Posts tagged "Valente"

Valente v. TB Bank, N.A. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-117-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   16-P-1119                                       Appeals Court   GERALD VALENTE, executor,[1] and trustee,[2]  vs.  TD BANK, N.A.[3]     No. 16-P-1119.   Worcester.     March 3, 2017. – August 30, 2017.   Present:  Agnes, Kinder, & Shin, JJ.     Bank.  Negligence, Bank.  Notice, Timeliness.  Uniform Commercial Code, Bank, Notice, Payment on negotiable instrument.  Negotiable Instruments, Payment.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 25, 2011.   The case was heard by Daniel M. Wrenn, J., on a motion for summary judgment.     Barry A. Bachrach for the plaintiff. Catherine R. Connors for the defendant.     AGNES, J.  Before a bank customer may sue his bank for honoring a check drawn on his account that bears an “unauthorized signature or alteration,” Massachusetts law requires that the customer notify the bank of the matter within one year after a statement of the account showing the item that was paid is made available to him.  G. L. c. 106, § 4-406(f), as appearing in St. 1998, c. 24, § 8.[4]  In the present case, the plaintiff, Gerald Valente, in his capacity as the executor of the estate of Mauro Valente (decedent or Mauro) and as trustee of the Valente Family Trust, brought suit against the decedent’s widow, Donna Valente,[5] and her daughter, Lillianna Saari, alleging that they wrongfully misappropriated substantial sums of money from the decedent’s estate and a family trust that were on deposit in TD Bank, N.A. (bank).  In the same action, in the only count in the complaint against the bank, the plaintiff alleged that the bank was negligent and thereby liable for damages because it was aware of the wrongful conduct by the decedent’s widow.  For substantially the same reasons given by the Superior Court judge below, who allowed the bank’s motion for summary judgment in a thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision, we hold that the one-year notice requirement set forth in G. L. c. 106, § 4-406(f), bars a customer’s lawsuit against his bank for honoring a check with a forgery of the customer’s signature despite an allegation that the bank had actual knowledge of the forgery.[6] Background.  The essential facts material to the outcome in this case are not in dispute.  The following account is drawn from the materials submitted by the plaintiff and the bank in connection with the bank’s motion for summary judgment.  Mauro and Donna […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 30, 2017 at 2:43 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,