Application for Withdrawal of Funds on Deposit

Useful Rulings on Withdrawal of Funds on Deposit

Recent Rulings on Withdrawal of Funds on Deposit

AAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY VS

The court also awards plaintiff’s counsel costs and fees of $19,351.00 to be paid out of the interplead funds on deposit with the court.

  • Hearing

THE CITY OF BANNING & HUYNH

. §§1255.260; 1255.280. At any time after the complaint has been filed, the plaintiff may bring an ex parte application for possession of the property. C.C.P. §1255.410. “[T]he court shall make an order authorizing the plaintiff to take possession of the property if the plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain and has deposited pursuant to Article I (commencing with Section 1255.010) an amount that satisfies the requirements of that article.” C.C.P. §1255.410(a).

  • Hearing

THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, PLC VS ALL CLAIMANTS TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER THE TRUSTEE'S SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY

This leaves the balance of the surplus funds on deposit of $336,367.82. The issue remaining for this hearing is whether claimant Bill Chandler has established entitlement to the balance of the surplus funds on deposit pursuant to Civil Code 2924k (a)(4), with those funds to be distributed, “In the event the property is sold or transferred to another, to the vested owner of record at the time of the trustee’s sale.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BUTCH TRUST VS MERRILL LYNCH FENNER & SMITH

.: 1 Discover Motion C/O: 1-18-21 POS: NOT OK Trial Date: 2-1-21 SUBJECT: MOTION FOR ORDER TO DISBURSE FUNDS ON DEPOSIT WITH COURT MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/X-Defendant Butch Trust by Wayne Hagendorf, Trustee RESP. PARTY: Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff/X-Defendant Butch Trust’s Motion for Order to Disburse Funds of Deposit with Court is DENIED. Merrill Lynch has been dismissed and discharged from liability in the interpleader.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BUTCH TRUST VS MERRILL LYNCH FENNER & SMITH

.: 1 Discover Motion C/O: 1-18-21 POS: NOT OK Trial Date: 2-1-21 SUBJECT: MOTION FOR ORDER TO DISBURSE FUNDS ON DEPOSIT WITH COURT MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/X-Defendant Butch Trust by Wayne Hagendorf, Trustee RESP. PARTY: Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff/X-Defendant Butch Trust’s Motion for Order to Disburse Funds of Deposit with Court is DENIED. Merrill Lynch has been dismissed and discharged from liability in the interpleader.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT VS VAN LOON

., § 1255.210.) Moreover, the applicant failed to provide certified copies of the judgment liens. (See People v. Gonzalez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 11444, 1151.)

  • Hearing

RICE & BLOOMFIELD, LLP VS DAVID NAKAMURA, ET AL.

During the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court she would be taking the necessary steps to have the funds on deposit with the Court disbursed. (12/11/19 Minute Order.) The Court placed the trial off calendar and set an OSC re Status of Disbursement of Interplead Funds for June 30, 2020 at 10:30 a.m., which was thereafter continued to October 21, 2020 on the Court’s own motion. (Id.; 4/28/20 Notice re Continuance of Hearing and Order.)

  • Hearing

THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, PLC VS ALL CLAIMANTS TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER THE TRUSTEE'S SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY

The total funds on deposit are $393,314.10. The following claims and evidence in support have been received in response to the clerk’s notice: State of California Franchise Tax Board: Amended Claim to Surplus Funds filed January 31, 2020, pursuant to liens of record at the time of the trustee’s sale, tax years 2010-2015 $52,900.28 (as of December 20, 2019). Additional claim for funds of $3,055.33 (as of December 20, 2019) which claim was not secured by a Notice of State Tax Lien.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IN RE THE TEFFT LIVING TRUST

Wells Fargo argues that the funds on deposit belong to the Corporation, not decedent, because a corporation is a legal entity, separate and apart from its shareholders, officers, and directors, with separate and distinct liabilities and obligations. (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538 [discussing the alter ego doctrine and piercing the “corporate veil”].) Quoting R.I. Hosp. Trust Co. v.

  • Hearing

HARVEY F SOUZA VS. CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION

The accusation alleged three causes for discipline: (1) unqualified for continued licensure; (2) failure to reveal material information to the Bureau; and (3) failure to have sufficient monies on hand to cover players' funds on deposit. (Id., f 25.) The Bureau sought to revoke Souza's license and to "impose the maximum fine allowed by law." (Id., 121.)

  • Hearing

HARVEY F SOUZA VS. CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION

The accusation alleged three causes for discipline: (1) unqualified for continued licensure; (2) failure to reveal material information to the Bureau; and (3) failure to have sufficient monies on hand to cover players’ funds on deposit. (Id., ¶ 25.) The Bureau sought to revoke Souza’s license and to “impose the maximum fine allowed by law.” (Id., ¶ 21.) As noted above, the Gambling Control 2 The ownership route was actually more complicated, but this is irrelevant to the petition and the demurrer.

  • Hearing

1456 E CENTRAL AVE FULLERTON CA 92831

The Court orders that the surplus funds on deposit with the Court are to be released to the claimant, Steven J. Portwood. The Court is ordering counsel to comply with the following direction. In a previous minute order, it was directed that the identity-records be filed with the court under seal. (See Minute Order 7/20/20, and see, e.g., California Rule of Court 1.201, 2.503(e)(2), 8.83(d)(2).)

