Sapp v. Flagstar Bank, FSB
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1621
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Sapp deposited a $125,000 check into the SF7 LLC business account at Flagstar; provisional credit was issued.
- Flagstar later lost the check and notified Sapp two months after the deposit, seeking source identification.
- Flagstar attempted to set off against accounts Sapp controlled; Sapp resisted, and funds were largely depleted through prior withdrawals.
- Flagstar charged back the provisional deposit, creating a negative balance; Flagstar sued Sapp for theft, conversion, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on theft and unjust enrichment, denied on breach of contract, and later awarded attorney’s fees; on appeal, judgment was reversed in part and remanded for trial on contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract—summary judgment appropriate? | Sapp | Flagstar | Genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment |
| Theft—proper summary judgment? | Sapp | Flagstar | Theft summary judgment improper; no evidence of unauthorized control by Sapp |
| Unjust enrichment—availability of remedy? | Sapp | Flagstar | Unjust enrichment not available; contract governs |
| Attorney's fees based on theft finding? | Sapp | Flagstar | Fees reversed because theft finding reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Yates v. Johnson County Bd. of Comm'rs, 888 N.E.2d 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (summary judgment standard; de novo review of questions of law)
- Landmark Health Care Assocs. L.P. v. Bradbury, 671 N.E.2d 113 (Ind. 1996) (contract interpretation aims to ascertain intent)
- Otto v. Park Garden Assocs., 612 N.E.2d 135 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (burden shifting in summary judgment; designate evidence)
- Best Homes, Inc. v. Rainwater, 714 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (proper scope of summary judgment review; designated materials only)
- Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. Group v. Blaskie, 727 N.E.2d 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (cross-motions for summary judgment; analyze separately)
- Stewart v. TT Commercial One, LLC, 911 N.E.2d 51 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (contract interpretation; de novo review)
- Breining v. Harkness, 872 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (civil conversion framework; elements proven by preponderance)