Epperson v. SouthBank
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-00056-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00056-COA ; 2010-CA-00056-COA ; 2010-CT-00056-SCT ; 2010-CT-00056-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-24-2012 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Court of Appeals reversed; Circuit court reinstated and affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Certificate of deposit - Withdrawal of CD - May be restricted - Section 75-3-104(j) Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-17-2009 Appealed from: Alcorn County Circuit Court Judge: Jim Pounds Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF SOUTHBANK Case Number: CV08-504PA |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court found that the contract language was unambiguous and reversed the Court of Appeals. The original Court of Appeals decision can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO69797.pdf . | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Carolyn Epperson |
B. SEAN AKINS |
||
| Appellee: | SouthBank | LUTHER T. MUNFORD WILLIAM M. BEASLEY, SR. WILLIAM M. BEASLEY, JR. |
|
|
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: | Contract - Certificate of deposit - Withdrawal of CD - May be restricted - Section 75-3-104(j) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Carolyn Epperson filed a complaint against SOUTHBank, alleging that the bank had breached its contract with her by failing to give her the funds from certain certificates of deposit upon her request. The bank had denied Epperson’s request because she did not present the original certificates. The trial court granted summary judgment for SOUTHBank. Epperson appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment in favor of Epperson. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | SOUTHBank argues that it reserved its right to restrict early withdrawal of a CD through the “may be restricted” language in the agreement, and that SOUTHBank’s restriction was to require presentation of the original CD. Section 75-3-104(j) defines a certificate of deposit as an instrument containing an acknowledgment by a bank that a sum of money has been received by the bank and a promise by the bank to repay the sum of money. It is generally accepted that a CD is a note of the bank, payable only according to its terms. The terms and provisions of the CD create a contract, which determines the manner in which the funds of the depositor may be withdrawn and is subject to the law of contracts. Where the contract is unambiguous, the parties are bound by the language of the instrument. Here, the trial court held that the contract at issue was unambiguous and found that it required presentation of the original CDs. If the trial court was correct that the contract was unambiguous, then summary judgment was appropriate. If the contract is ambiguous, interpretation of the contract is an issue for the trier of fact. Although not specifically stated in its opinion, the Court of Appeals clearly found the contract to be ambiguous because it applied the canons of contract construction and used parol evidence to interpret the contract. However, if the Court of Appeals found the contract to be ambiguous, the matter should have been remanded to the trial court. Throughout the summary judgment proceedings, the parties and the trial court focused on the “forms approved by us” language in the agreement. The “may be restricted” language was discussed, but it was not the focus of the arguments or the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals continued to focus on the “forms approved by us” language. A contract is ambiguous if it is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations. The language in SOUTHBank’s Consumer Account Agreement is not susceptible to more than one interpretation and, therefore, is not ambiguous. The agreement clearly states that early withdrawals “may be restricted and may be subject to penalty.” As a restriction on early withdrawal, SOUTHBank requires the original CDs to be presented, and the bank is within its rights to do so under the terms of the agreement. The agreement also provides that SOUTHBank reserves “the right to refuse any withdrawal or transfer request which is attempted by any method not specifically permitted.” The method permitted by SOUTHBank for withdrawal of funds from a CD is presentation of the original certificates. If the consumer does not comply with that method for withdrawal, SOUTHBank can refuse the request, as it did when Epperson tried to withdraw the funds without presenting the original certificates. Although the language in the agreement does not explicitly require the presentation of the original CDs, as the trial court concluded, the agreement does allow the bank to require certain forms to be used, to implement restrictions and impose penalties on early withdrawals, and to refuse a request for withdrawal if the consumer does not comply with the method permitted for withdrawal. These contractual provisions do not contradict one another or lead to inconsistent results. Thus, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was appropriate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
