Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV10313, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10313    Hearing Date: May 11, 2023    Dept: 55

WADE v. WYNSTAR INVESTMENTS, LLC,                                         22STCV10313

Hearing Date:  5/11/23,  Dept. 55.

#9:   MOTION FOR ORDER OF DISCHARGE AND DISMISSAL AS STAKEHOLDER AND AWARD OF COSTS.

 

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

 

MP:  Defendant and Cross-Complainant FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY.

RP:  

 

 

Summary

 

On 3/24/22, Plaintiff LARRY WADE filed a Complaint alleging that he purchased Malibu residential property from Defendant WYNSTAR INVESTMENTS, LLC, but that he now wants to rescind the sale and to get amounts for damages, including because defendants intentionally concealed that the property was red-tagged, and that no other improvement could be made on the property without resolving the issues of the permits and the work done by Defendant WYNSTAR.

The causes of action are:

1. RECISSION;

2. FRAUD;

3. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;

4. BREACH OF CONTRACT - COUNT I;

5. UNJUST ENRICHMENT;

6. NEGLIGENCE - COUNT I;

7. NEGLIGENCE - COUNT II;

8. BREACH OF CONTRACT - COUNT II; and

9. DECLARATORY RELIEF.

 

On 6/2/22, Defendant FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY filed a Cross-Complaint in Interpleader against Plaintiff and Defendant WYNSTAR, as the alleged real property buyer and seller, regarding $150,000 of withheld escrow funds per an addendum to Escrow Instructions and Standard Residential Purchase Agreement.

 

 

MP Positions

 

Moving party requests an Order that it be discharged from liability involving the rights and obligations of the parties to this action arising out of the $150,000 deposited with it as escrow agent; that it be dismissed from this action upon its deposit of such funds with the Clerk; and that it be awarded its filing fee of $435, plus $5,092.50 in attorney fees, for a total of $5,527.50, on grounds including the following:

 

·         Moving Defendant holds money without claiming any right or interest thereto and would deposit the money with the Court Clerk, to be delivered to whichever party may establish their right to said funds.  CCP   §§  386 et seq.

·         Mutual instructions by both the buyer and seller of residential property are required in order for Defendant to release withheld funds to the Buyer (Blair Decl, ¶ 8, Exhibit 7).

·         There now remains $150,000 in FNTC’s escrow account.

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The unopposed motion is granted, as prayed. 

After a stakeholder’s right to interplead is shown, and the money over which conflicting claims have been made, is deposited with the court, the stakeholder may be discharged from liability.  E.g., City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1122.  Parties who do not want to participate as claimants in an interpleader action may file a disclaimer relinquishing claims to the stake.  Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.  (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 875.

In an interpleader proceeding, when discharging a stakeholder, judges have discretion to award them their costs and reasonable attorney fees out of an amount that has been deposited with the court.  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Zinnel (2004) 125 Cal. App. 4th 393, 400;  Canal Ins. Co. v. Tackett (2004) 117 Cal. App. 4th 239, 244;  UAP-Columbus JV 236132 v. Nesbitt (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1036.   The amount of attorney fees and costs must be restricted to those incurred as to the interpleader remedy.  Sweeney v. McClaran (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 824, 830.

“‘When the right of interpleader and discharge has been established ..., the trial of the issues between the conflicting claimants proceeds on the original and any additional pleadings deemed necessary.’” In re Peterson (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 676, 682-683.

*IF PARTIES WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT ON THE COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING, PLEASE CALL 213-633-0655*