P. v. Seneca Ins
Filed 2/7/06 P. v. Seneca Ins. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SENECA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. | G035069 (Super. Ct. No. 03WF2601) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas Goethals, Judge. Affirmed.
Nunez & Bernstein and E. Alan Nunez for Defendant and Appellant.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, and Leon J. Page, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Seneca Insurance Company (Seneca) appeals from an order that denied its motion to set aside a forfeiture of bail. It argues the bail bond was void because it was for less than the amount set as bail. We disagree and affirm.
* * *
In October 2003, one Chin Paek was arraigned on a felony charge and bail was set at $250,000. The notice to the sheriff, prepared by the court clerk, mistakenly recited that bail had been set at $100,000. Seneca posted a bond in that amount, and Paek was released and ordered to appear in court on October 20, 2003. When he failed to appear, the trial judge declared bail forfeited. After the period within which to procure the defendant's appearance or surrender him to custody expired (Pen. Code, § 1305, subd. (c)), the trial court entered summary judgment for the County of Orange in the amount of the bond. (Id., § 1306, subd. (a).) Seneca's motion to set aside the forfeiture was denied.
Seneca argues the forfeiture should be vacated, and the bond exonerated, because a bail bond in an amount different from the order setting bail is void. We cannot agree, in part because the argument rests on two distinguishable cases.
County of Merced v. Shaffer (1919) 40 Cal.App.163 was an action to reform a bail bond and enter judgment on the bond as reformed. Bail had been set at $500 each for two defendants. A single bail bond was posted, but it was defective. The bond promised the defendants, not the sureties, would pay the bail if the defendants failed to appear. It also promised to pay $1,000 if either accused failed to appear, contrary to the order that set bail at $500 for each. The court held the bail bond was unenforceable: â€
