Cleveland Trust Co. v. Snyder
| Decision Date | 30 January 1978 |
| Citation | 380 N.E.2d 354,55 Ohio App.2d 168 |
| Parties | , 9 O.O.3d 329 CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY, Appellee, v. SNYDER, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where the provisions of a written agreement between a bank and a credit card customer create two separate and distinct classifications of customers recipients of cards bearing account numbers established in their own names (referred to as "Cardholder(s)") and recipients of cards bearing an account number established in the name of another (referred to as "holders of Related Cards") the agreement must be construed as a whole to determine into which classification a particular customer falls. The prefatory language "The undersigned (Cardholder)" in the introductory paragraph of the agreement, by itself, is not controlling.
2. A written credit card agreement which is unclear as to whether the recipient of a card bearing the account number of another is liable for cash advances made to the customer in whose name the account was established must be construed strictly against the party who drafted the instrument, in light of circumstances surrounding the making of the agreement, to determine the intention of the parties with respect to liability.
Alan H. Weinberg, Cleveland, for appellee.
R. Dugald Pearson, Cleveland, for appellant.
This case involves an action on the part of the appellee, Cleveland Trust Company, BankAmericard Division (designated as CTCo), to collect from the appellant, Ruth G. Snyder, for unpaid cash advances made by the CTCo to her former husband, Robert H. Snyder, during the years 1971 and 1972 on his BankAmericard account.
On or about October 18, 1974, appellant Ruth G. Snyder was divorced from Robert H. Snyder. During the time of their marriage, on or about August 18, 1970, Robert H. Snyder applied for a Cleveland Trust BankAmericard. Mr. Snyder filled out and signed both an application for a Cleveland Trust BankAmericard, and the cardholder agreement, and was assigned BankAmericard Account No. 4447-180-598-095. At the same time, on the Cardholder Agreement, Mr. Robert H. Snyder authorized and requested the CTCo to make cash advances to his checking account, Account No. 0410-0068; 4060-1471. Cash advances were made by the CTCo to his checking account. His nonpayment of these cash advances is the subject of this litigation.
At a later unknown time and date, Robert H. Snyder picked up his wife and drove her to the CTCo (Shaker Square branch office), where she had her picture taken and where she signed one part of a two part form; the front side was entitled "Application for Cleveland Trust BankAmericard," and the rear side "Cardholder Agreement."
Unlike her husband, appellant did not apply for a Cleveland Trust BankAmericard. The application was blank in its entirety and contained no personal or financial information concerning the appellant and was neither signed nor dated.
The reverse side of the Application for The Cleveland Trust BankAmericard is entitled "Cardholder Agreement" and bears the signature of the appellant, Ruth G. Snyder, undated and with no checking account number shown.
The appellant and her husband also signed photograph request cards both of which bore the checking account number of Robert H. Snyder and the BankAmericard number assigned to Robert H. Snyder.
Sometime thereafter the appellant received a plastic card entitled BankAmericard which on its face contained a copy of her signature from the photograph request card form, underneath which appears the printed statement, AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE. Below this appears the account number assigned to Robert H. Snyder, No. 4447-180-598-095, and the following:
"Good Thru, 11/73 * BAC." At the bottom of the card is embossed the name of Robert H. Snyder.
On the reverse side of the plastic card appears a photograph of the appellant and a place for her signature, which she signed.
The BankAmericard allowed her to make purchases which were charged to the account assigned to her husband and upon which she was authorized to sign.
The appellant, Ruth G. Snyder, had no checking or savings account with CTCo then or ever. Nor was she authorized to sign on the checking account her husband maintained with the CTCo.
All cash advances by the CTCo were made to the checking account of Robert H. Snyder. No cash advances were ever made to the appellant. Nor did she at any time request any.
Statements regarding the account of Robert H. Snyder were sent to Robert H. Snyder at his Cleveland, Ohio, residence and then at a later date to his residence in Troy, Michigan.
All purchases by the appellant and Robert H. Snyder were paid for by Robert H. Snyder in the year made. However, Robert H. Snyder did not repay the CTCo for the cash advances made to his checking account. Thus, an action was filed in Cleveland Municipal Court, Case No. B-93634, and on August 12, 1975, a default judgment was entered by the court in favor of the CTCo against Robert H. Snyder for the full amount of $797.91 plus costs, which entry remains in effect and is not under appeal.
On September 11, 1975, a trial was held in the cleveland Municipal Court in the same case wherein the appellant, Ruth G. Snyder, presented her evidence in opposition to the claim of appellee that (1) the appellant as cardholder was liable for payment of the cash advances made to her husband's checking account by the CTCo and (2) that the BankAmericard issued to Ruth G. Snyder was a joint account upon which both the defendant and her husband were jointly and severally liable.
