Pasternak

Pasternak v. Boutris

Good Law
121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 493·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4333·2002 Daily Journal DAR 7329·99 Cal. App. 4th 907·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5824
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 26, 2002B136083California10,268 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cooper, J.

This appeal, from a judgment granting a writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5), concerns the statutory responsibility of appellant Escrow Agents’ Fidelity Corporation (EAFC) to indemnify for losses suffered by member escrow agents as the result of fraudulent misappropriation of trust obligations by their owners, officers, or employees. (Fin. Code, § 17300 et seq.) At issue is the superior court’s rejection of a decision by the acting Commissioner of Corporations (commissioner), which denied an administrative appeal by David J. Pasternak (receiver), receiver of Escrow Plus, Inc. (EP), from EAFC’s denial of the receiver’s claim for compensation on account of approximately $24 million taken by EP’s president, as part of fraudulent scheme purportedly involving viatical purchases of life insurance policies. The trial court held that the commissioner had erred in concluding that the EP transactions did not involve escrows, and that two particular findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence.

Appealing, EAFC defends the commissioner’s findings and decision. Amicus curiae Escrow Institute of California further contends that a release by the…

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.