Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)

Citation
People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988) (9)
Parent Document
People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1988-02-17

Other Sections in This Document (65)

Full Text

1,255 chars
(9) Appellants finally contend the trial court erred in ordering that security deposits which could not be returned to affected tenants because they could not be located should be paid to the Parkmerced Residents' Organization. Code of Civil Procedure section 1519.5 provides that any sum held by a business association which a court has ordered refunded escheats to the state if the sum has remained unclaimed for more than one year. The statute also states that "it is the intent of the Legislature that nothing in this section shall be construed to change the authority of a court *Page 693 
. . . to order equitable remedies."3 When this statement of legislative intent is read in connection with Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17203, by which the Legislature gave trial courts wide equitable powers to rectify unlawful business practices, it is clear the Legislature did not intend that the sole recourse of courts dealing with unclaimed property is to order it to escheat to the state. "In the absence of such a restriction a court of equity may exercise the full range of its inherent powers in order to accomplish complete justice between the parties. . . ." (People v. Superior Court
(Jayhill Corp.), supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 286.)