Meyers v. Johanningmeier

7 Citing cases

  1. Dean Witter Reynolds v. Variable Life Ins. Co.

    373 F.3d 1100 (10th Cir. 2004)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that the creation of a general deposit account does not create a bailment

    A check is undoubtedly a negotiable instrument, see Wedge Mines Co. v. Denver Nat'l Bank, 19 Colo.App. 182, 73 P. 873, 875 (1903); C.R.S. ยง 4-3-104 (check is a negotiable instrument under the U.C.C.), and the check itself, which can be assigned to others, takes on commercial significance apart from the underlying funds it represents. See, e.g., Meyers v. Johanningmeier, 735 P.2d 206 (Colo.Ct.App. 1987) (in general, a holder in due course takes the instrument free from all claims and defenses of any party to the instrument); C.R.S. ยง 4-3-301, 3-302 3-305 (defining rights of holders in due course under the U.C.C.). Thus, there is little doubt that under Colorado law, if A gives B a check to deliver to C, B is A's bailee and can be liable for misdelivery.

  2. Treve W. v. Commissioner

    No. 15862-09 (U.S.T.C. Nov. 1, 2011)

    Plasterers' Pension Fund explained that in Colorado, "fraud in the execution `is fraud exercised in reference to the acts of signing and delivering an instrument, sometimes by a deceptive substitution of documents causing someone to sign an instrument without knowing the consequences of his act.'" Id. at 1186-1187 (quoting Meyers v. Johanningmeier,11 Brief Times Reporter 122 (Feb. 6, 1987)). Quoting the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, sec. 163 Illustration 2 (1981), the court explained by way of example:

  3. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Samora

    321 P.3d 590 (Colo. App. 2013)   Cited 11 times
    Applying two-year tort catch-all statute of limitations contained in Colorado Revised Statute ยง 13-80-102 to civil conspiracy

    If a person has been fraudulently deceived about the nature of a document, so that he or she is excusably ignorant about what has been signed, courts recognize โ€œfraud in the factum.โ€ SeeMeyers v. Johanningmeier, 735 P.2d 206, 207 (Colo.App.1987) (explaining relationship between statutory defense against holders in due course of negotiable instruments and the common law defense of fraud in the factum). Unlike other types of fraud, fraud in the factum yields an instrument that is void, and not merely voidable.

  4. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Samora

    2013 COA 81 (Colo. App. 2013)   Cited 11 times

    If a person has been fraudulently deceived about the nature of a document, so that he or she is excusably ignorant about what has been signed, courts recognize "fraud in the factum." See Meyers v. Johanningmeier, 735 P.2d 206, 207 (Colo. App. 1987) (explaining relationship between statutory defense against holders in due course of negotiable instruments and the common law defense of fraud in the factum). Unlike other types of fraud, fraud in the factum yields an instrument that is void, and not merely voidable.

  5. Svanidze v. Kirkendall

    169 P.3d 262 (Colo. App. 2007)   Cited 10 times

    If a person has been fraudulently deceived about the nature of a document, so that he or she is excusably ignorant about what has been signed, courts recognize "fraud in the factum." See Meyers v. Johanningmeier, 735 P.2d 206, 207 (Colo.App. 1987) (explaining relationship between statutory defense against holders in due course of negotiable instruments and the common law defense of fraud in the factum). Unlike other types of fraud, fraud in the factum yields an instrument that is void, and not merely voidable.

  6. Stotler v. Geibank Industrial Bank

    827 P.2d 608 (Colo. App. 1992)   Cited 5 times
    Underlying theoretical basis for close connections doctrine is that the assignee is in such a close relationship with the assignor that it is either involved with many aspects of assignor's business, or has responsibility in this regard

    This is a real defense and, if proved, defeats the rights of Geibank to collect under the note. See Meyers v. Johanningmeier, 735 P.2d 206 (Colo.App. 1987); ยง 4-3-305, C.R.S. While we recognize that plaintiff's evidence in her affidavit in support of this claim is somewhat ambiguous, we conclude that application of the above stated summary judgment principles means that plaintiff can proceed on this claim.

  7. Upson v. Goodland State Bank Trust Co.

    797 P.2d 845 (Colo. App. 1990)   Cited 5 times

    In a case involving fraud in the factum, the releasor signs what is actually a release after being led to believe it is some other type of document. See Howard v. International Trust Co., 139 Colo. 314, 338 P.2d 689 (1959); Meyers v. Johanningmeier, 735 P.2d 206 (Colo.App. 1987). Because the releasor in such a case is unaware of what he or she is signing, the release is void and without effect.