Cal. · Supreme Court opinion · July 20, 1978
Related by Seller ProceedsCourt record Supreme Court opinion
Norris v. San Mateo County Title — California Supreme Court
California Supreme Court · S. F. No. 18081
AmountNot statedAmount not stated in reviewed source.
ResultSupreme Court opinionCourt ruling
HingeSeller ProceedsTeaches who owns earnest-money deposits held by an escrow agent after default and how res judicata affects recovery from the holder versus the parties.
SourceCourt opinionPublished opinion
File-record question
Teaches who owns earnest-money deposits held by an escrow agent after default and how res judicata affects recovery from the holder versus the parties.
Limit before takeaway
Published Supreme Court opinion only. Feinberg v. Intrastate Escrow (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 80 (supporting link) on estoppel and cancelled escrow instructions.
- Court / region
- Cal.
- Case number
- S. F. No. 18081
- Filed
- January 1, 1951
- 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 buyer down payment deposited with an escrow holder vested in the sellers when paid to their agents under the deposit receipt, and a prior judgment barred personal recovery between the parties but not return of the deposit from the holder.
What it hinged on
Seller Proceeds. Teaches who owns earnest-money deposits held by an escrow agent after default and how res judicata affects recovery from the holder versus the parties.
Amount involved
Amount not stated in reviewed source.
Result
Supreme Court opinion
Why this belongs here
Teaches who owns earnest-money deposits held by an escrow agent after default and how res judicata affects recovery from the holder versus the parties.
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 who owns earnest-money deposits held by an escrow agent after default and how res judicata affects recovery from the holder versus the parties.
Timeline
FiledJanuary 1, 1951
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. Feinberg v. Intrastate Escrow (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 80 (supporting link) on estoppel and cancelled escrow instructions.
Reviewed California court records with source links. Allegations are not findings.