CONDER v. UNION PLANTERS BANK, N.A. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A drawer victimized by a Ponzi scheme sued the depositary bank for accepting improperly endorsed checks. The court held the bank was not liable, as the UCC bars a drawer’s conversion claim and the bank’s actions did not cause the drawer’s loss.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that under the revised UCC, a drawer cannot sue a depositary bank for conversion. It also affirms the “intended payee” defense as a direct application of tort causation principles, barring liability where funds reach the entity the drawer intended to pay.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, Conder, was a victim of a Ponzi scheme operated by Johann Smith and his associates through various entities known as the “Heartland Financial Group.” Conder wrote numerous checks payable to “Johann M. Smith Escrow Agent.” Instead of being endorsed by Smith, the checks were stamped “FOR DEPOSIT ONLY LINCOLN FIDELITY ESCROW” and deposited into an account held by Lincoln Fidelity, a Heartland entity, at the defendant Union Planters Bank. Union Planters, the depositary bank, accepted these improperly endorsed checks for deposit. The funds were subsequently withdrawn by the schemers, resulting in a loss of approximately $35 million to all investors. Conder, representing a class of investors, sued Union Planters Bank, asserting claims for conversion and negligence for its role in accepting the checks without proper endorsements from the named payee.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a drawer of a check sue a depositary bank for conversion or negligence when the bank accepts the check with an improper endorsement for deposit into an account controlled by the entity the drawer intended to receive the funds?
No. The court affirmed the dismissal of the drawer’s suit. The UCC Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nu
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Can a drawer of a check sue a depositary bank for conversion or negligence when the bank accepts the check with an improper endorsement for deposit into an account controlled by the entity the drawer intended to receive the funds?
Conclusion
This decision reinforces the UCC's specific allocation of liability in the check Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostr
Legal Rule
Under Uniform Commercial Code § 3-420(a)(i), an action for conversion of an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the plaintiff's two theories of liability, conversion and negligence, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do e
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under UCC § 3-420(a), a drawer of a check cannot sue