People v. Green
California Court of Appeal
22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 736 (2004)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
In July 2000, a sheriff executed a search warrant against Douglas Green (defendant), seizing various types of motor vehicles, office equipment, and $10,900 in cash. Green was charged by the People (plaintiff) with grand theft, burglary, and forgery against three victims. In return for legal services, Green granted a $25,000 lien against the seized property to his attorney, Lawrence Buckley. Green also gave Buckley a promissory note in the amount of $80,000, secured by all of the seized property and its proceeds. Buckley filed a Notice of Lien against the property for $80,000 and a financing statement referencing the property and proceeds. However, Buckley could not perfect his interest in the cash or vehicles, because the money and title documents remained in the sheriff’s possession. Green was found guilty of all charges and ordered to pay $95,661.41 in restitution to the three victims. Thereafter, the seized property was sold at auction so that the proceeds could be applied to the restitution. The proceeds from the sale totaled $33,426.95. The People filed a motion requesting a hearing to determine the proper distribution of the proceeds. The trial court concluded that Buckley was entitled to a portion of the proceeds only to the extent that he had a perfected security interest. Buckley appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Richli, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
