Kiperman v. Klenshetyn

In Kiperman v. Klenshetyn (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 934, the trial court remanded into custody a defendant previously free on bail when it increased the defendant's bail after the People filed new charges against him. (Kiperman, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 936.) Following the defendant's return to custody, the trial court ordered the bonding company to refund the premium paid for the bail bond. (Id. at pp. 936, 939.) The appellate court concluded the trial court lacked authority to order a refund because it was the trial court, not the bonding company, which returned the defendant to custody. (Id. at p. 940.) In so concluding, the court explained: "Once bail was raised to a figure greater than the amount posted, the trial court had no choice but to remand the defendant, because a person may not be released on bond for an amount less than the amount of the bail ordered by the court. Upon remand of the defendant because of the higher bail, the first bond in the amount of $ 250,000 was exonerated by operation of law. This is so because the responsibilities of a surety are based upon the surety's custody of the person bailed (People v. McReynolds (1894) 102 Cal. 308, 311-312), and the surety could no longer have custody over the defendant who had been remanded." (Kiperman, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 939.)