Filed 7 / 28 / 21 P. v. American Contractors Indemnity CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Civil No. B309120 (Super. Ct. No. 18CR05415) (Santa Barbara County)

American Contractors Indemnity ( ACI ) appeal s from an order denying its motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate bail

. ACI argues the trial court lost jurisdiction over the ba i l bond when
it did not give prior notice of reinstatement when it reinstated bail (Pen. Code, 1 § 1305, subd. (c)(4))

. The County of Santa Barbara (the County) concedes. We agree and reverse

.

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.2 FACT UAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In June 2018 ACI

, through its agent Goleta Fast Response Bail Bonds, posted a $ 30,000 bond (A31

- 0003922) for the
release from custody of M ario Borruel

- Sandoval (Defendant)

. The
court ordered D efendant to appear in court on June 29 for a preliminary hearing

. H e did not , and the court ordered bail
forfeited. In July 2018 , Defendant appeared in court. The court
vacated forfeiture and reinstated bail

. However, in its written order, the court listed the surety as Seneca Insurance Company and
the ba il agent as Angels Bail Bonds. The order states : “The forfeiture of Bail Bond filed herein on behalf of [Defendant] having been set aside by the . . . Court, Seneca Insurance Company Inc [.]

, t he surety thereon, does hereby reassume all o f its obligations there
under.” The order did not mention ACI or Goleta Fast Response
Bail Bonds. In March 2020, Defendant again failed to appear in

court

. The court again ordered bail forfeited

. The clerk of the court
issued a notice of forfeiture to ACI

.

In September 2020, ACI filed a motion to vacate
forfeiture and exonerate bail or , in the alternative

, extend time.
The court denied the motion.
DISCUSSION
ACI contends

, and the County concedes

, that the trial
court erred in denying the motion to vacate forfeiture

. We agree.

S ection 1305 , subdivision (c)

, provides that when a
defendant reappears in court within 180 days of the date of bail forfeiture, the court on its own motion shall direct the order of
forfeiture to be vacated and the bond exonerated. ( § 1305, subd. (c)(1).) However, “ [i] n lieu of exonerating the bond, the court may
order the bail reinstated and the defendant released on the same3

bond if both of the foll owing condit ions are met: [¶] (A) The bail is given prior notice of the reinstatement

. [ ¶ ] (B) The bail has not
surrendered the defendant. ” (§ 1305, subd. (c)(4), italics added.)

“Failure to give the surety notice is a jurisdictional defect.” ( C

ou nty of Madera v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 271, 27 9 ( C ou nty of Madera ) .) “A n order that the surety reassumes its obligations under the bond must name the right surety or it is ineffective .” ( People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1379 , 1385 .) A court’s failure to follow a “ ‘ strict statutory direction designed for the surety’s protection exonerate[s] the surety. The court thereafter lack[s] jurisdiction either to forfeit
the bail or to enter a summary judgment [against the surety].’ [Citation s .]” ( C

ou nty of Madera

, supra , at p. 279

. ) Here, the record reflect s the cour t named the wrong surety in its order reinstating the bail bond . Nothing in th e record shows that it provided notice of reinstatement to ACI or its agent. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to forfeit bail

. T he
forfeiture order must be vacated. ( C ou nty of Madera

, supra , 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 279.)
DISPOSITION

The order ( denying the motion to vacate ) is reversed. On remand, we direct the court to enter an order to vacate the bail
forfeiture and exonerate bail. ACI shall recover its costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

TANGEMAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J. PERREN, J.Von Deroian, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Law Office of John Rorabaugh, John Mark Rorabaugh and Crystal L. Rorabaugh for Defendant and Appellant. Michael C. Ghizzoni, County Counsel, Maria Salida
Novat t, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.