People v. The North River Ins. Co.

DISCUSSION

The dispute in this case arises from the interaction of two laws governing bail— sections 1305 and 1306. The first law discusses when and how a court first imposes forfeiture and then relieves a bailor from that forfeiture after the bailor has corrected a failure to appear. The second law identifies financial costs that must be recouped in that process. In this case, the trial court concluded that an open issue regarding the second law precluded application of the first. This was incorrect. Standard of Review and Applicable Law Under section 1305, when a defendant fails to appear without sufficient excuse, the “court shall in open court declare forfeited the undertaking of bail or the money or property deposited as bail.” (§ 1305, subd. (a)(1).) “Once the bond is forfeited, the

3. surety has 185 days to move to vacate the forfeiture. (§ 1305, subds. (b)(1), (c).) This is often called the ‘appearance period.’ ” (People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 797, 804.) Under the statutory scheme, this 185-day period may be extended once, up to an additional 180 days from the date the trial court orders the extension. (People v. Financial Casualty & Surety,…