debt claim in California

2022In Fireman’s Fund, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th 1279 , our colleagues at the First Appellate District set out the applicable law in cogent fashion: “Subrogation is defined as the substitution of another person in place of the creditor or claimant to whose rights he or she succeeds in relation to the debt or claim. 25 By undertaking to indemnify or pay the principal debtor’s obligation to the creditor or claimant, the ‘subrogee’ is equitably subrogated to the claimant (or ‘subrogor’), and succeeds to the subrogor’s rights against the obligor. [Citation.] In the case of insurance, subrogation takes the

2022In Fireman’s Fund, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th 1279 , our colleagues at the First Appellate District set out the applicable law in cogent fashion: “Subrogation is defined as the substitution of another person in place of the creditor or claimant to whose rights he or she succeeds in relation to the debt or claim. 25 By undertaking to indemnify or pay the principal debtor’s obligation to the creditor or claimant, the ‘subrogee’ is equitably subrogated to the claimant (or ‘subrogor’), and succeeds to the subrogor’s rights against the obligor. [Citation.] In the case of insurance, subrogation takes the

2019Equitable Subrogation-General Principles " 'Subrogation is defined as the substitution of another person in place of the creditor or claimant to whose rights he or she succeeds in *984 relation to the debt or claim.' [Citation.] It provides a ' " 'method of compelling the ultimate payment by one who in justice and good conscience ought to make it-of putting the charge where it justly belongs.' " ' " ( State Farm , supra , 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1105 , 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 785 .) " 'In the case of insurance, subrogation takes the form of an insurer's right to be put in the position of the insured in o

2019Equitable Subrogation-General Principles " 'Subrogation is defined as the substitution of another person in place of the creditor or claimant to whose rights he or she succeeds in *984 relation to the debt or claim.' [Citation.] It provides a ' " 'method of compelling the ultimate payment by one who in justice and good conscience ought to make it-of putting the charge where it justly belongs.' " ' " ( State Farm , supra , 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1105 , 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 785 .) " 'In the case of insurance, subrogation takes the form of an insurer's right to be put in the position of the insured in o

2016(Flatley v. Mauro, supra. 39 Cal.4th at p. 326 ; see also People v. Beggs (1918) 178 Cal. 79, 84 [ 172 P. 152 ] [belief that the victim owes a debt is not a defense to the crime of extortion; “[i]t is the means employed [to obtain the property of another] which the law denounces”].)

2013Code, § 523.)” (Flatley, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 326.) As the Supreme Court recognized in Flatley , extortion “has been characterized as a paradoxical crime in that it criminalizes the making of threats that, in and of themselves, may not be illegal. ‘[I]n many blackmail cases the threat is to do something in itself perfectly legal, but that threat nevertheless becomes illegal when coupled with a demand for money.’ (Philippine Export & Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp. v. Chuidian (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1058, 1079 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 457 ].)” (Flatley, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 326, fn. omitted.) Criminal

2016(Flatley v. Mauro, supra. 39 Cal.4th at p. 326 ; see also People v. Beggs (1918) 178 Cal. 79, 84 [ 172 P. 152 ] [belief that the victim owes a debt is not a defense to the crime of extortion; “[i]t is the means employed [to obtain the property of another] which the law denounces”].)

2016(Flatley v. Mauro, supra. 39 Cal.4th at p. 326 ; see also People v. Beggs (1918) 178 Cal. 79, 84 [ 172 P. 152 ] [belief that the victim owes a debt is not a defense to the crime of extortion; “[i]t is the means employed [to obtain the property of another] which the law denounces”].)

2015(People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 632 [ 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 117 , 248 P.3d 651 ].) We are also persuaded by the nature of limited civil actions themselves.

2015(People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 632 [ 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 117 , 248 P.3d 651 ].) We are also persuaded by the nature of limited civil actions themselves.

2014Co. v. Cleveland Wrecking Co. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 23 , 31–32 (Interstate).) “ ‘The essential elements of an insurer’s cause of action for equitable subrogation are as follows: [1] the insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer; [2] the claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not primarily liable; [3] the insurer has compensated the insured in whole or in part for the same loss for which the defendant is prima

2011Co. v. Cleveland Wrecking Co. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 23, 31-32 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 ].) “ ‘In the case of insurance, subrogation takes the form of an insurer’s right to be put in the position of the insured in order to pursue recovery from third parties legally responsible to the insured for a loss which the insurer has both insured and paid. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 32.) In other words, subrogation does no more than assign to the insurer the claims of its insured against the legally responsible party.

