Harder v. First Capital Bank

5 Citing cases

  1. Socar Inc. v. Regions Bank

    Civil Action File No. 1:05-CV-2269-TWT (N.D. Ga. Jun. 19, 2006)

    Indeed, courts analyzing the revised UCC under facts virtually identical to those before this Court have held as a matter of law that checks containing "stacked" endorsements without any grammatical connectors are ambiguous and properly payable with the endorsement of any one payee. See Pelican Nat'l Bank, 849 A.2d at 481-83; Harder v. First Capital Bank, 775 N.E.2d 610, 614 (Ill.App.Ct. 2002); Allied Capital Partners, 68 S.W.3d at 52-54; see also In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc., 322 B.R. 238, 245 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005) ("[I]f a check is addressed to two or more payees without any grammatical connectors between the payees, such as `and' or `or,' the UCC essentially inserts the word `or' between the names of the payees. This holds for `stacked payees' such as MGM and Bank of America Commercial.

  2. In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc.

    322 B.R. 238 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 5 times

    Dimmitt Owens Fin., Inc. v. USA Glass Metal, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19258, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 1998) (noting that revised Article 3 became effective in Illinois on January 1, 1992). 810 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/3-110 (2004) ("If an instrument payable to 2 or more persons is ambiguous as to whether it is payable to the persons alternatively, the instrument is payable to the persons alternatively."); Harder v. First Capital Bank, 775 N.E.2d 610, 613-14 (Ill.App.Ct. 2002) (dismissing conversion and negligence claims because checks listing multiple payees without grammatical connectors except between names of two payees were ambiguous as to whether checks were payable jointly or in the alternative and thus were payable in the alternative); Meng v. Maywood Proviso State Bank, 702 N.E.2d 258, 264 (Ill.App. 1998) (cashier's check which did not include any language or markings, such as the word "and" or the word "or," regarding whether the check was payable alternatively or jointly was ambiguous, thus payable alternatively); Dimmitt, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19258, at *9-11 (check without any indication as to whether it was intended to be payable alternatively or jointly was ambiguous as to whether it was made payable to either payee alternatively and could be paid to either payee individually); Manufacturers' News, Inc. v. Indus. Guides, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13608, at *8-9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 1997) (dismissing conversion claims because the UCC required

  3. Pelican National Bank v. Provident Bank

    381 Md. 327 (Md. 2004)   Cited 23 times
    In Pelican, the Maryland Court of Appeals addressed the question whether a check "made payable to multiple payees, listed in stacked formation on its face, without any grammatical connector or punctuation, is ambiguous" as to whether it is negotiable jointly or alternatively under § 3-110(d). 381 Md. at 329, 849 A.2d 475.

    J.R. Simplot, Inc. v. Knight, 988 P.2d 955, 956 (Wash.,1999) (since multiple payees separated by hyphen "did not unambiguously indicate whether they were to be paid jointly or in the alternative, RCW 62A.3-110 mandate[d] they were payable in the alternative"); Hyatt Corporation v. Palm Beach National Bank, 840 So.2d 300, 303 (Fla. D. Ct. App. 2003); Harder v. First Capital Bank, 775 N.E.2d 610, 613 (Ill.App. 2002) (checks listing multiple payees without grammatical connectors except between names of two payees were ambiguous as to whether checks were payable jointly or in the alternative and thus, were payable in the alternative); Meng v. Maywood Proviso State Bank, 301 Ill.App.3d 128, 234 Ill.Dec.92, 702 N.E.2d 258, 264 (1998) (cashier's check which did not include any language or markings, such as the word "and" or the word "or," regarding whether the check was payable alternatively or jointly was ambiguous, thus payable alternatively); Allied Capital Partners, L.P. v. Bank One, Texas, N.A., 68 S.W.3d 51, 52-54 (Tx.Ct.App. 2001) (checks which listed two payees that were not connected by "and" or "or" were ambiguous as to whether they were payable to two payees jointly or alternatively, and thus properly cashed on indorsement of only one payee); Danco, Inc. V. Commerce Bank/Shore, N.A., 675 A.2d 663, 665 (N.J. Super. 1996) (noting that, under U.C.C. § 3-110(d), "where any ambiguity between jo

  4. Carter v. City of Alton

    2015 Ill. App. 5th 130544 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 13 times
    Reversing the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint and remanding for further proceedings

    Dismissal pursuant to a 2–619 motion is proper if the plaintiff's claim is barred by an “ ‘affirmative matter [ ] avoiding the legal effect of or defeating the claim.’ ” Harder v. First Capital Bank, 332 Ill.App.3d 740, 743, 266 Ill.Dec. 770, 775 N.E.2d 610 (2002) (quoting 735 ILCS 5/2–619(a)(9) (West 1998)). We review de novo rulings on both types of motions.

  5. Hyatt Corp. v. Palm Beach Bank

    840 So. 2d 300 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 3 times

    Although Florida appellate courts have not yet considered the issue at hand, other courts in the country have. See Dimmitt Owens Financial, Inc. v. USA Glass Metal, Inc., 1998 WL 852862 (N.D.Ill. 1998) (the listing of names on the check did not contain the word "or" or "and", thus the complete absence of any indication as to whether the check was intended to be payable alternatively or jointly, the court found that the check was ambiguous as to whether it was made payable to either payee alternatively and held the check could be paid to either payee individually); Harder v. First Capital Bank, 775 N.E.2d 610 (Ill.App.Ct. 2002) (checks listing multiple payees without grammatical connectors except between names of two payees were ambiguous as to whether checks were payable jointly or in the alternative, and thus were payable in the alternative with endorsement of any payee listed singly or with endorsement of both payees that were listed together); Meng v. Maywood Proviso State Bank, 702 N.E.2d 258 (Ill.App.Ct. 1998) (cashier's check which the named payee specially indorsed to make payable to two new payees was ambiguous where it did not include any language or markings, such as the word "and" or the word "or," regarding whether the check was payable alternatively or jointly; thus, the check was payable alternatively); Allied Capital Partners, L.P. v. Bank One, Texas, N.A., 68 S.W.3d 51 (Tx.Ct.App. 2001) (checks which listed two payees that were not connected by "and" or "or" were ambiguous as to whether they were payable to two payees jointly or alternatively, and thus bank complied with statute in treating