Bernhard v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Ass’n | Case Brief for Law Students

FAQs

Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.2d 807 – Casetext

Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.2d 807 Docket No. L.A. 18057. March 6, 1942. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Myron Westover, Judge. Affirmed. Joseph Brenner for Appellant. Louis Ferrari, Edmund Nelson and G.L. Berrey for Respondent. TRAYNOR, J. In June, 1933, Mrs. Clara Sather, an elderly woman, made her home with Mr. and Mrs. Charles O. Cook in San Dimas, California. Because of her failing health, she authorized Mr. Cook and Dr. Joseph Zeiler to make drafts jointly against her commercial account in the Security First National Bank of Los Angeles. On August 24, 1933, Mr. Cook opened a commercial account at the First National Bank of San Dimas in the name of “Clara Sather by Charles O. Cook.” No authorization for this account was ever given to the bank by Mrs. Sather. Thereafter, a number of checks drawn by Cook and Zeiler on Mrs. Sather’s commercial account in Los Angeles were deposited in the San Dimas account and checks were drawn upon that account signed “Clara Sather by Charles O. Cook” to meet various expenses of Mrs. Sather. On October 26, 1933, a teller from the Los Angeles Bank called on Mrs. Sather at her request to assist in transferring her money from the Los Angeles Bank to the San Dimas Bank. In the presence of this teller, the cashier of the San Dimas Bank, Mr. Cook, and her physician, Mrs. Sather signed by mark an authorization directing the Security First National Bank of Los Angeles to transfer the balance of her savings account in the amount of $4,155.68 to the First National Bank of San Dimas. She also signed an order for this amount on the Security First National Bank of San Dimas “for credit to the account of Mrs. Clara Sather.” The order was credited by the San Dimas Bank to the account of “Clara Sather by Charles O. Cook.” Cook withdrew the entire balance from that account and opened a new account in the same bank in the name of himself and his wife. He subsequently withdrew the funds from this last mentioned account and deposited them in a Los Angeles Bank in the names of himself and his wife. Mrs. Sather died in November, 1933. Cook qualified as executor of the estate and proceeded with its administration. After a lapse of several years he filed an account at the instance of the probate court accompanied by his resignation. The account made no mention of the money transferred by Mrs. Sather to the San Dimas Bank; and Helen Bernhard, Beaulah Bernhard, Hester Burton, and Iva LeDoux, beneficiaries under Mrs. Sather’s will, filed objections to the account for this reason. After a hearing on the objections the court settled the account, and as part of its order declared that the decedent during her lifetime had made a gift to Charles O. Cook of the amount of the deposit in question. After Cook’s discharge, Helen Bernhard was appointed administratrix with the will annexed. She instituted this action against defendant, the Bank of America, successor to the San Dimas Bank, seeking to recover the deposit on the ground that the bank was indebted to the estate for this amount because Mrs. Sather never authorized its withdrawal. In addition to a general denial, defendant pleaded two affirmative defenses: (1) that the money on deposit was paid out to Charles O. Cook with the consent of Mrs. Sather and (2) that this fact is res judicata by virtue of the finding of the probate court in the proceeding to settle Cook’s account that Mrs. Sather made a gift of the money in question to Charles O. Cook and “owned no sums of money whatsoever” at the time of her death. Plaintiff demurred to both these defenses, and objected to the introduction in evidence of the record of the earlier proceeding to support the plea of res judicata. She also contended that the probate court had no jurisdiction to pass upon Cook’s ownership of the money because the executor resigned before…

Find Out More

Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings …

Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings AssociationFrom our private database of 31,500+ case briefs…Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings AssociationCalifornia Supreme Court19 Cal.2d 807 (1942)FactsClara Sather, an elderly woman, was in poor health. Sather authorized Charles Cook, who had taken her in and was taking care of her, to make withdrawals from her account at the Security First National Bank of Los Angeles (LA Bank). Cook later opened an account at the First National Bank of San Dimas (SD Bank) in the name of “Clara Sather by Charles O. Cook.” Subsequently, in the presence of a teller, a cashier, Cook, and Sather’s doctor, Sather signed a form authorizing the transfer of all the funds in the LA Bank from the LA Bank account to the SD Bank account. Cook later withdrew the entire balance from the SD Bank account and opened a new account in the name of himself and his wife. When Sather died, Cook became executor of her estate and administered the estate without mentioning the funds transferred to the SD Bank. Helen Bernhard and other beneficiaries of Sather’s will (plaintiffs) filed objections to the administration of the will in probate court. The probate court ruled that Sather, during her lifetime, had made a gift to Cook in the amount of the transferred money. Bernhard, after taking over as administratrix of the estate, brought suit against Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association (B of A) (defendant), the successor to the SD Bank. Bernhard sought to recover the amount of the transfer. The trial court ruled in favor of B of A because Cook’s ownership of the funds was established conclusively in the probate court, and Bernhard’s claim was precluded as res judicata. Bernhard appealed.Rule of LawIssueHolding and Reasoning (Traynor, J.)What to do next…Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 574,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonialsLearn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about QuimbeeHere’s why 574,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 31,500 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Get More Info Here

