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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT