Riverview Cooperative, Inc. v. First National Bank & Trust Co.
337 N.W.2d 225, 417 Mich. 307 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of election of remedies does not bar a depositor from suing a bank for wrongfully honoring unauthorized withdrawals after obtaining an unsatisfied judgment against the unauthorized third-party converter. The remedies are consistent because the converter's tort and the bank's breach of contract are separate and distinct wrongs.
Facts:
- Riverview Cooperative, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, hired ELM Associates, Inc., owned by Elaine DiBiasio, as its real-estate management firm in 1974.
- ELM and DiBiasio had access to bank accounts that a prior management company had opened on Riverview's behalf with First National Bank & Trust Co.
- DiBiasio was never authorized by Riverview to sign checks or withdraw funds from these accounts.
- Despite her lack of authorization, DiBiasio wrote and negotiated checks, withdrawing more than $20,000 from Riverview's account.
- Riverview alleged that the bank honored these checks with the knowledge that DiBiasio was not an authorized signatory.
Procedural Posture:
- On August 16, 1977, Riverview sued ELM and DiBiasio in a state trial court for conversion, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- A week later, Riverview sued First National Bank in state trial court for breach of contract.
- A default judgment for $18,000 was entered against ELM and DiBiasio, which remained unsatisfied.
- The bank then moved for accelerated judgment, arguing Riverview's suit was barred by the doctrine of election of remedies.
- The trial court granted the bank's motion and dismissed the case against it.
- Riverview, as appellant, appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding itself bound by the precedent of Ielmini v Bessemer National Bank.
- Riverview, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of election of remedies bar a depositor from suing a bank for wrongfully honoring unauthorized checks after the depositor has already obtained an unsatisfied judgment against the person who wrongfully withdrew the funds?
Opinions:
Majority - Ryan, J.
No, the doctrine of election of remedies does not bar the depositor's suit against the bank. A depositor who first obtains an unsatisfied judgment against a third-party converter is not precluded from subsequently suing the bank because the remedies sought are consistent, not inconsistent. The court's reasoning rests on rejecting the legal fiction established in the precedent case, Ielmini. The court held that the relationship between a bank and a depositor is that of a debtor and creditor; money deposited becomes the bank's property, and the bank owes a debt to the depositor. When the bank pays an unauthorized check, it breaches its contractual duty and pays out its own funds, not the depositor's. Therefore, the converter (ELM/DiBiasio) and the bank committed separate and distinct wrongs: the converter committed a tort (conversion/fraud), while the bank breached its contract. Since the legal theories are not mutually exclusive, pursuing a remedy against one does not 'ratify' the other's conduct or render the remedies inconsistent. A plaintiff may pursue both wrongdoers, although they are entitled to only one satisfaction for the single injury.
Analysis:
This decision overrules the precedent of Ielmini v Bessemer National Bank and significantly alters the application of the election of remedies doctrine in Michigan concerning banking law. By rejecting the legal fiction that a depositor 'ratifies' a bank's wrongful payment by first suing the converter, the court adopted a more modern and equitable approach. The ruling provides depositors with greater flexibility to seek full recovery for misappropriated funds by allowing them to pursue claims against both the wrongdoer and a potentially negligent bank. It shifts the focus from a formalistic choice of remedies to the substantive nature of the separate wrongs committed by each party, ensuring that a procedural doctrine does not unjustly shield a party from liability.
