The probate court orders the sale of a home in an estate, directs that the money be placed in a bank, and orders the bank not to permit anyone to withdraw the money absent an express order of the court. (These are called "blocked accounts".) Chase Bank agreed to these conditions and accepted the deposit of funds into the blocked account; subsequently, however, it allowed someone -- someone without court approval -- to withdraw all the money in the account.
As a result, a law firm that would otherwise have gotten money from the estate and blocked account -- someone who was entitled to this money pursuant to a court order -- sued Chase Bank.
It takes the Court of Appeal 34 pages to say that, yes, in such settings, the law firm can sue.
It's kinda crazy that it takes 34 pages to come to such an obvious (to me) conclusion, no? Or that the trial court came out the other way and dismissed the lawsuit.
Chase Bank shouldn't have let the guy withdraw the money, and the law firm was harmed. Even before law school (or becoming a lawyer or professor), I'd have thought fairly clearly that in such circumstances, the law firm could sue.
Which, after today, is indeed the rule.
