Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
In 1980, Graves opened a checking account at D. Graves later opened a savings account with D. Both accounts were governed by D's Rules and Regulations. They stated that Graves had 60 days of the mailing of a bank statement to notify D of any unauthorized charges or otherwise D would not be responsible. Graves won a substantial amount of money in the lottery. She deposited her lump sum payment into her accounts at D. Shortly thereafter she suffered a serious stroke and was hospitalized. She lost the ability to communicate. She was later transferred to a nursing home where she remained in a seriously ill condition until she died on November 9, 2002. Between May and December of 2002, someone withdrew money from her accounts through the writing of checks, phone transfers, and ATM withdrawals. P suspects his aunt. P concedes that he does not know that his mother did not want her sister to have access to the funds, nor can he be sure that Graves did not sign the checks. During the 153-day period from the stroke until her death, there were 73 ATM withdrawals from her account, including 72 of them at the $500.00 daily limit for withdrawals. Then, 21 additional withdrawals were made during the 41 days after she died, including 19 at the $ 500 maximum. Altogether, $46,547.00 was withdrawn from the account, including $10,159.50 after her death. A total of 128 checks were written, resulting in her account being debited $84,731.61. P claims the signature on checks does not match his mother's authorized signature on file with the bank. Six of the checks (totaling $62,000) were made out to his mother's sister, and another check was written to her daughter. P contends that Graves did not have the capacity to review bank statements and that in any event, there is no evidence that she received any bank statements at the hospital. When it was all said and done the accounts contained $2,301. P eventually discovered a Riggs bank statement from August 13, 2002, through September 12, 2002, showing that the account had held $92,187.45, but closed at the end of the period with only $58,935.98. P eventually notified D that D may have improperly permitted the payment of unauthorized checks and allowed unauthorized ATM cash withdrawals. P naively believed that D was investigating the matter and was waiting for the results of the investigation. On August 4, 2004, d filed a complaint alleging breach of contract, negligence, and violations of EFTA. D moved for summary judgment claiming that P’s action was time-barred. The court ruled for D. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co