Opinion ID: 1196444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Officer Status

Text: Neither party disputes that officer status in a national bank is a sine qua non requirement for raising § 24(Fifth) as a bar to ex contractu actionability. [24] In its quest for summary judgment the Bank had tendered a copy of a board meeting's minutes showing Sargent had been made an officer of the Bank. His title was Vice President, Auditor. This act by the Board followed Sargent's transfer from the Bank's holding company, Central Service Corporation (CSC). During his deposition Sargent admitted to having been employed by the bank, transferred first to CSC and then back to the Bank. He also acknowledged being made a Bank officer in 1978  before his stint with the holding company. We find one other statement most significant. Sargent himself characterized his transfers  from the Bank to CSC, and back to the Bank  as lateral movements. From this description the inference may easily be drawn that upon his return to the Bank he resumed former officer status. All these factors leave little doubt concerning the absence of the fact issue regarding Sargent's bank officer status. Sargent nonetheless points out in his brief-in-chief that when asked at his deposition whether he was a Bank officer, he answered no. Absent any reference to the period of employment in question, Sargent's response could mean he was not an officer of the Bank while he was working for its holding company. In any event, we treat this inconclusive evidentiary element as cured by Sargent's insistence in his appellate brief that he was not just any bank officer. [25] Other documents as well were tendered by the plaintiff as proof of his officer or agency status under the holding company. One item, entitled Central Service Corporation Personnel Record, contains the following statement: The Board of Directors of the Central Service Corporation approved the title of VP, Auditor for Major Sargent to be effective 4-17-85. Another document, a Central Service Corporation Officer/Exempt Employees Performance Evaluation form shows the CEO as one of the signatories. Whatever evidentiary effect may be ascribed to these and other documents which we need not discuss, we conclude they lack the probative strength necessary to overcome either the conclusiveness of Bank's overwhelming materials or the force of Sargent's admissions. For these reasons we hold there is no question but that the plaintiff was an officer at the time of his dismissal from Bank's employ.