ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT