Bank motion in Oklahoma

2015T16 Ash filed an objection to Bank's summary judgment motion combined 'with an, alternative motion to dismiss. 3 Following receipt of Bank's reply, the trial court filed its Final Journal Entry of Judgment, overruling Ash's alternative motion to dismiss, finding Ash is "a single person" and "one and the same as Defendant, John Doe, Occupant," and dismissing from the action the "Defendant, Spouse, if any, of [Ash]." The trial court sustained Bank's motion for summary judgment, finding, in pertinent part, that Ash "made, executed and delivered the Note and Mortgage sued upon by [Bank], and that

2015T16 Ash filed an objection to Bank's summary judgment motion combined 'with an, alternative motion to dismiss. 3 Following receipt of Bank's reply, the trial court filed its Final Journal Entry of Judgment, overruling Ash's alternative motion to dismiss, finding Ash is "a single person" and "one and the same as Defendant, John Doe, Occupant," and dismissing from the action the "Defendant, Spouse, if any, of [Ash]." The trial court sustained Bank's motion for summary judgment, finding, in pertinent part, that Ash "made, executed and delivered the Note and Mortgage sued upon by [Bank], and that

2013It cites two authorities, Hester v. Hester, 1983 OK 50, 15 , 663 P.2d 727, 729 , and Madill Bank & Trust Co. v. Herrmann, 1987 OK CIV APP 4 , 117, 738 P.2d 567 , both of which held an award of attorney fees may not be reversed without a showing of the court's abuse of discretion and when no record of that evidentiary hearing has been included in the record, the award will be affirmed as presumptively correct.

2013It cites two authorities, Hester v. Hester, 1983 OK 50, 15 , 663 P.2d 727, 729 , and Madill Bank & Trust Co. v. Herrmann, 1987 OK CIV APP 4 , 117, 738 P.2d 567 , both of which held an award of attorney fees may not be reversed without a showing of the court's abuse of discretion and when no record of that evidentiary hearing has been included in the record, the award will be affirmed as presumptively correct.

2013It cites two authorities, Hester v. Hester, 1983 OK 50, 15 , 663 P.2d 727, 729 , and Madill Bank & Trust Co. v. Herrmann, 1987 OK CIV APP 4 , 117, 738 P.2d 567 , both of which held an award of attorney fees may not be reversed without a showing of the court's abuse of discretion and when no record of that evidentiary hearing has been included in the record, the award will be affirmed as presumptively correct.

2009Contrary to Bank's argument, "an appeal need not always be the appellant's sole remedial avenue of relief to make a prejudgment order appealable as final under § 953." Gilliland v. Chronic Pain Assocs., Inc., 1995 OK 94, ¶ 7 , 904 P.2d 73, 76 . 114 Further, despite Bank's contention that Raven cannot appeal without the district court's permission, certification of the order granting Bank's motion to dismiss pursuant to § 994 may not have been available.

2009Contrary to Bank's argument, "an appeal need not always be the appellant's sole remedial avenue of relief to make a prejudgment order appealable as final under § 953." Gilliland v. Chronic Pain Assocs., Inc., 1995 OK 94, ¶ 7 , 904 P.2d 73, 76 . 114 Further, despite Bank's contention that Raven cannot appeal without the district court's permission, certification of the order granting Bank's motion to dismiss pursuant to § 994 may not have been available.

2009Patmon v. Block, 1993 OK 53 , 851 P.2d 539 , however, decided an almost identical issue.

2009Patmon v. Block, 1993 OK 53 , 851 P.2d 539 , however, decided an almost identical issue.

1993It cited First National Bank v. Duncan, 127 Okla. 226 , 260 P. 491 (1927) (overruled on other grounds), for authority that the Bank’s “mere knowledge” its customer was engaged in the commission cattle business would be “a circumstance sufficient to compel Bank’s inquiry into the nature of the wire transfer from Lewis Feedlot.” The trial court found that: Bank had sufficient knowledge of the nature of Mullins’ business to put it under a duty of inquiry about the wire transfer_ Had Bank made some inquiry it could have easily learned that the wired funds were in payment for livestock and belonged

1993It cited First National Bank v. Duncan, 127 Okla. 226 , 260 P. 491 (1927) (overruled on other grounds), for authority that the Bank’s “mere knowledge” its customer was engaged in the commission cattle business would be “a circumstance sufficient to compel Bank’s inquiry into the nature of the wire transfer from Lewis Feedlot.” The trial court found that: Bank had sufficient knowledge of the nature of Mullins’ business to put it under a duty of inquiry about the wire transfer_ Had Bank made some inquiry it could have easily learned that the wired funds were in payment for livestock and belonged

1993See McMillan v. Lane Wood & Co., 361 P.2d 487 (Okla. 1961); Ross v. Thompson, 174 Okla. 183 , 50 P.2d 385 (1935).

1993See McMillan v. Lane Wood & Co., 361 P.2d 487 (Okla. 1961); Ross v. Thompson, 174 Okla. 183 , 50 P.2d 385 (1935).

1966In Renegar v. Staples, Okl., 388 P.2d 867 , we held that in a case of equitable *516 cognizance, a general judgment of the trial court carries with it a finding of all the facts necessary to support it.

1938Keys v. Ponder (1924) 118 Okla. 234 , 226 P. 73 , 747 P. 43 .

