People v. Landon White Bail Bonds

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1069·234 Cal. App. 3d 66·285 Cal. Rptr. 575·91 Daily Journal DAR 11477·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7512
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 18, 1991A051405California4,750 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benson, J.

This appeal from an order in a bail forfeiture proceeding raises two issues: (1) May a bail bond agent be held liable in a summary judgment of bail forfeiture under Penal Code section 1306? (2) May a summary judgment of bail forfeiture be amended more than 90 days after the day it could first be entered, in order to explicitly state that it is rendered against the surety as well as against the bail agent? We will conclude that a summary judgment purporting to name a mere bail agent as a judgment debtor is, to that extent, void on the face of the record, but that under the circumstances shown here such a judgment may be corrected at any time to reflect the trial court’s manifest intent to name the surety as a judgment debtor.

Background

Diego Quiroz was charged with burglary and was admitted to bail in the sum of $10,000. American Bankers Insurance Company (Bankers) issued a bond in that amount, undertaking Quiroz’s appearance. Two rubber-stamped impressions on the bond indicated that the “bail agent” was Landon White Bail Bonds (White).

Quiroz failed to appear on November 4, 1988. Bail was declared forfeited and notice of forfeiture was duly given to Bankers and White.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.