Bank wrongfully refused to pay cashier's check

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In an issue of first impression as to what circumstances an issuing bank may refuse to pay a cashier's check, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in the instant case the issuing bank wasn't entitled to stop payment on it later.

In South Central Bank of Daviess County v. Lynnville National Bank, Bryan K. and Lisa C. Fisher, No. 87A01-0806-CV-256, the Court of Appeals for the first time today considered the propriety of a bank's refusal to pay a cashier's check under the Uniform Commercial Code.

Bryan and Lisa Fisher obtained a cashier's check for a down payment on a manufactured home they purchased through Landmark Housing Center, which had an account at South Central Bank. Shortly after the Fishers signed a contract with Landmark, they discovered Landmark was no longer a registered dealer with Patriot Homes and wanted to stop payment on the cashier's check. By then, South Central's bank manager had already called and confirmed the cashier's check with Lynnville and credited it to Landmark's account. Even after it was informed by Lynnville that it wasn't going to pay the cashier's check, South Central paid out $24,000 to a Landmark principal the next day.

South Central filed suit, alleging Lynnville wrongfully refused payment and sought the amount of the original cashier's check, plus prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and costs. Lynnville denied liability and contended South Central failed to mitigate its losses. The trial court granted Lynnville's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Indiana Code Section 26-1-3.1-411, which is modeled after Article 3 of the UCC, explains the specific situations in which an obligated bank can stop payment on a cashier's check. None of those circumstances occurred in this case, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

"Lynnville's obligation to pay was clear and it was able to pay, but it refused payment on the check as an accommodation to the Fishers, who had no right to make that request," he wrote. "This statute was enacted specifically to discourage that practice."

The appellate court also found that South Central is a holder in due course of the cashier's check, which limits Lynnville's available defenses to those that fall under Indiana Code Section 26-1-3.1-305(a)(1), and none of those apply to Lynnville, he wrote.

Lynnville's arguments that South Central failed to mitigated its damages also failed. The Court of Appeals remanded with instructions to enter final judgment in favor of South Central in the amount of $31,917.55 - the original cashier's check - plus expenses, interest, and any consequential damages determined by the trial court.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.