1938Keys v. Ponder (1924) 118 Okla. 234 , 226 P. 73 , 747 P. 43 .

1927Pippin v. McVickers, 87 Okla. 289 , 210 Pac. 1016 .

1927Pippin v. McVickers, 87 Okla. 289 , 210 Pac. 1016 .

1925In Johnson et al. v. Chapman et al., 38 Okla. 42 , 131 Pac. 1076 , it is said: “.Where the sufficiency of a petition is challenged solely by an objection to the introduction of evidence thereunder, such objection, not being favored by the courts, should generally be overruled, unless there is a total failure to allege some matter essential to the relief sought, and should seldom, if ever, be sustained when the allegations are simply incomplete, indefinite, or conclusions of law.” There is no hint anywhere in the evidence that the American National Bank of Wetumka violated its instructions and

1925In Johnson et al. v. Chapman et al., 38 Okla. 42 , 131 Pac. 1076 , it is said: “.Where the sufficiency of a petition is challenged solely by an objection to the introduction of evidence thereunder, such objection, not being favored by the courts, should generally be overruled, unless there is a total failure to allege some matter essential to the relief sought, and should seldom, if ever, be sustained when the allegations are simply incomplete, indefinite, or conclusions of law.” There is no hint anywhere in the evidence that the American National Bank of Wetumka violated its instructions and

1912Joyce on Defenses to Commercial Paper, sec. 474, says: “If the instrument itself contains matters sufficient, within the rules governing the question of notice or knowledge, to necessitate inquiry on the part of the taker, his failure to make such inquiry will prevent him from claiming the protection and rights of a bona fide holder.” In section 485, the same author, commenting on the decision in Orr v. South Amboy Terra Cotta Co., 113 App. Div. 103 , 98 N. Y.

1912Joyce on Defenses to Commercial Paper, sec. 474, says: “If the instrument itself contains matters sufficient, within the rules governing the question of notice or knowledge, to necessitate inquiry on the part of the taker, his failure to make such inquiry will prevent him from claiming the protection and rights of a bona fide holder.” In section 485, the same author, commenting on the decision in Orr v. South Amboy Terra Cotta Co., 113 App. Div. 103 , 98 N. Y.

1908To the same effect are the following: *236 “Public moneys deposited in a bank in violation of law are trust funds, and do not become the property or assets of said bank and remain trust funds with title in the true owner, after the appointment of a receiver and the insolvency of the hank.” (First National Bank v. Bunting & Co., 7 Idaho, 27 , 59 Pac. 929, 1106 ; Green v. Custer County, 8 Idaho, 721 , 71 Pac. 115 ; Myers v. Board of Education, 51 Kan. 87 , 32 Pac. 658 , 37 Am.

1908To the same effect are the following: *236 “Public moneys deposited in a bank in violation of law are trust funds, and do not become the property or assets of said bank and remain trust funds with title in the true owner, after the appointment of a receiver and the insolvency of the hank.” (First National Bank v. Bunting & Co., 7 Idaho, 27 , 59 Pac. 929, 1106 ; Green v. Custer County, 8 Idaho, 721 , 71 Pac. 115 ; Myers v. Board of Education, 51 Kan. 87 , 32 Pac. 658 , 37 Am.

1908To the same effect are the following: *236 “Public moneys deposited in a bank in violation of law are trust funds, and do not become the property or assets of said bank and remain trust funds with title in the true owner, after the appointment of a receiver and the insolvency of the hank.” (First National Bank v. Bunting & Co., 7 Idaho, 27 , 59 Pac. 929, 1106 ; Green v. Custer County, 8 Idaho, 721 , 71 Pac. 115 ; Myers v. Board of Education, 51 Kan. 87 , 32 Pac. 658 , 37 Am.

1908To the same effect are the following: *236 “Public moneys deposited in a bank in violation of law are trust funds, and do not become the property or assets of said bank and remain trust funds with title in the true owner, after the appointment of a receiver and the insolvency of the hank.” (First National Bank v. Bunting & Co., 7 Idaho, 27 , 59 Pac. 929, 1106 ; Green v. Custer County, 8 Idaho, 721 , 71 Pac. 115 ; Myers v. Board of Education, 51 Kan. 87 , 32 Pac. 658 , 37 Am.

1908To the same effect are the following: *236 “Public moneys deposited in a bank in violation of law are trust funds, and do not become the property or assets of said bank and remain trust funds with title in the true owner, after the appointment of a receiver and the insolvency of the hank.” (First National Bank v. Bunting & Co., 7 Idaho, 27 , 59 Pac. 929, 1106 ; Green v. Custer County, 8 Idaho, 721 , 71 Pac. 115 ; Myers v. Board of Education, 51 Kan. 87 , 32 Pac. 658 , 37 Am.

1908To the same effect are the following: *236 “Public moneys deposited in a bank in violation of law are trust funds, and do not become the property or assets of said bank and remain trust funds with title in the true owner, after the appointment of a receiver and the insolvency of the hank.” (First National Bank v. Bunting & Co., 7 Idaho, 27 , 59 Pac. 929, 1106 ; Green v. Custer County, 8 Idaho, 721 , 71 Pac. 115 ; Myers v. Board of Education, 51 Kan. 87 , 32 Pac. 658 , 37 Am.