MID AM CREDIT CORP V JOINT MILITARY & VETERANS CREDIT UNION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MID AM CREDIT CORPORATION,
UNPUBLISHED
November 13, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 216508
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 97-000070-CK
v
JOINT MILITARY & VETERANS CREDIT
UNION,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
DELLOYD T. HILL,
Defendant.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Doctoroff and White, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the majority’s resolution of the conversion claim. I also concur in the
affirmance with respect to all claims pertaining to the first check. I would reverse, however,
with respect to certain claims regarding the second check.
Although my reasoning differs from the majority’s, I agree that the negligence claim
based on a common law duty to freeze the account upon receiving notice of plaintiff’s claim was
properly dismissed as to both checks. Plaintiff’s assertion that such a common law duty existed
is accurate. I conclude, however, that defendant was properly granted the protection of MCL
487.691, which modified the common-law duty, and that negligence claims based on mere notice
to defendant were properly dismissed. See LaValley v Pere Marquette Emp Credit Union, 342
Mich 639; 70 NW2d 798 (1955).
I dissent from the affirmance with regard to other claims regarding the second check.
There were genuine issues of material fact regarding plaintiff’s claim that defendant negligently
discharged its undertaking to place a stop payment on the second check, and plaintiff’s claim of
innocent or negligent misrepresentation based on communications between plaintiff’s counsel
and defendant’s counsel in which defendant’s counsel allegedly led plaintiff’s counsel to believe
that a stop payment hold had been placed on the second check and that the funds were available,
-1-
and on defendant’s failure to determine and notify plaintiff that the check had been paid.
Plaintiff presented evidence in support of these claims, and defendant did not conclusively refute
them. Further, whether defendant was responsible for the failed stop payment order was a matter
of dispute. Lastly, I conclude that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding plaintiff’s
indemnity claim based on the injunction. The second check cleared after defendant had notice of
the injunction. Apparently defendant took no action upon receiving such notice because it was
under the impression that the second check was already subject to the stop payment order.
Again, there were questions of fact regarding why the stop payment order failed. Plaintiff also
presented evidence that defendant would have been notified that the check cleared by the
following day, and that the transaction could have been reversed.
/s/ Helene N. White
-2-
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.
