Court Opinion

ID: 9734970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:54:52.095518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:53.122968
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
In Miller v. Citizens Savings & Loan Assn. (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 655 [56 Cal.Rptr. 844], this court held a lending agency liable for permitting the borrowed funds to be diverted to the personal uses of the borrower. But in that case the details of the arrangement between the seller and buyer were of record and known to the lender, and the subordination agreement did not clearly warn the seller of the possibility of a diversion. Neither fact is present here: There is no showing that Broadway knew of the alleged oral agree*124ment between plaintiff and the buyer and the subordination agreement expressly put plaintiff on notice that some diversion might take place. If anyone was negligent, it was plaintiff and not Broadway.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied on March 20, 1968.