People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Financial Casualty executed Geronimomendez's bail bond, promising to guarantee his appearance in court or pay $60,000. After Geronimomendez failed to appear, the court ordered the bond forfeited and signed and entered summary judgment against Financial Casualty on the bond. Financial Casualty argued that the judgment was void because the court failed to inquire into Geronimomendez’s ability to pay bail, as required by “Humphrey” (2018). Financial Casualty did not argue that the court failed to “enter” summary judgment as required by Penal Code section 1306, or that the bond should not be enforced under principles of unconscionability. The court denied the motion.
The court of appeal affirmed. As reflected on the file-stamped order granting summary judgment, the trial timely entered judgment on the bond. Any failure by the trial court to consider Geronimomendez’s ability to pay bail, even if erroneous, did not void the bond or judgment entered thereon. The unconscionability claim was forfeited by Financial Casualty’s failure to raise it below and is meritless because it is directed at a judicial order rather than a contract.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.