Home Bank of Guntersville v. Perpetual Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n
Decision Date | 05 May 1989 |
Parties | 10 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 879 HOME BANK OF GUNTERSVILLE v. PERPETUAL FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION. 87-1325. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Ralph Smith, Jr., Guntersville, for appellant.
John P. Burbach of Butler & Royer, Huntsville, for appellee.
The defendant, Home Bank of Guntersville, appeals from a summary judgment for the plaintiff, Perpetual Savings and Loan Association. We affirm.
The issues we address on appeal are whether the defendant's counsel was competent to testify by affidavit in behalf of his client; whether there was substantial evidence supporting any issue of fact that would permit submission to the trier of fact; whether a "bank money order" is subject to countermand; and whether the defendant is a "holder in due course" under Code 1975, § 7-3-302(1).
The evidence shows that on July 20, 1987, the Home Bank of Guntersville ("Home Bank") issued a bank money order payable to Floyd Ramsey in exchange for cash or other valuable consideration from Ramsey. The bank money order was deposited at Perpetual Federal Savings and Loan Association ("Perpetual") in South Carolina on July 28, 1987. Between July 20, 1987, and August 5, 1987, when Ramsey presumably placed a stop payment order on the bank money order, withdrawals were made from the bank money order deposit, depleting the entire $17,000.00. Perpetual received notice of Ramsey's stop payment order on August 6, 1987. Home Bank refused to accept and pay the bank money order upon presentment by Perpetual.
On September 30, 1987, Perpetual brought suit in the Circuit Court of Marshall County, alleging that Home Bank had failed or refused to accept and pay Home Bank's bank money order that was negotiated to Perpetual. Perpetual filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the pleadings, facts deemed admitted, an affidavit, and a brief. Home Bank opposed the motion by filing an affidavit of its general counsel, who was also representing it in the action.
The affidavit of Home Bank's attorney stated:
The trial court entered summary judgment for Perpetual and stated in its order, inter alia:
"[I]t is noted that the defendant's atty's [sic] affidavit is insufficient under the law in that the affiant, the defendant's atty [sic] would not be entitled to testify as such and that his knowledge, even if accurate, would have come to him only through hearsay testimony; it is therefore Adjudged that the motion for summary judgment is hereby granted...."
Home Bank argues that, although it may be ethically improper for counsel of a party in a case to testify as a witness without withdrawing from the litigation, a lawyer is a competent witness to testify in behalf of his client.
It is apparent from the facts of this case that Home Bank's lawyer should not have testified in behalf of his client. We find no exceptions in this case to the prohibitions of Disciplinary Rule 5-101(B)(1), (2), (3), and (4), Code of Professional Responsibility of the Alabama State Bar, that would permit Home Bank's lawyer to testify in behalf of his client. Clearly, the matters to which the affidavit relates could have been attested to by representatives of Home Bank and its customer, Ramsey.
Notwithstanding the application of the Code of Professional Responsibility to this matter, the affidavit testimony of Home Bank's lawyer is inadmissible hearsay. "Where it appears from the face of an affidavit that the affiant had no personal knowledge of the matters to which he deposed and that he must have secured his information concerning those matters from others, then the affidavit is based on hearsay and should not be admitted." Williams v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 286 Ala. 703, 246 So.2d 431 (1971). We are not convinced by arguments of counsel and the record that Home Bank's lawyer had personal knowledge of the matters to which he testified in his affidavit. It appears from the face of the affidavit that his information concerning these matters must have come to him from his client or from others. See First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n of New Bern v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 282 N.C. 44, 191 S.E.2d 683 (1972).
Therefore, the trial court did not err in its treatment of the affidavit filed in opposition to Perpetual's motion for summary judgment. Rule 56(c) and (e), A.R.Civ.P.
The standard of review of rulings on motions for summary judgment has been defined as follows:
Wright v. Robinson, 468 So.2d 94, 97 (Ala.1985); see also Kemp Motor Sales, Inc. v. Lawrenz, 505 So.2d 377 (Ala.1987).
