Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. · Court of Appeal opinion · January 1, 1982
Related by Seller Proceeds + Payoff Demands · Seller ProceedsCourt record Court of Appeal opinion
Protective Equity Trust v. Bybee — California Court of Appeal
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two · E007955
AmountNot statedAmount not stated in reviewed source.
ResultCourt of Appeal opinionCourt ruling
HingeSeller ProceedsTeaches that recording priority obtained through a subordination agreement fails when the senior lender disburses for non-construction uses — a core Ruth/Pollock subordination cluster principle.
SourceCourt opinionPublished opinion
File-record question
Teaches that recording priority obtained through a subordination agreement fails when the senior lender disburses for non-construction uses — a core Ruth/Pollock subordination cluster principle.
Limit before takeaway
Published appellate opinion only. Ruth v. Lytton Savings (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 831 and Miller v. Citizens Savings (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 655 (supporting links) on subordination escrow clusters.
- Court / region
- Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Div. 2
- Case number
- E007955
- Filed
- January 1, 1991
- 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 a seller who agreed to subordinate only to a construction loan could not be bound when the buyer's lender recorded first but disbursed proceeds for purchase and development rather than construction improvements.
What it hinged on
Seller Proceeds. Teaches that recording priority obtained through a subordination agreement fails when the senior lender disburses for non-construction uses — a core Ruth/Pollock subordination cluster principle.
Amount involved
Amount not stated in reviewed source.
Result
Court of Appeal opinion
Why this belongs here
Teaches that recording priority obtained through a subordination agreement fails when the senior lender disburses for non-construction uses — a core Ruth/Pollock subordination cluster principle.
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 that recording priority obtained through a subordination agreement fails when the senior lender disburses for non-construction uses — a core Ruth/Pollock subordination cluster principle.
Timeline
FiledJanuary 1, 1991
Posture checked2026-05-31
Reviewed for Escrow Cases2026-05-31
Topics
Seller Proceeds·Payoff Demands
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. Ruth v. Lytton Savings (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 831 and Miller v. Citizens Savings (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 655 (supporting links) on subordination escrow clusters.
Reviewed California court records with source links. Allegations are not findings.