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
Mefford v. Security Title — California Court of Appeal
California Court of Appeal, Fifth District · Civ. No. 38
AmountNot statedAmount not stated in reviewed source.
ResultCourt of Appeal opinionCourt ruling
HingeSeller ProceedsTeaches limits on escrow-holder liability when a deposit is accepted as a check, held uncashed, and sellers later amend instructions before canceling escrow.
SourceCourt opinionPublished opinion
File-record question
Teaches limits on escrow-holder liability when a deposit is accepted as a check, held uncashed, and sellers later amend instructions before canceling escrow.
Limit before takeaway
Published appellate opinion only. Wade v. Lake County Title (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 824 (supporting link) on estoppel when certifying undeposited checks.
- Court / region
- Cal. Ct. App. 5th Dist.
- Case number
- Civ. No. 38
- Filed
- January 1, 1962
- 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 sellers could not recover after canceling escrow; an uncashed purchaser check and title-company statements that funds were on deposit did not make the holder liable when escrow conditions were never fulfilled.
What it hinged on
Seller Proceeds. Teaches limits on escrow-holder liability when a deposit is accepted as a check, held uncashed, and sellers later amend instructions before canceling escrow.
Amount involved
Amount not stated in reviewed source.
Result
Court of Appeal opinion
Why this belongs here
Teaches limits on escrow-holder liability when a deposit is accepted as a check, held uncashed, and sellers later amend instructions before canceling escrow.
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 limits on escrow-holder liability when a deposit is accepted as a check, held uncashed, and sellers later amend instructions before canceling escrow.
Timeline
FiledJanuary 1, 1962
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. Wade v. Lake County Title (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 824 (supporting link) on estoppel when certifying undeposited checks.
Reviewed California court records with source links. Allegations are not findings.