Sovran Bank v. Bramble

Fairfax County Circuit Court

Sovran Bank v. Bramble

27 Va. Cir. 248, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 187

CourtFairfax County Circuit Court

DecidedMarch 24, 1992

DocketCase No. (Law) 112080

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Va. Cir. 248 (Sovran Bank v. Bramble) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Fairfax County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sovran Bank v. Bramble, 27 Va. Cir. 248, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 187 (Va. Super. Ct. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge F. Bruce Bach

This case is before the Court on defendant Bramble’s demurrer. Oral argument was heard on March 13, 1992. The Court took the demurrer under advisement.

The demurrer to Count I is sustained. Overdraft is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as a check written on a checking account containing less funds then the amount of the check. Sovran issued a cashier’s check, a check drawn by the bank upon itself, to Bramble. The issuance of the cashier’s check drawn on the bank’s own account did not create an overdraft in Bramble’s account.

The demurrer to Count II is denied. Sovran has properly pleaded a cause of action for unjust enrichment. The Motion for Judgment alleges that Bramble is in possession of money equitably belonging to Sovran.

Sovran has twenty-one days from the date of this opinion letter to amend Count I.

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

By Judge F. Bruce Bach

This case is before the Court on defendant Bramble’s demurrer. Oral argument was heard on March 13, 1992. The Court took the demurrer under advisement.

The demurrer to Count I is sustained. Overdraft is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as a check written on a checking account containing less funds then the amount of the check. Sovran issued a cashier’s check, a check drawn by the bank upon itself, to Bramble. The issuance of the cashier’s check drawn on the bank’s own account did not create an overdraft in Bramble’s account.

The demurrer to Count II is denied. Sovran has properly pleaded a cause of action for unjust enrichment. The Motion for Judgment alleges that Bramble is in possession of money equitably belonging to Sovran.

Sovran has twenty-one days from the date of this opinion letter to amend Count I.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Va. Cir. 248, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sovran-bank-v-bramble-vaccfairfax-1992.