Peters v. Riggs National Bank, N.A.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
942 A.2d 1163 (2008)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Rhona Graves had an account at Riggs National Bank, N.A. (Riggs) (defendant). Graves had a stroke and died soon afterward. During the time Graves was incapacitated from her stroke, as well as after her death, an individual other than Graves withdrew more than $130,000 from Graves’s account at Riggs by writing checks and making ATM withdrawals. Riggs continued to send account statements to Graves during this time. The customer agreement between Graves and Riggs provided that Riggs was not liable for any charges to the account unless Graves notified Riggs of any error or unauthorized payment within 60 days of the mailing date of the account statement showing the error or unauthorized payment. Winston Peters (plaintiff), Graves’s son, learned of the withdrawals from Graves’s account when he was appointed as the personal representative for Graves’s estate. More than one year after his appointment, Peters sued Riggs for breach of contract, negligence, and violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Riggs, finding that neither Graves nor Peters had notified Riggs of any unauthorized transactions in a timely manner. Peters appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Washington, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 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.
