Amarillo Nat. Bank v. Terry
| Citation | 658 S.W.2d 702 |
| Decision Date | 31 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-81-0187-CV,07-81-0187-CV |
| Parties | AMARILLO NATIONAL BANK, Appellant, v. Leartrimus TERRY, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Josiah M. Daniel, III, Underwood, Wilson, Berry, Stein & Johnson, Amarillo, for appellant.
Herbert C. Martin, Amarillo, for appellees.
Before REYNOLDS, C.J., and DODSON and COUNTISS, JJ.
Amarillo National Bank appeals from a judgment, rendered on a jury verdict, decreeing its liability to Leartrimus Terry and his wife, Bessie Terry, for all unauthorized withdrawals made from their respective savings accounts by seventeen-year-old Milton Charles Terry, the natural son of Leartrimus and step-son of Bessie. Agreeing with the trial court's determination that, under this record, the parental liability statute affords the bank no recovery from the Terrys, we affirm.
Leartrimus and Bessie each maintained a separate savings account with the Amarillo National Bank. Neither account was subject to withdrawals by Milton, who did not own any interest in either account. However, between July 16 and October 5, 1979, Milton effected a series of unauthorized withdrawals, which resulted in his subsequent conviction for forgery, from the savings accounts of both Leartrimus and Bessie. The withdrawals aggregated $12,385 for Leartrimus' account and $1,250 for Bessie's account.
When the unauthorized withdrawals were discovered, the bank recredited Bessie's account in the sum of $500, the amount she reported was withdrawn without her authorization, and recredited Leartrimus' account in the sum of $7,385. The bank declined to pay Leartrimus the additional $5,000 in reliance on chapter 33 of the Texas Family Code. That chapter, fixing the liability of parents for the conduct of a child, then provided, as material here, the following:
Section 33.01. Liability
A parent or other person who has the duty of control and reasonable discipline of a child is liable for any property damage proximately caused by:
(1) the negligent conduct of the child if the conduct is reasonably attributable to the negligent failure of the parent or other person to exercise that duty; or
(2) the wilful and malicious conduct of a child who is at least 12 years of age but under 18 years of age.
Recovery for damage caused by wilful and malicious conduct is limited to actual damages, not to exceed $5,000, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. *
Tex.Fam.Code Ann. §§ 33.01, 33.02 (Vernon 1975).
Some three months later, Bessie notified the bank of two other unauthorized withdrawals from her account totalling $750. The bank refused to pay her the $750, taking the position that her failure to comply with the statutory duties imposed on a bank customer precluded her recovery since the bank had suffered a loss. Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 4.406 (Vernon 1968).
Leartrimus and Bessie, together with two others whose names were carried on their accounts, sued the bank to recover the amounts of the unauthorized withdrawals not recredited to their accounts. The bank interposed a general denial and affirmative defenses not germane to this appeal; and, by way of affirmative defense, setoff and counterclaim, alleged that Leartrimus and Bessie were liable to it, under chapter 33 of the Texas Family Code, in the sum of $5,000 and attorney's fees because Milton, by his wilful and malicious conduct in making the unauthorized withdrawals, proximately caused the bank property damage.
The jury, in brief, did not fault Leartrimus and Bessie for the bank's actual damages ascertained to be $8,337.26 as the result of Milton's unauthorized withdrawals, but found that the bank's failure in several instances to act with the reasonable commercial standards of its business was the proximate cause of the Terrys' loss of savings funds. After both the Terrys and the bank moved for judgment, the court rendered judgment decreeing that Leartrimus recover $5,000 plus prejudgment interest, that Bessie recover $750 plus prejudgment interest, and that they jointly recover $2,000 as attorney's fees, all from the bank.
In pursuing its appeal with three points of error, the bank utilizes its first two points to charge the trial court with error in overruling its motions for instructed verdict and for judgment, asserting that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Alton v. Sharyland Water Supply
...because of a gas company's failure to properly lay or mark pipelines was barred by the economic loss rule); and (5) Amarillo Nat'l Bank v. Terry, 658 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1983, no writ) (concluding that the bank's loss caused by minor's unauthorized withdrawals constitutes ec......
-
City of Alton v. Sharyland Water Supply Corporation, No. 13-06-00038-CV (Tex. App. 11/25/2008)
...because of a gas company's failure to properly lay or mark pipelines was barred by the economic loss rule); and (5) Amarillo Nat'l Bank v. Terry, 658 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1983, no writ) (concluding that the bank's loss caused by minor's unauthorized withdrawals constitutes ec......
-
Lechuga v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n, 07-89-0243-CV
...specifically define the statutory terms it used, we must give them the meaning in which they are ordinarily understood. Amarillo Nat. Bank v. Terry, 658 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1983, no Our examination of the statute leads us to conclude that by the use of the term "such notice"......
-
Marshall v. Telecommunications Specialists, Inc.
...a party's cause of action is fatal to the right of recovery, and the court should render judgment against that party. Amarillo Nat'l Bank v. Terry, 658 S.W.2d 702, 705 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1983, no To determine the present value of the remaining rentals, the trial court must be presented wit......