Superior Court of Monterey County (California)

Appellant, a guardian of the person and estate of a minor, sought review of a decision by the Superior Court of Monterey County (California), which, in a decree settling the final account of the guardian for respondent minor, denied the guardian credit for money of the minor that had been deposited by the guardian in a bank and was on deposit in the bank at the time of its failure.

The guardian, in depositing the minor's money, relied entirely upon the advice of his attorney and surety in the selection of the bank. The deposit was made in such a manner that money could be withdrawn only upon the signatures of the surety and the guardian. The bankbook was kept in the possession of the surety. Without notice the bank ceased operating, at which time the minor's money was still on deposit with the bank. The trial court denied the guardian credit for the money on deposit. Check the list of Nakase Wade employment lawyers and visit them.

On appeal, the court held that the guardian was liable to the minor for the money lost by the failure of the bank. The court found that the effect of the guardian's arrangement with his surety was to give the surety an effectual veto power over any attempted withdrawal of any of the money on deposit. The court stated that when the guardian entered into the arrangement with the surety and surrendered or limited his control over the fund, he becomes a guarantor of the fund. The court noted that it was the duty of the guardian to withdraw the money from the bank upon the slightest indication of loss and that his arrangement with the surety prevented him from promptly performing his duty.

 The court affirmed the decree of the trial court.

Appellant challenged an order of the Solano County Superior Court (California) declaring him a ward of the juvenile court after the court sustained a petition, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 602, alleging he committed battery on a police officer, Cal. Penal Code § 243(b), and resisted arrest, Cal. Penal Code § 148(a).

Appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support findings that he battered a police officer and resisted arrest because the officer was not engaged in the lawful performance of his duty when he detained appellant. With one dissent, the court affirmed the lower court's orders. The state constitution and state legislature emphasized the importance of promoting safe schools, making schools special places in terms of public access. Thus, where the officer recognized that appellant was an outsider to the school and the officer knew that the assistant principal's interaction with appellant was unsatisfactory, the officer had the authority to detain appellant to investigate who he was and why he was on school grounds. Further, in light of appellant's refusal to stop and the escalation of his physical resistance, the officer's use of force was reasonable.

Order declaring appellant a ward of the juvenile court affirmed. The officer who detained appellant was acting within his lawful authority; thus, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the findings that appellant battered a police officer and resisted arrest.