We held in Day v. Merchants Nat'l Bank of Mobile, 431 So.2d 1254, 1256 (Ala.1983), quoting from Butler v. Michigan Mutual Ins. Co., 402 So.2d 949 (Ala.1981):
" "
The "scintilla rule" was abolished by the Legislature in civil actions brought in any court of the State of Alabama after June 11, 1987. In cases filed after that date "[p]roof by substantial evidence shall be required for purposes of testing the sufficiency of the evidence to support an issue of fact in rulings by the court, including without limitation, motions for summary judgment." Code 1975, § 12-21-12(a) (Cum.Supp.1988).
The Legislature has defined "substantial evidence" to mean "evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions as to the existence of the fact sought to be proven." Further, "[a] scintilla of evidence is insufficient to permit submission of an issue of fact to the trier of facts." § 12-21-12(d) (Cum.Supp.1988).
Home Bank's affidavit fails to set forth specific facts showing that a material issue of fact exists. The affidavit fails to controvert those facts presented by Perpetual. Home Bank's affidavit is not made on personal knowledge and is not admissible as testimony to contradict Perpetual's evidence. Therefore, applying the "substantial evidence" requirement, we hold that Home Bank has not supported any issue of fact with substantial evidence that would permit submission to the trier of fact. We would reach the same result in this case under the scintilla rule.
The trial court was correct in ruling that Perpetual is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
A "bank money order," where the drawer and drawee are the same, is essentially the same as a "cashier's check" and is accepted when issued and is not subject to countermand by either the purchaser or the issuing bank, except for fraud or failure of consideration, or where payment is stopped by injunctive proceedings. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
STEPHENS v. BANK
...record indicated that the doctor had any personal knowledge of the individual's history); and Home Bank of Guntersville v. Perpetual Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 547 So.2d 840, 841-42 (Ala.1989) (holding that affidavit filed by defendant's attorney was inadmissible hearsay where “[i]t appears fr......
-
Sullivan v. H&M Indus. Servs., Inc. (Ex parte H&M Indus. Servs., Inc.)
...that the doctor had any Personal knowledge of the individual's history); and Home Bank of Guntersvillev. Perpetual Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 547 So. 2d 840, 841-42 (Ala. 1989) (holding that affidavit filed by '[i]t appears from the face of the affidavit that his information concerning these m......
-
Havens v. Trawick
...minds, exercising impartial judgment, could conclude that the defendants had committed a fraud. Home Bank of Guntersville v. Perpetual Savings & Loan Ass'n, 547 So.2d 840 (Ala.1989). See, also, Code 1975, § 12-21-12 et Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the summary judgment was not ......
-
Kennedy v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTG.
...shall be attached thereto or served therewith...." Rule 56(e), Ala. R. Civ. P. Kennedy cites Home Bank of Guntersville v. Perpetual Federal Savings & Loan Association, 547 So.2d 840 (Ala.1989), in support of his argument. In that case, the defendant's lawyer filed an affidavit in opposition......
-
Legal documents
...Am. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 374 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. Ill., 2004); Home Bank of Guntersville v. Perpetual Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n., 547 So.2d 840 (Ala. 1989); Lee v. Schroeder , 529 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 1988). Affidavits that contained the testimony of affiants who were not available for ......
-
Legal Documents
...Am. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 374 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. Ill., 2004); Home Bank of Guntersville v. Perpetual Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n., 547 So.2d 840 (Ala. 1989); Lee v. Schroeder , 529 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 1988). Affidavits that contained the testimony of affiants who were not available for ......
-
Legal Documents
...Am. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 374 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. Ill., 2004); Home Bank of Guntersville v. Perpetual Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n., 547 So.2d 840 (Ala. 1989); Lee v. Schroeder , 529 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 1988). Affidavits that contained the testimony of affiants who were not available for ......
-
Legal Documents
...Am. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 374 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. Ill., 2004); Home Bank of Guntersville v. Perpetual Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n., 547 So.2d 840 (Ala. 1989); Lee v. Schroeder , 529 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 1988). Affidavits that contained the testimony of affiants who were not available for ......