Court Opinion

ID: 9477474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:24:25.695929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:53.785286
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In their petition for rehearing, appellants now suggest that summary judgment was improper because they never had a binding contract with the Bank. According to appellants, there was no contract because the Bank never notified them of the provision that permitted the Bank to treat each person named on the face of the certificate— including Gibson — as an “absolute owner.” The summary judgment evidence, however, indicates that as a matter of law the appellants authorized Gibson to obtain a certificate of deposit naming herself as a co-owner with the appellants. Moreover, the appellants fully acknowledged the existence of the contract in their arguments to the district court, questioning only whether the Bank adequately discharged its obligations under that agreement. For these reasons, the petition for rehearing is DENIED, although Judge Garza would grant the petition.