BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1854 Page 1 Date of Hearing: March 15, 2016 Consultant: Matt Dean ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair AB 1854 (Bloom) - As Introduced February 10, 2016 SUMMARY: Allows for the recovery of incurred attorney's fees out of forfeited bail money when the district attorney, county counsel, or applicable prosecuting agency successfully opposes a motion to vacate the forfeiture or in collecting on the summary judgment. Specifically, this bill: States that county counsel, district attorneys or other applicable prosecuting agencies shall recover costs and attorney's fees incurred when those attorneys successfully oppose a motion to vacate bail forfeiture. EXISTING LAW: 1)States that bail permits a defendant to be released from custody by posting bond, which is a promise to pay the bond amount unless the defendant meets the conditions, which is generally to make all of their court appearances. (Pen. Code, § 1269.) 2)Entitles defendants to bail prior to conviction as a matter of right unless the offense is punishable by death or a public safety exception is established. (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 12.) AB 1854 Page 2 3)States that bail is set by the magistrate at the defendant's first court appearance. (Cal. Const. art. I, section 12; Pen. Code, § 1271.) 4)States that judges fix the bail amount according to a countywide schedule which sets bail amounts according to the offense charged. (Pen. Code, § 1269b, subd. (c).) 5)States that the availability of bail after conviction in felony cases is up to the judge's discretion if the felony is one of the enumerated felonies. (Pen. Code, § 292.) 6)Allows judges to adjust the bail up or down from the fee schedule when certain conditions exist, but public safety is the primary concern. (Pen. Code, § 1268, 1269c, 1275, 1289.) 7)Permits judges to attach conditions on bail which, if violated, can result in forfeiture of the bail. (Pen. Code, § 1269c) 8)States that defendants forfeit their bail when they abscond, i.e. when the defendant fails to appear for their court hearing without a valid excuse. (Pen. Code, § 1275, 1305.) 9)Allows the bail surety agents may contest bail forfeiture by filing a motion to vacate the forfeiture of bail. (Pen. Code, § 1305.) 10)States that county counsel, district attorneys or other applicable prosecuting agency shall recover costs incurred when the attorneys successfully oppose a motion to vacate bail forfeiture. (Pen. Code, § 1305.3.) 11)Holds that costs do not include attorney's fees in bail forfeiture hearings. (People v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. (2012) 210 Cal.App4th 1423, 1426.) FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown COMMENTS: 1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "AB 1854 would AB 1854 Page 3 help restore funding for the costs incurred by prosecutorial agencies in litigating bail forfeiture motions. Forfeiture of bail due to failure of a defendant to appear in court is often followed by a counter-motion to challenge the forfeiture. A significant amount of time and attorney's fees are involved in opposing these motions, and financially strapped local prosecutors, district attorneys, and county counsels bear the costs. This bill would allow them to recover a portion of those costs out of the forfeited bail money when they have successfully opposed a motion to vacate a bail forfeiture." 2)Summary: A defendant forfeits the bail they posted when they fail to appear in court or when they do not fulfill the conditions of their bail, such as committing another offense or intimidating witnesses in their case. A motion to vacate forfeiture of bail is simply a motion to contest the forfeiture of the bail posted by the defendant. These motions are filed either by defense counsel or the bond surety agent in order to recover the bail funds they posted. When defense counsel, or a surety agent, file a motion to vacate forfeiture of bail, a prosecuting attorney has the option to contest the motion. This bill would allow those prosecuting attorneys to recover their attorneys' fees when they successfully contest motions to vacate forfeiture of bail. 3)Background: As provided by the author, "This proposal would restore funding for prosecutorial agencies and county counsel offices for the costs that are incurred in successfully opposing a motion to vacate the forfeiture of bail. It would amend Section 1305.3 of the Penal Code to include 'attorney fees.' "Existing law sets forth procedures under which the court is authorized to declare forfeited the undertaking of bail or the money or property deposited as bail if, without sufficient excuse, a defendant fails to appear for certain proceedings. The defendant's surety or bail bond agency in turn often files a motion to vacate the forfeiture--challenging the court's forfeiture and countering with a claim explaining why the bail should not be forfeited. There are significant costs for district attorney, county counsel, and prosecuting offices in opposing these motions. AB 1854 Page 4 "California Penal Code section 1305.3 states: 'The district attorney, county counsel, or applicable prosecuting agency, as the case may be, shall recover, out of the forfeited bail money, the costs incurred in successfully opposing a motion to vacate the forfeiture and in collecting on the summary judgment prior to the division of the forfeited bail