Supreme Const. Corp. v. Bank of America Corp.

2 Citing cases

  1. Bennett v. CIT Bank

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-00852-KOB (N.D. Ala. Sep. 17, 2019)

    A check that states "and" between two payees is not payable to either payee alternatively; only the first payee and the second payee can enforce the check. See, e.g., Supreme Const. Corp. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2011 WL 6070044, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2011) ("The description of checks that listed Plaintiff among other payees, separated by the word 'and' . . . creates the necessary factual basis to claim conversion."). Here, the check does not say "Financial Freedom or Estate of Catherine Getaw," which would be a check payable alternatively, or "Financial Freedom and Estate of Catherine Getaw," which would be a check not payable alternatively.

  2. LBCMT 2007-C3 W. Broad St., LLC v. WSG Dev. Co.

    Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-455-JAG (E.D. Va. May. 6, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Sup. Const. Corp. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2011 WL 6070044, at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (quoting Seymour v. Adams, 638 So. 2d 1044, 1047 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)).