FRED B. HARNEY AND OCEANSIDE DEVELOPMENT, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Harney deposited an uncollected $28,000 check into First American Bank and wrote a $20,000 check against it. The bank placed a three-day hold on the account, which expired before the $20,000 check was paid. The bank sued to recover funds paid against uncollected deposits, and the court affirmed judgment for the bank, finding Harney liable for overdrafts under the account contract.
Harney is liable under his account contract with the bank for overdrafts. The bank properly initiated a three-day hold that expired before payment of the check in question, and appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error.
[1] A bank may recover from a depositor for payments made against uncollected funds when the depositor has an agreement with the bank for overdrafts.
[2] A three-day hold on a deposited check, initiated by a bank, may expire before the check is returned as unpayable, making the depositor liable for subsequent payments agai…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Strickland advised Harney that the check was not good, that the bank would automatically put a three-day hold on the account, and that no checks against the account would be paid during that period.”
Establishes the bank's initiation of the hold and Harney's acknowledgment of the arrangement
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarney opened an account at First American Bank with a $700 deposit. He deposited a $28,000 check drawn on The Lighthouse Bank on April 15, 1982. The …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insufficient Funds Checks cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant, Fred B. Harney, appeals from that portion of an amended final judgment awarding appellee, First American Bank of Palm Beach County, $29,767.24, including interest. Other portions of the final judgment favorable to appellee are not contested.
Unfortunately, the record presented leaves a great deal to be desired. While the issues involved are not complex, the pleadings and proof, as presented, make resolution of the issues difficult. Demonstrative of this difficulty is the fact that the parties do not really agree on the theories of law and issues to be resolved.
After marshalling the facts reflected by the record in a fashion most compatible with the judgment, it appears that Harney opened an account with First American Bank with a deposit of $700. Shortly thereafter, Harney drew a check on Jupiter-Tequesta National Bank (referred to herein as The Lighthouse Bank) for $28,000 payable to himself. That check was deposited in the First American Bank on April 15, 1982. Although Harney did not apprise First American Bank that there were insufficient funds in The Lighthouse Bank account to cover the check, Strickland, the bank officer handling the deposit, had one of the bank tellers call The Lighthouse Bank to determine whether the check was good, and he was advised that it was not. Strickland advised Harney that the check was not good, that the bank would automatically put a three-day hold on the account, and that no checks against the account would be paid during that period. Harney told Strickland that he had written a check for $20,000 against the $28,000 deposit payable to a broker, Hamel, but he did not want the check paid immediately since he did not have the funds to cover it yet. Harney told Strickland that a three-day hold would be adequate. The holding period was effective beginning Thursday, April 15th, and it ended three banking days later on Monday, April 19th. In the mean time, the $28,000 check had been returned to First American Bank by The Lighthouse Bank as unpayable. To Harney’s dismay, the $20,000 check (to Hamel) was paid by another branch of First American Bank on Tuesday, April 20th. The First American Bank then commenced this suit to recover the amount paid against uncollected funds.
There were only two witnesses presented, Strickland (the bank officer) and Har-ney, who was called as an adverse witness by First American Bank. There is evidence, albeit conflicting on some points, that supports the judgment for First American Bank on the basis that the bank initiated the three-day hold on the account, that the three-day hold expired prior to payment of the check in question and, thus, Harney is liable under its contract with the bank for overdrafts on his account.
Therefore, we hold that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error and affirm the judgment appealed from.
AFFIRMED.
HURLEY, J., concurs.
WALDEN, J., dissents with opinion.
WALDEN, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent because from my view the Bank, albeit inadvertently, paid checks drawn upon an account on which there had been placed a hold, and at a time when the Bank knew that the account had insufficient funds and that the check in question should not be paid.