money between the cities and counties in accordance with Section 1463.' "Following the enactment of Penal Code section 1305.3, prosecutorial agencies successfully recovered attorneys' fees in a number of bail forfeiture cases. For example, in Lincoln General Ins. Co. & Aladdin Bail Bonds v. Superior Court (Case No. SJ1570; Crim. Case No.NA052587), after upholding the trial court's forfeiture on appeal, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office received $2,024.95 in attorney fees. Similarly, in People v. Hernandez (Aegis Security Ins. Co.) (Case No. 0SJ0213; Crim. Case No. GA047929), the trial court awarded LADA $3,181.21 in attorneys' fees. "Unfortunately, in November of 2012, the Court of Appeal in People v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. (2012) 210 Cal.App4th 1423, 1426, found that the provision in section 1305.3 allowing the recovery of "costs" did not include attorney fees. They reached this conclusion by holding that the ordinary and usual meaning of "costs" in California has only encompassed reporter's transcripts and filing costs, but not attorney fees. "The court in People v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. (2012) stated: "In sum, applying the rules of statutory construction and the law regarding the award of attorney fees as costs, we must conclude that an award of costs under section 1305.3 does not include attorney fees. Including attorney fees as costs in this context is a change that should be left to the Legislature. AB 1854 Page 5 "This proposal seeks to insert the term 'attorney fees' into the statute. "Prosecuting offices are often financially constrained and currently fund all of these bail forfeiture cases. This bill would allow them to recover a significant portion of the costs and lessen the cost burden. Since these cases can often involve multiple court appearances and unique legal issues, the attorney costs generated are significant. Los Angeles County District Attorney Office observed, 'Given the financial constraints faced by our Office, it is imperative that all deputies make every effort to recover attorneys' fees when they have successfully opposed a motion to vacate a bail forfeiture.' "Due to denial of attorney fee recovery, local government prosecutors sometimes avoid bail forfeiture litigation altogether. This bill provides a revenue stream that would otherwise have been lost." 4)Distribution of Bail Forfeiture Funds: When bail is forfeited, state penalties, county penalties, special penalties, service charges, and penalty allocations are distributed to the proper funds first. The arresting agency and courts then receive their portions of the bail funds to alleviate their costs. After these distributions are made, the prosecuting attorney who successfully defends a motion to vacate forfeiture of bail can recover their costs. This bill would allow the prosecuting attorneys to recover their attorneys' fees. After collection of costs (and attorneys' fees should this bill becomes law), the cities and counties receive the remainder according to Penal Code Sections 1463.001 and 1463.002. 5)Bail: The 8th Amendment to the United States of America states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." a) Generally: Bail is a security given to the court to guarantee a defendant's future attendance at court AB 1854 Page 6 proceedings. The amount of bail required is typically set according to the local bail schedule that lists common offended and a suggested amount. These bail schedules are set by county judges. At arraignment, the magistrate will review the case and set bail in an amount he or she deems sufficient to ensure the defendant's appearance. While the usual practice is to adhere to scheduled bail, either the prosecution or the defense may argue for a departure from the bail schedule based on aggravating and mitigating factors, danger to the public, and ties to the community. Bail permits a defendant to be released from actual custody into the constructive custody of a surety on a bond given to procure the defendant's release. Bail, once posted, stands until forfeited or exonerated to ensure the defendant's appearance at all stages of the proceedings on the original charge. (Pen. Code §§ 1273, 1278 subd. (a), 1458-1459.) If bail was posted through a bail bond agency, the agent and the defendant sign a bail agreement that will usually fix the term of the bail bond as one year. The defendant must pay a renewal premium for any additional period. b) Bail Bonds: A bail bond is a document, executed by a surety, that is a promise to pay the face amount of the bond equivalent to the sum set as bail, unless the defendant fulfills the conditions of the bond. (Pen. Code § 1269.) c) Bail Forfeiture: If a defendant fails to appear as ordered by the court and does not have a sufficient excuse, the court must declare the bail forfeited. (Pen. Code § 1305.) Sufficient reasons for failure to appear are usually based on representations made by counsel. (People v. Amwest Sur. Ins. Co. (1997) 56 CA4th 915, 925.) A surety or the surety and the defendant must appear before the court within 180 calendar days after notice of forfeiture to establish a satisfactory excuse for the defendant's neglect. (Pen. Code § 1305.) The surety is entitled to be released from the forfeiture if any of the following applies (Pen. Code § 1305.): AB 1854 Page 7 i) The court fails to meet the requirement of mailing notice; ii) The defendant and his or her surety appear with a satisfactory excuse for the defendant's absence; iii) The defendant surrenders to the court or to custody; iv) The defendant dies or has permanent inability to appear due to illness, insanity, or detention by other authorities, all without connivance of the surety. Forfeiture of the defendant's bail as a result of his or her failure to appear is proper only when the defendant failed to appear on the charges for which the bail was posted. People v. King Bail Bond Agency (1990) 224 CA3d 1120. Before forfeiture, the surety or other person who deposited the assets may surrender the defendant into custody to obtain exoneration of the bail money. (Pen. Code, § 1300, subd. (a).) 