Cal. · Supreme Court opinion · January 1, 1961
Related by Seller Proceeds + Disbursement Authorization · Seller ProceedsCourt record Supreme Court opinion
Rianda v. San Benito Title — California Supreme Court
California Supreme Court · 35 Cal.2d 170
AmountNot statedAmount not stated in reviewed source.
ResultSupreme Court opinionCourt ruling
HingeSeller ProceedsTeaches strict instruction compliance for escrow deposits — holders are not depositaries who must cash every check received without matching written escrow directions.
SourceCourt opinionPublished opinion
File-record question
Teaches strict instruction compliance for escrow deposits — holders are not depositaries who must cash every check received without matching written escrow directions.
Limit before takeaway
Published Supreme Court opinion only. Amen v. Merced County Title (1962) 58 Cal.2d 528 (supporting link) on written-instrument limits for escrow payee claims.
- Court / region
- Cal. Supreme Ct.
- Case number
- 35 Cal.2d 170
- Filed
- January 1, 1950
- Source record
- Court opinion
- Procedural posture
- Supreme Court opinion
- Money movement stage
- Seller proceeds stage
- Record gap
- Release-decision 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 an escrow holder has no duty to present a buyer's check for payment when the check arrives without instructions and the signed seller instructions omit that deposit.
What it hinged on
Seller Proceeds. Teaches strict instruction compliance for escrow deposits — holders are not depositaries who must cash every check received without matching written escrow directions.
Amount involved
Amount not stated in reviewed source.
Result
Supreme Court opinion
Why this belongs here
Teaches strict instruction compliance for escrow deposits — holders are not depositaries who must cash every check received without matching written escrow directions.
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 strict instruction compliance for escrow deposits — holders are not depositaries who must cash every check received without matching written escrow directions.
Timeline
FiledJanuary 1, 1950
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 Supreme Court opinion only. Amen v. Merced County Title (1962) 58 Cal.2d 528 (supporting link) on written-instrument limits for escrow payee claims.
Reviewed California court records with source links. Allegations are not findings.