Retha J. Brannon, as executrix of the estate of Lemuel Morrison, deceased v. BankTrust, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/23/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1060637 R e t h a J . Brannon, as e x e c u t r i x o f t h e e s t a t e o f Lemuel M o r r i s o n , d e c e a s e d v. BankTrust, I n c . 1061059 BankTrust, I n c . v. R e t h a J . Brannon, as e x e c u t r i x o f t h e e s t a t e o f Lemuel M o r r i s o n , d e c e a s e d 1060637 and 1061059 Appeals from M o b i l e C i r c u i t (CV-04-1458) On A p p l i c a t i o n s Court f o r Rehearing MURDOCK, J u s t i c e . This the Court's opinion following opinion Retha below, deceased appeals BankTrust, favor ("the Morrison I n c . ("BankTrust"), claims (case no. 1061059). died Facts Arendall, Morrison retained i n March Douglas LLC, to a s s i s t estate. We the Because of Lemuel the plaintiff of law i n favor of Morrison estate's and wantonness ( c a s e no. f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t i n estate's reverse and P r o c e d u r a l executrix of his estate. Brannon estate"), of negligence on t h e M o r r i s o n I. Morrison of the estate on BankTrust cross-appeals of Brannon contract as e x e c u t r i x therefor. f r o m a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r common-law t o r t 1060637). i s substituted J . Brannon, Morrison, o f J u l y 31, 2009, i s w i t h d r a w n , and claim both of breach of judgments. History 2001, and Brannon was appointed A f t e r h e r a p p o i n t m e n t as e x e c u t r i x , McCoy of the law firm her i n the administration Hand Arendall maintained of Hand of the i t s own a c c o u n t a t B a n k T r u s t a n d h a d r e g u l a r l y done b u s i n e s s w i t h i t , 2 1060637 and 1061059 McCoy recommended t h a t B r a n n o n open a c h e c k i n g Morrison estate McCoy met w i t h and by at BankTrust. Lyn Peterson, a vice Brannon opened a c h e c k i n g filling card. which provided Terms that and agreement of BankTrust, sheet signature and s i g n i n g a c a r d was a d o c u m e n t Conditions" entitled ("the agreement"), the "terms [ o f the agreement] govern[ed] the o p e r a t i o n o f t h i s account u n l e s s The president account") to the signature Account 26, 2001, Brannon and account ("the estate o u t an i n f o r m a t i o n Attached "Deposit On J u n e account f o r the specified supplemented i n w r i t i n g . " that, " [ u ] n l e s s o t h e r w i s e c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d on t h e a c c o u n t records, a n y o n e o f y o u who signs this form including authorized signers, may withdraw or t r a n s f e r a l l o r any p a r t o f t h e account b a l a n c e a t any time Each [ s i g n a t o r y ] a u t h o r i z e s each o t h e r p e r s o n s i g n i n g t h i s form t o endorse any i t e m p a y a b l e t o you o r your order f o r d e p o s i t t o t h i s account o r any o t h e r t r a n s a c t i o n w i t h [ B a n k T r u s t ] . " The agreement a l s o p r o v i d e d must review bank statements t h a t t h e s i g n a t o r y on t h e a c c o u n t with "reasonable p r o m p t n e s s " and must " p r o m p t l y n o t i f y " B a n k T r u s t o f any " u n a u t h o r i z e d or alterations." The a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d , f o r e g o i n g , t h a t no c l a i m f o r a n u n a u t h o r i z e d be made more than 60 days beyond 3 payments i n addition to the transaction could the date BankTrust made 1060637 and 1061059 available to the signatory a statement reflecting that transaction. The signature signatories, person making contained but i t i s undisputed whose signatory. card name appears The s i g n a t u r e an " a g e n c y McCoy's card, Peterson that "Doug card designation," made on t h e s i g n a t u r e Although on spaces that the also b u t no s u c h name does not appear would handle t o send account t o McCoy, and listed and she of Lemuel Morrison, as a the option f o r designation was on t h e signature Brannon told her account checks for f o r the the mailing her." estate address as c/o D o u g l a s L. M c C o y , " f o l l o w e d b y mailing address. received that this Peterson initially card card. instructed Hand A r e n d a l l ' s multiple was t h e o n l y signature included Brannon "Estate Brannon t e s t i f i e d by d e p o s i t i o n [McCoy] for I t i s undisputed a l l bank statements t h a t he h a d a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y that McCoy f o rthe estate account t o Brannon t o forward them t o her. On A p r i l and 17, 2002, McCoy t e l e p h o n e d P e t e r s o n told her to transfer Hand A r e n d a l l ' s at BankTrust $34,821.73 from t h e e s t a t e account at BankTrust. 4 Peterson account to t e s t i f i e d that 1060637 and McCoy t o l d he 1061059 her that said nothing authorization tell that she transfer else. that he fees and that i f he d i d n o t a s k McCoy had such had authorization. l a s t e d l e s s t h a n one m i n u t e . "assumed" and Peterson for legal f r o m B r a n n o n f o r t h e t r a n s f e r , and McCoy d i d n o t Peterson conversation t h e t r a n s f e r was that that she McCoy trusted had Their Peterson testified authorization McCoy. f o r the Thereafter, 1 in J u n e , J u l y , A u g u s t , S e p t e m b e r , and O c t o b e r 2002, McCoy similar telephone c a l l s varying amounts account. from to Peterson the estate In a l l , eight and o b t a i n e d account separate placed t r a n s f e r s of t o Hand transfers May, Arendall's from the estate a c c o u n t t o Hand A r e n d a l l ' s a c c o u n t , t o t a l i n g $ 2 4 0 , 1 8 5 . 1 9 , were made a t M c C o y ' s In her October that she estate on printout that a account. 2002, had account, the direction. Brannon telephoned not been r e c e i v i n g bank and she a s k e d account. Brannon of the bank large amount Peterson claims statements of money She t e l e p h o n e d P e t e r s o n was statements t o change the that, from to upon Peterson, missing to inform from inform on the address receiving she the a noticed estate her that there had P e t e r s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e h a d known M c C o y f o r 19 y e a r s t h a t he h a d b e e n h e r n e x t - d o o r n e i g h b o r f o r 5 o r 6 y e a r s . 1 and Peterson 5 1060637 and 1061059 been unauthorized Arendall, and transfers she a s k e d Peterson transferred officer, Michael credit Brannon that to Brannon funds t o the e s t a t e after he t e l e p h o n e d McCoy the situation attorneys. "suggestions" drafted because letter transfers that BankTrust Johnson told 2 he received Brannon's f o r l e g a l advice McCoy also provided on one was how of Johnson with f o r how t o r e s p o n d t o B r a n n o n ' s i n q u i r y . McCoy a response McCoy 3 t o Brannon, which Johnson p r i n t e d B a n k T r u s t ' s l e t t e r h e a d and s i g n e d the financial account. that, supervisor. chief demanded testified BankTrust's then to BankTrust's t o Hand to her. call, handle Brannon account to Peterson's he w o u l d g e t b a c k Johnson telephone the estate t o speak Johnson. the missing from as t h e a u t h o r . Johnson were carried The letter out by advised Peterson Brannon on McCoy's that "[s]ince [ B a n k T r u s t ] knew o f y o u r c l o s e f i d u c i a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Johnson admitted that b a s i s f o r 25 y e a r s b e c a u s e cousins. Mr. he h a d known M c C o y on a p e r s o n a l McCoy's w i f e i s one o f J o h n s o n ' s J o h n s o n a d m i t t e d t h a t he k n e w t h a t attorney f o r the Morrison estate. 