Bank claim in Kansas

2020Specifically, citing Beck v. Brooks, 224 Kan. 300 , 580 P.2d 882 (1978), and Fuqua v. Hanson, 222 Kan. 653 , 567 P.2d 862 (1977), the district court found "[i]t is clear and undisputed that the [Hindses] intended to encumber the five-acre tract of land as collateral to secure repayment of the debt described in the Note and [Loan] Modification." Likewise, the district court found that "it was the clear intention of the parties to create a mortgage on 21 the five acres. . . ." As such, the district court concluded that Deutsche Bank "holds an equitable lien on the property that can be enforced b

2020Specifically, citing Beck v. Brooks, 224 Kan. 300 , 580 P.2d 882 (1978), and Fuqua v. Hanson, 222 Kan. 653 , 567 P.2d 862 (1977), the district court found "[i]t is clear and undisputed that the [Hindses] intended to encumber the five-acre tract of land as collateral to secure repayment of the debt described in the Note and [Loan] Modification." Likewise, the district court found that "it was the clear intention of the parties to create a mortgage on 21 the five acres. . . ." As such, the district court concluded that Deutsche Bank "holds an equitable lien on the property that can be enforced b

2020Specifically, citing Beck v. Brooks, 224 Kan. 300 , 580 P.2d 882 (1978), and Fuqua v. Hanson, 222 Kan. 653 , 567 P.2d 862 (1977), the district court found "[i]t is clear and undisputed that the [Hindses] intended to encumber the five-acre tract of land as collateral to secure repayment of the debt described in the Note and [Loan] Modification." Likewise, the district court found that "it was the clear intention of the parties to create a mortgage on 21 the five acres. . . ." As such, the district court concluded that Deutsche Bank "holds an equitable lien on the property that can be enforced b

2020Specifically, citing Beck v. Brooks, 224 Kan. 300 , 580 P.2d 882 (1978), and Fuqua v. Hanson, 222 Kan. 653 , 567 P.2d 862 (1977), the district court found "[i]t is clear and undisputed that the [Hindses] intended to encumber the five-acre tract of land as collateral to secure repayment of the debt described in the Note and [Loan] Modification." Likewise, the district court found that "it was the clear intention of the parties to create a mortgage on 21 the five acres. . . ." As such, the district court concluded that Deutsche Bank "holds an equitable lien on the property that can be enforced b

2005Guarantors advanced the litigation by filing a motion for summary judgment, arguing said agreements were not enforceable because the limitation of liability' provision was ambiguous and the amounts each guarantor would have to pay could only be determined by inadmissible parol evidence, relying principally on Kenby Oil Co. v. Lange, 30 Kan.

1998Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey [ 351 U.S. 427, 437 ], “We see no basis for the apparent belief of the district court that it could sever the Bank’s claim for principal from its claim for prejudgment interest and render a ‘final’ judgment only for the former.” 482 F.2d at 69 .

1998We r ecen tly upheld the rule expressed in Henderson in Gillespie, 263 Kan. at 650 , where we found that certification under K.S.A. 60-254(b) was improper.

1998Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey [ 351 U.S. 427, 437 ], “We see no basis for the apparent belief of the district court that it could sever the Bank’s claim for principal from its claim for prejudgment interest and render a ‘final’ judgment only for the former.” 482 F.2d at 69 .

1977Since the same operative facts that created the right to recover principal gave rise to the right to recover interest, there was but a single claim, as would be evident if the Bank had counterclaimed only for principal and, after obtaining judgment, had endeavored to sue for prejudgment interest.” (p. 69.) The Court discussed and relied on its earlier opinion in Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Giesow, 412 F. 2d 468 (2d Cir. 1969), wherein it had held that the issues of damages and counsel fees were so inexorably interconnected as to make them a single claim.

1976Thus generally, an affirmative response by a bank to an inquiry as to whether the check of a certain person for a named amount is good is nothing more than a statement that the drawer has at that time a deposit sufficient to meet the check, and is not an acceptance of the check by the bank." (Id., § 582, p. 552.) This was the holding in Bank v. Bank, 74 Kan. 606 , 87 Pac. 746 .

