However, as the People correctly point out, Michael does not contest his guilt of violating Financial Code section 17200 when Realty Service Escrow acted as escrow agent in the purchase of the Alhambra Lane, Perris property, which concluded on June 7, 2006. Turning to extrinsic considerations, Michael finds support for his position in Escrow Institute of California v. Pierno (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 361, 366, 368, 100 Cal.Rptr. 880. Therein, independent escrow agents contended, inter alia, that Financial Code section 17200's requirement that they must be a corporation was unfair or unreasonable. (Pierno at p. 365, 100 Cal.Rptr. 880.) The appellate court responded, “[C]onsideration is to be given to the fact that an independent escrow agent may be handling numerous escrows involving substantial sums of money and in various stages of progress.

1951, ch. 364, § 17205, p. 1109) as part of a comprehensive statutory scheme known as the "Escrow Law" (Fin. Code, § 17000 et seq.), but no court has interpreted the limitations provision of section 17205. As the court explained in Escrow Institute of Cal. v. Pierno (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 361, 366 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 880], the Escrow Law is intended to "protect the public from unfair, fraudulent and incompetent service in the handling of escrows." Generally, statutes of limitation are triggered on the date of injury, and the plaintiff's ignorance of the injury does not toll the statute.

There have been a number of appellate decisions upholding the constitutionality of statutes by judgment on pleadings, without trial. (See e.g., Escrow Institute of Cal. v. Pierno (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 361 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 880]: Reed v. City County of San Francisco (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 23 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 543].) We review briefly the principles applicable to such a contention.

However, as the People correctly point out, Michael does not contest his guilt of violating Financial Code section 17200 when Realty Service Escrow acted as escrow agent in the purchase of the Alhambra Lane, Perris property, which concluded on June 7, 2006. Turning to extrinsic considerations, Michael finds support for his position in Escrow Institute of California v. Pierno (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 361, 366, 368. Therein, independent escrow agents contended, inter alia, that Financial Code section 17200's requirement that they must be a corporation was unfair or unreasonable. (Pierno at p. 365.)

And Redwood does not argue that Klyse and Davis would have suffered the same harm whether or not Redwood complied with the escrow laws—public protection laws that are there to prevent the exact harm that Klyse suffered here. (See Escrow Institute of Cal. v. Pierno (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 356, 366 ["the purpose of protecting the public from unfair, fraudulent and incompetent service in the handling of escrows."].) DISPOSITION