Haberbush v. Charles & Dorothy Cummins Family Limited Partnership (2006)
Citation: 139 Cal.App.4th 1630. Court: California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight. Decided: May 31, 2006. Opinion: Boland, J.
Source note (2026-10-18):
- Links on this page to
https://static.case.law/cal-app-4th/139/cases/1630-01.jsonare an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.
Facts
The assignee of Carolyn’s Country Pies brought three § 1800 preference actions and obtained judgments subject to an offset. The defendants appealed; the assignee cross-appealed. While the appeals were pending, the Ninth Circuit decided sherwood-partners-v-lycos-2005. Full published opinion, pp. 1632–1634.
Holding
The published portion held § 1800 was not preempted by the Bankruptcy Code, expressly disagreeing with the Ninth Circuit. The actual disposition reversed and remanded the judgments for an evidentiary/procedural reason discussed in the unpublished portion; it did not simply affirm the assignee’s recovery. Full retrieved reporter text and disposition.
Reasoning
The state court considered voluntary assignments compatible with bankruptcy law and found no persuasive reason that parallel preference recovery obstructed equitable distribution. Lower federal decisions were persuasive, rather than binding, on the state court. Published opinion, pp. 1634–1640 and footnotes.
Practical impact
An ABC overview must disclose the state/federal preemption disagreement instead of treating § 1800 as uniformly enforceable or uniformly invalid. This is a preference-recovery holding, not a purchaser-title or blanket lien-extinguishment decision.
Good-law status
The retrieved text records denial of review August 30, 2006. The distinguished label denotes the explicit contrary Ninth Circuit authority, not an overruling or comprehensive citator result. Later controlling treatment in the proposed forum requires separate verification.
Source provenance
The complete published reporter text, including its notation of omitted unpublished sections, footnotes and disposition, was retrieved October 17, 2026 from the Caselaw Access Project URL above. It is an unofficial reproduction of a judicial primary text; the omitted unpublished merits discussion was not retrieved and no holdings from it are asserted. Review details: schema/verification/california-independent-review-2026-10-17.md.
Applies in →
california · assignment-for-the-benefit-of-creditors
Legal information, not legal advice. This summary does not certify all later treatment or decide a particular preference claim.