Tifton Bank & Trust Co. v. Knight's Furniture Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. A94A1073,A94A1073
• Citation: 452 S.E.2d 219,215 Ga.App. 471
• Parties: , 25 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1151 TIFTON BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. KNIGHT'S FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 219

452 S.E.2d 219

215 Ga.App. 471, 25 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1151

TIFTON BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. KNIGHT'S FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.

No. A94A1073.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Dec. 5, 1994.

Groover & Childs, Denmark Groover, Jr., Gregory C. Sowell, for appellant.

Thomas H. Pittman, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

Shirley Knight, president of Knight's Furniture Company, Inc., retained attorney Ernest Yates to represent the company in negotiations with her insurance carrier in connection with a fire loss suffered at the company store in Tifton, Georgia. Knight authorized Yates to settle the company's claim under the policy for $320,000. The insurance company sent Yates an acceptance draft in that amount payable through First National Bank of Atlanta. The draft was made payable to "Knight's Furniture Company Inc & Ernest J Yates, Its Attorney." Yates presented the draft to Tifton Bank & Trust Company for deposit into his firm's trust account. When presented, the draft was endorsed on the back: "Knights Furniture Company, Inc by Ernest J. Yates, its attorney And Ernest J Yates." After Knight made repeated inquiries about the insurance proceeds and informed Yates of her pressing financial needs, Yates advanced her $16,863 from the trust account, never disclosing to Knight that he had already received, endorsed, and deposited the draft. Two weeks later Yates committed suicide. At the time of his death, only $55,717 remained in Yates' trust account. Knight's filed this conversion action against the Bank, alleging the Bank had wrongfully accepted the draft for deposit. The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Knight's for $320,000, together with $25,000 in punitive damages and $80,000 in attorney fees and expenses of litigation. The Bank appeals.

1. The Bank contends that the evidence was insufficient to authorize the verdict because: (a) Yates, as attorney for Knight's, had authority to act on behalf of Knight's; (b) the Bank's actions were commercially reasonable; and (c) Knight's ratified the endorsement.

(a) Generally, a bank which accepts for deposit a check containing a forged endorsement is liable for conversion. O.C.G.A. § 11-3-419(1)(c); Trust Co. Bank of Augusta v. Henderson, 185 Ga.App. 367, 369(1), 364 S.E.2d 289 (1987). Forgery includes the endorser knowingly signing and presenting a check so as to give the appearance of authority which he does not have. See O.C.G.A. § 16-9-2(a); Henderson, supra at 369, 364 S.E.2d 289. At trial, Knight testified that she had expressly forbidden Yates to endorse any draft on behalf of the company. This testimony was uncontradicted. We hold that because Yates did not have authority to sign and present the draft, he committed a forgery for which the Bank is liable.

In support of its argument to the contrary, the Bank relies upon John Bean Mfg. Co. v. Citizens Bank of Gainesville, 60 Ga.App. 615, 617-618, 4 S.E.2d 924 (1939), which held that an attorney employed to collect an account has implied authority to endorse his client's name to a check in order to convert it to cash. Id. at 617, 4 S.E.2d 924. There is nothing in the John Bean opinion indicating that the client in that case expressly prohibited the attorney from endorsing his client's name on the check. The court found implied authority where apparently there was silence.

Any time authority as ancient as the John Bean case is relied upon, it raises a red flag. Consequently, we have carefully examined the history of the case. From September 1939 until the present, John Bean has only rarely been cited by Georgia's appellate courts for the proposition for which the Bank cites it here. One such case cites John Bean as support for its holding that an attorney may do whatever is necessary, including file suit, to effectuate the collection of a claim, unless the client has given him direct instructions to the contrary. M & M/Mars v. Jones, 129 Ga.App. 389, 392(6), 199 S.E.2d 617 (1973). In another case, Pope v. State, 179 Ga.App. 739, 347 S.E.2d 703 (1986), a majority of this court held that the jury in a criminal case was authorized to find an attorney guilty of forgery for endorsing his clients' names on a settlement check, although it added that the endorsement was a forgery only if the writing purported to be his clients' writing. Id. at 741(1), 347 S.E.2d 703. We note that Pope did not involve the question of a bank's liability for accepting a check containing such an endorsement. In a special concurrence in Pope, Presiding Judge Deen stated that the authority given attorneys by John Bean should not include endorsing a client's name on a check unless it is clearly authorized. Pope, supra at 745, 347 S.E.2d 703. As the majority noted in Pope, the holding in John Bean appears to be contrary to the view adopted in the majority of jurisdictions. Id. at 741, n. 1, 347 S.E.2d 703; see also In re Johnson, 552 N.E.2d 703, 133 Ill.2d 516, 142 Ill.Dec. 112 (1989); Third Nat. Bank etc. Co. v. Diamond Savings etc. Co., 540 N.E.2d 272, 43 Ohio App.3d 140 (1987). The most recent case relying on John Bean for the proposition that an attorney is authorized to endorse his client's name on a negotiable instrument is Titus v. Commercial Bank, Douglasville, 214 Ga.App. 657, 448 S.E.2d 753 (1994). There the court held that an attorney has implied authority to endorse and deposit a check made payable to his client, regardless of the fact that the attorney was expressly denied authority to do so.

