Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Title Insurance Co. of Minnesota v. Comerica Bank-California

Court of Appeal for the Sixth District of California
32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 735 (1994)


Facts

First National Mortgage Company (FNMC) made two loans to Helen Nastor, secured by deeds of trust. Title Insurance Company (Title) (plaintiff) issued a policy of land title insurance for the loans. On the first loan, FMC issued a check payable to Nastor and gave the check to Nastor’s son, Rudy. Someone impersonating Nastor indorsed the check and presented it to the drawee bank, Comerica Bank-California (the Bank) (defendant). The Bank paid the check to the impersonator. FNMC then made a second loan to Nastor. Part of the proceeds were used to pay off the first loan, and the remainder were issued in a check payable to Rudy. FNMC issued the check to Rudy based on a forged power of attorney purporting to grant Rudy power of attorney over Nastor. No payments were made on the second loan, and FNMC initiated foreclosure proceedings against Nastor’s property. Nastor’s attorney informed FNMC that the deeds of trust were invalid, because they were signed by Rudy using the forged power of attorney. FNMC made a claim against the title insurance policy, which was paid by Title. Title, acting as subrogee of FNMC’s claims, then sued the Bank for negligence. Title asserted that the Bank improperly paid the first check to Nastor’s impersonator and, therefore, failed to inform FNMC of the fraud. Title asserted that FNMC would not have made the second loan if the Bank had informed FNMC of the imposter that cashed the check payable to Nastor. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on the imposter rule under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Title then appealed to the Court of Appeal for the Sixth District of California.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Mihara, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.