Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Div. 6 · Court of Appeal opinion · January 1, 2007
Related by Seller Proceeds + Disbursement Authorization · Seller ProceedsCourt record Court of Appeal opinion
Wade v. Lake County Title — California Court of Appeal
California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two · Civ. 26767
Amount$15,000Amount appears in reviewed public summary; verify the source for scope.
ResultCourt of Appeal opinionCourt ruling
HingeSeller ProceedsTeaches escrow-holder diligence when a buyer's deposit check is accepted with a hold instruction but sellers are not told the funds were never deposited.
SourceCourt opinionPublished opinion
File-record question
Teaches escrow-holder diligence when a buyer's deposit check is accepted with a hold instruction but sellers are not told the funds were never deposited.
Limit before takeaway
Published appellate opinion only. Mefford v. Security Title Ins. Co. (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 578 (supporting link) on holding undeposited checks.
- Court / region
- Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist.
- Case number
- Civ. 26767
- Filed
- January 1, 1970
- Source record
- Court opinion
- Procedural posture
- Court of Appeal opinion
- Money movement stage
- Seller proceeds stage
- Record gap
- Release-decision 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 breached its duty by holding a purchaser's $15,000 check without depositing it or notifying sellers, estopping denial that funds were in escrow.
What it hinged on
Seller Proceeds. Teaches escrow-holder diligence when a buyer's deposit check is accepted with a hold instruction but sellers are not told the funds were never deposited.
Amount involved
$15,000 · Escrowed funds · Reviewed metadata
Result
Court of Appeal opinion
Why this belongs here
Teaches escrow-holder diligence when a buyer's deposit check is accepted with a hold instruction but sellers are not told the funds were never deposited.
Documents to inspect
- Seller instructions
- Authorization request
- Callback log
- Wire confirmation
- Closing statement
- Escrow 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 diligence when a buyer's deposit check is accepted with a hold instruction but sellers are not told the funds were never deposited.
Timeline
FiledJanuary 1, 1970
Posture checked2026-05-31
Reviewed for Escrow Cases2026-05-31
Topics
Seller Proceeds·Disbursement Authorization
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. Mefford v. Security Title Ins. Co. (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 578 (supporting link) on holding undeposited checks.
Reviewed California court records with source links. Allegations are not findings.