Sunday, November 29, 2015

Bernhard v. Bank of America case brief

Bernhard v. Bank of America case brief
1942 California Supreme

Facts: Sather, an elderly woman, lives with the Cook’s, because of her failing health she allowed Cook’s and Zeiler to make drafts jointly against her commercial account in National Bank. On Aug 24, 1933, Cook opened a commercial account in a different national bank in name of Slather by Cook and a number of checks drawn by Cook and Zeiler on Sather’s account were deposited into the other account. 
Sather then transferred the rest of her money to the other bank in the name of Cook and Cook then took all of that money in the other bank and deposited money in his own account. Sather dies and Cook is executor and proceeded with admin. After several years he resigned but no mention of the money transferred was made and a suit was filed against the account. The court said that it was a gift to cook during her lifetime and so dismissed any objections. 
Afterward, Bernhard was appointed administratrix with the will annexed and sued Bank of America, the successor to the second bank to recover the money deposited because the bank was indebted to this estate since Sather never authorized the withdrawal. The court said it was res judicata because of the finding of probate court and defendant won. Gets appealed, plaintiff says res judicata does not apply since defendant was not a party in the first action 
Reasoning: A party or privities may take advantage of former judgment and a party is people who are directly interested in the subject matter and had a right to make a defense or to control proceeding and to appeal.  A privity is one who acquired an interest in subject matter affected by the judgment as by inheritance or other ways. Estoppel is mutual if the one taking advantage would have been bound if it was against him. 
The assertion of a plea of res judicata against a party not bound if the party was not bound by earlier litigation. However the party asserting it does not need to have been a party in a suit, only the people that the defense is directed against must have been a party. Reason being it is unfair to permit one who had his day in court to reopen issues by merely switching adversaries. 
Three questions – 1. Was the issue decided in prior adjudication identical with one presented here? 2. Was there a final judgment on merits? 3. Was party against whom the plea has asserted a party to prior adjudication? 

Affirmed, no recovery of funds 
Visit: to rid yourself of that social media addition.

Check out our store on Etsy:

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...