Muff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
| Decision Date | 02 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21–CV–4003 CJW–MAR |
| Parties | Larry MUFF, Executor of the Estate of Joseph A. Muff, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Gail E. Boliver, Boliver Law Firm, Marshalltown, IA, for Plaintiff.
Angela J. Gray, Jesse Linebaugh, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD...429
IV. ANALYSIS...431
A. The Muff Corporation and Farming Account Claim (Count 2)...431
B. The Joyce Paige Muff/Tadd Joshua Paige Account Claim (Count 3)...432
C. The Joseph Muff/Joyce Paige Muff Account Claim (Count 1)...433
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on defendant's February 3, 2022, Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 51). Defendant moves for summary judgment in its favor on each of plaintiff's three conversion claims. (Id. ). Plaintiff timely filed a resistance. (Doc. 63). Defendant timely filed a response and a reply. (Docs. 66 & 69). On March 24, 2022, the Court heard argument. (Doc. 71). Defendant timely filed a response to supplemental authority raised by plaintiff at oral argument. (Doc. 72). For the following reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff's three conversion claims fail as a matter of law and thus grants defendant's motion.
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). When asserting that a fact is undisputed or is genuinely disputed, a party must support the assertion by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations ..., admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(A) ; see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Alternatively, a party may show that "the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(B). More specifically, a "party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(2).
A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law[.]" Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citation omitted). "An issue of material fact is genuine if it has a real basis in the record," Hartnagel v. Norman , 953 F.2d 394, 395 (8th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted), or "when a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the question," Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 409 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Evidence that presents only "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), or evidence that is "merely colorable" or "not significantly probative," Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, does not make an issue of fact genuine.
In sum, a genuine issue of material fact requires "sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute" that it requires "a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial." Id. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The party moving for summary judgment bears "the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which show a lack of a genuine issue." Hartnagel , 953 F.2d at 395 (citation omitted). Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and by depositions, affidavits, or other evidence designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Mosley v. City of Northwoods , 415 F.3d 908, 910 (8th Cir. 2005).
In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts. Tolan v. Cotton , 572 U.S. 650, 651, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014) ; Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 587–88, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citation omitted); see also Reed v. City of St. Charles , 561 F.3d 788, 790 (8th Cir. 2009) () (alteration in original) (quoting Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) ). A court does "not weigh the evidence or attempt to determine the credibility of the witnesses." Kammueller v. Loomis, Fargo & Co. , 383 F.3d 779, 784 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Rather, a "court's function is to determine whether a dispute about a material fact is genuine[.]" Quick v. Donaldson Co. , 90 F.3d 1372, 1376–77 (8th Cir. 1996). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court "need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(3).
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. The Court incorporates additional facts in its analysis as necessary.
From 2014 to 2018 Joseph A. Muff ("Mr. Muff") and his wife Joyce Paige Muff ("Ms. Paige") maintained a bank account with defendant, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"). (Docs. 51-1, at 1; 63-2, at 1). On January 2, 2015, Ms. Paige died. (Docs. 51-1, at 2; 63-2, at 2). Prior to her death, Ms. Paige's son Tadd Joshua Paige ("Josh") lived with her and Mr. Muff. (Docs. 63-3, at 1; 66, at 3). Ms. Paige and Josh also held a joint account with Wells Fargo. (Docs. 51-1, at 1; 63-2, at 1).
On January 8, 2018, Mr. Muff reported suspected fraud to Wells Fargo. (Docs. 51-1, at 2, 4; 63-2, at 3).1 That year, police investigated Josh for theft from Mr. Muff. (Docs. 51-1, at 7; 63-2, at 4).
Plaintiff asserts that in January 2016, Josh began withdrawing money from investments Mr. Muff held with Hartford Core Equity Fund ("Hartford") without authorization. (Doc. 63-3, at 2). Plaintiff's complaint concerns only the Hartford checks that Josh fraudulently endorsed as Mr. Muff and deposited into Mr. Muff's account. (Docs. 1-1; 51-1, at 8; 63-2, at 4).2 The last Hartford check was deposited into Mr. Muff's account on September 8, 2017. (Docs. 51-1, at 8; 63-2, at 5). Josh withdrew money from the Muff Corp. accounts at other banks by fraudulently endorsing checks as Mr. Muff, depositing them in Mr. Muff and Ms. Paige's joint account with Wells Fargo, and then transferring funds electronically to the account Josh controlled using his deceased mother's credentials. (Docs. 51-1, at 8; Docs. 63-2, at 4–5).
On December 17, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant in the Iowa District Court for Crawford County. (Doc. 1-1, at 3). Plaintiff asserts defendant knew or should have known about Josh's scheme given the number of transactions and amount of money involved. (Id. , at 5). As a result, the complaint alleges one count of conversion for funds from the joint account of Mr. Muff and Ms. Paige (Count 1), one count of conversion for funds from the Muff Corporate Checking Account and the Farm Checking Account (Count 2), and one count for conversion of funds from the joint account of Ms. Paige and Josh (Count 3). (Doc. 1-1, at 5–7).
IV. ANALYSIS
Defendant argues that Count 2 and Count 3 of plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because plaintiff lacks standing. (Doc. 51, at 1). Defendant also argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on Count 1 because: 1) plaintiff fails to present a case for conversion as a matter of law; 2) the conversion claim is time-barred by agreement, and; 3) the conversion claim is time-barred by statute. (Id. , at 1–2). The Court addresses each of defendant's arguments in turn.
A. The Muff Corporation and Farming Account Claim (Count 2)
Defendant argues that plaintiff's conversion claim for the Muff Corp. business accounts fails for lack of standing and should be dismissed. (Doc. 55, at 15). Defendant asserts that plaintiff cannot make claims on behalf of Muff Corp. because Muff Corp. is not a party to this case and never had a bank account with defendant. (Id. ). Plaintiff argues that this claim relates to Josh's scheme.3 (Doc. 63-1, at 8).
Federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction and a plaintiff "must demonstrate standing to sue by showing that she has suffered an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and that is likely to be redressed by the relief she seeks." In re SuperValu, Inc. , 870 F.3d 763, 767–68 (8th Cir. 2017) (citing Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins , 578 U.S. 330, 337–38, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) ). If a plaintiff cannot demonstrate standing on a defendant's motion for summary judgment, then the court must grant the defendant's motion. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 562–63, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).
Here, plaintiff is unable to show his alleged injury relating to this bank account is fairly traceable to defendant's conduct. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that Mr. Muff maintained a "Muff Corporate Checking...
To continue reading
Request your trial