Compass Bank v. Francisco Calleja-Ahedo

CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 20, 2017
Docket17-0065
StatusPublished

This text of Compass Bank v. Francisco Calleja-Ahedo (Compass Bank v. Francisco Calleja-Ahedo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Compass Bank v. Francisco Calleja-Ahedo, (Tex. 2017).

Opinion

FILED 17-0065 12/20/2017 6:03 PM tex-21421836 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

No. 17-0065

In the Supreme Court of Texas

Compass Bank, Petitioner

v.

Francisco Calleja-Ahedo, Respondent

On Petition for Review from the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas Case No. 01-15-00210-CV

Petitioner’s Brief on the Merits

HIRSCH & WESTHEIMER, P.C. Michael D. Conner mconner@hirschwest.com State Bar No. 04688650 William P. Huttenbach State Bar No. 24002330 phuttenbach@hirschwest.com 1415 Louisiana, 36th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 223-5181 Facsimile: (713) 223-9319

Attorneys for Petitioner, Compass Bank

930505.20140273/2851932.1 Identity of the Parties and Attorneys

Petitioner: Counsel:

Compass Bank William P. Huttenbach, trial and appellate counsel State Bar No. 24002330 phuttenbach@hirschwest.com Michael D. Conner, counsel in the Court of Appeals State Bar No. 04688650 mconner@hirschwest.com H IRSCH & W ESTHEIMER , PC 1415 Louisiana, 36th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 223-5181 Facsimile: (713) 223-9319

Respondent: Counsel:

Francisco Calleja-Ahedo Michael C. O’Connor, trial and appellate counsel State Bar No. 15187000 moconnor@oconnorcraig.com Lesley C. O’Connor, trial and appellate counsel State Bar No. 24086952 loconnor@oconnorcraig.com O’CONNOR & CRAIG 2825 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 261 Houston, Texas 77042 Telephone: (713) 266-3311 Facsimile: (713) 953-7513

930505.20140273/2851932.1 i Table of Contents

Identity of the Parties and Attorneys ............................................................................ i

Index of Authorities......................................................................................................... vi

Statement of the Case ....................................................................................................... 1

Statement of Jurisdiction................................................................................................. 3

Issues Presented................................................................................................................ 6

Issue 1: The Court of Appeals improperly construed and applied Texas Business and Commerce Code section 3.406 without discussing and, thereby, rendering judgment in conflict with cited authorities from other jurisdictions in contravention of Texas Government Code section 311.028 and Business and Commerce Code section 1.103(c). ............................................................................... 6

Issue 2: The Court of Appeals’ decision conflicts with this Court’s decision in Martin where this Court concluded that the customer bears the risk of non-receipt of bank statements. ................................................... 6

Issue 3: Other courts have interpreted the term “made available” as it applies to Texas Business and Commerce Code section 4.406, and the Court of Appeals’ construction of section 4.406 differs from other courts when it determined that Compass had not made the bank statements “available” per section 4.406, which is likely a matter of first impression under Texas law. ................................................. 6

Issue 4: There are strong policy reasons for the Texas Supreme Court to decide this case and affirm the trial court’s judgment. .......................................... 6

930505.20140273/2851932.1 ii Issue 5: The Court of Appeals exceeded its authority by finding or impliedly finding facts necessary to its disposition which facts are not supported by or are contrary to evidence in the summary judgment record. See Texas Nat. Bank v. Karnes, 717 S.W.2d 901, 903 (Tex. 1986)................................................... 6

Issue 6: The Court of Appeals improperly analyzed summary judgment evidence and/or applied a different standard to Compass’ evidence as movant than that applied to Calleja’s evidence as cross-movant. .......... 6

Issue 7: To support its disposition, the Court of Appeals construed plain language in the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in a manner that effectively eliminated summary judgment evidence that otherwise supports the trial court’s judgment.................... 7

Issue 8: Even if this Court determines that the 2008 Deposit Agreement should apply, Section 4.406 still bars Calleja’s claims because Calleja did not timely report the alleged unauthorized disbursements. ............ 7

