Union Planters Nat'l Bank, N.A. v. Jetton
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01609-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-CT-01609-SCT ; 2001-CT-01609-SCT ; 2001-CA-01609-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-15-2003 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Conversion - Fiduciary relationship - Fraud - Right of set-off Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): McMillin, C.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-19-2002 Appealed from: Lafayette County Chancery Court Judge: Glenn Alderson Disposition: APPELLEE WAS AWARDED $109,649.10 PLUS PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST AND ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $27,777.61. Case Number: 99-464 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Union Planters National Bank, N.A., Oxford Square office |
THAD J. MUELLER |
||
| Appellee: | Arline K. Jetton | THOMAS HENRY FREELAND |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Conversion - Fiduciary relationship - Fraud - Right of set-off |
| Summary of the Facts: | Arline Jetton brought suit against Union Planters Bank for conversion of monies which were in possession of the bank because she had purchased certificates of deposit from the bank which also included the names of her two sons as joint owners. She was awarded $109,649.10 plus pre-judgment interest as well as attorney's fees in the amount of $27,777.61. Union Planters appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | To determine whether a fiduciary relationship exists in a commercial transaction, the court should consider whether the parties have shared goals in each other's commercial activities, one of the parties places justifiable confidence or trust in the other party's fidelity, and the trusted party exercises effective control over the other party. A fiduciary relationship arises only if the activities of both parties goes beyond their operating on their own behalf and the activity is for the benefit of both. Here, there was nothing more than a normal customer/bank transaction and there was no reason for Jetton to have justification in a belief that Union Planters owed her some heightened duty beyond that of any other bank and customer under the same circumstances. To establish fraud, there must be a representation of the falsity thereof, the materiality of the false representations, the speaker's intent that it be acted on by the other in the anticipated manner, the hearer's ignorance of its falsity, his reliance on its truth, his right to rely thereon, and his consequent and proximate injury. There has not been any evidence presented of any fraud on the part of Union Planters. Since fraud is not found to be present, the unambiguous meaning of the contract cannot be disturbed. Jetton asked for a certificate of deposit which her sons would have access to and that is what she got. Because the bank has the right to set off the amount it owes the depositor against the amount owed it by the depositor, the bank was not at fault by closing the account and applying the balance to the overdue note of Jetton’s son. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
