TL;DR
- Chase Bank allowed a woman named Jazzmen Brumfield to drain $47,383.47 (enough to cover a year’s worth of groceries for four families) from a court-controlled “blocked account” containing a dead man’s estate funds — and handed it all to her in just three days.
- A probate court order explicitly required a separate, signed court order before any funds could leave that account. Chase ignored that requirement and released everything to Brumfield, who then disappeared with the money.
- The law firm representing the estate (which was legally owed over $66,324 (roughly what a registered nurse earns in a full year) in fees) was left with absolutely nothing.
- Chase argued it owed no duty of care to anyone except its direct depositor, attempting to walk away from the entire loss with zero accountability.
- A California appeals court reversed the lower court’s ruling in favor of Chase and sent the case back for trial, finding Chase did owe a duty and that a jury must decide if Chase’s negligence caused the harm.
The verbatim language Chase signed — promising no withdrawal without a court order — is quoted in full in Legal Receipts. Read it and decide for yourself if this was an honest mistake.
Chase Bank signed a document promising a court it would never release estate funds without a signed judicial order — then handed every last dollar to one person, in three days, while the lawyers and beneficiaries who were legally entitled to that money got nothing.
A Dead Man’s Money, A Locked Box, and a Bank That Opened It Anyway
When Lamont Brumfield died, California’s probate system kicked in to protect what he left behind. His daughter, Jazzmen Brumfield, was appointed administrator of the estate. She hired the Law Firm of Fox and Fox to handle the legal work — a firm she agreed to pay from the estate proceeds as required by California law.
In June 2018, a probate court ordered the net proceeds from the sale of estate real property — $63,383.47 (enough to fully fund a year of community college for three students) — deposited into a “blocked account” at Chase. The order was explicit: the money could only leave that account with a signed court order. Chase opened the account on October 31, 2018 and deposited the funds.
Seven days later, Chase’s own attorney-in-fact signed a formal acknowledgment — a Judicial Council document — certifying Chase understood and accepted this restriction. The bank put its name on a promise. Then, over a year later, Chase broke it.
The Probate Math: Who Was Owed What
By December 2019, the probate court issued its final order laying out exactly who was supposed to get paid. Jazzmen Brumfield, as administrator, was authorized to receive $16,000 (about seven months of car payments for the average American) in statutory compensation. The Law Firm of Fox and Fox was authorized to receive three amounts: $16,000 in ordinary fees, $44,151.25 in extraordinary compensation, and $6,173.39 in costs — a total of $66,324.64 (roughly equivalent to the median annual income of a school bus driver in California).
The problem: the blocked account only held $47,383.47 by that point. There was not enough to pay everyone in full. California law is clear that when estate funds run short, everyone in the same payment class gets a proportionate share — no one person gets to jump the line. That decision belonged to the court, not to Chase, and certainly not to Jazzmen Brumfield.
On January 14, 2020, attorney Frank Fox personally accompanied Brumfield to a Chase branch and presented the final probate order to a banker named Sergio Chun. Fox told Chun directly: no funds could leave without both Fox and Brumfield physically present, and the money should be paid separately to each party. According to Fox’s sworn declaration, Chun agreed. Chase disputed that. What is not disputed is what happened next.
Three Days. Every Dollar. Gone.
Between January 21 and January 23, 2020, Brumfield made a series of withdrawals from the blocked account. She withdrew the entirety of the funds. The Law Firm received zero dollars. Brumfield absconded with the money.
Chase’s internal transaction specialist, John Chiavacci, confirmed in a sworn declaration that Brumfield executed this withdrawal series. Chase had released the funds to Brumfield as the sole authorized signatory — without a court order specifically directing Chase to do so, without verifying that the final probate order constituted the necessary authorization, and without contacting the Law Firm or the court for clarification.
The Blocked Account: Who Was Owed What vs. What Was There
The Non-Financial Ledger: What Numbers Can’t Measure
Lamont Brumfield died, and a legal system that was supposed to protect his estate failed his family. The probate process exists for one reason: to make sure that when someone dies, their obligations are honored and their assets go where they are supposed to go. Courts supervise it. Lawyers stake their livelihoods on it. Banks are trusted as the physical guardians of the funds. In this case, that entire chain of trust collapsed at the last link — the bank.
The Law Firm of Fox and Fox spent years working the Brumfield estate through the California probate system. Frank Fox personally appeared at the final hearing. He personally drafted and lodged the final probate order with the court. He personally walked into a Chase branch alongside Jazzmen Brumfield and handed a banker the court’s instructions. He gave explicit verbal directions. He was told someone would follow up. Then the bank handed everything to Brumfield anyway — and Fox’s firm got nothing for years of legal work.
