Rovell v. American National Bank
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
232 B.R. 381 (1998)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Michael Rovell (debtor) wrote a check (check 1) to an agency but later determined that he had overpaid. Rovell’s employee Lisa Fair called Rovell’s bank, American National Bank (ANB) (creditor). Although there was contradictory evidence about the information exchanged on this phone call regarding the identification of check 1 and whether it had cleared, Fair ultimately issued a stop-payment order on check 1. ANB advised Fair to wait a couple of days before issuing a replacement check. ANB’s technology programmed a stop-payment order to be effective at the opening of business the following day. Due to this technology, check 1 cleared before the stop-payment order could be processed. Nevertheless, Rovell, believing that check 1 had not cleared, issued a replacement check (check 2). Rovell filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. ANB filed a proof of claim for the amount of the two checks. Rovell objected to the claim and claimed that ANB was guilty of negligent misrepresentation due to its failure to precisely convey the status of check 1. The bankruptcy court denied the objection, allowed ANB’s claim, and held that Rovell had not shown that ANB was guilty of negligent misrepresentation. Rovell appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moran, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.