DeLuca v. BancOhio National Bank, Inc.
Ohio Court of Appeals
598 N.E.2d 781 (1991)
- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
Carolyn DeLuca (plaintiff) worked for decedent Joseph G. Rotondo, a 78-year-old practicing attorney. On January 27, 1989, Rotondo fell ill and called Carolyn to take him to the hospital. Before going to the hospital, however, Rotondo and Carolyn stopped at his office, where Rotondo signed some blank payroll checks drawn on BancOhio National Bank, Inc. (defendant) that were on his desk. Rotondo also told Carolyn that he had one check for her in his desk. Once at the hospital, Carolyn remained at Rotondo’s side. Rotondo told Carolyn that if something happened to him, she was to take the blank check in his desk and fill it in for the amount needed to cover her debts: $75,000. Once Rotondo died, Carolyn returned to his office, completed payroll, and took the blank check. Carolyn filled in the blank check as instructed and deposited the check in her account at BancOhio. Thereafter, upon discovering the transaction, Rotondo’s son obtained a temporary restraining order to stop the transfer of funds. BancOhio then dishonored the check, removed a provisional credit from Carolyn’s account, recredited Rotondo’s account, and returned the check to Carolyn with an explanation that the check had been dishonored due to the temporary restraining order. On March 22, 1989, Carolyn filed suit, alleging that BancOhio removed $75,000 from her account without authority to do so and refused to honor the check. BancOhio filed a motion for a directed verdict, which the trial court granted. Carolyn appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Petree, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.