Compass Bank v. Francisco Calleja-Ahedo
569 S.W.3d 104
Tex.2018Background
- Francisco Calleja-Ahedo opened a Compass Bank account in 1988; he lived in Mexico and asked the bank to mail statements to his brother in The Woodlands, Texas.
- In June–July 2012 an imposter changed the account mailing address and caused large unauthorized withdrawals that drained the account by February 2013; Calleja learned of the problem in January 2014.
- Compass Bank had mailed statements to the imposter after June 2012 but also offered alternative means to obtain statements (in-branch copies, a toll-free number, and free online access); Calleja did not use these options or otherwise inquire for ~18 months.
- Calleja sued Compass Bank to recover the stolen funds; the trial court granted summary judgment for the bank under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 4.406; the court of appeals reversed, holding statements sent to the imposter were not sent to the customer and that the deposit agreement limited how statements could be “made available.”
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review and held that the bank made the statements “available” under § 4.406 (via other means), that subsections 4.406(f) and 4.406(d)(2) bar Calleja’s claims for most or all losses, and that the deposit agreements did not override those statutory protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements mailed to the imposter were "sent to a customer" under § 4.406(a) | Calleja: mailing to imposter is not sending to the customer (relying on Lenk) | Bank: mailing to wrong address satisfied statute if statements were otherwise available | Court: statements were not sent to Calleja but that does not end the inquiry—separate "made available" prong applies |
| Whether the bank "made [statements] available" to Calleja under § 4.406 | Calleja: statements were not available because he never received them and had directed mail to his brother | Bank: statements were available via phone, branches, and free online access; Calleja failed to use available means | Court: statements were "made available"—Calleja had reasonable, accessible means to obtain them and failed to act promptly |
| Whether § 4.406 bars recovery because Calleja failed to report within statutory repose/periods | Calleja: delayed notice and nonreceipt mitigate his duty; some transactions occurred within one year | Bank: subsection 4.406(f) (one-year repose) and subsection 4.406(d)(2) (preclusion of subsequent-item claims after reasonable time) bar claims | Court: § 4.406(f) bars claims for transactions shown >1 year before notice; § 4.406(d)(2) bars remaining subsequent-item claims—bank entitled to summary judgment |
| Whether the deposit agreements alter or narrow the statute (e.g., limit how statements could be "made available") | Calleja: 2008 agreement (assumed binding) restricts how statements can be made available (only by holding or delivering per instructions) and shortens repose to 30 days when bank "sends" statements | Bank: agreements do not eliminate statutory protections when statements are "made available" by other means | Court: agreements do not conflict with statute; they shorten repose when statements are sent but do not negate statutory protections for statements made available other ways |
Key Cases Cited
- Lenk v. Jefferson State Bank, 323 S.W.3d 146 (Tex. 2010) (mailing to wrongdoer does not amount to mailing to customer; statements may still be "made available")
- FDIC v. Lenk, 361 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2012) (bank–customer debtor-creditor relationship and bank’s burden to show proper payment under Article 4)
- American Airlines Employees Fed. Credit Union v. Martin, 29 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. 2000) (§ 4.406 repose period can be contractually shortened; customer duty to examine statements)
- Molinet v. Kimbrell, 356 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. 2011) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Methodist Healthcare Sys. of San Antonio v. Rankin, 307 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. 2010) (distinguishing statutes of repose from statutes of limitation)