(a)Any person or business entity that knowingly assists a child support obligor who has an unpaid child support obligation to escape, evade, or avoid paying court-ordered or court-approved child support shall be liable for three times the value of the assistance provided, such as the fair market value of the obligor’s assets transferred or hidden. The maximum liability imposed by this section shall not exceed the entire child support obligation due. Any funds or assets collected pursuant to this section shall be paid to the child support
obligee, and shall not reduce the amount of the unpaid child support obligation. Upon the satisfaction of the unpaid child support obligation, this section shall not apply.
(b)For purposes of this section, actions taken to knowingly assist a child support obligor to escape, evade, or avoid paying court-ordered or court-approved child support include, with actual knowledge of the child support obligation, helping to hide or transfer assets of the child support obligor.
(c)This section shall not apply to a financial institution unless the financial institution has actual knowledge of the child support obligation and, with that knowledge, knowingly assists the obligor to escape, evade, or avoid paying the child support obligation. However, a financial institution with knowledge of an asset transfer has no duty to inquire into the rightfulness of the transaction, nor shall it be
deemed to have knowingly assisted an obligor to escape, evade, or avoid paying the child support obligation if that assistance is provided by an employee or agent of the financial institution acting outside the terms and conditions of employment or agency without the actual knowledge of the financial institution.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases, 1994–2019 · leading case:
Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003).
Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 9× “Until January 2003, California Civil Code section 1714.4 read as follows: (a) In a products liability action, no firearm or ammunition shall be deemed defective in design on the basis that the benefits of the product do not outweigh the risk of injury posed by its potential to…”
Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., 28 P.3d 116 (Cal. 2001).
· cites it 2× “" (Civ.Code, § 1714.4, subd. (a).) [1] That, in essence, is plaintiffs' theory of recovery here: that Navegar defectively *374 designed the weapons Ferri used `because, given their particular characteristics, the benefits of making them available to the general publicwhich were…”
Cabral v. Martins, 177 Cal. App. 4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “As the basis for her cause of action against all of the respondents, Tammy relies on the provisions of two statutes, Civil Code sections 1714.4 and 1714.41 (the child support evasion statutes), which were enacted in 2006, and became effective on January 1, 2007.”
Soule v. Gen. Motors Corp., 882 P.2d 298 (Cal. 1994).
· cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, §§ 1714.4, subd. (a) ["risk" that firearms or ammunition may discharge cannot outweigh "benefits" of these products], 1714.”
Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 194 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
· cites it 4× “4, which provides: (a) In a products liability action, no firearm or ammunition shall be deemed defective in design on the basis that the benefits of the product do not outweigh the risk of injury posed by its potential to cause serious injury, damage, or death when discharged.…”
Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 6× “Until January 2003, California Civil Code section 1714.4 read as follows: 36 (a) In a products liability action, no firearm or ammunition shall be deemed defective in design on the basis that the benefits of the product do not outweigh the risk of injury posed by its potential…”
Ileto v. Glock Inc., 370 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 5× “The California Supreme Court, in a 6 to 1 decision, affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Navegar on the ground that plaintiffs’ common law negligence claim was barred by California Civil Code § 1714.4. Id. at 491-92, 110 Cal.”
Whitfield v. Heckler & Koch, Inc., 82 Cal. App. 4th 1200 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
“) Civil Code section 1714.4 precludes us from analyzing weapons or ammunition under the first or second test.”
Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., 75 Cal. App. 4th 500 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “"]; Note, Mass Tort Claims and the Corporate Tortfeasor: Bankruptcy Reorganization and Legislative Compensation Versus the Common-Law Tort System (1983) 61 Texas L.Rev. 1297 .”
Cal. Civil Code § 1714.4(b): 2 cases
Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003).
“Until January 2003, California Civil Code section 1714.4 read as follows: (a) In a products liability action, no firearm or ammunition shall be deemed defective in design on the basis that the benefits of the product do not outweigh the risk of injury posed by its potential to…”
Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003).
“Until January 2003, California Civil Code section 1714.4 read as follows: 36 (a) In a products liability action, no firearm or ammunition shall be deemed defective in design on the basis that the benefits of the product do not outweigh the risk of injury posed by its potential…”
Cal. Civil Code § 1714.4(b)(2): 1 case
Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003).
“Until January 2003, California Civil Code section 1714.4 read as follows: (a) In a products liability action, no firearm or ammunition shall be deemed defective in design on the basis that the benefits of the product do not outweigh the risk of injury posed by its potential to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.