Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. · Court of Appeal opinion · January 1, 1989
Related by Disbursement AuthorizationCourt record Court of Appeal opinion
Francis v. Eisenmayer — California Court of Appeal
California Court of Appeal · 171 Cal.App.2d 221
AmountNot statedAmount not stated in reviewed source.
ResultCourt of Appeal opinionCourt ruling
HingeDisbursement AuthorizationExplains contract (not tort) recovery when escrow instructions are breached — companion to Karras and the Amen strict-compliance cluster.
SourceCourt opinionPublished opinion
File-record question
Explains contract (not tort) recovery when escrow instructions are breached — companion to Karras and the Amen strict-compliance cluster.
Limit before takeaway
Published Court of Appeal opinion only. Karras v. Title Ins. & Guar. Co. (1954) 118 Cal.App.2d 659 (supporting link) on strict instruction compliance.
- Court / region
- Cal. Ct. App.
- Case number
- 171 Cal.App.2d 221
- Filed
- January 1, 1959
- 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 injured party acquires a contract cause of action when an escrow holder breaches an instruction it agreed to perform or an implied promise arising from the escrow relationship.
What it hinged on
Disbursement Authorization. Explains contract (not tort) recovery when escrow instructions are breached — companion to Karras and the Amen strict-compliance cluster.
Amount involved
Amount not stated in reviewed source.
Result
Court of Appeal opinion
Why this belongs here
Explains contract (not tort) recovery when escrow instructions are breached — companion to Karras and the Amen strict-compliance cluster.
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:
Explains contract (not tort) recovery when escrow instructions are breached — companion to Karras and the Amen strict-compliance cluster.
Timeline
FiledJanuary 1, 1959
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. Karras v. Title Ins. & Guar. Co. (1954) 118 Cal.App.2d 659 (supporting link) on strict instruction compliance.
Reviewed California court records with source links. Allegations are not findings.