Creditors of seller and the United States
Saim Khan
Appellants, creditors of seller and the United States, sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which held, in an interpleader action by respondent escrow corporation, that respondent was entitled to money for services and attorney's fees, under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 24074, and that appellant U.S. was entitled to money as a creditor of the seller of the liquor license.business law attorney is a cocktail lounge had their escrow account with respondent escrow corporation
Both the buyer and seller had federal tax liabilities and, after the transfer of the liquor license, the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) levied upon and sold the license, fixtures, and equipment. Appellants, creditors of the seller, argued that they had, under state liquor laws, title to the escrow balance. Appellant United States (U.S.) argued that the escrow never closed and that title was with the buyer. The attorney for employment law will help you in Employment law cases.
The court affirmed the judgment that entitled respondent to money for escrow services and attorney's fees, under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 24074 because its claim vested upon the transfer of the license. The court reversed the award to appellant U.S. because the transfer of the license was pivotal to transfer of the ownership of the escrow fund, under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 24074, 24074.1, not upon the fulfillment of all escrow conditions, and because appellant U.S. was not a creditor of the seller's, it did not have any ownership rights to the escrow balance. The court remanded the case for the trial court to determine the ownership of the remaining escrow balance.
The court affirmed the judgment that awarded respondent escrow corporation money for escrow services and attorney's fees. The court reversed the award to appellant United States (U.S.), because the transfer of a liquor license from the seller to the buyer was pivotal to the transfer of the ownership of the escrow fund, and appellant U.S. was not a creditor of seller's and, therefore, did not have ownership rights to the escrow balance.
Defendants, a trade school and two individuals, sought review of an order from the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which denied a motion to compel arbitration of an action brought by plaintiffs, an association and three former students, for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., and other causes of action.
The complaint alleged misrepresentations regarding accreditation status, transferability of college credits, and other matters. The action was brought as a private attorney general action on behalf of the public. The school and its officials sought to compel arbitration on the basis of arbitration clauses contained in student loan promissory notes. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that the school and its officials were neither parties to nor third party beneficiaries of the notes. The court, in affirming that ruling, observed that no evidence had been adduced to show that the school was an intended third party beneficiary, within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1559, of the promissory notes. The school was not a party to the promissory notes, and there was no evidence that the students agreed to arbitrate any claims against the school. The court further held that an amendment to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204, which had changed UCL standing requirements to require an allegation of injury in fact, was applicable, although the case was filed before its effective date. Because the pleadings alleged that the association had suffered no injury, it had no cause of action.
The court affirmed the order and remanded with directions to grant judgment on the pleadings on the complaint's UCL cause of action and to allow the students leave to amend.