional five days for service by mail (i.e., 185 days in all), summary judgment will be entered against the surety in the amount of the bond. (§§ 1305, subds. (b) & (c), 1306, subd. (a).) We refer to this 185–day period as the exoneration period. The exoneration period may be extended by the trial court pursuant to a motion under section 1305.4, which, upon a showing of good cause, permits the court to order an extension "to a time not exceeding 180 days from its order."

On February 28, 2014, before the exoneration period expired, Surety filed a motion to extend the period pursuant to section 1305.4. This was Surety's first motion for an extension. On March 4, 2014, the County of Tulare (the County), on behalf of the People of the State of California, filed a notice of nonopposition to the extension motion. The County recommended that the extension be 90 days instead of 180 days, but otherwise did not oppose the requested extension. The County's notice of nonopposition advised the trial court that "The date set for the extension must relate back in time to the end of the initial 185 day period...."

On March 25, 2014, the trial court issued its order granting the motion for an extension. The trial court's order stated: "[T]he Motion by Surety to extend the 180 day appearance period pursuant to ... Section 1305.4 is hereby GRANTED. [¶] The 180 day appearance period is extended to 8/28/14." Thus, the trial court clearly assumed that granting the entire 180–day extension would permit an extension only to August 28, 2014. We note that the date of August 28, 2014, was not randomly selected by the trial court. It represented the sum of the original 185–day exoneration period, plus an extension of 180 days contiguous with the exoneration period, for a total of 365 days. Thus, it is clear that the trial court computed the extension of time from the end of the original exoneration period, and not from its order granting the extension. Surety points out that August 28, 2014, was in reality only 156 days from the trial court's order granting the extension (i.e., March 25, 2014), which in Surety's reading of section 1305.4, meant that on August 28, 2014, 24 days still remained of the 180–day statutory maximum extension period.

On August 28, 2014, Surety filed a second extension motion under section 1305.4. The motion was set for hearing on September 25, 2014. In the extension motion, Surety argued there were 24 days of available extension time remaining that could be granted.

On September 3, 2014, the County filed an " OBJECTION TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME ON BAIL BOND AND DEMAND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED ...." The County argued that Surety had already received the maximum amount of time the law allows—i.e., the original 185–day exoneration period plus a 180–day extension, for a full 365 days—therefore, no further extensions were permissible. Accordingly, the County requested that summary judgment be "immediately entered" against Surety for the amount of the bail bond.

On September 3, 2014, the same day the County filed its demand for immediate entry of summary judgment and while Surety's extension motion was pending, the trial court (Judge Paden) entered summary judgment under section 1306 against Surety in the amount of $25,000 on the bail bond.

Even though summary judgment had already been entered, a hearing was held on September 25, 2014, on Surety's motion for an extension. The hearing was before a different judge, Judge Hollman, who was unaware that summary judgment had previously been entered. Surety's counsel asked for a continuance of the extension motion so that he would have an opportunity to first move to set aside the summary judgment, since the summary judgment was "clearly premature because our motion was pending." The trial court was unwilling to continue the hearing of the extension motion because it was not inclined to grant the motion in any event. The trial court (Judge Hollman) explained: "The Court thinks the statute is clear that Surety gets 365 days' extension and that is all that they get. Based on that, the Court's going to deny the motion." The trial court's minute order reflects that it denied the extension motion on September 25, 2014.

On October 1, 2014, Surety filed its motion to set aside the summary judgment. In the motion to set aside, Surety primarily argued that the summary judgment was prematurely entered and, therefore, voidable, because it was entered while its motion to extend was pending. Surety further argued that it was improper for one department of the superior court to rule on a summary judgment request, while another department had a motion to extend pending in the same case. Finally, Surety claimed it did not receive a fair hearing on its motion to extend, because it was argued after summary judgment had already been granted and, therefore, it was denied due process.

On October 14, 2014, the County filed its opposition to the motion to set aside summary judgment. The County's opposition emphasized its position that, when summary judgment was entered, Surety was not entitled to any further extension of time as a matter law. The County argued: "[T]he Courts of this State have consistently confirmed that the extension runs from the end of the 180 day time period, not from the date [of] the order." Relying on cases such as People v. Taylor Billingslea Bail Bonds (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1193, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 713 (Taylor Billingslea ), the County stressed that the maximum time allowed to return a defendant to custody is 365 days. Thus, the County argued the second extension motion was "void on its face" and could not be granted because Surety "had already exhausted its allowed extension time pursuant to the [Penal] Code."

On October 15, 2014, Surety's agents brought Hernandez–Guzman back into the official custody of law enforcement in Orange County.

On October 23, 2014, Surety filed its reply papers in support of its motion to set aside the summary judgment. In its reply, Surety reiterated its argument that summary judgment was entered prematurely and should be set aside in light of the fact that its extension motion was pending. Moreover, Surety's reply pointed out that it had 24 days remaining of the available extension period under section 1305.4, because the statutory language clearly provides that extensions are measured from the court's order. Surety further argued that its motion to extend was a timely and proper motion that was within the trial court's discretion to grant, and said motion could not be described as void on its face or disregarded. As additional relief, Surety's reply papers also requested that the trial court order exoneration of the bond under section 1305, subdivision (c)(3), based on the recent surrender and arrest of Hernandez–Guzman.

On October 30, 2014, the trial court denied the motion to set aside the summary judgment. The trial court reasoned that when summary judgment was entered on September 3, 2014, all of Surety's time had already expired and Surety had no basis to request a further extension as a matter of law. The trial court...