3 the sent t o B r a n n o n on J a n u a r y 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 , e x p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e instructions. 2 on 6 McCoy a l s o served as 1060637 and M c C o y , we to 1061059 assumed ... that his instructions office for what she deemed In October Circuit Court; negligence, funds from Geneva to refusal, 2003, the estate and October reviewed BankTrust other of things, went t o the BankTrust the the unauthorized closed sued the account. BankTrust alleged account 2002. 4 credited transfers. in breach the of stemming from the e i g h t to Mobile estate alleged transfers t o Hand A r e n d a l l ' s BankTrust account's cited account F o l l o w i n g a change of venue County, problems Geneva contract, BankTrust answered among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t B r a n n o n the Uniform Commercial seq. Brannon Brannon the County McCoy's complaint complaint, asserting, timely be and w a n t o n n e s s , between A p r i l from Brannon a n d a g a i n r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e e s t a t e a c c o u n t be Upon B a n k T r u s t ' s et known you." Upon r e c e i v i n g t h e l e t t e r , of t o us w e r e statements with the the p r o v i s i o n s or the had not notified account. of A r t i c l e Among 4 of Code ( " t h e U C C " ) , c o d i f i e d a t § 7-4-101 5 A c l a i m o f c o n s p i r a c y a l s o was a l l e g e d , b u t t h a t s u b s e q u e n t l y was v o l u n t a r i l y d i s m i s s e d b y B r a n n o n . 4 claim S e c t i o n 7-4-406, A l a . Code 1975, a d d r e s s e s t h e n e c e s s i t y o f a bank c u s t o m e r ' s t i m e l y r e v i e w i n g a c c o u n t s t a t e m e n t s and n o t i f y i n g the bank of problems w i t h the a c c o u n t . 5 7 1060637 and During serve 1061059 discovery, a subpoena on BankTrust filed a notice of a n o n p a r t y , Hand A r e n d a l l . intent The to nonparty subpoena r e q u e s t e d a l l s t a t e m e n t s , r e c o r d s of payment, n o t e s , memoranda, and correspondence and d i r e c t e d t o or r e c e i v e d the n o n p a r t y subpoena. information Arendall to In memorandum objection to BankTrust's BankTrust also stated i t made t h e Arendall's were that Brannon by with of law nonparty that transfer account authorized Brannon objected to owed money to Hand s e r v i c e s McCoy had r e n d e r e d t o t h e M o r r i s o n estate. that a from Brannon. estate BankTrust contended t h a t i t needed the demonstrate for legal r e l a t e d to the M o r r i s o n responding subpoena i t "asserts from to Brannon's t o Hand Arendall, as the [ e s t a t e ] a factual account the understanding that [Brannon]." the matter to Hand transfers 6 S u b s e q u e n t l y , i n a motion to compel a response to i t s " F i r s t Request f o r P r o d u c t i o n of Documents," BankTrust argued that the i n f o r m a t i o n i t sought "would r e v e a l the e x t e n t of [ B r a n n o n ' s ] knowledge c o n c e r n i n g the transfers from the [ e s t a t e ] a c c o u n t ; whether [ B r a n n o n ] a u t h o r i z e d each t r a n s f e r ; a n d when [ B r a n n o n ] f i r s t e i t h e r k n e w o r s h o u l d h a v e k n o w n t h e t r a n s f e r s were t a k i n g p l a c e , a l l of w h i c h i s r e l e v a n t t o the i s s u e whether the t r a n s f e r s were a u t h o r i z e d or u n a u t h o r i z e d i n the f i r s t i n s t a n c e and w h e t h e r [ B r a n n o n ] has d i s c h a r g e d h e r duty of reviewing her bank statements with 'reasonable promptness.'" 6 8 1060637 and 1061059 Brannon subpoena objected money because Article 4A provides of d i d not connection On the Evid. She e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t B r a n n o n may have was UCC on was an (§ the plainly under Rule Arendall 502, not ground protected A l a . R. relevant, "unauthorized 7-4A-201 et seq., f o r such t r a n s f e r s only have. 7 privilege with since of subpoena she those November BankTrust Ala. i n the she billing has may and accused responded have legal been fees she said, transfer," c e r t a i n s e c u r i t y measures, which, any payments the Hand defenses BankTrust LLC[,] by transfer i n place "waived the privilege to the the information a l s o a r g u e d t h a t any has that requested attorney-client owed to Code 1 975) event a bank she contended, t h a t Brannon able and to from Hand [BankTrust] of making the court invoke had in Arendall, improper bills." 24, 2004, trial quashed the subpoena, f i n d i n g t h a t the requested i n f o r m a t i o n was protected by t h e a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t p r i v i l e g e and that "[w]hether [Brannon] Brannon took the p o s i t i o n i n the trial court that A r t i c l e 4 g o v e r n e d o n l y " n e g o t i a b l e i n s t r u m e n t s " and t h a t t h e funds t r a n s f e r s d i d not c o n s t i t u t e n e g o t i a b l e instruments. She pointed to A r t i c l e 4A as s u p p o r t for this assertion, n o t i n g i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y to funds t r a n s f e r s ; however, she argued, f o r reasons e x p l a i n e d i n the t e x t below, t h a t A r t i c l e 4A d i d n o t d i s p l a c e h e r c o m m o n - l a w c l a i m s i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case. 7 9 1060637 and 1061059 owed t h e money t o not r e l e v a n t [of funds] On [the Morrison or m a t e r i a l i n the reconsider the subpoena. In to the issue first December 17, this instance 2004, trial court's that that received she account had from Arendall false." claim Brannon's 4 deals issue were I n May the the that was filed that "be money to Hand to transfers Article a motion between and that from from had a breached the estate the Morrison contract by account estate had 10 Hand that Ms. is not work while the for a partial signature created estate stated because actions telephone. claim. transfers the and unauthorized 4 defense would filed to Arendall establish instruments, to addition for were o f f u n d s made b y 2005, Brannon is nonparty response to the motion to reconsider transfers BankTrust motion requested j u d g m e n t on h e r b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t that firm transfer the in statements used with negotiable card a i t argued information the the quashing bank law unauthorized." order owed could B a n k T r u s t ' s UCC Article at McCoy, allegedly Brannon's that Brannon former of whether BankTrust motion, demonstrating estate's] carrying She summary argued that her and out BankTrust unauthorized t o Hand A r e n d a l l ' s b e e n damaged as the account a result of 1060637 and 1061059 BankTrust's actions. hearing on A u g u s t On August In judgment should issues of notify 2005, not be fact her d u t i e s and whether estate BankTrust's of [Brannon's] Motion filed BankTrust entered the a motion response argued that for a existed as to with reasonable problems to Continue for Partial with summary genuine Brannon the agreement Argument Summary had and, statements promptness the the a whether o b l i g a t i o n s under to because f o r Brannon any "Motion set she had f a i l e d t o e x a m i n e t h e account BankTrust court BankTrust i t s response, specifically, the trial 2005. material performed for 12, 9, motion. The and to statements. In and to Response Judgment," BankTrust