Opinion ID: 612363
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Return of Assets to TMS

Text: Lastly, TMS argues that the district court erred in concluding that Mr. Schlossberg properly returned at the direction of the West Virginia Family Court the TMS assets remaining after the final divorce settlement by delivering the assets to Mr. Palencar or to his attorney. We conclude that there was no error. Mr. Palencar was the manager of TMS, as well as its secretary/treasurer. Thus, it was appropriate for Mr. Schlossberg to return the assets to Mr. Palencar, who handled all financial matters for TMS. 7 We need not specifically address the question of agency because we affirm on the basis that there were no misrepresentations. But we do note that, typically, a bank does not act as an agent for a depositor. Cf. Spratt v. Sec. Bank of Buffalo, Wyo., 654 P.2d 130, 135 (Wyo. 1982) (citing Gray v. Elliott, 255 P. 593, 594 (Wyo. 1927), and recognizing that bank is debtor, not agent, with respect to general deposits); see also U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Home Bank for Sav., 88 S.E. 109, 110 (W. Va. 1916) (“The relationship of banker and depositor is that of debtor and creditor . . . .”). -12-