Valley Bank of Ronan v. Hughes
Supreme Court of Montana
147 P.3d 185 (2006)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Charles Hughes (defendant), the victim of a scam, deposited two official checks and two personal checks totaling more than $1,000,000 into Hughes’s accounts at Valley Bank of Ronan (Valley Bank) (plaintiff). Hughes asked Valley Bank to verify the validity of the official checks before depositing the checks. A Valley Bank official told Hughes that the official checks were just like cashier’s checks and did not need to be verified. The checks were deposited, and Valley Bank, at Hughes’s request, wired $800,000 to a foreign account. Those funds were withdrawn and were never recovered. When Valley Bank later discovered that the checks were counterfeit, Valley Bank exercised its right to charge back Hughes’s account for the $800,000. Hughes deposited a portion of this amount with Valley Bank and executed a secured promissory note for the remainder. Hughes failed to pay the promissory note, and Valley Bank brought a foreclosure action against Hughes. Hughes counterclaimed, asserting negligent misrepresentation based on Valley Bank’s statements about its check-settlement process, and various other common-law and equitable claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Valley Bank, finding that Valley Bank had not violated its duty of ordinary care under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in processing the checks. Hughes appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rice, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