argued: "At a minimum, i t will be proven, upon c o m p l e t i o n o f d i s c o v e r y , t h a t [a] $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 t r a n s f e r was indeed authorized and granting [Brannon's] M o t i o n f o r P a r t i a l Summary J u d g m e n t w o u l d u n j u s t l y enrich [Brannon] and w o u l d t h e r e f o r e result in a windfall to her. [ B a n k T r u s t ] has been u n a b l e to obtain discovery that i s believed w i l l establish a u t h o r i z a t i o n b y Ms. B r a n n o n o f a l l t h e t r a n s f e r s a t issue." Furthermore, D. Johnson, BankTrust, i n an a affidavit lawyer testified who as attached identified follows: 11 to t h i s herself motion, as Ginger representing 1060637 and 1061059 "2. BankTrust's N o t i c e of Intent to Serve Nonparty Subpoena on Hand A r e n d a l l , LLC, was served on June 15, 2004. ... "3. [ B r a n n o n ] f i l e d an O b j e c t i o n t o t h e N o n - p a r t y S u b p o e n a t o H a n d A r e n d a l l , L L C on J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , a n d B a n k T r u s t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e t o t h e same on J u l y 9, 2004. T h e s e i s s u e s w e r e a r g u e d b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on November 19, 2 0 0 4 . This Honorable Court sustained [Brannon's] o b j e c t i o n t o the i s s u a n c e of the nonp a r t y s u b p o e n a on N o v e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , a n d B a n k T r u s t subsequently f i l e d Motion to Reconsider the Court's r u l i n g on D e c e m b e r 17, 2 0 0 4 . Subsequent to that d a t e , t h e i s s u e s were f u l l y a r g u e d and b r i e f e d by the parties. S i n c e t h a t t i m e , t h e m o t i o n has been under s u b m i s s i o n . "4. As a r e s u l t o f t h e d i s c o v e r y d i s p u t e s , the r e s o l u t i o n of which are under s u b m i s s i o n w i t h t h i s C o u r t , [ B a n k T r u s t ] does not have the f o l l o w i n g : "(A) I n t e r r o g a t o r y answers and r e s p o n s e s to the Request for Production from [Brannon]; "(B) The deposition "(C) The d e p o s i t i o n [Brannon's] CPA; of [Brannon]; of Stephanie Ellrich, "(D) Responses to the C i v i l Subpoena r e q u e s t e d b y [ B a n k T r u s t ] t o be s e r v e d on Hand A r e n d a l l , LLC; "(E) The deposition of Douglas McCoy; ... "5. BankTrust believes that the transfers were a u t h o r i z e d by [Brannon] b u t has not been a b l e t o e n g a g e i n d i s c o v e r y on t h a t a n d r e l a t e d i s s u e s a n d therefore i s not able to adequately respond to [ B r a n n o n ' s ] m o t i o n f o r p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t a t this point i n time." 12 1060637 and 1061059 As planned, Brannon's 2005. the motion The trial court trial court arguments on s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on A u g u s t fora partial 12, denied oral BankTrust's c o n t i n u a n c e and g r a n t e d Brannon's judgment heard motion f o r a p a r t i a l August unsolicited, Court's a 18, submission, 2005, large i n camera the envelope review. and t h e t r i a l trial from Both court court Hand attorney counsel an BankTrust that from In had a u t h o r i z e d attachments attachments a motion Brannon filed the motion claims. 13 and documented that stated that the a f f i d a v i t Subsequently, on to partial averred the transfers judgment attached. for a McCoy affidavit 24, 2005, purportedly a motion to s t r i k e summary to the BankTrust's documents affidavit, as u n t i m e l y f i l e d . for a to and documents, h i m t o make to On A u g u s t with t o Brannon's the objected delivered McCoy the a f f i d a v i t judgment. the filed from f o r the r e t u r n e d t h e e n v e l o p e t o Hand Arendall i t sopposition authorization. and Hand affidavit filed supplement Brannon summary received, Arendall parties Arendall without examining i t s contents. summary for a as t o h e r b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m . On an request BankTrust Brannon's tort 1060637 and The 1061059 trial motions, and affirming summary on its held July a 31, granting judgment, j u d g m e n t , and filing court 2006, of denying granting hearing on i t BankTrust's and signatory's card from creates a binding terms of the constituted a [Brannon]." The carried by out negotiable 7-4-406, inapplicable Comment." contract, for a summary of trial court telephone in this case. court untimely. a non-signatory into the s i g n i n g of the parties"; ... were u n a u t h o r i z e d signature to non- signature the the court and that under card, and [BankTrust's] contract with noted transfers were and the they as a not defense A l a . Code § 7-4A-104, the involve a s s e r t i o n of special awarded Brannon 14 did [BankTrust's] 1975, See that that "Thus, Alabama, BankTrust's on i.e., breach trial partial c l a i m , the t r i a l account "the transactions of The a motion "allowed contract instruments. Code that order for i t s a t t a c h m e n t s as [estate] bank a c c o u n t " ; "[t]he eight separate the the pending written Brannon's motion to s t r i k e found that BankTrust money a motion Concerning Brannon's b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t transfer various issued Brannon's o f t h e McCoy a f f i d a v i t specifically the § is Official amount o f the 1060637 and transfers total 1061059 plus prejudgment judgment of BankTrust judgment, filed not that occurred at 6% per annum, a motion that before to under entitled to alter, § amend, o r 7-4A-202, i n t e r e s t on J u n e 1, Ala. any of exceeded the any problems with the trial the the rate trial court The for denied set on January 8, January 4, 2007, become aware of 2005), and i t applicability whether under Fitts Article postpone to any be the Fitts asked the trial dictates of the decision court and UCC, tort but the 15 that So. explain The 11, wantonness 917 to of that that rate. a pretrial Bank, case. the Brannon provides September stated parties that on transfers r a t e of i n t e r e s t to on During AmSouth the 1975, contended federal-funds motion 2007. v. a 6% negligence of F i t t s to t h i s 4A the BankTrust's court It also in applying interest is trial trial a the for n o t i f y i n g BankTrust those t r a n s a c t i o n s . erred Code the j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e § 7-4A-506, A l a . Code 1975, of "reasonable time" had vacate 2002, b e c a u s e , i t a r g u e d , had court for $294,552.37. arguing B r a n n o n was interest The 2006. claims hearing i t 2d the had 818 on just (Ala. possible p a r t i e s a r g u e d as claims the trial issue until were court a to precluded decided motion for to a 1060637 and judgment 1061059 as Brannon's a matter case. of The law next was day, filed BankTrust answer t o Brannon's c o m p l a i n t i n which as a defense to Brannon's on t h i s filed January the t r i a l , then heard Brannon's case on t h e t o r t claims. 