Mozes

People v. Mozes

Good Law
121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 808·192 Cal. App. 4th 1124·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 184
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 2011No. B221020California3,689 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Coffee, J.

The “Freeze and Seize Law” of Penal Code section 186.11 permits the court in certain white-collar criminal cases to take possession of assets under a defendant’s control and preserve them for the payment of restitution. 1 (People v. Semaan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 79, 82 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 163 P.3d 949 ] (Semaan).) A person who claims an interest in frozen assets may seek their release by filing a verified claim with the superior court. (§ 186.11, subd. (e)(6).) Here, under the facts presented, we decide that the claims of white-collar crime victims have priority over a claimant with a child support order seeking the same assets.

Christen Brown is Orson Mozes’s former wife. Mozes pled guilty to 17 counts of theft by false pretenses, a white-collar crime, and agreed to pay restitution to the victims of his crimes.

Following lengthy proceedings concerning the distribution of Mozes’s frozen assets, the trial court denied Brown’s third party claim that a child support order should receive priority over the victim restitution order. Brown’s appeal raises an issue of first impression—whether child support *1127 orders must be given priority over white-collar crime victim…

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.