Epperson v. Southbank
2012 Miss. LEXIS 248
Miss.2012Background
- Epperson sued SOUTHBank for breach of contract over withdrawal of funds from CDs funded by C.K. and Juanita Rickman for Epperson and Thompson.
- The CDs were opened in 1993 with various ownership structures, some naming trustees for the children and others naming the children directly.
- Originally, CDs required endorsement and presentation of the CDs to withdraw prior to maturity; later signature cards moved to a generic Consumer Account Agreement with broader withdrawal language.
- In 2005, Epperson attempted to obtain funds but was told she must present the original CDs; bank maintained an unwritten but longstanding policy requiring original documents.
- In 2006, the remaining CDs were closed and consolidated into a single CD in others’ names; Epperson’s name was removed from the new CD.
- The trial court granted SOUTHBank summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals reversed; this Court granted certiorari to address contract interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contract is ambiguous about presenting original CDs for withdrawal | Epperson argues contract language is unambiguous and does not require originals. | SOUTHBank argues boilerplate language allows restrictions and presentation of originals for withdrawal. | Contract is unambiguous; presentation of originals may be required. |
| If ambiguous, whether extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine intent | Epperson would use parol evidence to show lack of original-CD presentation requirement in 2000 signature. | SOUTHBank argues for limited extrinsic evidence only after ambiguity is found. | Not applicable; contract found unambiguous. |
| Proper interpretation of the clause 'on forms approved by us' and related 'may be restricted' provision | Epperson contends these phrases do not explicitly require presenting original CDs. | SOUTHBank contends the entire contract supports restricting withdrawals and requiring originals. | Whole-contract interpretation shows bank may require forms and restrict early withdrawals. |
| Whether boilerplate language can be enforced to permit restrictions on withdrawals | Epperson asserts boilerplate language is too general to impose original-CD presentation. | SOUTHBank argues boilerplate language is enforceable and controls. | Boilerplate language is enforceable and supports restrictions. |
| What governs contractual interpretation and ultimate remedy on summary judgment | Epperson seeks full CD value plus interest based on withdrawal attempt. | SOUTHBank seeks affirmation of summary judgment based on unambiguous contract. | Court affirms that contract is unambiguous and reinstates trial court judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Royer Homes of Miss., Inc. v. Chandeleur Homes, Inc., 857 So.2d 748 (Miss.2003) (three-step contract interpretation framework)
- Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So.2d 349 (Miss.1990) (contract interpretation with canons; ambiguity threshold)
- Titan Indem. Co. v. Hood, 895 So.2d 138 (Miss.2004) (freedom to contract; boilerplate enforceability)
- Cherokee Ins. Co. v. Babin, 37 So.3d 45 (Miss.2010) (three-step contract interpretation; ambiguity analysis)
- Delta Pride Catfish, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 697 So.2d 400 (Miss.1997) (contract ambiguity defined as two reasonable interpretations)