Spencer

Spencer v. Sterling Bank

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 416·63 Cal. App. 2d 1055·63 Cal. App. 4th 1055·74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 576·98 Daily Journal DAR 4921
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 11, 1998B108008California1,936 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

The interesting issue in this case is whether a check indorsed “for deposit only” without further limitation (“X, for deposit only”) can be deposited only into the indorser’s unidentified account or whether it can be deposited into anybody’s account at any bank. In the published portion of this opinion, we explain that this indorsement is both restrictive (the check must be deposited and cannot otherwise be negotiated) and blank (to the extent that it does not identify the person for whose benefit the check must be deposited). “X, for deposit only” is to a deposit as is a blank payee to a signed check. For this reason (and others explained in the unpublished portion of this opinion), we affirm an order of dismissal entered after a demurrer was sustained without leave to amend.

Facts

On December 6, 1993, Max Wolf died. Within days, Sherri Spencer (later appointed Wolf’s executrix) hired Angela Wallace, a lawyer, to initiate probate proceedings. Instead, Wallace allegedly converted assets from Wolf’s estate, “forging [Wolf’s] signature ... to obtain funds held in deposit accounts located” at three banks, as follows:

On December 13, 1993, Home Savings of America issued “a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.