6)Argument in Support: According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, a sponsor of this bill, "AB 1854 will help restore funding for the costs incurred by prosecutorial agencies in litigating bail forfeiture motions. Forfeiture of bail due to failure of a defendant to appear in court is often followed by a counter-motion to challenge the forfeiture. A significant amount of time and attorney's fees are involved in opposing these motions, and financially strapped local prosecutors, district attorneys, and county counsels bear the costs. AB 1854 will allow prosecutorial offices and county counsels to recover the cost for litigating these motions out of the forfeited bail money when they have successfully opposed a motion to vacate a bail forfeiture. "Existing law sets forth procedures under which the court is authorized to declare forfeited the undertaking of bail or the money or property deposited as bail if, without sufficient excuse, a defendant fails to appear AB 1854 Page 8 for certain proceedings. The defendant's surety or bail bond agency in turn often files a motion to vacate the forfeiture--challenging the court's forfeiture and countering with a claim explaining why the bail should not be forfeited. There are significant costs for district attorney, county counsel, and prosecuting offices in opposing these motions. "California Penal Code section 1305.3 states: "The district attorney, county counsel, or applicable prosecuting agency, as the case may be, shall recover, out of the forfeited bail money, the costs incurred in successfully opposing a motion to vacate the forfeiture and in collecting on the summary judgment prior to the division of the forfeited bail money between the cities and counties in accordance with Section 1463. Since 1994, prosecutorial agencies successfully recovered attorneys' fees pursuant to Penal Code section 1305.3. Unfortunately, in November of 2012, the Court of Appeal in People v. US. Fire Ins. Co. (2012) 210 Cal.App4th 1423, 1426, found that the provision in section 1305.3 allowing the recovery of "costs" did not include attorney fees. They reached this conclusion by holding that the ordinary and usual meaning of "costs" in California has only encompassed reporter's transcripts and filing costs, but not attorney fees. The court in People v. U S. Fire Ins. Co. (2012) stated: 'In sum, applying the rules of statutory construction and the law regarding the award of attorney fees as costs, we must conclude that an award of costs under section 1305.3 does not include attorney fees. Including attorney fees as costs in this context is a change that should be left to the Legislature.' "AB 1854 inserts the term "attorney fees" into the statute. "Prosecuting offices are often financially constrained AB 1854 Page 9 and currently fund all of these bail forfeiture cases. This bill would allow them to recover a significant portion of the costs and lessen the cost burden. Since these cases can often involve multiple court appearances and unique legal issues, the attorney costs generated are significant. Los Angeles County District Attorney Office observed, "Given the financial constraints faced by our Office, it is imperative that all deputies make every effort to recover attorneys' fees when they have successfully opposed a motion to vacate a bail forfeiture." "Due to denial of attorney fee recovery, local government prosecutors sometimes avoid bail forfeiture litigation altogether." 7)Argument in Opposition: According to the Golden State Bail Agents Association, "GSBAA opposes AB 1854 (Bloom) because it seeks to create a one-way attorney fee provision where attorney fees would only be awarded when the county counsel or district attorney prevails in a motion to vacate a bail forfeiture. Bail agents would not be awarded attorney fees when they prevail in a motion to vacate a forfeiture. This would not only be unfair to bail agents, it will lead to oppressive negotiation of disputes, oppressive litigation tactics and will negatively impact bail consumers, as shown below. "Most bail bond forfeitures are paid without the need for litigation, however, occasionally disputes arise and litigation ensues. Under current law, when bail bond forfeitures are contested, each side to the litigation pays their own attorney fees. In 2012, the 5th District Court of Appeals [sic] made it clear that county counsel is not entitled to attorney fees when they prevail in bail bond forfeiture litigation: "Appellant further argues that the legislative history for section 1305.3 supports awarding attorney fees as costs. This history primarily explains that the statute was amended to make clear that county counsel, while not technically a prosecuting