2007, of Brannon's motion Article 4A displaced arguing Brannon's the the close f o r a judgment o f t h e UCC, Brannon's wantonness displacement motion. BankTrust's It amended § a matter 7-4A-101 of tort the claim. issue, also as common-law insufficiency of amended Without c o u r t began a an 8, 2 0 0 7 , B r a n n o n the t r i a l following close i t asserted A r t i c l e t o s t r i k e B a n k T r u s t ' s amended a n s w e r . motion, the 4A claims. On t h e f i r s t d a y o f t r i a l , a motion at answer and t h e j u r y On J a n u a r y 10, filed of law, a s s e r t i n g that e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1 975, c l a i m s and, i n a d d i t i o n , Following granted ruling case, BankTrust evidence the t r i a l filed with further court granted Brannon's as u n t i m e l y respect to arguments on BankTrust's motion to strike filed. B r a n n o n a p p e a l e d a s t o t h e j u d g m e n t a s a m a t t e r o f l a w on her n e g l i g e n c e and wantonness c l a i m s ; B a n k T r u s t c r o s s - a p p e a l e d as to the p a r t i a l breach-of-contract summary judgment claim. 16 a g a i n s t i t on Brannon's 1060637 and 1061059 II. Standards of Review This Court e x p l a i n e d the s t a n d a r d of review a p p l i c a b l e a ruling Inc. 1152 on a judgment as a matter v. U n i t e d I n v e s t o r s L i f e of Insurance law i n Waddell Co., 875 So. to & Reed, 2d 1143, ( A l a . 2003): "When r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n for a [ j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w ] , t h i s C o u r t u s e s t h e same s t a n d a r d t h e t r i a l c o u r t used initially in d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t o g r a n t or deny the m o t i o n f o r a [ j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w ] . P a l m H a r b o r Homes, Inc. v. Crawford, 689 So. 2d 3 (Ala. 1997). Regarding q u e s t i o n s of f a c t , the u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e nonmovant has p r e s e n t e d sufficient e v i d e n c e t o a l l o w t h e c a s e t o be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e jury for a factual resolution. C a r t e r v. H e n d e r s o n , 598 So. 2 d 1350 ( A l a . 1 992). The n o n m o v a n t m u s t have p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n order to w i t h s t a n d a motion f o r a [judgment as a m a t t e r o f law]. See § 1 2 - 2 1 - 1 2 , A l a . Code 1975; West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2 d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1989). A reviewing court must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p a r t y who b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f has p r o d u c e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c r e a t i n g a f a c t u a l d i s p u t e r e q u i r i n g r e s o l u t i o n by t h e j u r y . C a r t e r , 598 So. 2 d a t 1 3 5 3 . I n r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a [ j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w ] , t h i s C o u r t v i e w s the e v i d e n c e i n the l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to t h e nonmovant and entertains such reasonable i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d h a v e b e e n f r e e t o draw. Id. Regarding a q u e s t i o n of law, however, this C o u r t i n d u l g e s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s a s t o the t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g . " The standard summary j u d g m e n t of review i s also well for a ruling settled: 17 on a motion for a 1060637 and 1061059 "'A s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s p r o p e r when t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t and the moving p a r t y is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The b u r d e n i s on t h e m o v i n g p a r t y t o make a p r i m a facie s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment as a matter of law. In d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e movant has c a r r i e d that burden, the court i s to view the e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to the n o n m o v i n g p a r t y and t o draw a l l r e a s o n a b l e inferences i n f a v o r of t h a t p a r t y . To defeat a properly supported summary judgment m o t i o n , the nonmoving p a r t y must present " s u b s t a n t i a l evidence" creating a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l fact "evidence o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r the e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12; West v. Founders L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 8 7 0 , 871 (Ala. 1989).' "Questions Pritchett (Ala. v. of ICN 2006) Thorough-Clean, law are Med. Alliance, (quoting Inc., reviewed So. III. A. BankTrust's BankTrust cross-appeals court entered 2d novo." 938 Alliance 1349, 1350 So. 2d 933, 935 Co. v. Ins. (Ala. 1994)). Analysis Cross-Appeal (case the t r i a l Inc., Capital 639 de of no. the Partial Summary Judgment 1061059) from the p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t on B r a n n o n ' s b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t 18 claim. 1060637 and 1061059 BankTrust contends, of exists fact responsibility among o t h e r t h i n g s , as to to t i m e l y whether notify that Brannon BankTrust a genuine issue fulfilled her i n the event u n a u t h o r i z e d payment from the e s t a t e account. that the r e c o r d contains evidence i n d i c a t i n g McCoy's the request to BankTrust estate account f e l l Brannon. court's substantial At a of legal of according to Brannon's BankTrust, fees the an argues that from w i t h i n the a u t h o r i t y g r a n t e d to him minimum, consideration f o r payment I t also of by trial partial-summary-judgment motion s h o u l d have been p o s t p o n e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 6 ( f ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., regarding i n o r d e r t o a l l o w B a n k T r u s t t o engage i n d i s c o v e r y the a l l e g e d authorization. 8 T h e p a r t i e s d i s a g r e e i n t h e i r b r i e f s on a p p e a l as t o t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f A r t i c l e 4A o f t h e UCC t o B r a n n o n ' s b r e a c h - o f contract claim. We have c a r e f u l l y reviewed the record, i n c l u d i n g t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n f i l e d by B r a n n o n , the w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e t o t h a t m o t i o n f i l e d by B a n k T r u s t , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s summary-judgment o r d e r i t s e l f . I t i s c l e a r from our r e v i e w of these m a t t e r s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s g r a n t i n g of B r a n n o n ' s m o t i o n f o r a p a r t i a l s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t was b a s e d on i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f common-law p r i n c i p l e s r e l a t i n g t o b r e a c h o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m s a n d d e f e n s e s t o s u c h c l a i m s a n d n o t on a n y r i g h t of r e c o v e r y t h a t might e x i s t i n Brannon's f a v o r under Article 4A. We t h e r e f o r e have not a d d r e s s e d B a n k T r u s t ' s a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l p e r t a i n i n g t o A r t i c l e 4A a s a b a s i s f o r r e v e r s i n g t h e summary j u d g m e n t . This Court w i l l not r e v e r s e a j u d g m e n t on a g r o u n d n o t a r g u e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Andrews v . M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2 d 4 0 9 , 410 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . Nothing i n t h i s o p i n i o n , h o w e v e r , p r e v e n t s t h e p a r t i e s , on r e m a n d , from p r e s e n t i n g to the t r i a l court the i s s u e whether A r t i c l e 8 19 1060637 and 1061059 We agree with BankTrust that the record s u b s t a n t i a l evidence from