Chicago Title Insurance Co. v. Allfirst Bank
Maryland Court of Appeals
394 Md. 270, 905 A.2d 366 (2006)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Mark Shannahan refinanced his home. Chicago Title Insurance Company, through its agent, First Equity (collectively, FE) (plaintiffs), settled the loan. FE provided Shannahan with two checks drawn on its account with Allfirst Bank (Allfirst) (defendant). The first check was payable to Shannahan; the second (Check No. 2) was payable to Farmers Bank (Farmers) (defendant) and was meant to pay Shannahan’s line of credit with Farmers, which was secured by Shannahan’s home. FE also gave Shannahan a letter instructing Farmers how to use Check No. 2. Shannahan did not provide the letter to Farmers, instead indorsing and depositing both checks into his personal Farmers account. Farmers subsequently moved to foreclose on Shannahan’s property due to the unpaid credit line. FE sued Farmers and Allfirst regarding Check No. 2; Farmers and Allfirst responded with interpleader counterclaims against FE. The trial court ruled, among other things, that Farmers was negligent in its handling of Check No. 2 and that FE could not recover against Allfirst for paying Check No. 2 because the check was not forged and was fully indorsed. The intermediate appellate court affirmed those rulings. FE and Farmers filed further appeals. On appeal, the parties primarily disputed whether (1) Farmers indorsed Check No. 2 as a depository bank or as a payee bank, (2) the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) displaced common-law negligence claims for improperly paid checks, and (3) FE had the requisite intimate nexus with Farmers to support a negligence claim (if the UCC allowed such a claim).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Greene, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.