First Tennessee Bank, National Association v. Jessi O. Quillian

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

First Tennessee Bank, National Association v. Jessi O. Quillian

DecidedJune 6, 1997

Docket03A01-9701-CH-00014

StatusPublished

This text of First Tennessee Bank, National Association v. Jessi O. Quillian (First Tennessee Bank, National Association v. Jessi O. Quillian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First Tennessee Bank, National Association v. Jessi O. Quillian, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

FILED June 6, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk FI RST TENNESSEE BANK, NATI ONAL ) HAM LTON CHANCERY I ASSOCI ATI ON, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9701- CH- 0001 4 ) ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. R. VANN OWENS ) CHANCELLOR ) ) ) ) ) J ESSE O. QUI LLI AN, ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

RI CHARD A. FI SHER, Loga n, Thomps on, M l l e r , i Bi l bo, Thomps on & Fi s h e r , P. C. , Cl e ve l a nd, f or Appe l l a nt .

THOM AS L. N. KNI GHT, Gr i s ha m, Kni ght & Hoo p e r , Cha t t a nooga , f or Ap p e l l e e .

O P I N I O N

M M r a y, J . c ur Thi s c a s e or i gi na t e d a s a n a c t i on t o c ol l e c t moni e s due un d e r

t he t e r ms of a pr omi s s or y not e e x e c u t e d b y t he de f e nda nt t o t he

p l a i nt i f f Fi r s t Te nne s s e e Ba nk, Na t i o n a l As s oc i a t i on. An a ns we r

wa s f i l e d by t he de f e nda nt a dmi t t i ng t he e xe c ut i on of t he not e a n d

t ha t t h e r e wa s a n out s t a ndi ng ba l a nc e t he r e o n . He a l s o f i l e d a

c ou n t e r c l a i m i n whi c h he s ought a s e t of f a nd da ma ge s f or f or g e d

c he c ks d r a wn on hi s a c c oun t a nd pa i d by t he ba nk. The t r i a l c o u r t

o n mo t i o n of t he pl a i nt i f f , e nt e r e d a s umma r y j udgme nt a ga i ns t t h e

d e f e n d a nt on t he or i gi na l c ompl a i nt a nd di s mi s s e d t he c ount e r c l a i m.

A j u d g me nt i n t h e a mo u n t of $34, 399. 24 wa s e nt e r e d a ga i ns t t he

d e f e n d a nt . Thi s a ppe a l r e s ul t e d. W a f f i r m t he j udg me n t of t h e e

t r i a l c our t .

The de f e nda nt c ha l l e n ge s t he pr opr i e t y of t h e t r i a l c our t ' s

a c t i o n i n gr a nt i ng t he pl a i nt i f f ' s mot i on f or s umma r y j udgme n t .

The p r i ma r y t hr us t of t he a r gume nt put f or t h by t he de f e nda nt i s

t ha t t h e ba nk wa s ne gl i ge nt by f a i l i ng t o e xe r c i s e or di na r y c a r e

a nd t o a c t wi t h c omme r c i a l r e a s ona bl e ne s s i n de a l i ng wi t h t h e

d e f e n d a nt ' s a c c ount .

Un de r t he undi s put e d f act s in t he cas e, t he de f e nda n t ' s

b o o k k e e pe r ha d, f or a pe r i od o f ye a r s ( 1992- 1995) , f or ge d t h e

d e f e n d a nt ' s n a me on a l a r ge numbe r of c he c ks , c a s he d t he c he c ks a nd

us e d t h e m f or he r be ne f i t . Sh e is now unde r i ndi c t me nt f or

e mb e z z l e me nt . The d e f e nda n t a dmi t s t ha t i t wa s t he pr a c t i c e of h i s

2 of f i c e f or hi m t o s i gn c he c ks pa ya bl e to cas h a nd ha ve t he

b o o k k e e pe r t a ke t he m t o t he ba nk, c a s h t he m f or hi m a nd gi ve h i m

t he c a s h. The b o okke e pe r a ppa r e nt l y f or ge d s e ve r a l c he c ks ma d e

p a y a b l e t o c a s h, c a s he d t he c he c ks a nd c onve r t e d t he f unds t o h e r

o wn u s e . She f ur t he r wr ot e c he c ks t o ot he r s i n pa yme nt of he r

p e r s o n a l obl i ga t i ons .

The r e c or d f ur t he r r e f l e c t s t ha t t he ba nk ha d s e nt s t a t e me n t s

o f t h e de f e nda nt ' s a c c ount , i nc l u d i n g c a nc e l e d c he c ks , t o hi m a t

t he p r o pe r a ddr e s s e ve r y mo nt h. The de f e nda nt a dmi t s r e c e i vi ng t h e

s t a t e me nt s a nd t ha t he di d not r e vi e w t he c a nc e l e d c he c ks nor

r e c on c i l e hi s a c c ount dur i ng t he pe r i od wi t hi n whi c h t he e mbe z z l e -

me n t t o ok p l a c e . Ra t he r , he de l e ga t e d t ha t dut y t o hi s bookke e p e r

who i s c ha r ge d wi t h e mbe z z l e me nt . The de f e nda nt di s c ove r e d t h e

f o r g e r i e s s ome t i me i n 1995 a nd r e por t e d t he m t o t he ba nk on Ap r i l

6, 1995.

