P. v. Am. Contractors Indemnity 11/4/03 CA4/2

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: E031426M

Case Date: 11/04/2003

Preview:Filed 11/4/03

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. E031426 (Super.Ct.No. 99NF2727) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING, NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 8, 2003, be modified as follows: 1. Section 4. of the opinion entitled Discussion, beginning on page 4, is deleted and the following section is inserted in its place: 4. Discussion ACIC argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the summary judgment until October 6, 2001, at the earliest, and that the February 15, 2001, summary judgment was therefore void. We disagree. We conclude that the summary judgment was not

1

void, but voidable, and that ACIC's collateral attack on the summary judgment was barred by the doctrines of estoppel and disfavor of collateral attack. A. Standard of Review "`An order denying a motion to set aside a forfeiture is appealable.' [Citations.] The resolution of a motion to set aside a bail forfeiture is within the trial court's discretion and should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion appears in the record. [Citation.]" (People v. Legion Ins. Co. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1195.) "The following general rule must be applied whenever courts are called upon to construe the laws governing bail bonds: `"The law traditionally disfavors forfeitures and this disfavor extends to forfeiture of bail. [Citations.] Thus . . . sections 1305 and 1306 dealing with forfeiture of bail bonds must be strictly construed in favor of the surety to avoid the harsh results of a forfeiture." [

Download P. v. Am. Contractors Indemnity 11/4/03 CA4/2.pdf