Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-06-2013

Case Style: Estate of Jonnie Mae Myers v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA

Case Number: CJ-2009-6207

Judge: Rebecca B. Nightingale

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: David R. Keesling, Charles L. (Chuck) RichardsonJason Messenger and Heidi L. Shadid

Defendant's Attorney: James E. Weger and Sara C. Smith

Description: The Estate of Jonnie Mae Myers sued J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA on a fraud theory.

The Pre-Trial Order entered by the Court in this case provided, in part, as follows:

* * *

In early 2006, Plaintiff Jonnie Myers (“Plaintiff’) hired Defendant William J. A*ton (“Anton”) to represent her regarding injuries sustained in an automobile accident. During the course of and unrelated to this representation, Plaintiffs ex-husband Thomas Myers passed away. Plaintiff was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy and she asked for Anton’s assistance in making the claim to Americail General Life Insurance Company (AIG). Pursuant to Anton’s instructions, without Plaintiffs knowledge or consent, AIG mailed the life insurance proceeds check (“the Check”) that was payable to Plaintiff to Anton. Anton forged Plaintiffs name on the back of the Check and deposited it into four of Anton’s separate accounts at Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”). Plaintiff never received the funds from the Check.

On August 20, 2009, Plaintiff filed this action against Anton and Chase. Plaintiff has alleged claims against Anton for Fraud, Conversion, and Negligence. Plaintiff has alleged a claim against Chase for Conversion of Instrument. On September 26, 2011, the Court deemed the Requests for Admissions served on Anton admitted and granted Summary Judgment against Anton in favor of Plaintiff. Therefore, the remaining issues for trial are damages against Anton and liability and damages against Chase.

3. DEFENDANT CHASE’S STATEMENT OF FACTS

During Defendant Anton’s representation of Plaintiff in an auto-accident case, Plaintiffs ex-husband passed away and she learned she was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy he held with AIG. Plaintiff requested Anton’s assistance in paying the premiums and obtaining the life insurance proceeds in exchange for $50,000 of the proceeds. Plaintiff instructed AIG in writing to deal with Anton, and she entrusted Anton, her attorney in fact, with all the authority necessary to complete the claims process and obtain her funds. Pursuant to Plaintiffs written instructions, AIG sent the Check to Plaintiffs authorized agent, Anton.

Anton, a Chase customer, presented the life insurance Check to Chase for deposit into his client-trust account. The Check was payable to Jonnie Myers, was endorsed by Jonnie Myers and/or by William Anton, her attorney in fact, and was deposited on September 1, 2006. Plaintiff either endorsed the Check or authorized her attorney and agent, Anton, to do so. After depositing the Check, Anton made installment payments to Plaintiff in the total amount of at least $27,000. Plaintiff accepted the $27,000 from Anton, and she acknowledged in writing that she knew Anton had cashed the Check in 2006 and had possession of the proceeds. Plaintiff claims, over time, Anton made numerous representations to her as to why he could not give her the remainder of the funds.

4. PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:

A. Anton represented himself to Plaintiff as being an attorney and as someone working for the best interests of his client, the Plaintiff in this action.

B. Plaintiff requested Anton assist with making a claim to AIG for insurance proceeds on a policy for Plaintiffs ex-husband Thomas Myers.

C. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Anton directed AIG to send the life insurance proceeds Check directly to Anton, thereby bypassing Plaintiff.

D. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Anton presented Defendant Chase with an instrument in the amount of $248,406.00 payable to Plaintiff Jonnie Myers, a third-party.

E. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Anton forged Plaintiffs signature on the Check.

F. The Check is an instrument pursuant to the Oklahoma Commercial Code.

G. Anton was not a person entitled to receive payment through the instrument.

H. AIG mailed the instrument with the complete intent to transfer rights to and control of the funds to Plaintiff as payee.

I. AIG placed the instrument in the mail to Plaintiff via Anton, which entails “delivery” to Plaintiff as required under the Oklahoma Commercial Code.

J. Chase wrongfully paid the instrument to Anton, a person not entitled to receive payment of the instrument.

K. Anton made false and misleading statements to Plaintiff regarding the deposit of Plaintiff’s funds and the payment of such funds to Plaintiff, such as the Check would not be sent immediately because it takes insurance companies a long time to process claims, or that the funds would arrive in installments for Plaintiff’s tax benefit.

L. Plaintiff did not discover the forgery by Anton until August of 2008, when Plaintiff contacted AIG directly.

M. As a result of Anton’s actions, Plaintiff sustained damages.

N. Anton’s actions were done intentionally, with malice and Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

0. As a result of Chase’s actions, Plaintiff is entitled to her interests in the instrument pursuant to the Oklahoma Commercial Code.

Plaintiff has asserted common-law tort claims for fraud, conversion and negligence against Defendant Anton. Plaintiff seeks actual and compensatory damages as allowed. Plaintiff further seeks punitive damages. Plaintiff has asserted a claim for conversion of an instrument pursuant to the Oklahoma Commercial Code, 12A O.S. § 3-420. Plaintiff seeks all damages as allowed under the Oklahoma Commercial Code.

5. DEFENDANT CHASE’S CONTENTIONS

A. Chase properly permitted Defendant Anton to deposit the proceeds of the Check in question, which was a negotiated third-party instrument.

B. Anton was Plaintiff’s agent who had authority to act on Plaintiff’s behalf.

C. Plaintiff authorized and instructed AIG to correspond with Anton and to send the Check to Anton.

D. Plaintiff cannot show Anton was a person not entitled to enforce the Check. Okla. Stat. tit. 12A § 3-420(a).

E. Plaintiff endorsed the Check and gave it to Anton for him to deposit into his client-trust account.

F. Plaintiff ratified any unauthorized act of Anton.

G. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by her own negligence.

H. Plaintiffs claims are barred by laches.

I. Plaintiffs claims are barred by her unclean hands.

J. If Chase is found liable for conversion of instrument, Plaintiff’s claim for damages is limited, at most, to approximately $171,000 — her alleged interest in the Check. Okla. Stat. tit. 12A § 3-420(b).

K. Chase is not liable for any alleged misrepresentation Anton made to Plaintiff.

L. Plaintiffs claims against Chase are barred by the statue of limitations.

M. Chase also objects to Plaintiffs Contentions A-D, K, M, and N, as the Court has granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Anton, and they are no longer issues for trial.

6. DEFENDANTS’ CLAIMS FOR RELIEF: N/A

7. MISCELLANEOUS:

A. Is Jury Waived? No.

B. Is Additional Discovery Requested? No.

C. A trial brief (is/is not) required by the Court. Due by: ________________________

D. Other Matters:

1) Motions in Limine to be filed by: November 1. 2012.

2) Responses to Motions in Limine to be filed by: November 16, 2012

3) Deposition Designations due, if necessary by: November 1. 2012.

4) Deposition Counter-Designations due, if necessary, by: November 16. 2012.

5) A hearing on the Motions in Limine and Deposition Designations: November 26, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.

* * *

See Court Docket: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?number=CJ-2009-6207&db=Tulsa&submitted=true

Outcome: COMES NOW, Tami L. Barrett, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Plaintiff Jonnie Mae Myers (“Plaintiff’), by and through Plaintiffs counsel of record Richardson Richardson Boudreaux Keesling, and hereby dismisses the above-styled and numbered cause with prejudice to the filing of a future action thereon against Defendants.


Plaintiff's Experts: Lynda D. Hartwick, document examiner

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: