Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto
Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Case Number: B155266
Court: California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, Division Four
Plaintiff's Attorney: Jerry La Cues for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Defendant's Attorney: Ivanjack & Lambirth and Michael B. Tannatt for Defendant and Respondent.
Description: Ronald Henry Minkin was executor and sole beneficiary of the estate of his deceased mother.2 In March 1996, Cochran loaned $50,000 to Minkin. Minkin executed a promissory note and, as security for the loan, Minkin assigned his beneficial interest in the estate to Cochran.3 The loan was to be repaid out of the final distribution of the estate's assets.
Minkin as executor sold the subject real property of the estate. The escrow company issued a check for the proceeds of the escrow, more than $196,000, to "Ronald Henry Minkin, Executor, Estate of Rose Minkin Sabia, Deceased." The check was dated July 23, 1996. The following day, July 24, 1996, Minkin took the check to Bank, and Bank permitted Minkin to deposit the check in Minkin's personal account.
In November 1998, Cochran learned of this negotiation of the check. On May 18, 2000, Cochran filed the original complaint in this case. Cochran alleges that Minkin, without probate court approval, depleted the estate for his personal use and is unable to pay Cochran, who "is a creditor of the Estate as well as the beneficial owner of the proceeds from the sale of the real property." Cochran alleged Bank's liability under section 3307.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bank on Cochran's sole cause of action against Bank under section 3307. The trial court held: (1) Cochran's cause of action is barred by a three-year statute of limitations, because the check was deposited on July 24, 1996, and the complaint was not filed until May 18, 2000; and (2) Cochran is not a "represented person" within the meaning of section 3307, because Cochran was to be paid out of the final distribution of the estate, and the check in question was not part of the final distribution.
Under the circumstances the issues presented are questions of law for our independent review. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); R.J. Land & Associates Construction Co. v. Kiewit-Shea (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 416, 424.)
Section 3307 "states rules for determining when a person who has taken an instrument from a fiduciary has notice of a breach of fiduciary duty that occurs as a result of the transaction with the fiduciary." (Official Comments (hereafter Code Comment) on U. Com. Code, 23A pt. 2 West's Ann. Cal. U. Com. Code (2002 ed.) com. 1 foll. § 3307, p. 357.) The significance of notice is that the taker does not have the rights of a holder in due course. (Ibid.)4
Under section 3307, subdivision (b), "If (i) an instrument is taken from a fiduciary for payment or collection or for value, (ii) the taker has knowledge of the fiduciary status of the fiduciary, and (iii) the represented person makes a claim to the instrument or its proceeds on the basis that the transaction of the fiduciary is a breach of fiduciary duty, the following rules apply: . . .  (2) In the case of an instrument payable to the represented person or the fiduciary as such, the taker has notice of the breach of fiduciary duty if the instrument is . . . (C) deposited to an account other than an account of the fiduciary, as such, or an account of the represented person." Fiduciary includes a representative owing a fiduciary duty with respect to an instrument. (§ 3307, subd. (a)(1).) Represented person includes a beneficiary or other person to whom the fiduciary duty is owed. (§ 3307, subd. (a)(2).)
Here, Minkin, the executor of an estate, was a fiduciary. Cochran was a beneficiary of the estate by virtue of Minkin's assignment of his beneficial interest in the estate to Cochran. (See fn. 3, ante.) As executor Minkin owed a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries of the estate with regard to estate assets. We find no merit to Bank's contention that Cochran is not a represented person merely because it is undisputed Cochran would be paid out of the final distribution and this was not a final distribution check. A decedent's property is subject to administration and subject to the rights of beneficiaries and creditors. (Prob. Code, § 7001.)
