Decisions in Real Estate Contract, Family Law and Trust Matters - Contract Law - California Case Law
California Case Law - The FindLaw California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal Opinion Summaries Blog

Decisions in Real Estate Contract, Family Law and Trust Matters

In re K.C., No.F058395, involved a father's challenge to the juvenile court's denial of a petition for relative placement brought by the child's paternal grandparents in dependency proceedings terminating the father's parental rights to his infant son.  In affirming the denial, the court held that the father does not have appellate standing to challenge the order denying a relative placement request once a permanency planning hearing is pending and he has not shown that his interest in the child's companionship, custody, management and care is, rather than may be, "injuriously affected" by the court's decision.

Regents of the University of California v. Kraus, No. B213484 involved a petition by two residuary trust beneficiaries - the Regents of the University of California and the Make-A-Wish Foundation - for restitution funds from the deceased settlor's brother.  In affirming the probate court's order requiring the brother to return $197,402 to a court appointed representative of the Estate and to pay statutory double damages in the amount of $394,804, the court rejected the brother's contention that he should not be required to pay deliver $197,492 to a court appointed personal representative pursuant to section 850 and his section 859 penalty claim. 

In Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc. v. N. Am. Title Co. Inc., No. D054685, the Fourth District dealt with a plaintiff-wholesale residential mortgage lender's suit against defendant-settlement agent after defendant distributed $53,853 to the attorney in fact of the buyer of real property, a payment that was neither authorized by the closing instructions nor disclosed by defendant before it made the payment. 

In reversing the judgment in favor of the defendant, the court held that the trial court erred in finding that there was no breach of the closing instruction contract with plaintiff because escrow had closed and that the trial court also erred in failing to consider whether defendant breached the closing instructions contract when it disbursed the payment and closed the two loans to the buyer/borrower without first notifying plaintiff of the last minute escrow instruction. 

Related Resources: