Wise v. Valley Bank


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2000-CT-00443-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2000-CA-00443-COA ; 2000-CT-00443-SCT ; 2000-CT-00443-SCT ; 2000-CT-00443-SCT ; 2000-CT-00443-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-31-2003
Opinion Author: Smith, P.J.
Holding: COURT OF APPEALS’ JUDGMENT REVERSED AND TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Duty of bank to depositor - Punitive damages - Appointment of special justices - Evenly divided court - Section 75-4-103
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, Cobb and Carlson, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Pittman, C.J, and Diaz, J.
Dissenting Author : Graves, J.
Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J.
Dissent Joined By : Easley, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-25-2000
Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court
Judge: John L. Hatcher
Disposition: COURT OF APPEALS’ JUDGMENT REVERSED AND TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT AFFIRMED - 12/31/2003
Case Number: 97-0092

Note: The motion for rehearing filed by The Valley Bank is granted. The original opinions are withdrawn, and these opinions are substituted therefor. The Court of Appeals' Judgment is Reversed and the Trial Court's Judgment is Affirmed. McRae, P.J., Easley and Graves, JJ., would deny.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Clara Wise




ELLIS TURNAGE



 

Appellee: The Valley Bank A. LEE ABRAHAM GERALD H. JACKS  

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: Duty of bank to depositor - Punitive damages - Appointment of special justices - Evenly divided court - Section 75-4-103

Summary of the Facts: The motion for rehearing is granted, and these opinions are substituted for the original opinions. Clara Wise sued Valley Bank for damages contending the bank violated certain duties owed to her as a depositor in the course of investigating a fraudulent withdrawal from her savings account. The Bank replaced the $1,500 wrongfully taken from Wise's account along with the interest the money would have accrued through the date of reimbursement. The Bank was granted summary judgment on Wise's claim for punitive damages. Wise appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a trial on the issue of punitive damages. The Bank petitioned for certiorari which was granted.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Appointment of special justices Neither Chief Justice Pittman nor Justice Diaz are participating in this decision. The appointment of a special justice to the Court is appropriate where the Court lacks a quorum. Here, there is a quorum of the Court participating in this case. Issue 2: Evenly divided court Valley Bank argues that when the Supreme Court is evenly divided, the order of the trial court must be affirmed, despite the Court of Appeals having initially reviewed the appeal and found for reversal and remand of the trial court’s order. When the Supreme Court is evenly divided, it must affirm the judgment of the court from which the appeal is taken, even if that judgment is from the Court of Appeals. Issue 3: Relationship between bank and depositors The relationship between a bank and its depositor is simply one of debtor and creditor. The Court of Appeals erroneously stated that the bank was in a relationship of trust with Wise. The statement is in direct conflict with previous decisions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, Valley Bank did not owe any fiduciary duty to Wise. Issue 4: Punitive damages Punitive damages are permissible for wrongs that import insult, fraud or oppression and not merely injuries but injuries inflicted in the spirit of wanton disregard for the rights of others. The sole obligation of the bank, absent bad faith in its handling of the matter, was to make restitution as required by section 75-4-103. Here, the bank did all that it could do to ascertain what actually occurred concerning this incident and immediately made restitution upon learning of the forgery. There was no bad faith by the bank. Valley Bank acted properly in attempting to thoroughly investigate this matter and determine the truth concerning the funds missing from Wise’s account. It took a handwriting expert to ultimately determine the truth. Wise has not met the threshold showing of egregious conduct necessary to submit the issue of punitive damages to a jury, and the Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court