CONRO CONSTRUCTION INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BARNETT BANK OF SOUTH FLORIDA, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ORGANIZATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1991-09-04
No. 90-0514
GARRETT and FARMER, JJ., concur.
585 So. 2d 438 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1991)

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.

Synopsis

Conro Construction challenged a summary judgment in favor of Barnett Bank regarding the bank's authority to deposit checks payable to Conro into a separate corporate account without proper authorization. The court reversed the summary judgment, finding the corporate resolution ambiguous and requiring a trial to resolve factual disputes about the bank's authorized conduct.


Holding

The court held that the corporate resolution is ambiguous when read as a whole and subject to multiple interpretations, precluding summary judgment. Factual issues remain unresolved regarding the scope of the bank's authority, and the bank failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Conro cannot prevail on its claim.


Headnotes

[1] A corporate resolution authorizing a bank to pay or cash instruments payable to the corporation and receive them for credit to the corporation's account or in payment fro…

[2] A corporate resolution must be read as a whole, and its provisions must be interpreted in light of each other.

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“We conclude that the resolution, read as a whole, is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations. Fact issues therefore remain unresolved.”

The court's holding that the corporate resolution cannot support summary judgment because it is ambiguous regarding the bank's authority to deposit checks to unrelated accounts.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Conro Construction maintained an account with Barnett Bank governed by a corporate resolution signed by both parties. Kenneth Conner and Robert Conner…

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.


Opinion of the Court
STONE, Judge.

STONE, Judge.

We reverse the summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant-bank. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Gulfstream Bank, N.A. v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A., 438 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Royal Am. Realty v. Bank of Palm Beach & Trust Co., 215 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Steve Hull Chevrolet, Inc., 513 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

Conro Construction had an account with Barnett Bank. The corporate resolution establishing the terms of the account, and which both sides agree determines the extent of the bank’s authority, provides: 2. Morton Schnessel, President, and Kenneth M. Conner, Vice President, are hereby authorized to sign (either by actual or facsimile signature) any and all checks, drafts, notes, acceptances, bills of exchange, orders or other instruments for the withdrawal of any and all monies, credits, items and property at any time held by the Bank for account of this corporation....

3. That Bank is hereby authorized to pay or cash any instruments payable to or held by this corporation when endorsed as provided herein, and also to receive the same for credit to the account of or in payment from the payee or any other holder (including any officer of this corporation), without inquiry as to the circumstances of issue or endorsement thereof, or the disposition of the proceeds even if drawn, endorsed or payable to cash, bearer or to the individual order of any signing officer or tendered in payment of his individual obligation.

4. Morton Schnessel, President, Kenneth M. Conner, Vice President, and Robert L. Conner, Secretary/Treasurer, of this corporation are hereby authorized to borrow money and to obtain credit for this corporation from Bank

5. The endorsements on behalf of this corporation upon any and all commercial paper of any kind deposited by or on behalf of this corporation with Bank for credit or for collection or otherwise may be made by any one of the foregoing officers, or by rubber stamp.

(emphasis added).

Kenneth Conner and his brother, Robert Conner, endorsed checks made payable to Conro Construction for deposit directly to the separate account of the Conners’ corporation, Design Network Builders, Inc. Morton Schnessel did not endorse the checks, nor does anything indicate that he previously authorized any similar transaction.

Barnett argues that paragraphs three and five of the resolution, read together, authorized it to deposit checks payable to Conro to unrelated accounts without Schnessel’s endorsement or other corporate approval. Conro, on the other hand, asserts that the provisions of paragraph five apply only to checks being deposited to its account, and that the resolution, taken as a whole, is, at a minimum, ambiguous.

Conro submitted an affidavit stating that Barnett’s officers advised Schnessel that his signature was required to transfer corporate funds and that Barnett’s own policies would not allow a check payable to a depositor to be endorsed for deposit to a separate account. Also an expert witness of Conro attested that Barnett’s role in the negotiation and deposit was not consistent with good banking practices and that the transaction should not have been permitted. These affidavits were not rebutted. We also note that Barnett drafted the resolution.

We conclude that the resolution, read as a whole, is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations. Fact issues therefore remain unresolved. Barnett has failed to meet its burden to support its interpretation and to demonstrate that appellant cannot prevail. Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

GARRETT and FARMER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw