Rubenstein v. South Denver Nat. Bank
Decision Date | 28 July 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 86CA0840,86CA0840 |
Parties | Seymour RUBENSTEIN and Reid Rubenstein, d/b/a Western Auto Brokers, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTH DENVER NATIONAL BANK and Arnold Parks, individually and as an officer of South Denver National Bank, Defendants-Appellees. . III |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Donald A. Brenner, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Cogswell and Wehrle, Jeffrey B. Klaus, Laurin D. Quiat, Denver, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiffs, Seymour and Reid Rubenstein, appeal a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Plaintiffs, doing business as Western Auto Brokers, were loan customers and depositors of defendant South Denver National Bank. Defendant Parks supervised plaintiffs' line of credit with the bank.
Plaintiffs claimed that defendants breached a duty not to reveal information concerning plaintiffs' financial status. Plaintiffs also asserted claims for outrageous conduct and exemplary damages. Plaintiffs alleged that Parks informed an employee of plaintiffs that plaintiffs' line of credit would be cancelled. Plaintiffs also alleged that defendants told a customer of plaintiffs that plaintiffs were having financial difficulty.
Plaintiffs first contend that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment dismissing their claim for breach of a duty not to reveal information concerning their financial affairs. We agree.
In the absence of special circumstances, the legal relationship between a lending institution and its customer is that of debtor and creditor. Rivera v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 155 Colo. 383, 395 P.2d 11 (1964). While there is no per se fiduciary relationship between a borrower and lender, a fiduciary duty may arise from a business or confidential relationship which induces one party to relax the care and vigilance it would ordinarily have exercised in dealing with a stranger. Dolton v. Capitol Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 642 P.2d 21 (Colo.App.1981). "A confidential relationship arises when one party has justifiably reposed confidence in another." Page v. Clark, 197 Colo. 306, 592 P.2d 792 (1979).
To determine whether a confidential relationship is present here, it is necessary to determine as a matter of fact whether plaintiffs trusted defendants to hold confidential the information they necessarily disclosed concerning their financial status, and whether defendants accepted or invited this trust. Dolton v. Capitol Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, supra. In this regard, we have previously noted that "banks present a constant invitation to intending borrowers, and thus subject themselves to whatever implication or obligation is to be drawn from that fact." Dolton v. Capitol Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, supra, quoting from M.L. Stewart & Co. v. Marcus, 124 Misc. 86, 207 N.Y.S. 685 (1924).
The courts are not in unanimous agreement as to a bank's obligation of secrecy with respect to the account of a depositor or customer at all times and under all circumstances. The reported decisions are in general agreement, however, that, at least, a bank has an obligation to its customers not to disclose unnecessarily, promiscuously, or maliciously their financial condition. State v. McCray, 15 Wash.App. 810, 551 P.2d 1376 (1976); see Djowharzadeh v. City National Bank & Trust Co., 646 P.2d 616 (Okla.App.1982) ( ); Suburban Trust Co. v. Waller, 44 Md.App. 335, 408 A.2d 758 (1979) ( ); Pigg v. Robertson, 549 S.W.2d 597 (Mo.App.1977) ( ); Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren, 309 Minn. 362, 244 N.W.2d 648 (1976) ( ); Peterson v. Idaho First National Bank, 83 Idaho 578, 367 P.2d 284 (1961) ( ); see generally Annot., 92 A.L.R.2d 900 (1963). See also FDIC Disclosure of Information Guidelines, 12 C.F.R. § 309.1, et seq. (1988).
We note that, in other contexts, our supreme court has recognized an interest in the privacy of one's financial records. In Charnes v. DiGiacomo, 200 Colo. 94, 612 P.2d 1117 (1980), the court held that under Colorado constitutional standards, a bank depositor has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bank records of his financial transactions. And in Leidholt v. District Court, 619 P.2d 768 (Colo.1980), the court stated that a plaintiff's right to discover financial information relevant to a claim for punitive damages must be weighed against the defendant's right to privacy and protection from harassment by an intrusion into his financial affairs.
In light of the considerable authority for the general rule that a bank is under a duty not to disclose the financial condition of its customers and depositors, we conclude that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claim for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. There are controverted issues of material fact concerning the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Porter McLeod, Inc., Civ. A 97-B-1133
...see, e.g., Rupert v. Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis, Inc., 737 P.2d 1106 (Colo.1987), which lies in tort. Rubenstein v. South Denver Nat'l Bank, 762 P.2d 755 (Colo.App.1988). A claim for aiding or abetting a tortious act may be maintained if: 1) the party whom the defendant aids or assi......
-
C & C Trucking Co. v. Smith
... ... Sicard, 384 So.2d 1042 (Miss.1980); First National Bank of Iuka v. Mitchell, 359 So.2d 1376 (Miss.1978); and ... In First American Nat. Bank of Iuka, we used Snowden as a reference point, ... ...
-
Premier Farm Credit, Pca v. W-Cattle, LLC
...of creditor and debtor. Rivera v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 155 Colo. 383, 385-86, 395 P.2d 11, 13 (1964); Rubenstein v. South Denver Nat'l Bank, 762 P.2d 755, 756 (Colo.App. 1988). Here, defendants allege only that their relationship with Premier was a long one; that they were dependent on......
-
Zuver v. Airtouch Communications, Inc.
...Colorado,13 which pursuant to the agreement, is the substantive law governing all common law claims.14 See Rubenstein v. S. Denver Nat'l Bank, 762 P.2d 755, 757 (Colo.Ct.App.1988) (holding that exemplary damages for breach of the duty of nondisclosure are available when a plaintiff has an a......
-
Information privacy/information property.
...1977) (same); McCormick v. England, 494 S.E.2d 431 (S.C. Ct. App. 1997) (same). (114.) See, e.g., Rubenstein v. South Denver Nat'l Bank, 762 P.2d 755 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988) (recognizing duty not to reveal information concerning customer's financial affairs); Edward L. Raymond, Jr., Annotatio......
-
Limiting Lender Liability Through the Statute of Frauds
...(Cal. 1988) (no remedy in tort for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing); Rubenstein v. South Denver National Bank, 762 P.2d 755 (Colo.App. 1988) (affirming summary judgment against plaintiff on claim for outrageous conduct, but remanding for trial on breach of duty not......
-
A Survey of Outrageous Conduct Under Colorado Law: Part Ii
...was sufficiently outrageous to result in liability . . . for outrageous conduct." Id. at 1212. Rubenstein v. South Denver Nat'l Bank, 762 P.2d 755 (Colo.App. 1988), cert. denied (Colo. "Plaintiffs . . . were loan customers and depositors of [the] defendant . . . [b]ank." Id. at 756. The ind......
-
Blending Spousal Tort Claims and Colorado Divorce Actions
...at 604. 6. Id. at 605. 7. Id. at 602. 8. Rains, supra, note 1. 9. See CRS § 14-4-101 et seq. 10. Rubenstein v. South Denver National Bank, 762 P.2d 755 (Colo.App. 1988). 11. Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336 (Colo. 1988). 12. CRS § 13-80-102(1)(a). 13. See CRS § 13-80-103(1)(a). 1......