Cal. · Supreme Court opinion · July 20, 1978
Related by Seller ProceedsCourt record Supreme Court opinion
Amen v. Merced County Title — California Supreme Court
California Supreme Court · 58 Cal.2d 528
AmountNot statedAmount not stated in reviewed source.
ResultSupreme Court opinionCourt ruling
HingeSeller ProceedsTeaches third-party escrow payees need a written, enforceable instruction trail — limits oral side deals when funds are disbursed without a signed payee instruction.
SourceCourt opinionPublished opinion
File-record question
Teaches third-party escrow payees need a written, enforceable instruction trail — limits oral side deals when funds are disbursed without a signed payee instruction.
Limit before takeaway
Published Supreme Court opinion only. Orloff v. Metropolitan Trust (1941) 17 Cal.2d 484 (supporting link) on third-party beneficiary and rescission limits.
- Court / region
- Cal. Supreme Ct.
- Case number
- 58 Cal.2d 528
- Filed
- January 1, 1962
- Source record
- Court opinion
- Procedural posture
- Supreme Court opinion
- Money movement stage
- Seller proceeds stage
- Record gap
- Payee gap
- Strongest reviewed source
- Published opinion
- Allegation / finding status
- Court ruling
- Disposition
- Supreme Court opinion
- Last posture checked
- 2026-05-31
- Reviewed
- 2026-05-31
What happened
Court held a third-party payee under escrow instructions may sue the escrow holder only on an obligation founded on a written instrument, not on an oral promise to pay from escrow proceeds.
What it hinged on
Seller Proceeds. Teaches third-party escrow payees need a written, enforceable instruction trail — limits oral side deals when funds are disbursed without a signed payee instruction.
Amount involved
Amount not stated in reviewed source.
Result
Supreme Court opinion
Why this belongs here
Teaches third-party escrow payees need a written, enforceable instruction trail — limits oral side deals when funds are disbursed without a signed payee instruction.
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 third-party escrow payees need a written, enforceable instruction trail — limits oral side deals when funds are disbursed without a signed payee instruction.
Timeline
FiledJanuary 1, 1962
Posture checked2026-05-31
Reviewed for Escrow Cases2026-05-31
Topics
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 Supreme Court opinion only. Orloff v. Metropolitan Trust (1941) 17 Cal.2d 484 (supporting link) on third-party beneficiary and rescission limits.
Reviewed California court records with source links. Allegations are not findings.