The appellant used the BankAmericard issued to her to make four purchases, as evidenced by appellee's Exhibits A, B, C and D, received in evidence.
Exhibit A, 11/ 8/71 D O Summers $14.81
Exhibit B, 2/19/72 Noble Photo $26.18
Exhibit C, 4/ 1/72 D O Summers $ 3.03
Exhibit D, 6/29/? Casual Center $ 9.40
All of the above purchases were paid for by Mr. Snyder in the years made.
In accord with a Stipulation entered into, the total purchases, payments and advances as regards the account of Robert H. Snyder were as follows:
(Other amounts not shown to make up total amount of appellant's claim are finance and service charges.)
The appellee called two witnesses on its behalf, appellant, Ruth G. Snyder, for cross-examination and Mr. Robert J. Vale, an employee of CTCo, for direct examination. On cross-examination, Mr. Robert J. Vale admitted that he had been employed by the CTCo for only 2 years and had not commenced his employment until August of 1973, almost 3 years following Mr. Robert H. Snyder's receiving a BankAmericard from the CTCo. Mr. Vale testified that he was employed as a collector and that he had never personally taken an Application for a BankAmericard while employed by the CTCo. He testified that he had not personally issued any request cards for the taking of photographs for use with CTCo of BankAmericards, and had not attended the signing of photo request cards by persons who were having their pictures taken. Nor was Mr. Vale in the employ of the CTCo when the appellant and her former husband had their pictures taken or when her husband signed for his application for a Cleveland Trust BankAmericard and Cardholder Agreement, or when the plastic BankAmericard was issued to the appellant for her use.
The appellant was the only witness to testify on her behalf. Her testimony was unrebutted.
Appellant contended that she was not a Cardholder because (1) she made no application for a BankAmericard, (2) signed no application for a BankAmericard, (3) no BankAmericard was issued to her as Cardholder, and that at the most she was issued a "Related Card." 1 Therefore, as a recipient of a "Related Card," was neither jointly nor severally liable for her ex-husband's unpaid cash advances.
Appellant's further contention was that the only party liable by contract with the CTCo was her ex-husband, Robert H. Snyder, against whom the appellee obtained a judgment on August 12, 1975.
The appellant additionally maintained that the appellee was estopped, by its own actions in the issuing of the BankAmericard to her as it did, and the procedures followed by it thereafter, from claiming payment from the appellant, and that the appellant should have been dismissed. Both sides submitted briefs. Seven months after trial, on August 12, 1976, the court made the following Judgment Entry:
"Parties in court; trial had; Court finds and renders judgment for plaintiff against defendant Ruth Snyder for $835.91 and costs. ($76.00) Interest from 8/23/74.
Judge" From this Judgment Entry, the appellant filed her appeal, relying on eight assignments of error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CITIBANK (SD), NA v. Hauff
...courts have construed the agreement strictly against the credit card issuer who drafted the agreement. Cleveland Trust Co. v. Snyder, 55 Ohio App.2d 168, 380 N.E.2d 354, 360 (1978). We will not, however, "seek out a strained or unusual meaning for the benefit of [one party]." (citations omi......
-
Rumford Ins. Co., Inc., Dba Seaway Warehouse v. Francis X. Wack Dba Mid-State Surplus
... ... fiduciary relationship is "one in which special ... confidence and trust [are] reposed in the integrity and ... fidelity of another and there is a resulting position ... Additionally, the Ohio Supreme Court, in Seasons Coal Co. v ... Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St. 3d 77, 79-80, held as follows: ... "While we agree with the proposition ... Miller ... (1965), 2 Ohio St. 2d 189, 192. See also, Cleveland Trust Co ... v. Snyder (1978), 55 Ohio App. 2d 168, 177. In interpreting a ... provision in a written contract, the ... ...
-
Smith v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 20-3004
... ... have legal effect. See Cleveland Tr. Co. v. Snyder , ... 380 N.E.2d 354, 359 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978) (refusing to give ... federal courts construe state law." Scott v. Bank ... One Trust Co., N.A. , 577 N.E.2d 1077, 1080 (Ohio 1991) ... (per curiam). "Certification ensures that ... ...
-
Seringetti Const. Co. v. City of Cincinnati
...Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Lodge No. 1194 v. Sargeant Indus., Inc. (C.A. 6, 1975), 522 F.2d 280; Cleveland Trust Co. v. Snyder (1978), 55 Ohio App.2d 168, 9 O.O.3d 329, 380 N.E.2d 354. Instead, the court must give effect to the language of the contract, Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. B......