Legal Opinion

Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Sanati

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 15, 1992No. B061336PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

In an action for unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, and declaratory relief, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment finding defendants had no defense to plaintiff’s request for restitution for an erroneous fund transfer. Defendants appeal from the adverse judgment, claiming the trial court erroneously applied the common law pertaining to checks and negotiable instruments instead of the law specifically pertaining to funds transfers. We affirm.

Facts and Proceedings Below

In 1963 Hassan and Fatane Sanati were married in Tehran, Iran.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Cooper v. Union BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Aebli v. Board of EducationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  3. Basch v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Montgomery v. MeyersteinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. American Oil Service, Inc. v. Hope Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1965

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. General Electric Capital Corporation v. Central BankCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
  2. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. v. McClendonDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2017
  3. Impulse Trading, Inc. v. Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1994
  4. Dana Sanderson v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API