2024Cal. 2014) 41 F.Supp.3d 919, 925 (Davis) [“It is difficult to conceive of a more unfair debt collection practice than dunning the wrong person.”]; Bodur v. Palisades Collection, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2011) 829 F.Supp.2d 246, 254 (Bodur) [“District courts have found that ‘an attempt to collect a debt from a non-debtor constitutes a “false representation” as to the character or status of the debt in violation of 1692e.’ ”]; Johnson v. Bullhead Investments, LLC (M.D.N.C.

2024(Davis, supra, 41 F.Supp.3d at p. 925 .) This exceeds the misleading effects of sending a letter or making a telephone call to the accused debtor, and is substantially more likely to be taken seriously and to compel a response.

2024Cal. 2014) 41 F.Supp.3d 919, 925 (Davis) [“It is difficult to conceive of a more unfair debt collection practice than dunning the wrong person.”]; Bodur v. Palisades Collection, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2011) 829 F.Supp.2d 246, 254 (Bodur) [“District courts have found that ‘an attempt to collect a debt from a non-debtor constitutes a “false representation” as to the character or status of the debt in violation of 1692e.’ ”]; Johnson v. Bullhead Investments, LLC (M.D.N.C.

2024Numerous courts have found that suing the wrong person over a debt is actionable under the FDCPA, as discussed supra, because “ ‘an attempt to collect a debt from a non- debtor constitutes a “false representation” as to the character or status of the debt in violation of 1692e.’ ” (Bodur, supra, 829 F.Supp.2d at p. 254 .) It is hard to imagine a more unfair and misleading debt collection activity than actually suing an innocent 10. person who happens to share the same name as another debtor.

2023Co. v. Frances Todd, Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 976, 983 (Western Heritage), internal quotation marks omitted; see State Farm General Ins.

2016Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1995) 11 Cal.4th 342, 349 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 279 , 902 P.2d 297 ].) Section 1871.7, subdivision (g)(2)(A) states, “If the district attorney or commissioner does not proceed with an action under this section, the person bringing the action or settling the claim shall receive an amount that the court decides is reasonable for collecting the civil penalty and damages. . . . [T]he amount shall not be less than 40 percent and not more than 50 percent of the proceeds of the action . . . and shall be paid out of the proceeds.” (Italics added.) 6 To “collect”

2016Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1995) 11 Cal.4th 342, 349 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 279 , 902 P.2d 297 ].) Section 1871.7, subdivision (g)(2)(A) states, “If the district attorney or commissioner does not proceed with an action under this section, the person bringing the action or settling the claim shall receive an amount that the court decides is reasonable for collecting the civil penalty and damages. . . . [T]he amount shall not be less than 40 percent and not more than 50 percent of the proceeds of the action . . . and shall be paid out of the proceeds.” (Italics added.) 6 To “collect”

2016Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 425, 430 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 13 , 426 P.2d 173 ] (Crisci) (italics in Archdale).) “An insurer that breaches its duty of reasonable settlement is liable for all the insured’s damages proximately caused by the breach, regardless of policy limits.” (Hamilton, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 725 .) “Subrogation is defined as the substitution of another person in place of the creditor or claimant to whose rights he or she succeeds in relation to the debt or claim.” (Fireman's Fund Ins.

2016Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 425, 430 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 13 , 426 P.2d 173 ] (Crisci) (italics in Archdale).) “An insurer that breaches its duty of reasonable settlement is liable for all the insured’s damages proximately caused by the breach, regardless of policy limits.” (Hamilton, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 725 .) “Subrogation is defined as the substitution of another person in place of the creditor or claimant to whose rights he or she succeeds in relation to the debt or claim.” (Fireman's Fund Ins.

