Shedoudy v. Beverly Surgical Supply Co.
California Court of Appeal
100 Cal. App. 3d 730 (1980)
Foothill Capital Corporation (Foothill) was a finance company that extended about $2.7 million in credit to Pacific Coast Medical Enterprises (PCME) and PCME’s numerous subsidiaries, including Beverly Surgical Supply Company (Beverly) and Clark Hospital Supply Corporation (Clark) (defendants). As security, Foothill took a security interest in PCME’s and its subsidiaries’ accounts receivable, equipment, and inventory. Thereafter, Benjamin Shedoudy and others (the judgment creditors) (plaintiffs) sued Beverly and obtained a favorable judgment in the amount of $50,427.69, inclusive of attorney’s fees. The judgment creditors subsequently added Clark as a judgment debtor. Pursuant to a writ of execution, the sheriff levied on Clark’s bank account and received $22,135.94. Before the sheriff paid the levied funds to the judgment creditors, Foothill served the sheriff with a third-party claim alleging that the levied funds were subject to its security interest. The judgment creditors moved for an order declaring that Foothill’s third-party claim was invalid as to Clark’s assets and requiring a marshaling of assets of debtors other than Clark. The trial court held two hearings on the motion. During the hearings, evidence was presented indicating that PCME and its subsidiaries exchanged money freely with one another on an as-needed basis and that Clark had dissipated substantial assets after it was added as a judgment creditor. Further, although testimony was presented describing problems with PCME’s collection of accounts receivable, other evidence suggested that PCME had approximately $10 million in net assets after deductions. The trial court granted the judgment creditors’ motion. Foothill appealed and argued that applying the marshaling-assets doctrine was improper because Clark had only one fund, the doctrine’s application would impose a risk of loss upon Foothill, and Foothill was not foreclosing on Foothill’s senior lien.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Wiener, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 710,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.