Can a motion supporting the forfeiture of a bond be supported by a declaration that does not specify a date or place of execution?

Some decisions suggest such defects, while curable, can in some contexts be fatal to the legal effectiveness of the document. For example, in People v. United Bonding Ins. Co. (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 895, 896, 50 Cal.Rptr. 198, the bonding company moved to vacate a bond forfeiture, supporting its motion with two declarations. Neither declaration stated a date or place of execution. The court observed, in a footnote, such declarations could be deemed insufficient. However, no

Page 590

Similarly, in People v. United Bonding Ins. Co. (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 441, 446, 77 Cal.Rptr. 310, the bonding company submitted six motions to set aside the forfeiture of bail posted in a criminal action. Each of the six motions committed the same procedural error, the lack of a stated date and place of execution. The court noted, "[w]hile a one-time omission might be overlooked as inadvertent," such persistent defects raised doubt whether the declarants could be held for perjury. (Ibid.) The court concluded "repetitive errors cannot be characterized nor condoned as excusable neglect." (Ibid.)

Finally, in Dodge v. Free (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 436, 108 Cal.Rptr. 311, a number of citizens circulated petitions for the recall of the district attorney. The district attorney contested the validity of the petitions on the ground they were legally insufficient because a number of them were neither subscribed or dated. The court found the requirement a petition be dated and signed served the purpose of verifying the authenticity of the signatures and identity of the persons signing the petitions. (Id. at pp. 441-442, 108 Cal.Rptr. 311.) Thus, because the petitions did not satisfy the verification requirements of the Election Code, the petitions were insufficient to require a recall election. (Id. at p. 446, 108 Cal.Rptr. 311.)

In other cases dealing with the subject, courts have held procedural or technical errors to be harmless. For example, in Hirschman v. Saxon (1966) [37 Cal.App.4th 1575] 246 Cal.App.2d 589, 593, 54 Cal.Rptr. 767, the appellant argued declarations submitted by respondent and his attorney were technically and formally insufficient. The trial court found the declaration filed by respondent personally was properly dated and the instrument sufficiently recited the place of execution to satisfy the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5. (Id. at p. 593, 54 Cal.Rptr. 767, citing McCauley v. Superior Court, supra, 190 Cal.App.2d 562, 564, 12 Cal.Rptr. 119.) However, the declaration filed by respondent's attorney was not dated, "but since facts stated therein are cumulative of those set forth in respondent's personal declaration," the court found it unnecessary to decide the effect of the technical defect.

In Hicks v. Hicks (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 890, 893, 70 Cal.Rptr. 878, the appellant appealed from an order denying a motion to stay the execution of a judgment. The respondent had filed a notice of motion which was properly dated and signed. He also filed a declaration which was not dated and had only his name typed at the bottom rather than a signature. Despite the missing information, the court upheld the judgment. The court reasoned, "[w]e are doubtful if the failure to have the declaration subscribed can be overlooked, but it is attached to the 'motion,' which is subscribed and dated, and it is not a very great strain of interpretation to accept the declaration as being subscribed." (Ibid.)