STANDARD OF REVI EW

Our s t a nda r d of r e vi e w i n c ons i de r i ng t he pr opr i e t y of s umma r y

j u d g me n t i s a s f ol l ows :

The s t a nda r ds gove r ni ng a n a ppe l l a t e c our t ' s r e vi e w o f a t r i a l c our t ' s a c t i on on a mot i on f or s umma r y j u dgme nt a r e we l l s e t t l e d. Si nc e our i nqui r y i nvol ve s p u r e l y a que s t i on of l a w, no pr e s umpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s a t t a c he s t o t he t r i a l c our t ' s j udgme nt , a nd our t a s k i s c o nf i ne d t o r e vi e wi ng t he r e c or d t o de t e r mi ne whe t he r t he

3 r e qui r e me nt s of Te nn. R. Ci v. P. 56 ha ve be e n me t . Cowde n v . Sovr a n Ba nk/ Ce nt r a l Sout h , 816 S. W 2d 741, 744 ( Te nn. . 1 9 91) . Te nn. R. Ci v. P. 56. 03 pr ovi de s t ha t s umma r y j u dgme nt i s onl y a ppr opr i a t e whe r e : ( 1) t he r e i s no g e nui ne i s s ue wi t h r e ga r d t o t he ma t e r i a l f a c t s r e l e va nt t o t he c l a i m or de f e ns e c ont a i ne d i n t he mot i on, Byr d v. Ha l l , 847 S. W 2d 208, 210 ( Te nn. 1 9 9 3 ) ; a nd ( 2) t he . mo vi ng pa r t y i s e nt i t l e d t o a j udgme nt a s ma t t e r of l a w o n t he undi s put e d f a c t s . An d e r s on v. St a nda r d Re gi s t e r Co. , 559 ( Te nn. 1993) . The movi ng pa r t y ha s t he bur de n of p r ovi ng t ha t i t s mot i on s a t i s f i e s t he s e r e qui r e me nt s . Do wne n v . Al l s t a t e I n s . Co . , 524 ( Te nn. 1991) .

The s t a nda r ds gove r ni ng t he a s s e s s me nt of e vi de nc e i n t he s umma r y j udgme nt c o nt e xt a r e a l s o we l l e s t a b- l i s he d. Cour t s mus t v i e w t he e vi de nc e i n t he l i ght mos t f a vor a bl e t o t he nonmovi ng pa r t y a nd mus t a l s o dr a w a l l r e a s ona bl e i nf e r e nc e s i n t he nonmovi ng pa r t y' s f a vor . Byr d , 847 S. W 2d a t 210- 11. Cour t s s houl d gr a nt a s umma r y . j u dgme nt onl y whe n bo t h t he f a c t s a nd t he c onc l us i ons t o b e dr a wn f r o m t he f a c t s pe r mi t a r e a s ona bl e pe r s on t o r e a c h onl y one c onc l u s i on. I d.

Ca r v e l l v. Bot t oms , 900 S. W 2d 23 ( Te nn. 1995) . .

The c ha nc e l l or i s s ue d a s c hol a r l y me mor a ndum opi ni on i n wh i c h

h e f o u n d t ha t t he r e we r e s ome di s put e d i s s ue s of f act but t ha t

t h e r e wa s n o g e nui ne i s s ue of a ma t e r i a l f a c t whi c h r e qui r e d t h a t

t he case be t r i e d. The c ha nc e l l or not e d t ha t " [ o] ne of t he

f u n d a me nt a l pr i nc i pl e s of c omme r c i a l l aw i s t ha t ' no pe r s on i s

l i a b l e o n a n i ns t r ume nt u nl e s s hi s s i gna t ur e a ppe a r s t he r e on ' "

c i t i ng Ka l e y v . Uni on Pl a nt e r ' s Na t ' l Ba nk, 775 S. W 2d 607, 609. He .

f u r t h e r c or r e c t l y not e d t ha t t he r e a r e e xc e pt i ons t o t hi s ge ne r a l

r ul e . The e xc e pt i on upon whi c h t he c our t ba s e s i t s de c i s i on i s t h e

p r o v i s i ons of T. C. A. § 4 7- 4- 406, whi c h at al l t i me s ma t e r i a l

p r o v i d e d a s f ol l ows :

4 47- 4- 406, Cus t om r ' s dut y t o di s c ove r and r e por t e unaut hor i z e d s i gnat ur e or aut hor i z at i on.

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