We are of the opinion that John Bean, to the extent it allows a bank to escape liability when it pays a check on an attorney's unauthorized endorsement of his client's name, is inconsistent with and is therefore superseded by Georgia's adoption in 1962 of the Uniform Commercial Code. See generally, Jacobs v. Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, 125 Ga.App. 462, 465(1), 188 S.E.2d 250 (1972). In enacting O.C.G.A. § 11-3-419(1)(c) and § 16-9-2(a), the legislature saw fit to hold banks liable for accepting for deposit checks endorsed without the authority of the payee, despite the holding in John Bean. The legislature could have but did not carve out an exception for attorneys. "All statutes are presumed to be enacted by the General Assembly with full knowledge of the existing condition of the law and with reference to it, and are therefore to be construed in connection and in harmony with the existing law, and as a part of a general and uniform system of jurisprudence, and their meaning and effect is to be determined in connection, not only with the common law and the Constitution, but also with reference to other statutes and decisions of the courts." (Citations omitted.) Plantation Pipe Line Co. v. City of Bremen, 227 Ga. 1, 9(3), 178 S.E.2d 868 (1970). We note that in both Titus and the case before us the payees gave the banks absolutely no indication whatsoever that they even employed the attorneys, let alone that the attorneys were authorized to endorse the payees' names. To hold that there was authority under these circumstances is inconsistent with the well-established rule that there can be no apparent agency where there were no manifestations of authority by the principal. Marcoux v. Northside Realty Assoc., 207 Ga.App. 99, 100(1), 427 S.E.2d 72 (1993); Addley v. Beizer, 205 Ga.App. 714, 718, 423 S.E.2d 398 (1992).

We also find John Bean to be inconsistent with those rules governing the conduct of attorneys in this state. Georgia's Supreme Court has stated that it is a violation of State Bar Rule 4-102, Standard 4, for an attorney to endorse a draft on behalf of a client without permission. In the Matter of Antinoro, 253 Ga. 296, 319 S.E.2d 460 (1984); see also In the Matter of Frederick M. Scherma, 255 Ga. 206, 336 S.E.2d 570 (1985). Moreover, public policy would not allow attorneys to be exempt from laws against endorsing checks without authority. To borrow Judge Birdsong's language from Vandiver v. McFarland, 179 Ga.App. 411, 413, 346 S.E.2d 854 (1986), the public would "recoil in horror and deny it" if told an attorney can lawfully sign his client's name to a check made payable to the client and then deposit it into his own account even if the client expressly tells the attorney not to do so. Attorneys should have authority to endorse or present for deposit checks or drafts on which their clients are payees only when they have been expressly given that authority. Banks should not assume that such authority exists. Accordingly, to the extent that John Bean and Titus hold otherwise, they are overruled.

The measure of damages for conversion of an instrument is presumed to be the face amount of the instrument. See OCGA § 11-3-419(2). Here, however, it is undisputed that Knight's received an advance from Yates' trust account with the Bank in the amount of $16,863. The Bank is entitled to a credit in that amount, for while the jury was authorized by the evidence to find against the Bank on the conversion issue, it was not authorized to award Knight's the face amount of the draft given this undisputed evidence. The judgment should have reflected a reduction in this amount, and therefore it is vacated and the case remanded with direction that judgment be entered in the principal amount of $303,137.

(b) The Bank also argues that it is absolved from liability pursuant to OCGA § 11-3-419(3) because it acted in good faith and in accordance with reasonable commercial standards. Whether reasonable commercial standards have been met is a question of fact to be resolved by the jury. The test is whether a reasonable person in accordance with reasonable commercial standards would be put on notice of some impropriety appearing either from the form of the instrument and its endorsements or from knowledge of facts outside the instrument itself. Trust Co. of Ga. Bank of Savannah v. Port Terminal etc. Co., 153 Ga.App. 735, 740(1), 266 S.E.2d 254 (1980). Where endorsements are irregular on their face, and when the draft is...