which a reasonable conclude from the that Brannon estate account requested by McCoy. BankTrust from over the course this period document which was contained d i d not timely that As she noted, the estate of a seven-month d i d Brannon entitled attached ever "Deposit fact-finder object claims were were question Account to the signature card every month A t no t i m e those Terms improperly t r a n s f e r r e d by repeated period. could t o t h e payments t h e payments account contains during payments. and signed The Conditions," by Brannon, the f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n : "STATEMENTS -- YOU MUST EXAMINE YOUR STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WITH 'REASONABLE PROMPTNESS'. I F YOU D I S C O V E R (OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE DISCOVERED) ANY UNAUTHORIZED PAYMENTS OR A L T E R A T I O N S , YOU MUST PROMPTLY N O T I F Y US OF THE RELEVANT F A C T S . I F YOU F A I L TO DO E I T H E R OF THESE D U T I E S , YOU W I L L HAVE TO E I T H E R SHARE THE LOSS WITH US, OR BEAR THE LOSS E N T I R E L Y Y O U R S E L F (DEPENDING ON WHETHER WE E X E R C I S E D ORDINARY CARE AND, I F NOT, WHETHER WE S U B S T A N T I A L L Y CONTRIBUTED TO THE L O S S ) . THE LOSS COULD BE NOT ONLY WITH R E S P E C T TO ITEMS ON THE STATEMENT, BUT OTHER ITEMS FORGED OR A L T E R E D BY THE SAME WRONGDOER. YOU AGREE THAT THE TIME YOU HAVE TO EXAMINE YOUR STATEMENT AND REPORT TO US W I L L DEPEND ON THE C I R C U M S T A N C E S , BUT THAT SUCH TIME W I L L NOT, I N ANY C I R C U M S T A N C E , E X C E E D A TOTAL OF 30 DAYS FROM WHEN THE STATEMENT I S F I R S T MADE A V A I L A B L E TO YOU. 4A d i s p l a c e s Brannon's common-law b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t 20 claim. 1060637 and 1061059 "YOU FURTHER AGREE THAT I F YOU F A I L TO REPORT ANY UNAUTHORIZED S I G N A T U R E S , A L T E R A T I O N S , F O R G E R I E S OR ANY OTHER ERRORS I N YOUR ACCOUNT W I T H I N 60 DAYS OF WHEN WE MAKE THE STATEMENT A V A I L A B L E , YOU CANNOT A S S E R T A C L A I M A G A I N S T US ON ANY ITEMS I N THAT STATEMENT, AND THE LOSS W I L L BE E N T I R E L Y YOURS. T H I S 60-DAY L I M I T A T I O N I S WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER WE E X E R C I S E D ORDINARY CARE. THE L I M I T A T I O N I N T H I S PARAGRAPH I S I N A D D I T I O N TO THAT CONTAINED I N THE F I R S T PARAGRAPH OF T H I S S E C T I O N . " (Capitalization i n original.) I n a d d i t i o n , as n o t e d , t h e r e c o r d instructed for the mailing estate account address Morrison, mailing c/o he Douglas and that account L. M c C o y " as followed I t i s undisputed, pursuant t o Brannon's in statements turn to by [McCoy] w o u l d had as she a listed by Hand Arendall's noted, that addition, as deposition that Brannon account an a f f i d a v i t was t o l d b y Ms. B r a n n o n from noted, f o r her." Peterson, i n which that Doug M c C o y w o u l d account." 21 account, forward told handle McCoy t o P e t e r s o n , and to In this the of Lemuel instruction responsibility checks "Estate Brannon. contains this McCoy r e c e i v e d a l l bank statements f o r the e s t a t e presumably testified to Brannon Lyn P e t e r s o n , t o send f o r the estate address. initially that a BankTrust employee, indicates that her these Peterson that The r e c o r d she a v e r s : "Doug also "I be i n c h a r g e o f 1060637 and 1061059 Furthermore, attempted, BankTrust means of from documents by McCoy and argues a on nonparty Hand appeal that subpoena, Arendall that to would i t obtain document Brannon's a u t h o r i z a t i o n and/or r a t i f i c a t i o n o f McCoy's payment requests to BankTrust. s u b p o e n a was conclusion Brannon's quashed that At by Brannon's the t r i a l compliance with r u l i n g was i n e r r o r and from obtaining further the to trial such additional issue with to discover whether requests argues that Brannon's the regard was BankTrust that, to information and authorized entry privilege 22 the or r a t i f i e d shields violate argues that or Hand by Arendall virtue of attorney-client of the to summary conduct in error. documents privileged attorney-client court's would ratification in this Brannon attorney-client the that thereafter prevented McCoy to BankTrust, such i n f o r m a t i o n constitute on BankTrust from regarding based subpoena i t was or however, i t without i t s f i r s t being allowed discovery agree evidence holding BankTrust judgment a g a i n s t sought the that authorization court's privilege. We court attorney-client privilege. that relating urging, extent BankTrust relating McCoy's to the payment and documents d i d n o t communications. communications between The a 1060637 and 1061059 lawyer and a client that "are based confidential information provided advice or opinions § (2004 ) . 357 regard an attorney to a transaction with attorney's employment, instructions given to the duties transaction constitute and would lawsuit regarding 432, Evid. the the res privileged d i s c l o s u r e of " c o n f i d e n t i a l purpose legal of f a c i l i t a t i n g of the attorney, attorney's of executing gestae h i sor of information the in a N y h o f f v . P a l m e r , 217 A l a . See a l s o R u l e 9 the 502(b), (explaining that the attorney-client p r i v i l e g e against the n o t be (1928). and agent i n the fact of i n the course the transaction. 116 S o . 5 2 0 , 524 party, attorney, of or contain the i s the c l i e n t ' s authority part disclose, 81 Am. J u r 2 d W i t n e s s e s a third the communications t o the c l i e n t her by t h e c l i e n t of the attorney." When o n , o r may A l a . R. protects c o m m u n i c a t i o n [ s ] made f o r the rendition of professional services to the c l i e n t " ) . On t h e b a s i s o f t h e f o r e g o i n g , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l court's entry of a partial summary judgment on Brannon's B e c a u s e we d e c i d e t h a t , o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s r e c o g n i z e d i n Nyhoff v. Palmer, BankTrust i s e n t i t l e d t o a t l e a s t some o f t h e d i s c o v e r y i t s o u g h t b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f t h e partial summary judgment against i t , we pretermit c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f B a n k T r u s t ' s o t h e r a r g u m e n t s made i n a n e f f o r t to achieve t h i s r e s u l t . 9 23 1060637 and 1061059 breach-of-contract j u d g m e n t and proceedings B. claim remand t h i s as to this argues error. cause to the We trial reverse court she argues, Brannon applicability about of in Article observes t h a t the for further not filed requirement four trial forth its contends whether A r t i c l e Rule common-law 8(c) court as an 8(c), Ala. affirmative that 4A the 4A does claims R. defenses trial court as list an the never trial the 4A as Brannon's raised court the inquired trial date. It amended a f f i r m a t i v e defense because the trial Civ. in tort date. its the that P., Citing a party set pleading, never have claims at Brannon considered issue. s t a t u t o r y displacement " a f f i r m a t i v e defense." 