Greenwood v. Bank of Illmo
Citation | 782 S.W.2d 783 |
Decision Date | 15 December 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 16208,16208 |
Parties | Tonya GREENWOOD and Mary Ellen Keene, as Next Friend for Jay Greenwood, a Minor, and Mary Ellen Keene, Individually, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. BANK OF ILLMO, a Banking Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Application to Transfer Denied Feb. 13, 1990.
Albert C. Lowes, Lowes & Drusch, Cape Girardeau, for defendant-appellant.
Jim S. Green, Sikeston, for plaintiffs-respondents.
The basic issue is whether a bank, which issued a certificate of deposit ("CD") jointly to A, B, and C, may, on the maturity of the CD, set off its proceeds against A's delinquent note held by the bank when B and C furnished the money for the CD. This court, on the facts at bar, answers the question in the negative.
On October 23, 1981, Bank of Illmo, defendant below and appellant here, issued a CD in the amount of $6,500 with a maturity date of April 23, 1984, and an interest rate of 15.40 percent per annum. The depositors were Mary Ellen Keene and her children, Tonya Greenwood and Jay Greenwood, plaintiffs below and respondents here. The parties agree that the certificate was in such form as to comply with § 362.470, 1 dealing with joint deposits. When the CD was issued, Tonya Greenwood was 19 and Jay Greenwood was 14. 2
The face of the CD included the following:
On the date the CD was issued, it was accompanied by a signature card which contained four lines for signatures. Immediately above those lines was the language, "The undersigned agree to the conditions printed on the back side of this card." Only Mary Ellen Keene signed the signature card. Neither Tonya Greenwood nor Jay Greenwood signed it.
On the back side of the signature card the following language appears:
(Emphasis added.)
On April 23, 1984, the date of maturity, Mary Ellen Keene, accompanied by her daughter and co-depositor Tonya Greenwood, presented the CD to the bank for payment. After obtaining the endorsement of Mary Ellen Keene on the CD, the teller escorted her to the office of the bank's president. There she was informed, according to the testimony of John Cochran, the bank president,
Also on April 23, 1984, according to Cochran's testimony, "proceeds of the CD were placed in an escrow account called Keene/Greenwood Escrow Account."
The bank's brief states:
The three co-depositors, as plaintiffs, instituted this action against the bank, alleging that the bank converted the CD to its own use. The petition sought actual damages "together with interest as allowable by law." 5
After conducting extensive discovery, each side filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court, in a judgment entered February 7, 1989, granted plaintiffs' motion and denied the bank's motion. The trial court awarded plaintiffs $13,577.90 in actual damages. The bank appeals.
In support of plaintiffs' motion for a summary judgment, the three plaintiffs filed separate affidavits, each of which stated that the CD was purchased for $6,500, half of which was contributed by Jay Greenwood and the other half was contributed by Tonya Greenwood. The affidavits stated that the two children obtained the money through gifts from their father and grandfather and from interest accrued thereon.
Although the bank's brief, as appellant here, contains seven "points relied upon," the bank's contentions in challenging the judgment essentially are these: The bank properly set off the proceeds of the CD against the delinquent note of Mary Ellen Keene; "mutuality necessary to a proper set off did exist in that the funds of an individual joint tenant were set off against the individual debt of that joint tenant"; "any joint depositor was entitled to the whole of the [CD]"; "Mary Ellen Keene treated [the CD] as her own, pledging [it] against her personal debts [to another bank] and using her own social security number as an identifier"; evidence as to the source of funds for the CD was inadmissible; the terms of the CD and the signature card comprised the complete agreement between the parties; the statute (§ 362.470.1 set forth in footnote 2) allows minors to hold joint bank accounts; the bank did not have knowledge of the trust nature of the account; the right to set off is inherent in the debtor/creditor relationship.
Adelstein v. Jefferson Bank and Trust Co., 377 S.W.2d 247, 251 (Mo.1964).
Dalton v. Sturdivant Bank, 230 Mo.App. 800, 76 S.W.2d 425, 426 (1934). To similar effect see Roosevelt Fed. Sav. & Loan v. First Nat. Bank, 614 S.W.2d 289, 292 (Mo.App.1981); Mercantile Trust Co., Nat. Ass'n v. Mosby, 623 S.W.2d 22, 24 (Mo.App.1981). In Mitchell v. Bank of Ava, 333 Mo. 1195, 65 S.W.2d 104, 106 (1933), the court said: "The test of the right to set-off is the mutuality of the indebtedness."
A leading text has discussed the element of mutuality, essential to the validity of set off, as it pertains to joint deposits.
(Emphasis added.)
10 Am.Jur.2d Banks § 667, p. 637.
Out-state authorities hold that, in the absence of a statute or a specific agreement between joint depositors and the bank conferring...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Andrews
...N.W.2d 799 (1995) ; Mississippi, see Deposit Guar. Nat. Bank v. Pete, 583 So.2d 180 (Miss.1991) ; Missouri, see Greenwood v. Bank of Illmo, 782 S.W.2d 783 (Mo.Ct.App.1989) ; Nebraska, see Craig v. Hastings State Bank, 221 Neb. 746, 380 N.W.2d 618 (1986) ; New Jersey, see Esposito v. Palovic......
-
Wallace v. United Mississippi Bank, 96-CA-00383-SCT.
...and debts between the parties and right of setoff arises at time depositor's indebtedness to bank has matured); Greenwood v. Bank of Illmo, 782 S.W.2d 783, 786 (Mo.Ct.App.1989) ("[i]t is a general rule of practically universal application at law that, to warrant a set-off, the demands must ......
-
Brown v. Mercantile Bank of Poplar Bluff, s. 17347
...the interest of the parties thereto. In support of this line of argument, Mercantile directs our attention to Greenwood v. Bank of Illmo, 782 S.W.2d 783 (Mo.App.1989); Griffin v. First Community Bank of Malden, 802 S.W.2d 168 (Mo.App.1990); Pollock v. Brown, 569 S.W.2d 724 (Mo.banc 1978); P......
-
Fisher v. State Bank of Annawan
...because of a lack of mutuality. Other states have agreed that the principle of mutuality applies to joint accounts. See Greenwood v. ILLMO (Mo.App.1990), 782 S.W.2d 783 (set-off provision applies only to parties who signed provision); City National Bank of Beaumont v. American Surety Compan......