>2:12Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association | 122 P.2d 892 (1942) Prior court decisions may have a preclusive, …YouTube · Quimbee · Aug 24, 2021

Bernhard v. Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Sav. Asso.

Bernhard v. Bank of America Nat’l Trust & Sav. Asso. | Case Brief for Law School Share your feedback on this Case Brief Law School Case Brief Case Opinion Rule: The requirements of due process of law forbid the assertion of a plea of res judicata against a party unless he was bound by the earlier litigation in which the matter was decided. He is bound by that litigation only if he has been a party thereto or in privity with a party thereto. There is no compelling reason, however, for requiring that the party asserting the plea of res judicata must have been a party, or in privity with a party, to the earlier litigation. Facts: Clara Sather opened a bank account and authorized Mr. Cook to write checks to take care of her affairs. Mr. Cook took out a large sum of money from the account and deposited it into his own. When Mrs. Sather passed away, Mr. Cook was the executor of her estate. Mrs. Sather’s beneficiaries sued Mr. Cook to give the money back that he had deposited in his account, but he claimed it was an authorized gift from Mrs. Sather. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Cook. One of Mrs. Sather’s daughters took over as executor of the estate and sued the bank for allowing the transfer of the money from Mrs. Sather’s account to Mr. Cook’s. The court permitted the bank to assert nonmutual issue preclusion. Issue: Can a plea of res judicata be asserted by someone that was not a party or in privity to the previous litigation? Answer: Yes. Conclusion: Where a party though appearing in two suits in different capacities is in fact litigating the same right, the judgment in one estops him in the other. Therefore, the plea of res judicata was available against Mrs. Sather’s daughter as a party to the former proceeding, despite her formal change of capacity. Mrs. Sather’s daughter represented the same persons and interests that were represented in the earlier hearing on Mr. Cook’s account. Access the full text case

Complete Post

Bernhard v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Ass'n – CaseBriefs

Bernhard v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Ass’n | Case Brief for Law Students Powered by Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Bernhard (Plaintiff), brought an action as new administratix of an estate to hold the Defendant, Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Ass’n (Defendant), liable for recovery of bank withdrawals not approved by decedent. Synopsis of Rule of Law. There is no requirement that the party asserting the plea of res judicata must have been a party, or in privity with a party, to an earlier litigation so long as the party against whom res judicata was asserted was a party in privity to a party in that litigation. Points of Law – Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.The doctrine also serves to protect persons from being twice vexed for the same cause. View Full Point of Law Facts. In June 1933, Clara Sather, an elderly woman lived with Mr. and Mrs. Charles Cook. Because if her ailing health, she authorized Mr. Cook and Dr. Joseph Zeiler to make drafts jointly against her account in the Security First National Bank of Los Angeles. In August 1933, Mr. Cook opened an account at First National Bank of San Dimas in the name of Clara Sather by Charles Cook. Afterwards, a number of checks drawn by Cook and Zeiler were drawn from Mrs. Sather’s account and deposited in the San Dimas account. In October 1933, in the presence of witness, Mrs. Sather marked an authorization directing Security First National Bank in Los Angeles to transfer the balance of her savings account ($4,155.68) to the First National Bank of San Dimas into the account in her name. Cook then withdrew that money and opened a new account in the name of himself and his wife. Mrs. Sather died in November 1933 and Cook was named executor. At the insistence of the probate court he was asked to resign. The account he filed made no mention of the money transferred by Sather to the San Dimas Bank. The Plaintiff filed objections to probate because of this. On the objections, the court ordered that Mrs. Sather had made a lifetime gift to Cook in the amount of the deposit in question. The Plaintiff was named administratrix of the estate and brought suit against the Defendant, successor to the San Dimas Bank, seeking to recover the amount because Mrs. Sather never authorized the withdrawal. The Defendant pleaded two affirmative defenses: (i) that the money on deposit was paid to Cook with Mrs. Sather’s approval and (ii) this fact was res judicata by the finding of the probate court. The Plaintiff argued that res judicata did not apply because the Defendant was not a party to the previous action nor in privity with a party to that action and because there was no mutuality of estoppel. Issue. Whether the Plaintiff in the present action was a party to or in privity to the earlier proceeding. Held. In determining the validity of a plea of res judicata, three questions are pertinent: First, was the issue decided in the prior adjudication identical…