24 because, Article to as struck BankTrust's should d i s p l a c e d the not the Law granted of law answer days b e f o r e u n t i l just before i n Rule a matter BankTrust until of improperly to p r o p e r l y p l e a d that 4A answer a s s e r t i n g A r t i c l e was court i t s original notes its applicability also trial failed a f f i r m a t i v e defense complaint. the f o r a j u d g m e n t as BankTrust that issue. that BankTrust's motion it in B r a n n o n ' s A p p e a l o f t h e J u d g m e n t as a M a t t e r t o Her T o r t C l a i m s ( c a s e no. 1060637) Brannon an was This of is 1060637 and because 1061059 such displacement is in fact not an affirmative defense. "An 'affirmative asserted by be constitutes true, defense' [the] defendant Business Realty (quoting Black's which, a defense Inv. Co., Law is defined assuming to i t . ' " 722 So. Dictionary 2d (6th as the against assertion of which that i t i s asserted defense, a 'matter complaint to C i t y of Birmingham v. 747 , 750 ed. ( A l a . 1998 ) 1990)). p o s i t i o n t o c o n s t i t u t e an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e claim a For assumes t h a t i s , i n the absence cognizable claim under of a the the Alabama law. In 2d 1215, International 1216 Longshoremen's Ass'n ( A l a . 1985), circumstances of t h [ a t ] that was presented was this Court v. held Davis, that case," the i s s u e of f e d e r a l an affirmative defense. 1 0 470 So. "under the preemption Also, cf. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e i s s u e w i t h w h i c h t h e D a v i s C o u r t was c o n c e r n e d was w h e t h e r " t h e N a t i o n a l L a b o r R e l a t i o n s Act preempts a state's subject matter jurisdiction," or "whether federal preemption i s [ , instead,] a waivable defense." 470 So. 2d a t 1 2 1 6 . The i s s u e w h e t h e r p r e e m p t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e as o p p o s e d t o an a b r o g a t i o n of state l a w was not n e c e s s a r y to the Court's decision. E i t h e r t h e n o n c o g n i z a b i l i t y o f a s t a t e c l a i m as a r e s u l t o f f e d e r a l p r e e m p t i o n o r t h e t r e a t m e n t o f f e d e r a l p r e e m p t i o n as m e r e l y an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t o an o t h e r w i s e v a l i d state-law c l a i m w o u l d h a v e l e d t o t h e same r e s u l t , i . e . , a d e f e n s e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m t h a t was n o t j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a n d that 1 0 25 1060637 and 1061059 Charles Wright et Alan Jurisdiction, a l . , 19A Reporter's C o m p l e t e P r e e m p t i o n , 699, r e m o v a l p o s e d by t h e on i t s face, state law and Notes 701 noting that, therefore i s p r e e m p t e d by assertion otherwise created that of by Removal (2009) a complaint purports asserts the D.: Practice & on the Procedure: Basis of ( d i s c u s s i n g the hurdle to " m a s t e r - o f - t h e - c o m p l a i n t d o c t r i n e " where, defendant as Federal an a to a s s e r t " [ i ] n the state-law only ordinary claim f e d e r a l law, c o u l d be w a i v e d i f , as i n b e f o r e the t r i a l court. case conflicts this a f f i r m a t i v e defense state a claim i n which with is treated to the under a and merely liability law"). Davis, i t was not properly raised A l s o , t h e D a v i s C o u r t i t s e l f e x p l a i n e d t h a t i t was not d e c i d i n g t h a t the s t a t e - l a w c l a i m b e f o r e i t had i n f a c t been p r e e m p t e d b y f e d e r a l l a w b u t was a d d r e s s i n g o n l y t h e question whether the a s s e r t i o n t h a t the s t a t e - l a w c l a i m i s " s u b j e c t to p r e e m p t i o n " m u s t be p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n o r d e r f o r i t t o be r e v i e w e d on a p p e a l . 470 So. 2d a t 1216 n.2. In f a c t , the C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t , " i f [ i t ] were to r u l e on t h e m e r i t s , [ i t ] c o u l d not f i n d t h a t the s t a t e court's j u r i s d i c t i o n i s f e d e r a l l y preempted." Id. The C o u r t n o t e d t h a t the s t a t e - l a w c l a i m p r e s e n t e d t o i t was "an ordinary misrepresentation suit" against a supervisor, that "[t]he National Labor Relations Board [('NLRB')] ha[d] already d e t e r m i n e d t h a t an e m p l o y e r ' s s u p e r v i s o r s a r e n o t p r o t e c t e d b y the L a b o r Management R e l a t i o n s A c t , " and "[t]hus, in this case, Plaintiff has no remedy b e f o r e the NLRB, and this d i s p u t e , a l t h o u g h somewhat l a b o r - r e l a t e d , i s , a t m o s t , o n l y o f ' p e r i p h e r a l c o n c e r n ' t o t h e NLRB." I d . Davis, therefore, i s not a c a s e i n w h i c h t h e a s s e r t e d s t a t e - l a w c l a i m a r g u a b l y had b e e n d i s p l a c e d by f e d e r a l l a w . 26 1060637 and 1061059 When f e d e r a l l a w c o m p l e t e l y d i s p l a c e s there i s authority (citing, inter suggesting alia, a different Beneficial Nat'l U.S. 1 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , and n o t i n g that has recognized federal "completely defendant that preempt" from a state s t a t e law, however, Bank v. the United state-created States statute law and result. liability); Billy York Coat, S u i t , Dress, Rainwear Union, F. finding has of Supp. preemption determined therefore, viewed 1180 to as an removeability court). See also Practice and "did state Charles Procedure: not j u s t provide law; r a t h e r , (emphasis added), law of Alan an between as b e i n g action Jack f o r Her, that that for and that, in a l . , 14B 3722.1 to purposes brought et state Federal (3d e d . 2006) and Congress to the a p p l i c a t i o n federal c i t i n g A v c o C o r p . v . A e r o L o d g e No. be of preemption" the s t a t e law w i t h a Congress i t s nature, a s i t u a t i o n i n which 27 a (concluding "ordinary a f e d e r a l defense i t replaced immunize altogether by or Workers' defense Wright displace & Allied conclusion Jurisdiction § the d i f f e r e n c e preemption" 1981) i s not, affirmative the "complete a state preemption deciding (explaining N.Y. represents supplant federal merely (S.D. 539 Supreme C o u r t merely I n c . v . New 511 Anderson, may not Cf. i d . 735, of law" 390 1060637 and U.S. 557 1061059 (1968)(holding otherwise applicable When t h e no state argument t h a t defense" to the state law the as as changed i s simply is displaced longer statutory by in state of claim w h i c h r e l i e f can support i n the 2d) conversion failed to AmSouth that by the a definition, law, Cas. the issuer a claim v. Tice, motion have been g r a n t e d 923 for on Our a the to v. 28 that a the no the new pleading a claim a upon See, Bank (Civ.A. (not r e p o r t e d of a (Ala. matter by the 2005) of in common-law a depository displacement as claim finds Compass 1 0 60 the regard allegations 2d claim by to state A l a . 2006) of law other courts. C o u r t and judgment ground way in this a check against So. The provided definition, holding (S.D. because change. given be "affirmative common-law a failure that of the By Co. 2006) the rights having of t h i s (concluding state Bank statutory granted. Continental Supp. of decisions the can T h u s , i f a common-law action. 0 4 - 0 7 66-KD-C, M a r c h 6, F. law. constitutes be "absorbed" c h a n g e d i s somehow an new set causes nonexistent e.g., the had changes, however, there i t existed before a exists law law)). as then, legislature, federal itself law law by that law bank UCC); (holding should p l a i n t i f f ' s common- 1060637 and 1061059 law claims UCC); 786 for negligence American Liberty ( A l a . 