agency, should be able to recover costs for AB 1854 Page 10 successfully opposing the vacation of forfeiture before the money is divided between cities and counties. However, contrary to appellant's position, county counsel being given the ability to recoup some operating costs before the bail money is divided does not demonstrate a legislative intent to award county counsel attorney fees. (People v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1423, 1428.) "This bill will overrule the above case and allow county counsel to recover attorney fees out of the forfeited bail money when they prevail. These attorney fees would be paid prior to the division of the forfeited bail money between cities and counties in accordance with Penal Code § 1463. Since county counsel would be paid their fees prior to division, this bill would reduce the county's share of the forfeiture money. "The public policy behind the enactment of Civil Code § 1717 is applicable to the proposed one-way attorney fee provision of AB 1854. Civil Code § 1717 provides that a contract with a one-way attorney fee provision is deemed to implement two-way fee shifting: "'[T]he party who is determined to be the prevailing party on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees." (Civil Code Sec. 1717(a)) "The public policy purpose of Civil Code § 1717 is not solely to protect weaker individuals, but also to prevent oppressive negotiation of contracts, oppressive negotiation of disputes, and oppressive litigation tactics. As stated by the California Court of Appeal: ""Civil Code section 1717 is not designed exclusively for the benefit of individuals or unsophisticated, weaker parties to a contract. Rather, it reflects a general policy to prevent one-sided attorney fee provisions. Thus, it promotes certainty, and prevents overreaching both in the negotiation of a contract and in the use of the courts during litigation. 'One-sided attorney's fees clauses can . . . be used as instruments of oppression to force settlements of dubious or AB 1854 Page 11 unmeritorious claims.' This litigation concern applies, whether the parties are of different or equal bargaining strength in the negotiation of the contract." (ABF Capital Corp. v. Grove Props. Co., (2005) 126 Cal. App. 4th 204, 218-219, quoting Int'l Billing Servs., Inc. v. Emigh, (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1175, 1188) "As was the case with contract one-way attorney fee provisions before Civil Code § 1717, enactment of AB 1854's proposed one-way attorney fee provision would lead to a greater number of frivolous oppositions to bail bond forfeiture motions and other oppressive litigation tactics. These oppressive litigation tactics would especially impact small mom and pop bail agencies and the defendants who buy bail bonds because it will lead to increased litigation costs which will be passed on to bail bond co-signers, thereby increasing the cost of bail." 8)Prior Legislation: a) AB 1082 (Linder) of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, would have extended from 10 to 12 days the notice of motion a surety must give the court prior to requesting an extension of the 180 day period in which the surety must return an offender to court in order to avoid a permanent forfeiture of bail. AB 1082 was referred to this committee but was never heard. b) AB 1118 (Hagman), of the 2013-14 Legislative Session, requires the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2015, to prepare, adopt and annually revise a statewide bail schedule for all bailable felony, misdemeanor, and infraction offenses except Vehicle Code infractions. The version of the bill that passed out of this Committee also required the superior courts, in annually adopting countywide bail schedules, to consider the statewide bail schedule. That provision was later deleted in an amendment. AB 1118 failed passage in the Senate Committee on Public Safety. c) AB 805 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 17, Statutes of 2013, provides that in setting bail, a judge or magistrate may AB 1854 Page 12 consider factors such as the report prepared by investigative staff for the purpose of recommending whether a defendant should be released on his/her own recognizance. d) AB 723 (Quirk), of the 2013-14 Legislative Session, allows a person on post-release community supervision who has a revocation petition filed against him or her to file an application for bail with the superior court. AB 723 was held on the Senate Committee on Appropriations' Suspense File. e) AB 1264 (Hagman), of the 2011-12 Legislative Session, would have repealed the uniform countywide schedule of bail and instead establish the Statewide Bail Commission. The bill would require the commission to prepare, adopt, and annually revise a statewide bail schedule for all bailable felony offenses and for all misdemeanor and infraction offenses except Vehicle Code infractions. AB 1264 was never heard by this Committee and returned to the Chief Clerk. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (Sponsor) County Counsels' Association of California (Sponsor) California Department of Insurance California Police Chiefs Association California State Association of Counties California State Association of Counties San Diego County District Attorney's Office Opposition Golden State Bail Agents Association Analysis Prepared by: Matt Dean / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 AB 1854 Page 13