Pinigis v. Regions Bank
Decision Date | 12 May 2006 |
Docket Number | 1041905. |
Citation | 942 So.2d 841 |
Parties | Elisa Simmons PINIGIS, as executrix of the estate of Doris Porter Coyle, deceased v. REGIONS BANK. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Mark Hart, Joseph L. Cowan II, and Khristi Doss Driver of Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC, Birmingham, for appellant.
Laurence J. McDuff and Elizabeth R. Floyd of Adams & Reese, LLP, Birmingham, for appellee.
Elisa Simmons Pinigis, as executrix of the estate of Doris Porter Coyle, deceased, challenges the summary judgments in favor of Regions Bank ("the Bank") in her action against the Bank for its payment of unauthorized checks drawn on Coyle's account and for its alleged conversion of certificates of deposit. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
On September 19, 2003, Pinigis sued the Bank. The complaint contained the following pertinent allegations:
(Emphasis added.) Pinigis sought to recover funds the Bank had "improperly charged Coyle's account [for the allegedly forged checks], in violation of [the Alabama Uniform Commercial Code — Bank Deposits and Collections, Ala.Code 1975, §§ 7-4-401 and -405]." Pinigis also alleged that the Bank converted two certificates of deposit, which Pinigis attempted to redeem after Coyle's death as property of the estate, and sought compensatory and punitive damages under a conversion claim.
The Bank answered the complaint on November 4, 2003. The answer stated, in pertinent part: "The plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited to the provisions of UCC Articles 3 and 4." (Emphasis added.)
Subsequently, the Bank moved for a summary judgment directed chiefly to the claim asserting that the Bank had paid unauthorized checks. In that motion, the Bank argued that "Pinigis's claim that Regions Bank is liable for paying unauthorized [checks] is absolutely barred by the statute of repose stated in the Alabama Commercial Code." (Emphasis added.) More specifically, the Bank insisted that Pinigis had never "identified a particular check that was unauthorized," and, consequently, that "[u]nder the authority of section 7-4-406(f) of the [Alabama Commercial] Code, Pinigis's claims that [the Bank] improperly paid checks containing Ms. Coyle's forged signature or that it paid checks not authorized by Ms. Coyle are absolutely barred." (Emphasis added.)
In her response to that motion, Pinigis objected to the Bank's reliance on § 7-4-406(f). She argued that "[a] statute of repose, such as § 7-4-406(f), is an [affirmative defense]," which the Bank was required to include in its answer, or it was waived. The Bank "did not plead the statute of repose" in its answer, Pinigis insisted, and, therefore, could not "avail itself of the affirmative defense for the first time in its motion for summary judgment."
On May 2, 2005, the trial court entered a partial summary judgment in favor of the Bank. The court stated that the Bank "was not given any specific notification of the unauthorized signatures on checks until the instant lawsuit was filed . . . almost nine months after the last unauthorized check was written." The court concluded that, under § 7-4-406(f), Pinigis could not "hold the [B]ank liable for checks paid by the [B]ank more than 180 days prior to discovery and reporting." The judgment left pending Pinigis's claim alleging conversion of the certificates of deposit.
Pinigis filed a motion to vacate the partial summary judgment. The Bank filed a second summary-judgment motion directed to Pinigis's conversion claim. On August 3, 2005, the trial court entered a final summary judgment for the Bank on the conversion claim, and Pinigis appealed.
On appeal, Pinigis first contends that the trial court erred in relying on § 7-4-406(f) to bar her claims alleging the wrongful payment of forged checks. Next, she insists that the "trial court erroneously concluded that under Alabama law a certificate of deposit cannot be the subject of a conversion claim." Pinigis's brief, at 52.
The partial summary judgment for the Bank on Pinigis's payment-of-unauthorized checks claim was based on § 7-4-406(f); the trial court concluded that Pinigis had defaulted on her statutory "duty to discover and report [an alleged] unauthorized signature or alteration." Section 7-4-406 provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Midland Funding, LLC
...of limitations expires, it does not extinguish the cause of action; instead, it makes the remedy unavailable.”); Pinigis v. Regions Bank, 942 So.2d 841, 848 (Ala.2006) (“The whole theory of a nonclaim statute is to create a defense broader in its operation than the statute of limitations, n......
-
Sec'y v. Robert N. Preston, TPP Holdings, Inc., 17-10833.
...of repose even implicitly by failing to timely assert it); FDIC v. Lenk , 361 S.W.3d 602, 609 (Tex. 2012) (same); Pinigis v. Regions Bank , 942 So.2d 841, 847 (Ala. 2006) (same).Thus, far from there being a categorical rule prohibiting express waiver of statutes of repose—of the sort that t......
-
Pinigis v. Regions Bank
...on Coyle's account. We affirm. This is Pinigis's second appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the Bank. See Pinigis v. Regions Bank, 942 So.2d 841 (Ala.2006) ("Pinigis I"). The facts underlying this dispute are fully developed in that case and will not be repeated here. In Pinigis I, w......
-
Pratcher v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps.
...bank waived its affirmative defense of the statute of repose in a case involving the payment of unauthorized checks. Pinigis v. Regions Bank, 942 So.2d 841, 847 (Ala.2006). A Colorado appeals court determined that a statute of repose in real property cases was an affirmative defense that a ......
-
Preventing Waiver of Arguments on Appeal
...defense, even at summaryjudgment.26 Further, counsel must be specific in identifying the affirmative defense. In Pinigis v. Regions Bank, 942 So. 2d 841, 847-48 (Ala. 2006), for example, the court held that a party had waived an affirmative defense by pleading the "statute of limitations" i......