2002) of law because p r o v i s i o n s Berthot common-law Commercial Code that, "displaces" failed granted: common-law Arizona's "[W]hen a p r o v i s i o n o f t h e A r i z o n a common l a w on that a claim upon w h i c h issue, action f o r 170 C t . App. 1991) common-law complaint the to state of (Ariz. because that to a Bank o f A r i z o n a , of the p l a i n t i f f ' s on t h e g r o u n d 825 S o . 2 d o f t h e UCC h a d cause v. S e c u r i t y P a c i f i c the dismissal conversion Bank, A m S o u t h B a n k was e n t i t l e d 3 1 8 , 3 2 1 , 823 P . 2 d 1 3 2 6 , 1 3 2 9 (affirming of Co. v . AmSouth that the p l a i n t i f f ' s conversion); Ariz. Ins. (holding judgment as a m a t t e r displaced and wantonness were d i s p l a c e d by t h e Uniform claim, relief U.C.C. t h e common claim the could be displaces l a w no longer the t r i a l court applies."). Brannon erred further i n holding argues, Fitts that however, v. Alabama, 2005), d i c t a t e s that A r t i c l e tort claims. Fred Fitts In F i t t s , and B e l l a n n of that 917 S o . 2 d 818 4A d i s p l a c e d B r a n n o n ' s c o m m o n - l a w husband-and-wife Fitts (Ala. filed breach a complaint common-law claims suppression, wantonness, and c o n s p i r a c y 29 business of contract, against that partners included negligence, their business 1060637 and 1061059 partner James agreed, that statute of repose George. the Fittses' affirmed the t r i a l Article 7-1-103, argued, claims i n § 7-4A-505, court's 4A d i s p l a c e d The F i t t s § George were b a r r e d A l a . Code the Fittses' of" unless they t h e UCC, ordinarily 1975, f o r guidance supplement are displaced traditional by t h e one-year 1975. common-law b e t w e e n t h e UCC a n d t h e common l a w . that court This Court judgment, s p e c i f i c a l l y h o l d i n g Court noted that A l a . Code and t h e t r i a l that claims. this Court looks to on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p Section 7-1-103 p r o v i d e s by " t h e p a r t i c u l a r p r o v i s i o n s p r i n c i p l e s o f law and e q u i t y the provisions o f t h e UCC. Fitts, will 917 S o . 2 d a t 824 n . 7 . In claims and concluding at issue quoted § 7-4A-102, that i n that Article t h e common-law case, however, t h e F i t t s extensively which 4A d i s p l a c e d provides, from the Official Court Comment i n part: " I n t h e d r a f t i n g o f A r t i c l e 4A, a d e l i b e r a t e d e c i s i o n was made t o w r i t e o n a c l e a n s l a t e a n d t o t r e a t a funds t r a n s f e r as a u n i q u e method o f payment t o be g o v e r n e d b y u n i q u e r u l e s t h a t a d d r e s s t h e p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h i s method o f payment. A d e l i b e r a t e d e c i s i o n was a l s o made t o u s e p r e c i s e and d e t a i l e d r u l e s t o a s s i g n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , define behavioral norms, allocate risks and e s t a b l i s h l i m i t s on l i a b i l i t y , r a t h e r t h a n t o r e l y o n b r o a d l y s t a t e d , f l e x i b l e p r i n c i p l e s . ... 30 noted to 1060637 and 1061059 " F u n d s t r a n s f e r s i n v o l v e c o m p e t i n g i n t e r e s t s -¬ those of the banks that provide funds transfer services and the commercial and financial o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t u s e t h e s e r v i c e s , as w e l l as t h e public interest. These c o m p e t i n g i n t e r e s t s were represented i n t h e d r a f t i n g p r o c e s s and t h e y were thoroughly considered. The rules that emerged r e p r e s e n t a c a r e f u l and d e l i c a t e b a l a n c i n g o f t h o s e i n t e r e s t s a n d a r e i n t e n d e d t o b e t h e e x c l u s i v e means of d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r i g h t s , d u t i e s and l i a b i l i t i e s o f the a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s i n any s i t u a t i o n c o v e r e d by p a r t i c u l a r p r o v i s i o n s of the a r t i c l e . Consequently, r e s o r t to p r i n c i p l e s of law or e q u i t y outside of Article 4A i s n o t a p p r o p r i a t e to create rights, duties and liabilities inconsistent with those stated i n this article." (Emphasis added.) 2d a t 1065 See g e n e r a l l y A m S o u t h B a n k v . T i c e , (discussing and a p p l y i n g criteria for 923 S o . determining w h e t h e r a s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n has d i s p l a c e d a common-law c a u s e o f a c t i o n ) ; A m e r i c a n L i b e r t y I n s . Co. v . A m S o u t h B a n k , 825 S o . 2d a t 794-95 Brannon provided of contends by A r t i c l e negligence Article with (same). 4A characterizes the rights 4A do n o t d i s p l a c e and wantonness i n t h i s does respect that to responsibilities h e r common-law case because, not purport to provide facts those like and an presented she exclusive here. claims says, remedy Brannon t h o s e f a c t s as i n v o l v i n g a " d e b i t t r a n s f e r , " and 31 1060637 not and a Article 1061059 "credit 4A." transfer within defined here, in transfers" contemplation of 11 We n o t e that§ 7 - 4 A - 1 0 2 p r o v i d e s applicable the § Article 7-4A-104. i n pertinent 4A applies Section part that, with exceptions to funds 7-4A-104 not transfers defines "funds as f o l l o w s : "[T]he series of transactions, beginning with o r i g i n a t o r ' s p a y m e n t o r d e r , made f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f making payment t o t h e b e n e f i c i a r y o f t h e o r d e r . The term includes any payment order issued by t h e o r i g i n a t o r ' s b a n k o r an i n t e r m e d i a r y b a n k intended to c a r r y out t h e o r i g i n a t o r ' s payment o r d e r . " (Emphasis added.) According instruction it be t o § 7 - 4 A - 1 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( i i ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , f o r an t o q u a l i f y as a "payment o r d e r " m u s t b e one w i t h reimbursed receiving Section by payment respect 7-4A-103(a)(5) 4A, t o which "the r e c e i v i n g bank i s t o debiting from, under A r t i c l e an the states account sender." that a of, or otherwise (Emphasis "'sender' added.) means the I n F i t t s , no q u e s t i o n was r a i s e d a s t o w h e t h e r t h e f u n d s transfer at issue was a " c r e d i t t r a n s f e r " or a "debit t r a n s f e r " ; a c c o r d i n g l y , F i t t s c o n t a i n s no d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h o s e two t y p e s o f t r a n s f e r s . We therefore f i n d i t unnecessary, f o r purposes of deciding the present case, to consider what bearing, i f any, that d i s t i n c t i o n w o u l d h a v e h a d on t h e o u t c o m e i n F i t t s . 1 1 32 1060637 and 1061059 person giving purposes t h e i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e r e c e i v i n g bank." of A r t i c l e 4A and t h e p r o t e c t i o n For i t provides to r e c e i v i n g banks i n r e l a t i o n t o c r e d i t t r a n s f e r s , § 7-4A-202(d) expands the term "sender" name a p a y m e n t o r d e r order it to include i s issued i fthe order of the customer under s u b s e c t i o n i s effective subsection 1 2 as (b)[of § Subsections the order 7-4A-202]." 