Stowell v. Cloquet Co-op Credit Union
Minnesota Supreme Court
557 N.W.2d 567 (1997)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Cloquet Credit Union (Credit Union) (defendant) operated an automatic check-processing system used throughout the banking industry. Credit Union sent to its customers monthly bank statements listing each account transaction, relying on customer notification to identify potential fraud or error. Randall Stowell (plaintiff) opened an account with Credit Union, at which time he signed a Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Agreement) informing him that, if he did not object within 20 days from the date of mailing, the statement would be considered accurate and final. A few years later, Robert Nelson moved into a home near Stowell. Over a one-year period, Nelson stole approximately 50 checks from Stowell’s mailbox, forged Stowell’s signature, and cashed the checks. Nelson also took Stowell’s monthly account statements. Stowell repeatedly contacted Credit Union, which sent duplicate statements that Stowell never received. Stowell eventually discovered the forgeries when he received notification that a check written from his account had bounced. Stowell and Credit Union reviewed the statements and found that Nelson had forged checks totaling more than $22,000. Stowell brought suit against Credit Union, demanding reimbursement. A jury found in favor of Stowell, and the court of appeals affirmed. Credit Union appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stringer, 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.