Statement of Facts ............................................................................................................ 7

The Account and transactions. ........................................................................... 7

The contract between Compass and Calleja. .................................................. 11

Summary of Argument .................................................................................................. 14

The Court of Appeals impermissibly found facts in support of its decision. (Issues 5 and 4) ......................................................... 15

930505.20140273/2851932.1 iii The Court of Appeals applied one standard for Compass’ custodian’s affidavit and a different standard for Calleja’s. (Issues 6 and 4) ............................................................. 16

Business and Commerce Code section 3.406. (Issue 1) ............................... 16

Business and Commerce Code section 4.406. (Issues 2 and 3) .................. 16

The 1988 signature card is a part of the parties’ contract, which the Court of Appeals erroneously failed to give effect. (Issue 8)............................................................................. 17

The Court of Appeals took expressly inclusive language in the trial court’s order and, without justification, called it exclusive. (Issue 7) ................................................................................ 18

Argument & Authorities ............................................................................................... 18 A. The Court of Appeals exceeded its authority by finding facts necessary to support its conclusions. (Issues 5 and 4) ....................................................... 18

B. The Court of Appeals failed to properly analyze competing summary judgment affidavits. (Issues 6 and 4).... 22

C. Calleja’s claims are precluded by Texas Business and Commerce Code section 3.406. (Issue 1) ................................. 29

D. Calleja’s claims are precluded under Business and Commerce Code section 4.406. (Issues 2, 3, and 8)........ 42

E. Other courts have interpreted the term “made available” as it applies to Texas Business and Commerce Code section 4.406, and the Court of Appeals’ construction of section 4.406 differs from other

930505.20140273/2851932.1 iv courts when it determined that Compass had not made the bank statements “available” per section 4.406, which is likely a matter of first impression under Texas law. (Issue 3) ............................... 59

F. There are strong policy reasons for the Court to decide this case and affirm the trial court’s judgment. (Issue 4) ................................................. 63

G. Without the 2012 agreement and without the 2008 agreement, there is only one writing material to the parties’ agreement in the record, the 1988 signature card. (all issues) ............................................ 65

H. The Court of Appeals improperly construed plain language in the trial court’s order. (Issue 7) .................... 66

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 69

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

LaSalle Bank National Ass'n v. Sleutel
289 F.3d 837 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)
Fernando Tatis v. Us Bancorp
473 F.3d 672 (Sixth Circuit, 2007)
Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson
116 S.W.3d 757 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Southwest Bank v. Information Support Concepts, Inc.
149 S.W.3d 104 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Via Net v. TIG Insurance Co.
211 S.W.3d 310 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
Jefferson State Bank v. Lenk
323 S.W.3d 146 (Texas Supreme Court, 2010)
½ Price Checks Cashed v. United Automobile Insurance Co.
344 S.W.3d 378 (Texas Supreme Court, 2011)
Terry v. Puget Sound National Bank
492 P.2d 534 (Washington Supreme Court, 1972)
First Citizens Bank v. All-Lift of Georgia, Inc.
555 S.E.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)
FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin
22 S.W.3d 868 (Texas Supreme Court, 2000)
Westport Bank & Trust Co. v. Lodge
325 A.2d 222 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1973)
American Airlines Employees Federal Credit Union v. Martin
29 S.W.3d 86 (Texas Supreme Court, 2000)
Hathaway v. General Mills, Inc.
711 S.W.2d 227 (Texas Supreme Court, 1986)
McAllen Medical Center, Inc. v. Cortez
66 S.W.3d 227 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Waite v. BancTexas-Houston, N.A.
792 S.W.2d 538 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Union Bankers Insurance Co. v. Shelton
889 S.W.2d 278 (Texas Supreme Court, 1994)
Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood
58 S.W.3d 732 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.
690 S.W.2d 546 (Texas Supreme Court, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Compass Bank v. Francisco Calleja-Ahedo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/compass-bank-v-francisco-calleja-ahedo-tex-2017.