Court Opinion

ID: 9560749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:55:03.626369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:09.964990
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. To maintain an action for conversion the appellant must prove an unlawful or wrongful act of dominion over the property of another. Davidson v. First State Bank and Trust Co. of Yale, Okl., 559 P.2d 1228 (1976).
A check is a draft drawn on a bank and payable on demand. 12A O.S.1981, § 3-104(2)(b). The check issued to the appellant’s daughter carried an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money and no other promise. 12A O.S. 1981, § 3-104(1)(b). This sum of money must be paid to the payee or payees named on the face of the check. The appellant was aware that the check had both hers and her daughters name on it. She was also aware that the check itself instructed the bank to pay either of the payee’s by including the word or between the names. An instrument payable to the order of two or more persons, made payable in the alternative, is payable to any one of them and may be negotiated, discharged or enforced by any of them who has possession of it. 12A O.S.1981, § 3-116(a). Appellant knew or should have known that she was in possession of a bank check, not a certified check, and that the check was payable to either of the named payee’s. An instrument is converted when any person to whom it is delivered for payment refuses on demand either to pay or return it. 12A O.S.1981, § 3-419(1)(b). In this case the check was presented by a named payee and the appellee paid the face value on demand. The appellee acted within the powers granted it by statute and therefore their acts did not constitute an unlawful or wrongful conversion of the appellants property.1
Appellant further argues that the appel-lee breeched the contract that was created when she signed the signature card for the savings accounts at the appellee’s bank. The appellee could be held liable had they released any funds from these accounts to an unauthorized person. However, the appellant relieved the bank from any obligation under this contract when she voluntarily closed these accounts. At the time she closed the accounts a contract no longer existed and the terms of the check became controlling.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice DOOLIN joins in the views expressed herein.

. Title 6, O.S.1981, § 901 provides: “When a deposit has been made or shall hereafter be made in any bank in the names of two or more persons, payable to any of them or payable to any of them or the survivor, such deposit, or any part thereof, or interest thereon, may be paid to either of said persons, whether one of such persons shall be a minor or not, and whether the other be living or not; and the receipt or acquittance of the person so paid shall be valid and sufficient release and discharge to the bank for any payment so made ..."