First Hawaiian Bank v. Jack Zukerkorn
Hawai’i Intermediate Court of Appeals
633 P.2d 550, 2 Haw.App. 383 (1981)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
In 1965, Jack Zukerkorn (defendant) executed a $6,394.21 demand note in favor of First Hawaiian Bank (Bank) (plaintiff). The following year, Zukerkorn executed a $2,500 two-year note with the Bank. However, Zukerkorn made no payments on either loan thereafter. In 1973, Zuckerkorn obtained a car loan from the Bank which he subsequently paid in full. Additionally, Zukerkorn applied for a credit card with the Bank. During the application process he was told by a Bank employee that he owed “a small amount of money on an old account,” and that issuance of the credit card was conditioned on his agreement to pay $100 per month on the “old account.” Zukerkorn agreed and received the credit card. Approximately two years later the Bank filed suit against Zukerkorn to collect the $6,394.21 note, the $2,500 note, and to collect the balance on the credit card in the amount of $4,594.60. Both parties agreed that Zukerkorn had paid the car loan in full, paid on his credit card account but held a balance, and had tendered $500 toward the “old account” referenced by the bank employee. Zukerkorn denied that the old notes were specifically identified and his agreement to pay $100 per month was related to them. He further denied that he paid $200 in cash around the time he made the agreement to pay on the “old account.” The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank and Zukerkorn appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burns, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.