The phrase “until it is too late” carries real weight. Fox had no mechanism to monitor the blocked account in real time. He had no alert system. He had no standing to call Chase and demand information about withdrawals on a daily basis. He relied on the legal architecture — a court order, a bank’s signed acknowledgment, a system built over a century of probate law — to protect what his firm had earned. That architecture failed him completely, and Chase’s response was to argue in court that it bore zero responsibility for the outcome.
The minor children named as beneficiaries of the estate — Nehemiah Brumfield and Chaz Brumfield — also had claims to any remaining funds after priority debts were paid. With the account drained and the administrator gone, their share of whatever remained evaporated too. Children with a legal inheritance were left with nothing while a bank argued in court that it did not owe anyone a duty of care. That is the human cost that does not appear in any financial ledger.
Legal Receipts: Chase’s Own Words, Under Oath
The Promise Chase Made and Then Broke
“Chase certified in the acknowledgment that ‘no withdrawal of principal or interest from this account will be permitted without a signed court order.'” — California Court of Appeal, Case B319265, describing the Judicial Council Form MC-356 signed by Chase’s attorney-in-fact on November 7, 2018
The Court’s Finding on What the Final Order Actually Said
“The final probate order does not direct Chase to unblock the account for release of all the funds to Brumfield… nowhere does the order authorize Brumfield to withdraw, or Chase to pay, specific amounts to each payee.” — California Court of Appeal, Case B319265, Section C, reversing the trial court’s reading of the probate order
On What Chase Should Have Done Instead
“To the extent there was a lack of clarity in how the funds should have been distributed, Chase should have sought guidance from the court or required the Law Firm to obtain a more specific order.” — California Court of Appeal, Case B319265, Section C
On Why the System Exists in the First Place
“The probate system reflects a fundamental recognition that the preservation and distribution of the assets of the deceased for beneficiaries require special care and court supervision. And third party beneficiaries are typically powerless to safeguard their own interests.” — California Court of Appeal, Case B319265, Section B.2.d
On Chase’s Own Admission About Its Duties
“In moving for summary judgment, Chase acknowledged it ‘owe[d] a duty and obligation to comply with court orders’ (although it disputed whether that duty was owed to the Law Firm).” — California Court of Appeal, Case B319265, Section B.2, quoting Chase’s own legal filings
On Whether Brumfield’s Actions Let Chase Off the Hook
“[The bank] was held liable for the estate’s loss because its conduct, in opening and maintaining the estate’s account, did not meet the standard of reasonable care expected of a bank. Its negligent conduct resulted in a reasonably foreseeable injury. Thus, liability was based on [the bank’s] own negligence, not on a breach of any duty to control [the co-executor].” — California Supreme Court in Bullis v. Security Pacific National Bank (1978), cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in this case
Societal Impact Mapping: The Damage Beyond This One Account
Economic Inequality: When the Rules Only Protect the Bank
The Law Firm of Fox and Fox is a general partnership — two attorneys, Frank Fox and Claire Fox, working within the probate system. This is not a massive law firm with financial reserves to absorb a $66,324 loss (roughly equivalent to what an entry-level teacher earns in a full school year). For a small firm, the complete erasure of payment for years of legal work is a serious economic blow. The California probate statutory compensation scheme exists precisely because attorneys who perform this specialized, court-supervised work deserve guaranteed payment from the estate. Chase’s negligence effectively voided that guarantee.
The broader pattern is the one that matters most. Chase is one of the largest banks in the United States. It has battalions of lawyers, compliance teams, and institutional resources. The Law Firm of Fox and Fox had none of that. When the money vanished, Chase’s response was to hire outside counsel, file a motion for summary judgment, and argue in court that it owed zero duty of care to anyone except its direct depositor. It took a full appeals court reversal to even get the case to a jury. That asymmetry — a megabank using procedural weapons to avoid accountability for a small firm’s losses — is the definition of economic inequality embedded in the legal system.
The court’s ruling also identifies a structural vulnerability that affects every estate beneficiary in California. The blocked account system has existed since the Bank Act of 1909. Banks have had over a century to understand their obligations under it. The appeals court explicitly held that holding banks accountable in cases like this creates an incentive to take those obligations seriously going forward. Without that accountability, every probate beneficiary — especially minors and non-parties who cannot monitor their own accounts — is at the mercy of whether a bank feels like following the rules on a given day.
