Lyle Brooks Griffith v. BCBank, Inc.
16-0460
| W. Va. | Apr 7, 2017Background
- Brooks Griffith banked at BCBank; due to dementia he hired Crystal Gain as a caregiver; petitioner (his son, Lyle Griffith) was added as joint accountholder in August 2010.
- Between Feb. 2010 and Apr. 13, 2011, petitioner alleges Mrs. Gain and her husband embezzled approximately $169,000 from the account; account statements and paid checks were mailed monthly during this period.
- On April 13, 2011 the bank discovered suspected unauthorized transactions, closed the original account, and moved funds to a new joint account; bank ceased paying items from the original account after that date.
- Petitioner sued in June 2014 as executor of Brooks’s estate, asserting forgery, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and estoppel; bank moved for summary judgment in Oct. 2015.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for the bank, finding UCC preclusion for failure to timely examine statements, statutes of limitations barred forgery and negligence claims, breach-of-contract unsupported, and estoppel abandoned or unsupported.
- On appeal the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the summary judgment, concluding petitioner failed to raise genuine issues of material fact on good faith/ordinary care, tolling, contract breach specifics, or estoppel elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCC preclusion bars forgery claims when bank paid forged/unauthorized items (ordinary care/good faith) | Griffith: bank strictly liable for paying unauthorized items; bank should have detected red flags and failed monitoring policies | BCBank: monthly statements were provided; customer failed to timely report; bank paid in good faith and suffered loss due to customer's failure to examine statements | Court: UCC preclusion applies; no genuine fact issue that bank paid in good faith and customer failed statutory duties, so summary judgment affirmed |
| Breach of contract for paying unauthorized transfers | Griffith: account agreement prohibited withdrawals by non‑signatories; bank breached deposit contract by paying forged items | BCBank: plaintiff failed to identify which agreement term was breached; plaintiff also failed to comply with agreement notice requirements | Court: plaintiff did not identify specific contractual breach and failed to comply with account terms; summary judgment affirmed |
| Statute of limitations / discovery rule for forgery and negligence claims | Griffith: bank representatives told him reimbursement would follow criminal adjudication, tolling limitations; discovery occurred later (2012–2013) | BCBank: plaintiff knew of losses and suspected wrongdoers by April 13, 2011; limitations began then and suit filed in 2014 was untimely | Court: statute began in April 2011 under discovery rule; no tolling for claimed promises; claims time‑barred |
| Estoppel / apparent authority based on bank representatives’ assurances | Griffith: relied on customer‑service representations that funds would be recredited after prosecutions, delaying suit; estoppel should apply | BCBank: representatives lacked authority to waive rights or toll limitations; plaintiff presented no evidence of apparent authority or supporting elements | Court: plaintiff failed to adduce evidence or argument on estoppel below; claim abandoned or unsupported; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (W. Va. 1994) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Horton v. Prof’l Bureau of Collections of Maryland, Inc., 238 W. Va. 310, 794 S.E.2d 395 (W. Va. 2016) (summary judgment review)
- Sneberger v. Morrison, 235 W. Va. 654, 776 S.E.2d 156 (W. Va. 2015) (elements of breach of contract)
- Dunn v. Rockwell, 225 W. Va. 43, 689 S.E.2d 255 (W. Va. 2009) (discovery rule for statute of limitations)
- Gaither v. City Hosp., Inc., 199 W. Va. 706, 487 S.E.2d 901 (W. Va. 1997) (elements required to invoke discovery rule)
- Potesta v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 202 W. Va. 308, 504 S.E.2d 135 (W. Va. 1998) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of known right)
- All Med, LLC v. Randolph Engineering Co., Inc., 228 W. Va. 634, 723 S.E.2d 864 (W. Va. 2012) (apparent agency requires reasonable belief in agent’s authority)
- Everett v. Brown, 174 W. Va. 35, 321 S.E.2d 685 (W. Va. 1984) (elements and enforceability of promissory estoppel)
- Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (W. Va. 1995) (application of discovery rule principles)