1976Thus generally, an affirmative response by a bank to an inquiry as to whether the check of a certain person for a named amount is good is nothing more than a statement that the drawer has at that time a deposit sufficient to meet the check, and is not an acceptance of the check by the bank." (Id., § 582, p. 552.) This was the holding in Bank v. Bank, 74 Kan. 606 , 87 Pac. 746 .

1972The parties were previously before this court in a related matter in Hutchinson Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. N. F. English Construction Co., Inc., 206 Kan. 661, 482 P. 2d 35 .

1972The parties were previously before this court in a related matter in Hutchinson Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. N. F. English Construction Co., Inc., 206 Kan. 661, 482 P. 2d 35 .

1971Counsel’s attention is invited to the fact at a pretrial conference under KSA 60-213 this matter was raised, briefs and documentary evidence were submitted to the court, and thereafter said court made its decision. . . .” The trial court’s disposition of the contention is squarely in line with this court’s holdings in Collins v. Meeker, 198 Kan. 390 , 424 P. 2d 488 ; and Green v. Kaesler-Allen Lumber Co., 197 Kan. 788 , 420 P. 2d 1019 .

1971Counsel’s attention is invited to the fact at a pretrial conference under KSA 60-213 this matter was raised, briefs and documentary evidence were submitted to the court, and thereafter said court made its decision. . . .” The trial court’s disposition of the contention is squarely in line with this court’s holdings in Collins v. Meeker, 198 Kan. 390 , 424 P. 2d 488 ; and Green v. Kaesler-Allen Lumber Co., 197 Kan. 788 , 420 P. 2d 1019 .

1971Counsel’s attention is invited to the fact at a pretrial conference under KSA 60-213 this matter was raised, briefs and documentary evidence were submitted to the court, and thereafter said court made its decision. . . .” The trial court’s disposition of the contention is squarely in line with this court’s holdings in Collins v. Meeker, 198 Kan. 390 , 424 P. 2d 488 ; and Green v. Kaesler-Allen Lumber Co., 197 Kan. 788 , 420 P. 2d 1019 .

1971Counsel’s attention is invited to the fact at a pretrial conference under KSA 60-213 this matter was raised, briefs and documentary evidence were submitted to the court, and thereafter said court made its decision. . . .” The trial court’s disposition of the contention is squarely in line with this court’s holdings in Collins v. Meeker, 198 Kan. 390 , 424 P. 2d 488 ; and Green v. Kaesler-Allen Lumber Co., 197 Kan. 788 , 420 P. 2d 1019 .

1927Bank v. Ober, 178 Fed. 678 , it was held: “A depositor, whose check is dishonored by a bank when he has funds on deposit to meet it, has a right of action against the bank for a violation of his legal rights, and is entitled to recover at least nominal damages.

1924"Where public funds are deposited in violation of law in a bank which has knowledge of the facts, the title does not pass, and a trust ex maleficio results, which in case of insolvency may be enforced against the receiver or other custodian, so far at least as they have come into- his hands, and in some jurisdictions to the extent by which the assets under his control have been thereby increased.” (Phillips v. Bank, 98 Kan. 388, 385 , 158 Pac. 23 .

1915In Washbon v. Bank, 86 Kan. 468 , 121 Pac. 515 , it was sought to prevent the grand master from asserting against the bank a claim included in the one allowed by the probate court, and it was urged that by presenting the entire claim and having it allowed against the estate the grand master was estopped to pursue a remedy inconsistent with such proceeding; that having elected to treat the claim as a debt against the estate as for a conversion, he could not at the same time pursue the bank upon the theory of still owning the proceeds of the check there in controversy.

1915In Washbon v. Bank, 86 Kan. 468 , 121 Pac. 515 , it was sought to prevent the grand master from asserting against the bank a claim included in the one allowed by the probate court, and it was urged that by presenting the entire claim and having it allowed against the estate the grand master was estopped to pursue a remedy inconsistent with such proceeding; that having elected to treat the claim as a debt against the estate as for a conversion, he could not at the same time pursue the bank upon the theory of still owning the proceeds of the check there in controversy.