Peters

Chino Commercial Bank, N.A. v. Peters

Good Law
118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 866·190 Cal. App. 4th 1163·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 2083·73 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 281
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 13, 2010No. E049170California4,295 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Richli, J.

Appellant Brian D. Peters is the victim of a Nigerian-style e-mail scam. He agreed that his corporation would receive money supposedly owed to a gentleman in Malaysia, and would then pay that money out at the gentleman’s direction, in return for a 15 percent fee. His corporation received checks totaling $808,988.90 and deposited them in an account with respondent Chino Commercial Bank, N.A. (the Bank). It then had the Bank make wire transfers totaling $468,000 out of the account. All of the checks bounced, because they had been altered. This resulted in an overdraft. The Bank claims, and Peters does not dispute, that he was personally liable for any overdraft.

The Bank promptly obtained a right to attach order against Peters. Peters appeals from the right to attach order. He argues that the Bank had the burden of proving it did not act negligently and that it failed to carry this burden.

We will hold that, even assuming the Bank had the burden of proof, it introduced sufficient evidence that it did not act negligently in accepting the checks for deposit. We will further hold that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) precludes any claim that the Bank acted negligently in…

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.