Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. · Court of Appeal opinion · January 1, 2010
Related by Payoff Demands + Seller Proceeds · Payoff DemandsCourt record Court of Appeal opinion
Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow — California Court of Appeal
California Court of Appeal, First District · A027529
AmountNot statedAmount not stated in reviewed source.
ResultCourt of Appeal opinionCourt ruling
HingePayoff DemandsTeaches escrow holder duties when payoff instructions conflict with recorded note assignments and title-policy notice (Devore purchase escrow).
SourceCourt opinionPublished opinion
File-record question
Teaches escrow holder duties when payoff instructions conflict with recorded note assignments and title-policy notice (Devore purchase escrow).
Limit before takeaway
Published appellate opinion only. Summit Financial Holdings v. Continental Lawyers Title Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 705 (supporting link) later disapproved Kirby in part for stranger-to-escrow tort duty; read together for assignment/payoff instruction evolution.
- Court / region
- Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist.
- Case number
- A027529
- Filed
- January 1, 1986
- Source record
- Court opinion
- Procedural posture
- Court of Appeal opinion
- Money movement stage
- Payoff stage
- Record gap
- Amount gap
- Strongest reviewed source
- Published opinion
- Allegation / finding status
- Court ruling
- Disposition
- Court of Appeal opinion
- Last posture checked
- 2026-05-31
- Reviewed
- 2026-05-31
What happened
Court held an escrow holder that received notice of a recorded assignment breached fiduciary duties by paying the assignor on payoff rather than delaying until the proper payee was identified; discusses UCC assignment notice versus escrow agency law.
What it hinged on
Payoff Demands. Teaches escrow holder duties when payoff instructions conflict with recorded note assignments and title-policy notice (Devore purchase escrow).
Amount involved
Amount not stated in reviewed source.
Result
Court of Appeal opinion
Why this belongs here
Teaches escrow holder duties when payoff instructions conflict with recorded note assignments and title-policy notice (Devore purchase escrow).
Documents to inspect
- Payoff demand
- Lender verification
- Good-through date
- Disbursement authorization
- Escrow instructions
- Seller instructions
This list is inferred from the topic pattern, not asserted as an extracted document list for this case.
What the file needed to show
Current reviewed metadata frames the file issue this way:
Teaches escrow holder duties when payoff instructions conflict with recorded note assignments and title-policy notice (Devore purchase escrow).
Timeline
FiledJanuary 1, 1986
Posture checked2026-05-31
Reviewed for Escrow Cases2026-05-31
Topics
Payoff Demands·Seller Proceeds
Related patterns
Related records are selected from shared topics, hinge category, court type, and posture. They are discovery aids, not claims that the facts or results match.
Continue research
Open a related reviewed-record search or save this trail when the file-record question is worth revisiting.
Source record
What this record does not show
This reviewed record does not show a court finding that any company or person did anything wrong unless the linked source expressly says so. Read the primary source for allegations, posture, and outcome.
Limit: Published appellate opinion only. Summit Financial Holdings v. Continental Lawyers Title Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 705 (supporting link) later disapproved Kirby in part for stranger-to-escrow tort duty; read together for assignment/payoff instruction evolution.
Reviewed California court records with source links. Allegations are not findings.