voluntary payment doctrine in California

2023(See Rich & Whillock, Inc. v. Ashton Development, Inc. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1154, 1158 .) Duress is found where a person pays money that is not owed, which in equity the receiver should not retain, to preserve his property or protect his business interests.

2023(See Rich & Whillock, Inc. v. Ashton Development, Inc. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1154, 1158 .) Duress is found where a person pays money that is not owed, which in equity the receiver should not retain, to preserve his property or protect his business interests.

2021Vanguard overpayments: payments at MultiPlan and letter agreement rates after April 30, 2010 are not subject to the voluntary payment doctrine Prime, relying on Steinman, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th 1550 and Western Gulf Oil Co. v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1949) 92 Cal.App.2d 257 (Western Gulf), contends Kaiser’s recovery of the Vanguard overpayments after April 30, 2010 was barred absent a reservation of rights27 and asserts Kaiser did not reserve rights to reprice its payments below the letter agreement rates to reasonable value.

2021(Steinman, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 1558 ; Western Gulf, supra, 92 Cal.App.2d at p. 265 .) In its appellate reply brief, Prime advances several new arguments to show Kaiser’s mistake regarding the contractual termination date is not the type of mistake that would allow Kaiser to avoid the bar of the voluntary payment doctrine.

2021(See Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 10-11 [generally, sufficiency of the evidence supporting an arbitration award is not subject to judicial review]; cf. Steinman, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 1556 [trial court’s finding that payment “was made under protest and was not voluntarily made” was a factual finding subject to limited appellate review for substantial evidence].) As for Kaiser’s post-April 30, 2010 payments at the letter agreement rates, Prime also fails to show that, under the circumstances, including the panel’s finding Kaiser made those payments under the mistak

1967Since appellant did not amend the complaint we must assume that the tax bill was not delivered to the appellant by virtue of any mistake or error on the part of the County of Sacramento. 2 Appellant did not allege that there was any mistake in the tax bill itself, and we must assume that it was correct in every detail. 3 The California Supreme Court in McMillan v. O’Brien, 219 Cal. 775 [ 29 P.2d 183 ], held that one who pays taxes under a mistaken belief in his own ownership is a volunteerer and that, by implication at least, under these circumstances the taxes are freely and voluntarily paid

1967Since appellant did not amend the complaint we must assume that the tax bill was not delivered to the appellant by virtue of any mistake or error on the part of the County of Sacramento. 2 Appellant did not allege that there was any mistake in the tax bill itself, and we must assume that it was correct in every detail. 3 The California Supreme Court in McMillan v. O’Brien, 219 Cal. 775 [ 29 P.2d 183 ], held that one who pays taxes under a mistaken belief in his own ownership is a volunteerer and that, by implication at least, under these circumstances the taxes are freely and voluntarily paid

1959Corp. (1957), 152 F. Supp. 477, 482 , the court said in response to a voluntary payment defense, after stating that the defendant had refused coverage as to the action brought against the assured: “Plaintiff thus was compelled to act on the assumption, as defendant well knew, that the burden was the plaintiff’s alone.