Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Court rule for joint chequing accounts

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Please analyze the 2 question below:

    1. Steven had a joint checking account with his mother at City National Bank. Between January and May 1990, a number of checks were allegedly forged on the account. Steven asked City National to recredit the account for the amount of the checks, but the bank refused. In March 1992, Steven filed a lawsuit against the bank. City National filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the suit was barred because Steven did not file it within a year of City National's making available to Steven the bank statements that reflected the forged checks. Steven argued that the only requirement was that he notify the bank of any unauthorized signatures within a year. How should the court rule?

    2. Frank Hartman, Jr., and Robert Wiesner visited the site of a derailment of a Burlington Northern (BN) train to bid on lumber carried on the train. Hartman was to provide the salvage expertise, and Wiesner was to provide the know-how to sell the lumber. They submitted a bid of $113,663, which BN accepted. To make the payment, Hartman and Wiesner contacted Dave Anderson, who contacted Doug Feller, the managing partner of BBD Partnership. Hartman, Wiesner, Anderson, and Feller agreed to share profits from the sale of the lumber. BBD then borrowed the money to pay BN. BBD, through Feller, had promised to get involved only if it could own the lumber, however. Thus on the bill of sale, BN entered the names "Hartman Construction" and "Feller Associates," a sole proprietorship owned by Feller. BBD later sold its interest in the deal to another party. Two years later, Hartman, Wiesner, BBD, and Feller became involved in a lawsuit over the funds that BBD had borrowed. Was the deal between the parties a joint venture or simply a loan from BBD to Hartman and the others? Discuss fully.

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 4:26 am ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    1. Let's take a look at this case. Steven and his mom have a joint checking account. In 1990, a forgery was committed involving the joint checking account. Steven requested that the bank replenish the involved funds. We don't know when he requested this. In 1992, he filed suit against the bank because they refused to replenish the funds. The main question is if the lawsuit is allowable because it was not filed within a year of the incident, even though we can assume Steven made the request to replenish the funds before the one-year period. Steven argues that the only requirement from a legal standpoint is that he notify the bank of the forgery.

    One of the main issues is called the One Year Bar. This rule states that "Notwithstanding the drawee bank's ordinary care or lack thereof, if the customer fails to report the alteration within one year of receiving the item or the statement, the customer is barred from passing on the loss" (National Check Fraud Center, ...

    Solution Summary

    This solution discusses each of the finance scenarios presented.