Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: YC071489, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: YC071489    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         May 2, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Defendant Sriyantha Benedict Sirimanne

Responding Party:                  None

Motion for Order Releasing Escrow Funds

            The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

            The motion is GRANTED.  The court orders the release of escrow funds from blocked account.

BACKGROUND

On August 4, 2016, plaintiff Miguel A. Garcia filed a complaint against Sriyantha Benedict Sirimanne aka Ben Sirimanne and Champa Catherine Sirimanne for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud.  Plaintiff alleges that in 2008, plaintiff and defendants agreed to buy the subject property together via the Peacock Irrevocable Trust.  In 2008 and 2009, the Trust paid all required installment payments.  WAMU then declared that it would no longer recognize the assignment from the former owner Gray.  Plaintiff and defendants commenced litigation against WAMU.  Catherine abandoned the litigation leaving Garcia to fight WAMU alone.  In 2011, Chase purported to foreclose and attempted to evict Garcia.  In 2015, Chase and Garcia settled and entered into a confidential settlement agreement providing that Chase would sell the property to Garcia.  Concurrently, Ben and Catherine agreed to provide financing to purchase the property from Chase but declined to allow title to be taken in Garcia’s name or in the Trust’s name.

On December 23, 2016, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint for (1) breach of contract, (2) promissory estoppel, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) fraud, (5) rescission, (6) quiet title, and (7) declaratory relief.

On September 12, 2016, defendants filed a cross-complaint.

On April 12, 2017, defendants filed a first amended cross-complaint for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) fraud, (3) breach of contract, (4) unjust enrichment, and (5) accounting.

On May 2, 2022, judgment on special verdict was entered in favor of plaintiff on the breach of contract cause of action for $400,000 and in favor of defendants on the money had and received cause of action for $66,125.

On January 24, 2023, defendants deposited a surety bond superseadas to stay execution of judgment pending appeal in case no. B321880 in the sum of $500,812.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant Sriyantha Benedict Sirimanne requests that the court order release of escrow funds to Sriyantha Benedict Sirimanne. 

            On January 25, 2023, the court granted defendants’ ex parte application to stay execution of the judgment, approve the supersedeas bond, quashed and recalled all writs of execution, and directed the release of levied funds.

            Defendant argues that the order holding the escrow funds is moot on the grounds that the case has gone to final jury verdict, the case is on appeal, and defendants have posted a bond on January 24, 2023, thereby nullifying any potential interest by plaintiff Miguel Garcia in the escrow funds.

            As background, on August 18, 2017, the court had granted partial judgment on issue of Garcia’s occupancy of the property (on the unlawful detainer portion of the consolidated case).  The court found Sriyantha Benedict Sirimanne is the legal owner of the property at 2505 Via Pinale, Palos Verdes Estates and that Garcia is a “tenant at will.”  The court ordered that the seller’s net sales proceeds from the pending escrow at Golden West, from the sale of the property, after payment from escrow of the loan, and closing costs, shall be held in an account at Sirimanne’s attorney’s bank in Marina del Rey, CA and that account shall be ordered blocked and no funds shall be disbursed to anyone, neither the parties nor their attorneys, without further order of the court.  The order also stated that “Counsel for the Parties shall meet and confer and agree on the type of account into which the funds will be maintained, it should be an interest-bearing account but nothing with restrictions on when funds may be distributed after Court Order.”

Defense counsel states that the escrow funds had been placed in a CD account at Ally Bank after discussion with plaintiff’s then attorney Altholz and that the net proceeds are $19,011.77.

            There is no opposition.

            The court finds that release of the escrow funds from the blocked account is warranted in consideration of the deposited bond and the procedural posture of the case.

            The motion is GRANTED.

            Moving defendant is ordered to give notice.