  • Hearing

THE WOLF FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION VS ALL CLAIMANTS TO SURPLUS FUNDS AFTER TRUSTEE?S SALE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT

Superior Court (1946) 27 Cal.2d 855, the Supreme Court held that a court can maintain ancillary jurisdiction with respect to funds on deposit with the court. “After an action has been dismissed under Code of Civil Procedure, section 583, the court is without jurisdiction to hear or determine any motion unrelated to the dismissal of the action. However, this general rule is subject to exceptions and a court is not divested of jurisdiction for all purposes after the dismissal of an action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. J.G. MULLIGAN

Motion: by Defendant for withdrawal of deposit Tentative Ruling: To grant. Explanation: In light of the judgment entered in this case on September 21, 2018, and the receipt filed by defendant, defendant’s request for an order allowing payment of the deposit is granted. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1268.140, subd. (a); San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Moreland Investment Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1151, 1156.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, PLC VS ALL CLAIMANTS TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER THE TRUSTEE'S SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY

The total funds on deposit are $393,314.10. The following claims and evidence in support have been received in response to the clerk’s notice: Kimberly Kennedy: Answer to Petition filed December 26, 2019-- Claim pursuant to lis pendens $176,385.66 State of California Franchise Tax Board: Amended Claim to Surplus Funds filed January 31, 2020, pursuant to liens of record at the time of the trustee’s sale, tax years 2010-2015 $52,900.28 (as of December 20, 2019).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HOLY ROLY MELROSE LLC VS JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1134, 1136-37 [voiding injunction against party “using funds on deposit in any bank … for any purpose whatsoever”].) While an injunction may be issued to prevent dissipation of a specific fund, it is not available for the pre-trial recovery of that specific fund. (See Heckmann v. Ahmanson (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 119, 134-36.) For purposes of clarity, the injunction against Chase and Do All is not intended to freeze Do All’s entire Chase account.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC. VS 24340 RIMFORD PLACE DIAMOND BAR CA 91765

Lee’s MOTION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS ON DEPOSIT WITH THE COURT Tentative Ruling Claimant Hyang S. Lee’s Motion for Distribution of Funds on Deposit with the Court is GRANTED, in the amount of $199,322.27. Background On February 14, 2019, Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (“Northwest”) filed a “Petition and Declaration Regarding Unresolved Claims and Deposit of Undistributed Surplus Proceeds of Trustee’s Sale” (“Petition”).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

IN RE: 20191 CAPE CORAL LANE UNIT 3-203, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646

Motion for Distribution of Funds Claimant Risa Oshiro’s (“Claimant”) unopposed Motion for Distribution of Funds on Deposit is Granted. The Court hereby determines that Claimant is entitled to the surplus funds totaling $37,804.39 that were received by the Court from the Trustee of the sale of real property located at 20191 Cape Coral Lane, Unit 3-203, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (“Property”) on or about 04/13/15.

  • Hearing

PETITION OF MORTGAGE LENDER SERVICES

Per the rules of intestate succession, the following three surviving first cousins are each entitled to a one-fourth share of the surplus funds on deposit: Daniel F. Doran, Kevin P. Doran and Timothy S. Doran. The following surviving first cousins once removed are entitled to a one-eighth share of the surplus funds on deposit: Colleen L. Doenges and Sean Platt. (Prob. Code, §§ 6402 subd. (d), 240.) Each have filed a consent to the petition.

  • Hearing

FEDERAL ESCROW, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MY HOME GROUP REAL ESTATE INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

This action arose from a dispute over which party is entitled to funds on deposit with Plaintiff for Escrow No. 207880-RA opened on or about December 14, 2018, in the amount of $14,390.00 for the purchase of a property. (Compl., ¶ 25.) Cooper, Roberts, and L&V signed a Common Disbursement Authorization, which identified Melendrez as an agent of L&V and authorized a $13,500.00 commission to L&V and Melendrez and $890.00 in fees payable to MHG and L&V. (Id., ¶ 14.)

  • Hearing

IN RE 3942 EAST BELLAIRE WAY, FRESNO CA 93726

Motion: Distribution of Funds on Deposit Tentative Ruling: To grant Global Proceeds, LLC, for the benefit of Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr. Cooper’s claim for distribution of surplus funds from Trustee’s sale. The Court shall distribute the funds on deposit with the Court, including all accrued interest, to Global Proceeds. The check shall be made payable to Global Proceeds, LLC, for the benefit of Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr. Cooper in care of Nabeel M.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FEDERAL ESCROW, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MY HOME GROUP REAL ESTATE INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

This action arose from a dispute over which party is entitled to funds on deposit with Plaintiff for Escrow No. 207880-RA opened on or about December 14, 2018, in the amount of $14,390.00 for the purchase of a property. (Compl., ¶ 25.) Cooper, Roberts, and L&V signed a Common Disbursement Authorization, which identified Melendrez as an agent of L&V and authorized a $13,500.00 commission to L&V and Melendrez and $890.00 in fees payable to MHG and L&V. (Id., ¶ 14.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VS CAPISTRANO HOLDING CORPORATION INC.

Pursuant to CCP § 1255.210, Defendant Capistrano Holding Company, Inc.’s unopposed application to withdraw $210,000 is granted.

  • Hearing

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VS CAPISTRANO HOLDING CORPORATION INC.

Pursuant to CCP § 1255.210, Defendant Capistrano Holding Company, Inc.’s unopposed application to withdraw $210,000 is granted.

  • Hearing

MATTER OF 702 WINDSOR, HERCULES

There is some $94,000 in excess funds on deposit with the Court, and by all appearances that money belongs to the former owner of the property, Lynotte S. Rogers. The lender’s claim stands fully satisfied, and no one else has asserted any claim to the funds. Ms. Rogers, however, is reported to be homeless and mentally unstable; no one involved in the case has any information about her whereabouts or how to contact her. The deposited funds will remain on deposit with the Court until either (a) Ms.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.