Consider the minor children named as beneficiaries in the Brumfield estate: Nehemiah Brumfield and Chaz Brumfield. They had a legal interest in whatever funds remained after priority debts were paid. With the account emptied in three days, they had no recourse. Children in probate proceedings have zero ability to demand information, file objections, or monitor bank activity in real time. The system was supposed to protect them. The bank, by releasing all funds without authorization, removed that protection entirely — and then argued it bore no responsibility for the result.
Public Health: The Stress Economy of Financial Betrayal
The source material does not document physical health harms in the medical sense, but the documented facts carry real psychological weight. Frank Fox personally appeared at the final probate hearing. He personally drafted the court order. He personally walked into a Chase branch, handed over the documents, gave explicit verbal instructions, and received what he believed was assurance that the process would be followed. Then he was left with nothing. The experience of executing every step correctly and still losing everything — through someone else’s negligence — is a specific and well-documented form of institutional betrayal that causes measurable psychological harm.
For the families of people who die and leave estates behind, the probate system is supposed to be the one reliable mechanism through which grief is not compounded by financial chaos. When a bank like Chase treats a court-supervised blocked account as functionally equivalent to a regular checking account — releasing everything to whoever holds the signature card, regardless of court instructions — it introduces financial terror into an already devastating period. The minor heirs of Lamont Brumfield, whoever is responsible for them, now have to explain why money a court said was theirs simply does not exist anymore.
The “Cost of a Life” Metric
The total amount Chase released to Jazzmen Brumfield from a court-controlled blocked account — without a court order authorizing the disbursement.
That is roughly 14 months of mortgage payments for a median-priced California home. It is the entire inheritance of a dead man’s estate — gone in 72 hours.
$0
What the Law Firm of Fox and Fox — legally owed over $66,324 (a full year’s salary for most Americans) — actually received from that account.
Two attorneys. Years of probate work. A signed court order. A bank’s written promise. Zero dollars collected.
Timeline: How Chase Let the Money Disappear
What Now? Who to Watch and What to Do
The Corporate Roles Responsible
- Chase Bank Branch Management and Compliance Department: The branch banker, Sergio Chun, was the first point of contact. His supervisor structure and the compliance team that processed the final probate order without requiring a proper withdrawal authorization order are the chain of failure in this case.
- Chase Legal Team: After the money was gone, Chase’s lawyers argued for over two years that the bank owed zero duty to the Law Firm. That legal strategy prolonged the harm and delayed any possibility of accountability.
- Chase’s Attorney-in-Fact (Unnamed in Source): The individual who signed the Judicial Council Form MC-356 acknowledgment on November 7, 2018, certifying Chase would not release funds without a court order, is directly implicated in the broken promise.
Regulatory Watchlist
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): The CFPB has jurisdiction over large bank conduct and unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. Negligent handling of court-supervised accounts falls within their scope of oversight.
- Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC): Chase Bank, N.A. is a nationally chartered bank regulated by the OCC. The OCC can investigate whether Chase’s internal protocols for handling blocked probate accounts meet the required standards of care.
- California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI): California’s state-level financial regulator has authority to investigate banking practices affecting California consumers and estate beneficiaries.
- California State Bar: The probate system’s integrity depends on attorneys being able to trust that court orders will be honored by financial institutions. The State Bar has an interest in systemic failures that undermine that trust.
What You Can Do Right Now
If you or someone you know has a loved one who has died and you are involved in probate proceedings, demand written confirmation from any bank holding estate funds that they understand and will honor all blocked account restrictions. Get everything in writing. If a banker tells you they will “forward it to the appropriate department,” follow up in writing and document every communication.
Connect with local tenant and consumer rights organizations, legal aid societies, and community mutual aid networks. These groups provide legal literacy and can help families navigate the probate system without relying solely on institutions that have demonstrated they will not protect you unless forced to by a court. Grassroots financial literacy about your rights in estate proceedings is one of the most powerful tools available to ordinary people against institutional negligence.
File complaints. The CFPB complaint database is public. OCC complaints are investigated. DFPI reports create regulatory pressure. Individual complaints, filed in volume, create the public record that forces regulatory action. Do not assume someone else will do it. The Law Firm of Fox and Fox had to fight this case for over three years just to get a jury trial. You deserve to know what your options are before you are already in that fight.
The source document for this investigation is attached below.
Explore by category
Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →Related posts:
J.P. Morgan only paid a $150k fine after committing 250 separate violations.
A $20k Fine for Years of Money Laundering Violations at Sonenshine & Company
Calton & Associates: A Case Study in How Neoliberal Capitalism Preys on the Small Investor
How Silver Leaf’s greed caused a $20 billion implosion.
