Meier

St. Paul Title Co. v. Meier

Good Law
181 Cal. App. 3d 948·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 1665·226 Cal. Rptr. 538
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 30, 1986A022974California1,536 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haning, J.

Appellant St. Paul Title Company was the escrow agent in a real estate sale in which it was sued by the purchaser for breach of contract, based on the manner in which it implemented the escrow instructions. It cross-complained against Richard Meier, the purchaser’s attorney, on the theory that he negligently advised his client concerning the drafting and formation of escrow instructions. The trial court entered summary judgment on the cross-complaint in the attorney’s favor, ruling that he owed no duty to the escrow agent. We agree and affirm.

The gist of appellant’s action is that it served as escrow agent in a real estate sales transaction wherein respondent’s client was the purchaser. The purchaser sued appellant for disbursing escrow funds contrary to the escrow instructions. Appellant contends the instructions were confusing, and blames the confusion on respondent, who allegedly advised his client to render such instructions. Appellant contends the confusing instructions resulted from negligent advice given by respondent to his client.

The affidavits supporting and opposing respondent’s motion for summary judgment do not contain any facts supporting a finding or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.