Forged Indorsement

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

• Perini Corp. & Brown Bros. v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Habersham Cnty.
  553 F.2d 398· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the loss from forged checks with defective indorsements must be viewed as a forged check loss, not a forged indorsement loss, and affirmed the lower court's action.
• City Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Wernick
  368 So. 2d 934· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-03-13 ·cited 19×
  A bank customer named Wernick sued City National Bank for conversion after a check payable to her was forged, deposited into the drawer's own account, and never delivered to her. The court held that because delivery is essential to a payee's rights in a negotiable instrument, and
• Forys v. McLAUGHLIN
  436 So. 2d 280· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-07-28 ·cited 14×
  Elizabeth Forys appealed a summary judgment dismissing her conversion and fraud claims against Roger McLaughlin and Landmark Bank arising from unauthorized access to her deceased husband's safe deposit box and funds. The court reversed, holding that factual disputes regarding for
• Jackson Vitrified China Co. v. People's Am. Nat'l Bank OF N. Miami
  388 So. 2d 1059· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-09-16 ·cited 14×
  Jackson Vitrified China Company sued a collecting bank for liability on approximately $120,000 in checks stolen by an employee, endorsed with forged indorsements and deposited into an account opened in the company's name. The court affirmed judgment for the collecting bank, holdi
• Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Am. Sec. Bank, N.A.
  890 F.2d 456· D.C. Cir.· 1989-12-01 ·cited 9×
• Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. The First Nat'l Bank AT Winter Park
  351 F.2d 519· 5th Cir.· 1965-09-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was no actual controversy between the insurer and its insured bank, thus no diversity jurisdiction existed, and the case must be dismissed.
• Papex Int'l Brokers Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
  821 F.2d 883· 1st Cir.· 1987-06-29 ·cited 6×
  A payee cannot sue a collecting bank for paying on a forged indorsement if the payee never received or possessed the instrument, as delivery is required to become a holder with standing.
• Bank OF Miami Beach v. Newman
  163 So. 2d 333· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-04-07 ·cited 5×
  A complaint for payment of a check based on a forged indorsement fails to state a cause of action when it does not allege that the depositor suffered actual damages or loss.
• Menichini v. Lissa L. Grant
  995 F.2d 1224· 3d Cir.· 1993-06-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the discovery rule does not apply to conversion actions for negotiable instruments when the defendant is not engaged in fraudulent concealment, and that the plaintiff's negligence in supervising his employee substantially contributed to the forgeries, potentia
• Nat'l Credit Union Admin. v. Mich. Nat'l Bank OF Detroit
  771 F.2d 154· 6th Cir.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 2×
  When a check bears both a forged drawer's signature and a missing or forged indorsement, the loss is allocated as if only the drawer's signature was forged, following the Perini rule.
• Jimmy v. Aprile, Jr.
  596 So. 2d 1290· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-04-29
  The court held that the statute of limitations defense under section 674.406(4) was unavailable to Suncoast because it was not the drawee bank and did not provide a statement reflecting the forged indorsement, and that summary judgment was precluded by a dispute of material fact
• The Sumiton Bank v. Funding Sys. Leasing Corp.
  512 F.2d 774· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-08
• MAY Dep't Stores Co. v. Pittsburgh Nat'l Bank
  374 F.2d 109· 3d Cir.· 1967-02-09
  The court held that the bank was protected by the Uniform Commercial Code provision regarding employee-supplied fictitious payees when cashing checks with forged endorsements.
• Bank OF Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n v. Fed. Reserve Bank of San Francisco
  349 F.2d 565· 9th Cir.· 1965-08-03
  The court held that the Treasurer's "first examination" of checks for defects, including forgeries, encompasses the entire processing period utilizing both electronic and visual methods, not just the initial visual inspection.