People v. The North River Insurance Co. CA3

Filed 10/15/25 P. v. The North River Insurance Co. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101457

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20FE019054)

v.

THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

The North River Insurance Company and their agent Bad Boys Bail Bonds (collectively, North River) appeal from the trial court’s order denying their motion to vacate forfeiture of a bond and the court’s subsequent judgment entered against them. North River contends the court lost jurisdiction over the bond when the court failed to declare forfeiture at a hearing in which defendant failed to appear without sufficient excuse. We agree and reverse. I. BACKGROUND On October 18, 2021, defendant Michael Barker failed to appear at his arraignment. The trial court ordered a bench warrant and set bail at $10,500. North River subsequently posted a bond in this amount.

1

Defendant appeared through counsel at the court hearing on June 10, 2022, and in person at court hearings on July 19, 2022, August 16, 2022, September 13, 2022, and October 18, 2022. At the October 18 hearing, defense counsel requested December 14 for the preliminary hearing. The trial court proposed they set it for “the week before.” Defense counsel responded, “That will be in the middle of some other stuff.” The preliminary hearing was ultimately set for December 14. The court told defendant, “You are ordered to personally appear there.” Defendant failed to appear at the preliminary hearing on December 14. Defense counsel stated his appearance and said nothing else. The trial court stated: “The matter is on for preliminary hearing this morning. Mr. Barker is not present. It’s indicated that he is out on bail of 10,500. That bail was posted. He was to be here this morning. He is not here. We cannot proceed. [¶] The Court will go ahead and issue a bench warrant for Mr. Barker on his failure to appear, $50,000 on the bail. The Court will go ahead and hold that in the hopes of getting him back here.” The court continued the preliminary hearing to January 17, 2023, and stayed the bench warrant until then. On January 17, defendant failed to appear again and his bail bond was declared forfeited. North River moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond. North River argued, among other things, that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the bond when the court failed to declare forfeiture after defendant failed to appear without sufficient excuse for the December 14 preliminary hearing. The court denied the motion, explaining that the court “could well have made the inference that based on the fact that Mr. Barker had previously failed to appear but then c[a]me to court and then failed to appear again, that there was a reasonable opportunity to try and get Mr. Barker back to court.” The court entered summary judgment for the bond amount. North River timely appealed from the order denying its motion to vacate the forfeiture and from the summary judgment.