J. B. Edmondson in August, 1959, was a customer of the Bank of America at its West Orangethorpe Road officе in Fullerton, Orange County, California. Credit balances owed him by the bank on August 27, 1959, which, if there were no liеns or set-offs, all would agree, amounted to $6,658.31.
Dating from 1955 to and including August 27,1955, the government (the Internal Revenue Service) had balances due from the bank’s customer Edmondson in excess of eight thousand dollars plus interest on three assessments made in 1955 for deficiencies in taxes for that year, either payroll withholding or F.I.C.A. (i. e. social security) payable in 1955 for the first three quarters thereof. The process of making the assessments, notifying the taxpayer Edmondson of the assеssments and filing notices of lien in the recorder’s office of Orange County, California, was all сompleted by January 28, 1958. Then on August 27, 1959, the date herein mentioned at the outset, the District Directоr of Internal Revenue served a notice of levy upon the bank upon “all propеrty or rights to property belonging to” Edmondson. Thereafter a final demand was made upon the bank. This was refused and on April 11, 1961, the United States sued the Bank of America for its book balances of $6,658.-31 as of August 27, 1959, in favor of Edmondson. 1
Very promptly and on August 28,1959, the bank proceeded to prоtect itself by asserting a right of set-off against Edmondson. It made bookkeeping entries disposing оf the customer’s previous balance of $6,658.31 as follows:
1. On “boat mortgage” indebtedness of Edmondson
to the bank............ $1,130.68
2. On unsecured note .... 1,230.10
3. On four of five conditional sales contracts assigned
by Edmondson to the bank 4,297.53 2
Total $6,658.31
The question of the case is whether the bank’s self-help here was grounded on its legal right under applicable statutes, or did the federal levy get in between Edmondson’s rights against the bank and the bank’s rights against Edmondson.
After a “Pre-trial Stiрulation of Facts; and Statement of Contentions and Issues” was signed by the parties, each-made a motion for summary judgment, for the sum of $6,658.31. The trial court, granted the government’s motion. The-bank appeals.
We have here a case which is obviously related to our case of Bank of Nevada v. United States,
The exact nature of Edmondson’s liability to the bank under the conditional sales contracts (apparently the seller’s ends of the contracts were assigned to the bank) is not shown. Thе debt on the boat is described as “boat mortgage.” The note is described as “unsecured note.” Where reference is made to the conditional sales contracts two items оf $132.33 and $52.14 called “unearned time price differential” are inserted. In simple English one can аssume this pretty phrase means “unearned interest.”
This court is not satisfied that the stipulation tells сlearly how or when the balances became due. The bank thinks it is clear enough one way. The government does not agree and thinks it clear another way. 3
The court is of the oрinion that the stipulation just does not tell enough “who, what, when, where and how” for the trial court or this court to make a definitive ruling. There is enough chance of error if the facts are fully developed.
It would appear that there still is little likelihood of a dispute as to the аctual facts and that the matter could be handled on a more comprehensive stiрulation. Certainly a stipulation should include and could be entered into as to copiеs of all the bank records and documents showing how and when the liability of Edmondson to the bank came about. Eventually it may be decided that the contents of the conditional sales cоntracts, the boat mortgage, and the unsecured note are not too important. But let thе court decide that.
The judgment along with the findings and conclusions of the trial court are vaсated. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion. See Plastino v. Mills, 9 Cir.,
Notes
. The sequence of how Edmondson acquired the balances in accounts for a total of $6,658.31 is set forth in an affidavit which accompanied the bank’s motion for summary judgment.
. The asserted set-off did not fully satisfy the claimed balance on the fourth conditional salеs contract and did not reach the fifth.
. During oral argument approximately an hour was spеnt by the court in colloquy with counsel as to what the stipulation meant. Counsel had diverse but positive notions. The court was in doubt as to the basic facts on the claimed offsets.
. Plastino v. Mills, supra, is a case at the other end of the spectrum. There a simple story was expаnded into an overlong and confused discourse which at points was within itself contradictory, But in both cases, Plastino and Bank of America, the stipulation or pre-trial order can be said to be not sufficiently definitive.