AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Plaintiff Glen Davis, along with his businesses D & D Services LLC and Four Corners Testing LLC, experienced financial losses due to checks forged by an employee. These checks were cashed at financial institutions other than the Defendant, Citizen’s Bank. Despite regular account statements provided by Citizen’s Bank, the fraudulent activity continued for approximately three years, resulting in the embezzlement of over $215,000 through 216 forged checks before Davis notified the bank (paras 2, 6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that summary judgment was improper as there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding Citizen’s Bank’s failure to exercise ordinary care in paying out on checks forged by Davis’s employee and cashed at other financial institutions (para 1).
• Defendants-Appellees: Contended that no genuine issue of material fact existed to demonstrate negligence or lack of ordinary care on their part in the handling of the forged checks, justifying the grant of summary judgment in their favor (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Citizen’s Bank by concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the bank’s failure to exercise ordinary care under NMSA 1978, Section 55-4-406 of the New Mexico Uniform Commercial Code when paying out on checks forged by Davis’s employee and cashed at other financial institutions.

Disposition

• The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Citizen’s Bank was affirmed, dismissing Davis’s complaint (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Jennifer L. Attrep and concurred by Judges Megan P. Duffy and Briana H. Zamora, found that Davis did not dispute the material facts underlying Citizen’s Bank’s motion for summary judgment. Specifically, Davis acknowledged the regular provision of account statements by Citizen’s Bank and admitted to not informing the bank of the fraudulent checks within the required thirty-day period after receiving his bank statements. This admission limited his recovery to the amounts embezzled within one year prior to notifying the bank of the forgeries. The Court also noted that Davis failed to present evidence that Citizen’s Bank’s actions or inactions violated industry standards or its own procedures regarding the monitoring of forged checks cashed at other financial institutions. Consequently, Davis did not establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the lack of ordinary care on the part of Citizen’s Bank under Section 55-4-406 of the UCC (paras 3-11).