Court Opinion

ID: 9739218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:10:46.39982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.751536
License: Public Domain

DISSENT
PAGE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The contract between Denelsbeck and Wells Fargo, as evidenced by the replacement document, provides that “at least 15 days prior to a maturity date, the Bank [must] give[ ] written notice to the participant that this account will not be renewed at the earnings rate set forth in the Earnings Section and/or for any other term(s) set forth in this certificate.” The replacement document further provides that the rate of earnings on the account was 12.25%. Applying the plain and ordinary meaning to the contract language, as we must if we conclude as we have here that the contract is unambiguous, this language requires that Wells Fargo specifically inform De-nelsbeck that, upon renewal, her retirement certificate would not renew at 12.25%. Wells Fargo could have accomplished this task easily by including a statement with the Time Account Maturity Notice that “this account will not renew at the 12.25% interest rate” or that “this account will renew at the market rate currently in effect on the renewal date.” Instead, Wells Fargo sends a generic “stuffer” that states that the interest rate has not yet been determined and provides a telephone number to call to obtain the new rate.
The court contends that this generic staffer provided adequate notice to De-nelsbeck that her certificate was going to renew at an interest rate other than the 12.25% stated in the replacement document. I disagree. This staffer does not specifically tell Denelsbeck that her certificate is not going to renew at 12.25% as required by the contract language. Nor does the staffer even indicate that it relates to Denelsbeck’s retirement certificate. For that reason, I cannot conclude that this staffer adequately informed De-nelsbeck that her certificate would renew at the then-current market rate of return instead of 12.25%.
For the same reason, I also disagree with the court’s conclusion that the multi-paged pamphlets included with customer letters and bank statements sent to De-nelsbeck adequately informed her that the terms of her certificate had changed and that her certificate would renew at the then-current market rate of return. As with the staffer included in the Time Account Maturity Notice, these pamphlets are generic in nature and did not specifically inform Denelsbeck that her account *351would not renew at 12.25% as required by the replacement document.
Wells Fargo’s reliance on these generic stuffers and pamphlets to provide notice to Denelsbeck that her certificate would renew at the current market rate is made more objectionable by the contradictory messages Denelsbeck received from Wells Fargo and its predecessors. When she first took out her certificate in 1984, De-nelsbeck testified that she was told by Mary at the bank that the interest rate of 12.25% would be “permanent.” Then, shortly before Denelsbeek’s certificate came up for renewal in 1991, Denelsbeck received a call from a young man at the bank who told her that her certificate would not renew at 12.25%. However, six months later Norwest did renew her certificate at 12.25%, even though interest rates were between seven and nine and one-half percent at that time. Shortly before her certificate came up for renewal again in 1998, Denelsbeck testified that she called Norwest and was told by Lisa that her interest rate on renewal would not change as long as she did not remove her funds. However, upon renewal, Norwest renewed her certificate at the then-current market rate of 4.6%.
For the above stated reasons, I conclude that Wells Fargo did not provide adequate notice under the contract as evidenced by the replacement document that Denels-beck’s certificate would not renew at the 12.25%. Accordingly, I would affirm the court of appeals’ reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand to the district court to determine whether the replacement document represented a substitute contract.