Forged Endorsement

71 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. City Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co.
  491 F.2d 851· 8th Cir.· 1974-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a bank is liable for cashing government checks with forged endorsements, even if the government was negligent in failing to discover the payee's death earlier.
• Duden v. The United States
  467 F.2d 924· Ct. Cl.· 1972-10-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff, Helen Duden, failed to establish ownership of the tax refund checks, which were issued based on her husband Harold's income, and therefore could not recover under the Check Forgery Insurance Fund statute. The court also found that Helen particip
• Sullivan v. Wilton Manors Nat'l Bank
  259 So. 2d 194· Fla. 4th DCA· 1972-03-09 ·cited 2×
  This case addresses the liability of a bank that cashed a check payable to two payees when one payee's endorsement was forged. The Florida court held that summary judgment was premature because material factual and legal issues remained, including whether the bank could rely on a
• Bank OF Fort Mill v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp.
  268 F.2d 313· 4th Cir.· 1959-06-15 ·cited 2×
  A paid surety cannot be subrogated to a depositor's rights against an innocent drawee bank that paid a check on a forged endorsement, nor can it acquire rights through assignment, as subrogation requires superior equities and assignment requires an existing claim.
• Fulton Nat. Bank v. United States
  197 F.2d 763· 5th Cir.· 1952-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The United States can recover on checks with forged endorsements, even without prompt notice, if the collecting banks suffered no damage from the delay.
• Nat'l Metro. Bank v. United States
  142 F.2d 474· D.C. Cir.· 1944-05-01 ·cited 2×
  A collecting bank that endorses checks with a guarantee of prior endorsements is liable to the drawer for the amount paid if those endorsements are forged, even if the bank acted only as a collecting agent and paid the proceeds to its principal.
• Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Union Tr. Co. of Rochester
  129 F.2d 1006· 2d Cir.· 1942-07-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bank was liable for collecting a draft with a forged endorsement but not for drafts endorsed by real persons using aliases.
• Lamb v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  808 So. 2d 1254· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-03-06
  Judith Lamb appealed a summary judgment in favor of Allstate Insurance Company regarding payment of a Hurricane Andrew loss claim. The court affirmed, holding that the payment instrument was a check drawn on Allstate's bank, not a draft drawn on Allstate itself, and rejecting Lam
• In re LOU Levy & Sons Fashions, Inc. v. Michelina J. Romano
  988 F.2d 311· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-05
  A bank's commercially unreasonable conduct in accepting checks with forged endorsements bars it from asserting the drawer's negligence as a defense under UCC § 3-404.
• First City Nat'l Bank OF Midland v. Fed. Deposit Ins. CQRP. for the First Nat'l Bank of Midland
  782 F.2d 1344· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-20
  The court held that the FDIC, as receiver for First National, is liable for conversion of checks with unauthorized endorsements because the bank failed to prove it acted in accordance with reasonable commercial standards. However, Brown is responsible for losses occurring after h
• Larkin Gen. Hosp., Ltd. v. The Bank OF Fla. IN S. Fla.
  464 So. 2d 635· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-03-05
  Larkin General Hospital appeals dismissal of claims for conversion, negligence, and breach of contract arising from an employee's forgery of endorsements on checks and drafts payable to the hospital. The court affirms in part and reverses in part, distinguishing between liability
• Coulter Elecs., Inc. v. Commercial Bank OF Cobb Cnty.
  727 F.2d 1078· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-23
  The court held that a bank's acceptance of checks with minor variances between the payee and endorsement is a question of fact for the jury regarding commercial reasonableness, not a matter of law.
• PAN Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Cont'l Nat'l Bank OF Miami
  444 So. 2d 1073· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-01-24
  Pan Am appeals a summary judgment in favor of Continental National Bank concerning eight miscellaneous charge orders (MCOs) worth over $82,000 that were issued by defunct travel agents and deposited by Roadway International at Continental Bank. Pan Am sought recovery based on bre
• O.K. Moving & Storage Co., Inc. v. Eglin Nat'l Bank
  363 So. 2d 160· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-10-05
  O.K. Moving & Storage sued Eglin National Bank for converting funds when the bank improperly deposited restrictively-endorsed checks payable to the company into an employee's personal account. The appellate court reversed summary judgment, holding that the company's failure to ti
• United States v. Morgan
  483 F.2d 435· 10th Cir.· 1973-08-15
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the government's use of the appellant's appointed handwriting expert was not reversible error.
• The Columbian Peanut Co. v. Frosteg
  472 F.2d 476· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-26
  The court held that banks are liable for paying checks with forged endorsements, even without a traditional depositor relationship, and that Columbian's payment to growers and reacquisition of checks did not preclude its claims.
• Phoenix Assurance Co. OF NEW York v. First Bank & Tr. Co.
  361 F.2d 691· 3d Cir.· 1966-05-27
  A depositor's failure to exercise due diligence in discovering and notifying a bank of forged endorsements on checks, which lack of diligence contributes to the bank's payment of those checks, bars the depositor (or its assignee/subrogee) from recovering from the bank.
• Rubinstein v. Goldkind
  255 F.2d 530· D.C. Cir.· 1958-03-20
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the issue of whether the payee's name was forged or if the payee was fictitious required a trial.
• Callaway v. Hamilton Nat. Bank of Wash.
  195 F.2d 556· D.C. Cir.· 1952-02-28
  The court held that a bank customer's allegations of forged endorsements on checks, even if the payee corporation was not yet formed, stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the bank could not rely on defenses not yet established.