United Bank & Trust Co. of Maryland v. Schaeffer
| Decision Date | 22 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 107,107 |
| Citation | 370 A.2d 1138,280 Md. 10 |
| Parties | , 21 UCC Rep.Serv. 586 UNITED BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF MARYLAND v. Marvin O. SCHAEFFER. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Patrick F. Mahoney, Oxon Hill (Giordano, Alexander, Haas, Mahoney & Bush, Oxon Hill, on the brief), for appellant.
William F. Higgins, Washington, D. C. (Emanuel Lewis, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGS, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and ORTH, JJ.
In Schaeffer v. United Bank & Tr. Co., 32 Md.App. 339, 360 A.2d 461 (1976) the Court of Special Appeals reversed a judgment in the amount of $5,313.83, with interest and costs, entered in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County in favor of the United Bank and Trust Company of Maryland (the Bank) against Marvin C. Schaeffer and remanded the case for a new trial. Upon petition of the Bank we issued a writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals. Briefs were filed and argument heard in this Court. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.
Judge John P. Moore, speaking through a unanimous three judge panel for the Court of Special Appeals, determined that the ultimate question presented was 'whether the Circuit Court for Rpince George's County properly granted (the Bank's) motion for a directed verdict in an action upon an installment note where there was evidence that (Schaeffer), an accommodation maker, was unable to read and had been told by the accommodated party, who had been his supervisor and friend, that the document he was signing was a 'character reference'.' Schaeffer v. United Bank & Tr. Co., supra, 32 Md.App. at 340-341, 360 A.2d at 462. This is also the ultimate question before us. The Court of Special Appeals found that the grant of the motion was erroneous. Id. at 347, 360 A.2d 461. We reach the same answer as did the Court of Special Appeals, and for substantially the same reasons.
The facts and circumstances leading to the judgment against Schaeffer were concisely set out in the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals. In early 1973 James and Marie Estepp, husband and wife, sought a debt consolidation loan from the Bank. The Bank was unwilling to make them an unsecured loan for the amount they desired without the additional signature of a real property owner in Prince George's County. To that end Mr. Estepp then approached Schaeffer, whom he supervised at work at work at the Tantallon Country Club and who owned real property in Clinton. On May 19, 1973 the Estepps signed the face of an 'Unsecured Installment Note' in the amount of $5,622.69 and Schaeffer signed the reverse side which was blank. The note contained a standard confession of judgment clause. After the Estepps had made a few of the required montly installments of $192.93, the payments ceased and the Bank communicated with Schaeffer, who advised the Bank of Mr. Estepp's new telephone number nad place of employment, in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The Bank contacted Estepp there but, his assurances to the contrary notwithstanding, no further payments wer ever received. In due course, Schaeffer was invited to the Bank to make arrangements for him to start paying on the loan. He endeavored, unsuccessfully, to have the Estepps resume the payments and the Bank ultimately obtained judgment by confession against him in the amount of $5,313.83. Schaeffer's motion to vacate the confessed judgment was granted and Schaeffer filed a general issue plea. He also alleged that the Bank obtained the note by misrepresentation and without consideration to or from the defendant and prayed a jury trial. It is clear from the plain language of the note that Schaeffer was an accommodation maker. Maryland Code (1957, 1964 Repl.Vol.) Art. 95B (hereinafter cited as 'UCC'), § 3-402 and § 3-415, now Maryland Code (1975), Commercial Law Article § 3-402 and § 3-415.
In granting the directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, the trial court said: '(I) do not think that the United Bank did anything wrong in this case in its dealings and I have not seen any evidence here today that it committed any kind of fraud on this particular defendant.' The Court of Special Appeals observed: 'It is manifest that the court overlooked evidence of fraud on the part of the maker, James Estepp, and herein resides reversible error.' Schaeffer v. United Bank & Tr. Co., supra, 32 Md.App. at 342, 360 A.2d at 463. We are in complete accord.
In determining...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cavalier Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Liberty Homes, Inc.
...in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion for a directed verdict is made. United Bank & Trust Co. of Maryland v. Schaeffer, 280 Md. 10, 12, 370 A.2d 1138 (1977). Only when the facts or inferences drawn therefrom lead to but one conclusion is a court justified in direc......
-
Rahall v. Tweel
...89 A.D.2d 599, 452 N.Y.S.2d 645 (1982); Grimes v. Grimes, 47 N.C.App. 353, 267 S.E.2d 372 (1980). Cf. United Bank & Trust Co. v. Schaeffer, 280 Md. 10, 370 A.2d 1138 (1977) (plain language on back of note indicated that the party signed as an accommodation maker).5 The entire text of W.Va.C......
-
Hundt v. Snedegar
...be granted.Schaeffer v. United Bank & Trust Co., 32 Md. App. 339, 343, 360 A.2d 461 (1976), aff'd sub nom, United Bank & Trust Co. v. Schaeffer, 280 Md. 10, 370 A.2d 1138 (1977). An appellate court reviewing the propriety of the grant or denial of a motion for judgment by a trial judge must......
-
Rowe v. Baltimore Colts
...deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made. United Bank & Trust Co. of Maryland v. Schaeffer, 280 Md. 10, 12, 370 A.2d 1138 (1977); Fowler v. Smith, 240 Md. at 247, 213 A.2d 549; City of Salisbury v. McCoy, 47 Md.App. 488, 491-92, 424 A.2d 1......