People v. Ranger Insurance

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1288·31 Cal. App. 4th 13·36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 807·94 Daily Journal DAR 18061·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9723
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 22, 1994Docket Nos. B065563, B066363California3,791 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Introduction

These consolidated appeals contest rulings made by the trial court at a hearing to vacate two bail forfeitures. We first reject the contention made by the two sureties (National and Ranger) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the bail forfeitures in the first instance. We affirm the trial court’s ruling denying National’s motion to vacate its forfeiture, finding that the policy provision relied upon by National does not establish that the issued bond was void. Because we agree with the district attorney that the trial court erred in holding that the court could not consider equitable principles in deciding Ranger’s motion to vacate, we reverse the order vacating that forfeiture and exonerating the bond and direct the trial court to reconsider the case in light of the views expressed herein.

Factual and Procedural Background

Jose de Jesus Gonzalez (Gonzalez) was charged with several drug offenses. The court set bail at $150,000. On August 16, 1990, two bail bonds were posted through the same bail agent, Bert Potter Bail Bonds. National Automobile and Casualty Insurance Company (National) posted a $50,000 bond. The face of that bond stated, in…

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.