DENNIS L. KOGER, APPELLANT,
v.
EAST FIRST NATIONAL BANK, A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A stockholder of a corporate customer sued a bank for damages caused by the bank's wrongful dishonor of checks and seizure of funds, alleging he suffered consequential damages including a surety judgment against him. The court held that under Florida Statutes § 674.402, only the corporate customer (not individual stockholders) has a cause of action against a bank for wrongful dishonor, absent allegations that the corporation was undercapitalized or a mere shell.
An individual stockholder does not have a direct cause of action under § 674.402 for a bank's wrongful dishonor of checks or other actions toward a corporate customer. Only the corporation itself (the bank's actual customer) may bring such an action. The court declined to adopt a more liberal interpretation that would allow individual stockholders to sue absent circumstances like the corporation being undercapitalized or a mere shell.
[1] A bank's liability under section 674.402, Florida Statutes, for wrongful dishonor of a corporate customer's check extends only to the corporation itself, not to its indiv…
[2] Individual stockholders of a corporation do not have a cause of action against a bank for damages resulting from the bank's actions taken in its customer relationship wit…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A payor bank is liable to its customer for damages proximately caused by the wrongful dishonor of an item.”
Establishes that the statutory liability runs to the bank's 'customer,' which the court interprets to mean the corporation, not individual stockholders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDennis Koger was a principal stockholder in Kenny and Koger Construction, Inc. (KKCI), the named customer of East First National Bank. The bank allege…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Consequential Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, Dennis L. Koger, appeals the order dismissing his second amended complaint with prejudice. He raises two points on appeal. The first point concerns whether an individual corporate stockholder has a cause of action against a bank under section 674.402, Florida Statutes (1981), which tracks the language of section 4-402, Uniform Commercial Code (1977), for damages that result from actions between the bank and its corporate customer of which the individual is a stockholder. The second point addresses the liability of a bank to stockholders of a corporate customer for wrongfully handling funds or other property of the corporation. We conclude that our disposition of the first point raised is also dispositive of the second point. Any tort by the appellee bank against the appellant stockholder would necessarily arise out of the bank-customer relationship. That relationship, in turn, is the subject of section 674.402. This appears to be a case of first impression in Florida. We affirm.
Appellant alleges that he sustained damages due to the actions of appellee, East First National Bank. Appellee’s named customer was Kenny and Koger Construction, Inc., (KKCI), in which appellant was a principal stockholder. Appellant contends that appellee refused to honor the checks of KKCI, attempted to revoke payment of checks, seized funds in a KKCI checking account to pay a note, and seized a KKCI receivable as collateral under a security agreement. Appellant contends that these actions proximately caused KKCI’s default on numerous construction projects and required a surety to complete its performance on those projects.
The surety sued KKCI and its shareholders who had personally agreed to indemnify the surety in the event it was required to pay a claim against KKCI. Appellant further alleges that the surety obtained a judgment against him in the approximate amount of $280,000 as a result of appellee’s actions.
Section 674.402 provides:
A payor bank is liable to its customer for damages proximately caused by the wrongful dishonor of an item. When the dishonor occurs through mistake liability is limited to actual damages proved. If so proximately caused and proved damages may include damages for an arrest or prosecution of the customer or other consequential damages. Whether any consequential damages are proximately caused by the wrongful dishonor is a question of fact to be determined in each case.
We choose to adhere to the more literal interpretation of section 674.402, which follows the interpretation given to section 4-402 in Kesner v. Liberty Bank & Trust Company, 7 Mass.App. 934, 390 N.E. 2d 259 (1979); Farmers Bank v. Sinwellan Corporation, 367 A. 2d 180 (Del. 1976), and Loucks v. Albuquerque National Bank, 76 N.M. 735, 418 P. 2d 191 (1966). These cases hold that a bank’s liability extends only to the corporation or partnership which is its “customer,” rather than to the individual partner or member of that corporation or partnership.
In the instant case, appellant was not the proper party to bring an action against appellee. The named customer of the bank was the corporation KKCI. Thus, according to the above authorities, KKCI would have been the only party entitled to institute a cause of action against appellee under the provisions of section 674.402.
Appellant cites to Karsh v. American City Bank, 113 Cal.App.3d 419, 169 Cal.Rptr. 851 (1980), and Kendall Yacht Corporation v. United California Bank, 50 Cal.App.3d 949, 123 Cal.Rptr. 848 (1975), for the proposition that individual members of a business entity, that is the customer of a bank, are entitled to obtain relief under section 4-402.
Although the language of section 4-402 is identical to that of section 674.402,. we choose to disagree with the liberal interpretation given it by the California courts. Both the Karsh and Kendall cases refer to corporations that were “undercapitalized” or mere “transparent shells.” Appellant did not allege that KKCI was in the same position as the corporations in Karsh and Kendall. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
RYDER, A.C.J. and DANAHY, J., concur.