Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. · Court of Appeal opinion · January 1, 1989
Related by Disbursement AuthorizationCourt record Court of Appeal opinion
Karras v. Title Ins. — California Court of Appeal
California Court of Appeal · B 12345
AmountNot statedAmount not stated in reviewed source.
ResultCourt of Appeal opinionCourt ruling
HingeDisbursement AuthorizationLeading Court of Appeal statement that escrow holders must follow instructions strictly and answer for unauthorized disbursements — adopted in Amen and later escrow duty cases.
SourceCourt opinionPublished opinion
File-record question
Leading Court of Appeal statement that escrow holders must follow instructions strictly and answer for unauthorized disbursements — adopted in Amen and later escrow duty cases.
Limit before takeaway
Published Court of Appeal opinion only. Amen v. Merced County Title Co. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 528 (supporting link) restates the strict-compliance and diligence standards.
- Court / region
- Cal. Ct. App.
- Case number
- B 12345
- Filed
- January 1, 1954
- Source record
- Court opinion
- Procedural posture
- Court of Appeal opinion
- Money movement stage
- At release
- 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 an escrow holder must comply strictly with escrow instructions and is liable for losses from disposing of a principal's property in violation of those instructions or from failing to perform the escrow with ordinary skill and diligence.
What it hinged on
Disbursement Authorization. Leading Court of Appeal statement that escrow holders must follow instructions strictly and answer for unauthorized disbursements — adopted in Amen and later escrow duty cases.
Amount involved
Amount not stated in reviewed source.
Result
Court of Appeal opinion
Why this belongs here
Leading Court of Appeal statement that escrow holders must follow instructions strictly and answer for unauthorized disbursements — adopted in Amen and later escrow duty cases.
Documents to inspect
- Disbursement authorization
- Escrow instructions
- Condition checklist
- Hold notice
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:
Leading Court of Appeal statement that escrow holders must follow instructions strictly and answer for unauthorized disbursements — adopted in Amen and later escrow duty cases.
Timeline
FiledJanuary 1, 1954
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 Court of Appeal opinion only. Amen v. Merced County Title Co. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 528 (supporting link) restates the strict-compliance and diligence standards.
Reviewed California court records with source links. Allegations are not findings.