Start now

Bernhard v. Bank of America – 19 Cal.2d 807 – Fri, 03/06/1942

Bernhard v. Bank of America – 19 Cal.2d 807 – Fri, 03/06/1942 Bernhard v. Bank of America , 19 Cal.2d 807 [L. A. No. 18057. In Bank. Mar. 6, 1942.] HELEN BERNHARD, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ASSOCIATION (a National Banking Association), Respondent. COUNSEL Joseph Brenner for Appellant. Louis Ferrari, Edmund Nelson and G. L. Berrey for Respondent. OPINION TRAYNOR, J. In June, 1933, Mrs. Clara Sather, an elderly woman, made her home with Mr. and Mrs. Charles [19 Cal.2d 809] O. Cook in San Dimas, California. Because of her failing health, she authorized Mr. Cook and Dr. Joseph Zeiler to make drafts jointly against her commercial account in the Security First National Bank of Los Angeles. On August 24, 1933, Mr. Cook opened a commercial account at the First National Bank of San Dimas in the name of “Clara Sather by Charles O. Cook.” No authorization for this account was ever given to the bank by Mrs. Sather. Thereafter, a number of checks drawn by Cook and Zeiler on Mrs. Sather’s commercial account in Los Angeles were deposited in the San Dimas account and checks were drawn upon that account signed “Clara Sather by Charles O. Cook” to meet various expenses of Mrs. Sather. On October 26, 1933, a teller from the Los Angeles Bank called on Mrs. Sather at her request to assist in transferring her money from the Los Angeles Bank to the San Dimas Bank. In the presence of this teller, the cashier of the San Dimas Bank, Mr. Cook, and her physician, Mrs. Sather signed by mark an authorization directing the Security First National Bank of Los Angeles to transfer the balance of her savings account in the amount of $4,155.68 to the First National Bank of San Dimas. She also signed an order for this amount on the Security First National Bank of San Dimas “for credit to the account of Mrs. Clara Sather.” The order was credited by the San Dimas Bank to the account of “Clara Sather by Charles O. Cook.” Cook withdrew the entire balance from that account and opened a new account in the same bank in the name of himself and his wife. He subsequently withdrew the funds from this last mentioned account and deposited them in a Los Angeles Bank in the names of himself and his wife. Mrs. Sather died in November, 1933. Cook qualified as executor of the estate and proceeded with its administration. After a lapse of several years he filed an account at the instance of the probate court accompanied by his resignation. The account made no mention of the money transferred by Mrs. Sather to the San Dimas Bank; and Helen Bernhard, Beaulah Bernhard, Hester Burton, and Iva LeDoux, beneficiaries under Mrs. Sather’s will, filed objections to the account for this reason. After a hearing on the objections the court settled the account, and as part of its order declared that [19 Cal.2d 810] the decedent during her lifetime had made a gift to Charles O. Cook of the amount of the deposit in question. After Cook’s discharge, Helen Bernhard was appointed administratrix with the will annexed. She instituted this action against defendant, the Bank of America, successor to the San Dimas Bank, seeking to recover the deposit on the ground that the bank was indebted to the estate for this amount because Mrs. Sather never authorized its withdrawal. In addition to a general denial, defendant pleaded two affirmative defenses: (1) that the money on deposit was paid out to Charles O. Cook with the consent of Mrs. Sather…

Get the text you want

Fifty Years of Bernhard v. Bank of America is Enough

Fifty Years of Bernhard v. Bank of America is Enough: Collateral Estoppel Should Require Mutuality but Res Judicata Should Not Publication Review of Litigation Citation Information Michael J. Waggoner, Fifty Years of Bernhard v. Bank of America is Enough: Collateral Estoppel Should Require Mutuality but Res Judicata Should Not, 12 Rev. Litig. 391 (1993), available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/821. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. DOWNLOADS Since November 28, 2017 COinS

Find out how