7-4A-202(a) "the customer of i n whose i s the authorized (a)[ of § 7-4A-202], o r the customer under 1 2 a n d (b) s t a t e : "(a) A payment o r d e r r e c e i v e d by t h e r e c e i v i n g bank i s the authorized order of the person i d e n t i f i e d as s e n d e r i f t h a t p e r s o n a u t h o r i z e d t h e order o r i s o t h e r w i s e bound by i t under t h e law o f agency. "(b) I f a bank and i t s c u s t o m e r have a g r e e d t h a t the a u t h e n t i c i t y o f payment o r d e r s issued to the b a n k i n t h e name o f t h e c u s t o m e r a s s e n d e r w i l l b e v e r i f i e d p u r s u a n t t o a s e c u r i t y p r o c e d u r e , a payment o r d e r r e c e i v e d by t h e r e c e i v i n g bank i s e f f e c t i v e as the order of the customer, whether or not authorized, i f ( i ) the s e c u r i t y procedure i s a c o m m e r c i a l l y r e a s o n a b l e method o f p r o v i d i n g s e c u r i t y against unauthorized payment o r d e r s , and ( i i ) t h e bank p r o v e s t h a t i t a c c e p t e d t h e payment o r d e r i n good faith and i n compliance w i t h the security p r o c e d u r e and any w r i t t e n agreement o r i n s t r u c t i o n of t h e customer r e s t r i c t i n g a c c e p t a n c e o f payment o r d e r s i s s u e d i n t h e name o f t h e c u s t o m e r . The b a n k is not required to follow an i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t v i o l a t e s a w r i t t e n agreement w i t h t h e customer o r n o t i c e of which i s not r e c e i v e d a t a time and i n a manner a f f o r d i n g t h e bank a r e a s o n a b l e opportunity 33 1060637 and 1061059 Paragraph Alabama Code "payment from 4 of the Official 1975, e x p l a i n s order" entails "the sender" Comment further reimbursement or the sender's to § 7-4A-104, the provision that to the receiving a bank account: " T r a n s f e r s o f f u n d s made t h r o u g h t h e b a n k i n g s y s t e m a r e commonly r e f e r r e d t o as e i t h e r 'credit' transfers or 'debit' transfers. In a credit t r a n s f e r t h e i n s t r u c t i o n t o pay i s g i v e n by t h e p e r s o n making payment. In a debit transfer the i n s t r u c t i o n t o pay i s g i v e n by t h e person r e c e i v i n g payment. The p u r p o s e of subparagraph ( i i )of subsection ( a ) ( 1 ) o f S e c t i o n 4A-103 i s t o i n c l u d e c r e d i t t r a n s f e r s i n A r t i c l e 4A a n d t o e x c l u d e d e b i t transfers. ... Article 4A i s limited to t r a n s a c t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e a c c o u n t t o be d e b i t e d b y the r e c e i v i n g b a n k i s t h a t o f t h e p e r s o n i n whose name t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i s g i v e n . " 1 3 In the the present case, receiving estate this account. case given bank, would i t was c o n t e m p l a t e d BankTrust, be, and i t was, r e i m b u r s e d Thus, i n o r d e r f o r t h e i n s t r u c t i o n to qualify as a "payment a c t on i t b e f o r e t h e p a y m e n t by t h e given i n o r d e r , " i t must have been b y o r on b e h a l f o f t h e M o r r i s o n e s t a t e to that as t h e s e n d e r . order i s accepted." Paragraph 4 of the O f f i c i a l Comment t o § 7 - 4 A - 1 0 4 p r o v i d e s t h e f o l l o w i n g example o f a c r e d i t t r a n s f e r , where X i s t h e owner o f an a c c o u n t : " W i t h r e s p e c t t o X's i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n t o B a n k A, B a n k A w i l l b e r e i m b u r s e d b y d e b i t i n g X ' s a c c o u n t o r o t h e r w i s e r e c e i v i n g p a y m e n t f r o m X." 1 3 34 1060637 and 1061059 As n o t e d , § 7-4A-202(d) p r o v i d e s a customer i n whose name order i s the authorized (a), or i t i s effective subsection (b). § 7-4A-203 explains order the § i s issued order that § 7-4A-202]." subsection as stated i n whose name a p a y m e n t i n subsection with subsection order or i s otherwise (Emphasis issue i n this argues provides sender i f that that case; " [ a ] payment person bound by i t under on appeal that case were n o t c r e d i t protection according (b) [ o f order order of the authorized t h e laws the of agency." added.) Brannon the as to a (b) i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s (a) o f § 7-4A-202 identified (a) [ o f pursuant r e c e i v e d by t h e r e c e i v i n g bank i s t h e a u t h o r i z e d person under Comment f o l l o w i n g i s 'verified' i n compliance Subsection subsection t o be t h e s e n d e r o f t h e o r d e r i f i f the order procedure " i f the of the customer 1 of the O f f i c i a l "[a] person includes i s issued of the customer under i s considered or order as t h e o r d e r i s 'authorized' 7-4A-202] security a payment order Section that a "sender" afforded banks by the funds at t r a n s f e r s f o rpurposes of Article t o B r a n n o n , h e r common-law c l a i m s wantonness are not d i s p l a c e d . transfers 4A. Therefore, of negligence and She n o t e s t h a t M c C o y i n s t r u c t e d 35 1060637 and 1061059 BankTrust the t o make t h e p a y m e n t s t o h i s l a w f i r m , a c r e d i t o r o f Morrison We estate, agree transfers" have that Article as d e f i n e d common-law transfers as s u p p o r t i v e causes applies article action as so d e f i n e d . ignored 4A i n that of only Because or r e j e c t e d of her p o s i t i o n . this c a n n o t be s a i d as a m a t t e r that the transfers defined In in Article so h o l d i n g , funds 4A, t h a t h o w e v e r , we transfers credit at issue at issue transfers. Indeed, some e v i d e n c e a l r e a d y Brannon estate order t o McCoy should i t displaces relation to court i n entering i t s o f B a n k T r u s t , and because constitute judgment short credit us transfers as reversed. of concluding that the a s we h a v e a l r e a d y and t h a t , before i s due t o be d i d not, i n fact, i n the record credit appears t o o f l a w on t h e r e c o r d stop "credit constitute noted, such there i s that would tend to support within the authority f o r that reason, the granted Morrison b e d e e m e d t h e " s e n d e r " i n w h o s e name t h e p a y m e n t was i s s u e d . further in proposition a finding that the transfers f e l l by to and t h a t the t r i a l judgment as a m a t t e r o f l a w i n f a v o r it only discovery Also, consistent with appears w h i c h M c C o y was a u t h o r i z e d t o be i n o r d e r by Brannon 36 our d i s c u s s i o n above, as t o t h e e x t e n t to t o make t h e t r a n s f e r s . 1060637 and 1061059 See § 7 - 4 A - 2 0 2 ( a ) . remains McCoy a genuine issue of f a c t as t o w h e t h e r B r a n n o n , even i f she d i d n o t a u t h o r i z e to i n i t i a t e transfers] 202. B y t h e same t o k e n , the transfer, " i s otherwise under t h e law of agency" f o rpurposes Accordingly, we r e v e r s e the t r i a l court's m a t t e r o f l a w as t o Brannon's n e g l i g e n c e and remand t h e cause f o rfurther IV. Based partial as on a matter the foregoing, of law i n favor 1060637 -- A P P L I C A T I O N 2 0 0 9 , WITHDRAWN; OPINION judgment as a and wantonness c l a i m s proceedings. we reverse -- A P P L I C A T I O N 2 0 0 9 , WITHDRAWN; OPINION court's of BankTrust. OVERRULED; Woodall, a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . 37 OPINION OF JULY 3 1 , R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED. OVERRULED; SUBSTITUTED; C . J . , and Lyons, the t r i a l o f Brannon and i t s judgment SUBSTITUTED; 1061059 Parker, o f § 7-4A- Conclusion summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r Cobb, bound by [ t h e OPINION OF JULY 3 1 , R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED. Stuart, Smith, Bolin,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.