Petition regarding unresolved claims and deposit of undistributed surplus proceeds
in support of the petition (ROA 5, 15); (3) the notice of filing all prior petitions (ROA 11); and (4) the notice of hearing (ROA 4).
Based on those documents and exhibits, the court makes the following findings as required by Insurance Code sections 10137 and 10139.5(a): (1) The transfer is fair and reasonable and in the best interest of Payee, taking into account the welfare and support of her dependents; (2) Payee has been advised in writing by Petitioner to seek independent professional advice regarding the transfer and has either received that advice or knowingly waived, in writing, the opportunity to receive the advice; (3) Petitioner has provided Payee with a disclosure form that complies with Insurance Code section 10136, and the transfer agreement complies with Insurance Code sections 10136 and 10138; (4) The transfer does not contravene any applicable statute or the order of any court or other government authority and otherwise complies with the requirements of Insurance Code section 10134, et seq.; (5) Payee understands the terms of the transfer agreement, including the terms set forth in the disclosure statement required by Insurance Code section 10136; and (6) Payee understands and does not wish to exercise her right to cancel the transfer agreement. Moreover, through Payee’s supplemental declaration Petitioner has established Payee’s residence and that venue is proper in this court.
Based on the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to submit a proposed order approving the transfer consistent with the requirements of Insurance Code section 10134 et seq., and to give notice of this ruling.
8. In Re: 17150 On November 13, 2025, petitioner Clear Recon Corp Fremont Lane, (Petitioner) filed the petition regarding unresolved claims Yorba Linda, and deposit of undistributed surplus proceeds of trustee’s CA 92886 sale under Civil Code section 2924j. Petitioner filed the petition following a trustee’s sale pursuant to a deed of
trust conducted on January 22, 2024, regarding the property located at 17150 Fremont Lane, Yorba Linda, California 92886 (Property). After paying off the trust deed, all senior liens, and undisputed claims, Petitioner sought to deposit the surplus funds of $393,366.84 with the court and be discharged from responsibility for distribution of the surplus funds.
The court conducted a hearing on the petition on March 5, 2026. Prior to that hearing, claimant Xin Yang (Yang) filed a claim to the entirety of the surplus funds. At the hearing,
the court granted the petition, ordered Petitioner to deposit the surplus funds with the court, and set a hearing for May 28, 2026, to address any and all claims to the surplus funds. The court explained it could not grant Yang’s claim at that time because the code required the hearing on any claims to surplus funds to be conducted after the funds are deposited with the court and after the court clerk gave notice to all potential claimants. The court further explained Yang could stand on his original claim or supplement additional information. On or about March 19, 2026, Petitioner deposited the surplus funds with the court.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The court conducted the hearing to address the claims to the surplus funds on May 28, 2026. Unfortunately, it appeared notice of that hearing was not served on all potential claimants at the proper addresses. Accordingly, the court continued the hearing to today’s date and directed the clerk to give notice at the various addresses specified in the court’s minute order. Notice has now been given at those various addresses.
Yang is the only claimant who has submitted a claim to the court regarding the surplus funds, and he has submitted sufficient evidence to support that claim. Although Shuo Jin (Jin) submitted a claim to Petitioner seeking both her one- half of the remaining sale proceeds and Yang’s one-half, claiming Yang quit claimed his claim to her, Jin has not submitted any claim to the court regarding the funds on deposit. The court notes the record shows Yang and Jin were equal owners of the property and Petitioner previously distributed one-half of the remaining sale proceeds to Jin. What is on deposit with the court is the other half that Jin initially tried to claim as well, but has been shown to belong to Yang.
Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Yang’s claim as to the surplus funds on deposit with the court. The clerk’s office is directed to distribute such proceeds to Yang. To receive those funds, Yang must submit a proposed order for signature by the court that identifies his claim, the court’s order granting his claim, the precise amount of his claim, to whom the check for the surplus funds should be made payable, and the address to which that check should be sent.
Yang’s attorney is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
9. Palmer v. OFF CALENDAR based on notice of withdrawal filed on Mobilitas July 9, 2026