Bank suggests it did not have knowledge of the fiduciary status of the fiduciary, the triggering prerequisite in section 3307, subdivision (b)(ii). Bank cites the Code Comment that "knowledge" of the fiduciary status is required, not merely "notice." (Code Comment, supra, com. 2 foll. § 3307, pp. 357-358.) Here, however, Bank had knowledge of the fiduciary status of the fiduciary, because the check on its face was made payable to Minkin as executor of an estate. Therefore, the trigger in section 3307, subdivision (b)(ii) is satisfied. (2 White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code (4th ed. 1995) § 19-5, p. 273.) Thus, section 3307, subdivision (b)(2)(C) states the rule that applies: In the case of an instrument "payable to . . . the fiduciary as such [here, Minkin as executor of an estate], the taker [Bank] has notice of the breach of fiduciary duty if the instrument is . . . deposited to an account other than an account of the fiduciary, as such [here, deposited to Minkin's personal account, which is an account other than an account of Minkin as executor of the estate]."
Bank argues it had no notice or knowledge of Cochran's existence or that Minkin had assigned an interest to Cochran. But the code does not require that Bank have such notice or actual knowledge. The necessary notice arises from the check's being payable to a fiduciary as such and being deposited in an account other than an account of the fiduciary as such. (§ 3307, subd. (b)(2).) This is the rule established by the statutory language. After observing a prior split of authority on whether a bank is on notice of a breach of fiduciary duty merely because fiduciary funds are deposited to a personal account of the fiduciary, the Code Comment explained, "Subsection (b)(2)(iii) states that the bank is given notice of breach of fiduciary duty because of the deposit." (Code Comment, supra, com. 3 foll. § 3307, pp. 357-358, italics added.)5 "The rationale of subsection (b)(2) is that it is not normal for an instrument payable to the . . . fiduciary, as such, to be used for the personal benefit of the fiduciary. It is likely that such use reflects an unlawful use of the proceeds of the instrument." (Id. at p. 358.)
The trial court's other ground for summary judgment was the statute of limitations. Section 3118, subdivision (g) provides that an action "to enforce an obligation, duty, or right arising under this division" shall be commenced "within three years after the cause of action accrues." It does not define when a cause of action accrues. (Code Comment, supra, com. 1 foll. § 3118, p. 235.) It "does not attempt to state all rules with respect to a statute of limitations." (Ibid.)
In its motion for summary judgment Bank assumed the cause of action accrued upon deposit of the check into Minkin's personal account on July 24, 1996, and contended the statute of limitations expired on July 24, 1999. Bank assumed and adopted as one of its own alleged undisputed facts that Cochran "learned of the negotiation of the check in November 1998." In opposition to summary judgment, Cochran agreed as an undisputed fact that Cochran learned of the negotiation of the check in November 1998. Cochran contended a delayed discovery rule applies, and the complaint filed less than three years after November 1998 was therefore timely. Neither party litigated, on this summary judgment motion, whether Cochran acted diligently. We do not resolve that issue nor preclude Bank from raising it after remand. But this appeal squarely raises the issue whether a delayed discovery rule applies to the running of the statute of limitations on a cause of action under section 3307.
There are no cases on this issue. Cochran contends that under California law the fraudulent concealment of a cause of action for conversion by a fiduciary delays accrual or tolls the statute of limitations until the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the conversion. (Citing Strasberg v. Odyssey Group, Inc. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 906, 915-918.) Bank replies this may be the rule as against the faithless fiduciary (Minkin), but not necessarily as against Bank. Bank points out that Cochran did not allege a fraud cause of action against Bank or specifically allege fraudulent concealment by Bank, but merely a statutory cause of action under section 3307. Cochran replies that the cause of action against Bank is "derivative" of the cause of action against Minkin, and furthermore, "[Bank's] liability is based [under sections 3306 and 3307] on its taking of an instrument . . . with notice of Defendant Minkin's breach of fiduciary duty."
Bank also contends a strong line of authority "involving checks" favors a rule that the statute of limitations commences to run on the negotiation of a check, not the later discovery of injury. None of these cases involved liability under section 3307. The body of law cited by Bank typically involves a bank having paid an instrument upon a forged endorsement; in such situations the bank is typically regarded as an innocent party, and the victim is the account holder who had the opportunity to review monthly statements and cancelled checks or otherwise guard against forgery or embezzlement. (E.g., Menichini v. Grant (3d Cir. 1993) 995 F.2d 1224.)
* * *
Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.
Outcome: The judgment is reversed. Costs on appeal are awarded to Cochran.
Plaintiff's Experts: Unavailable
Defendant's Experts: Unavailable