2014(See Garcia v. Roberts (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 900, 909 [ruling on motion to amend complaint during trial reviewed for abuse of discretion].) “Subrogation is the ‘substitution of another person in place of the creditor or claimant to whose rights he or she succeeds in relation to the debt or claim.’ [Citation.] ‘In the case of insurance, subrogation takes the form of an insurer’s right to be put in the position of the insured in order to pursue recovery from third parties legally responsible to the insured for a loss which the insurer has both insured and paid.’ ” (Interstate Fire & Casualty In

2013Code, § 523.)” (Flatley, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 326.) As the Supreme Court recognized in Flatley , extortion “has been characterized as a paradoxical crime in that it criminalizes the making of threats that, in and of themselves, may not be illegal. ‘[I]n many blackmail cases the threat is to do something in itself perfectly legal, but that threat nevertheless becomes illegal when coupled with a demand for money.’ (Philippine Export & Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp. v. Chuidian (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1058, 1079 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 457 ].)” (Flatley, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 326, fn. omitted.) Criminal

2013Code, § 523.)” (Flatley, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 326.) As the Supreme Court recognized in Flatley , extortion “has been characterized as a paradoxical crime in that it criminalizes the making of threats that, in and of themselves, may not be illegal. ‘[I]n many blackmail cases the threat is to do something in itself perfectly legal, but that threat nevertheless becomes illegal when coupled with a demand for money.’ (Philippine Export & Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp. v. Chuidian (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1058, 1079 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 457 ].)” (Flatley, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 326, fn. omitted.) Criminal

2011Co. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 753, 756 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ].)] It is also difficult to think of two legal concepts that have caused more confusion and headache for both courts and litigants than have contribution and subrogation. [Citation.] Although the concepts of contribution and subrogation are both equitable in nature, they are nevertheless distinct.” (Fireman’s Fund, at p. 1291, fn. omitted.) The Fireman’s Fund court, recognizing that there are different public policies supporting the remedies of contribution and subrogation (Fireman’s Fund, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 1296 ), explained: “

2011Co. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 753, 756 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ].)] It is also difficult to think of two legal concepts that have caused more confusion and headache for both courts and litigants than have contribution and subrogation. [Citation.] Although the concepts of contribution and subrogation are both equitable in nature, they are nevertheless distinct.” (Fireman’s Fund, at p. 1291, fn. omitted.) The Fireman’s Fund court, recognizing that there are different public policies supporting the remedies of contribution and subrogation (Fireman’s Fund, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 1296 ), explained: “

2008Rights under subrogation are derivative rights, and succession to another’s rights, like water, cannot rise higher than its source.’ ” (Board of Administration v. Glover (1983) 34 Cal.3d 906, 915 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 330 , 671 P.2d 834 ], quoting Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association v. Pope (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 938, 952 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 695 ].) “[T]he ‘true nature of subrogation’ is that ‘ “it is applied in all cases in which ‘one party pays a debt for which another is primarily answerable, and which, in equity and good conscience, should have been discharged by the latter.’ ” ’ ” (Firem

2008Rights under subrogation are derivative rights, and succession to another’s rights, like water, cannot rise higher than its source.’ ” (Board of Administration v. Glover (1983) 34 Cal.3d 906, 915 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 330 , 671 P.2d 834 ], quoting Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association v. Pope (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 938, 952 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 695 ].) “[T]he ‘true nature of subrogation’ is that ‘ “it is applied in all cases in which ‘one party pays a debt for which another is primarily answerable, and which, in equity and good conscience, should have been discharged by the latter.’ ” ’ ” (Firem

2008Rights under subrogation are derivative rights, and succession to another’s rights, like water, cannot rise higher than its source.’ ” (Board of Administration v. Glover (1983) 34 Cal.3d 906, 915 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 330 , 671 P.2d 834 ], quoting Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association v. Pope (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 938, 952 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 695 ].) “[T]he ‘true nature of subrogation’ is that ‘ “it is applied in all cases in which ‘one party pays a debt for which another is primarily answerable, and which, in equity and good conscience, should have been discharged by the latter.’ ” ’ ” (Firem

2008Rights under subrogation are derivative rights, and succession to another’s rights, like water, cannot rise higher than its source.’ ” (Board of Administration v. Glover (1983) 34 Cal.3d 906, 915 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 330 , 671 P.2d 834 ], quoting Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association v. Pope (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 938, 952 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 695 ].) “[T]he ‘true nature of subrogation’ is that ‘ “it is applied in all cases in which ‘one party pays a debt for which another is primarily answerable, and which, in equity and good conscience, should have been discharged by the latter.’ ” ’ ” (Firem