Cal. Supreme Ct. · Supreme Court opinion · January 1, 1950
Related by Seller Proceeds + Disbursement Authorization · Seller ProceedsCourt record Supreme Court opinion
Harriman v. Tetik — California Supreme Court
California Supreme Court · L. A. No. 26068
AmountNot statedAmount not stated in reviewed source.
ResultSupreme Court opinionCourt ruling
HingeSeller ProceedsTeaches when pre-close escrow disbursements are authorized by instructions and when sellers may still owe restitution after a failed business-sale escrow.
SourceCourt opinionPublished opinion
File-record question
Teaches when pre-close escrow disbursements are authorized by instructions and when sellers may still owe restitution after a failed business-sale escrow.
Limit before takeaway
Published Supreme Court opinion only. Lee v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 160 (supporting link) cites Harriman in the limited-duty cluster.
- Court / region
- Cal.
- Case number
- L. A. No. 26068
- Filed
- January 1, 1961
- 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 typed escrow instructions authorizing pre-close payouts to the seller and creditors, with an exculpatory clause, barred holding the escrow agent liable for distributions made before close when both parties understood early release.
What it hinged on
Seller Proceeds. Teaches when pre-close escrow disbursements are authorized by instructions and when sellers may still owe restitution after a failed business-sale escrow.
Amount involved
Amount not stated in reviewed source.
Result
Supreme Court opinion
Why this belongs here
Teaches when pre-close escrow disbursements are authorized by instructions and when sellers may still owe restitution after a failed business-sale 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 when pre-close escrow disbursements are authorized by instructions and when sellers may still owe restitution after a failed business-sale escrow.
Timeline
FiledJanuary 1, 1961
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. Lee v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 160 (supporting link) cites Harriman in the limited-duty cluster.
Reviewed California court records with source links. Allegations are not findings.