California Codes

Cal. Financial Code § 1450 (2026)

General — Withdrawals and Collections

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Notice to any bank of an adverse claim (the person making the adverse claim being hereafter called “adverse claimant”) to a deposit standing on its books to the credit of or to personal property held for the account of any person shall be disregarded, and the bank, notwithstanding the notice, shall honor the checks, notes, or other instruments requiring payment of money by or for the account of the person to whose credit the account stands and on demand shall deliver that property to, or on the order of, the person for whose account the property is held, without any liability on the part of the bank; subject, however, to the exceptions provided in subdivisions (a) and (b):

(a)If an adverse claimant delivers to the bank at the office at which the deposit is carried or at which the property is held an affidavit of the adverse claimant stating that of the adverse claimant’s own knowledge the person to whose credit the deposit stands or for whose account the property is held is a fiduciary for the adverse claimant and that the adverse claimant has reason to believe the fiduciary is about to misappropriate the deposit or the property, and stating the facts on which the claim of fiduciary relationship and the belief are founded, the bank shall refuse payment of the deposit and shall refuse to deliver the property for a period of not more than three court days (including the day of delivery) from the date that the bank received the adverse claimant’s affidavit, without liability on its part and without liability for the sufficiency or truth of the facts alleged in the affidavit.

(b)If at any time, either before, after, or in the absence of the filing of an affidavit by the adverse claimant, the adverse claimant procures and serves upon the bank at the office at which the deposit is carried or at which the property is held a restraining order, injunction, or other appropriate order against the bank from a court of competent jurisdiction in an action in which the adverse claimant and all persons in whose names the deposit stands or for whose account the property is held are parties, the bank shall comply with the order or injunction, without liability on its part.

(c)This section shall be applicable even though the name of the person appearing on the bank’s books to whose credit the deposit stands or for whose account the property is held is modified by a qualifying or descriptive term such as “agent,” “trustee,” or other word or phrase indicating that the person may not be the owner in his or her own right of the deposit or property.

(d)Nothing in the California Multiple-Party Accounts Law contained in Part 2 (commencing with Section 5100) of Division 5 of the Probate Code limits the applicability of this section.

(e)For purposes of this section, the term “office at which the deposit is carried” shall mean the branch, office, or other location where the account containing the subject deposit is carried or maintained.

(f)Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), if a central location has been designated by the bank pursuant Section 684.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for service of legal process, as that term is defined in Section 684.110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the adverse claimant shall serve a notice of adverse claim or related affidavit, order, injunction, or other order contemplated herein at the central location. If a central location has not but should have been designated by the bank pursuant Section 684.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for service of legal process, as that term is defined in Section 684.110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the adverse claimant may serve a notice of adverse claim or related affidavit, order, injunction, or other order contemplated herein at any branch or office of the institution located in this state.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: Rodrigues v. Alliant Credit Union, No. 4:21-cv-01111 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2022).
Rodrigues v. Alliant Credit Union, No. 4:21-cv-01111 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2022). · cites it 7× “15 On February 14, 2021, Rodrigues filed her original complaint alleging breach of contract, 16 negligence, conversion, violations of California Financial Code section 1450 and the California 17 Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), and a claim for declaratory relief.”
Guilbert Tex, Inc.. v. Citibank N.A., No. 2021-2016 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2023). · cites it 2× “Cal. Fin. Code § 1450 ; see also Casey v.”
Julian Pollok v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., No. 17-56814 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2019). “With respect to the statutory duties, California Financial Code § 1450 does not control because none of the named Vanguard entities are banks.”
Bergstrom v. Zions Bancorporation, 78 Cal. App. 5th 387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). “4th 532, 537, 539, 542 ; Fin. Code, § 1450, subd. (b) [obligating banks to honor depositor’s checks absent an “appropriate order against the bank from a court”].”
Venture Gen. Agency, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:19-cv-02778 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2019). “] 9 10 Cal. Fin. Code § 1450 (emphasis added). The statute lists two exceptions to that general rule, but 11 neither was applicable in the circumstances alleged.”
Rodrigues v. Alliant Credit Union, No. 4:21-cv-01111 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2023). “] Rodrigues alleged claims for breach of contract, negligence, conversion, violations 25 of California Financial Code § 1450 and the California Unfair Competition Law, and a claim for 26 declaratory relief.”
SASA Inv. Holdings, LLC v. Chhatrala, No. 3:18-cv-02735 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2020). “) Given the “size of the wire transfer and the 19 history of the account,” Plaintiffs complain that BofA “made no inquiry as to the 20 intended use of the funds,” and five days later, $635,000.00 was withdrawn from the 21 account.”
Camenisch v. Umpqua Bank, 763 F. Supp. 3d 871 (N.D. Cal. 2025). “22 To support her opinion, Ghiglieri provided several examples of pre-2018 PFI transactions 23 that were similar in nature, velocity, and volume to those transactions that alerted in Umpqua’s 24 25 2 Contrary to Umpqua’s assertion, California Financial Code §§ 1450–51 is not…”
Cal. Financial Code § 1450(a): 1 case
Guilbert Tex, Inc.. v. Citibank N.A., No. 2021-2016 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2023). “Cal. Fin. Code § 1450 ; see also Casey v.”
Cal. Financial Code § 1450(b): 1 case
Rodrigues v. Alliant Credit Union, No. 4:21-cv-01111 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2022). “15 On February 14, 2021, Rodrigues filed her original complaint alleging breach of contract, 16 negligence, conversion, violations of California Financial Code section 1450 and the California 17 Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), and a claim for declaratory relief.”
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.