Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Stillwell v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co. of Russell County
Citations: 675 So. 2d 433; 1995 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 705; 1995 WL 705304Docket: 2940639
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; November 30, 1995; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Larry Wayne Stillwell appeals a summary judgment favoring Columbus Bank regarding his claims for $1,000,000 in damages based on breach of contract, negligence, conversion, and violation of fiduciary duty. Stillwell alleges the bank wrongfully converted and negligently disbursed funds from his certificate of deposit to his mother. Initially, he represented himself in court before appealing to the Supreme Court, which transferred the case to this court. The judgment is valid if no genuine material fact dispute exists and the bank is entitled to a legal judgment under Rule 56 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Columbus Bank must demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists, shifting the burden to Stillwell to show otherwise. The case, not pending before June 11, 1987, invokes the 'substantial evidence' rule. Evidence favorable to Stillwell reveals that he and his mother opened two accounts at Columbus Bank in March 1993, totaling $77,715.26. One was a money market account with a $10,000 deposit, and the other was a certificate of deposit (C.D.) for $67,715.26, identified as certificate number 215654, opened solely in Stillwell's name, with a power of attorney prepared for access. Upon maturity of the C.D. in December 1993, Stillwell, with his mother's consent, invested $25,000 in a mutual fund and moved $42,782.05 into another C.D., certificate number 216901. A disagreement on July 15, 1994, led to Stillwell’s mother instructing him to retrieve her funds. He falsely claimed he had spent the money. On July 19, 1994, Stillwell found that his mother had closed both accounts using the powers of attorney Stillwell had arranged. He argues the bank improperly allowed the closure of the $42,782.05 C.D., claiming the power of attorney was only valid for 270 days, and that the C.D. numbers did not match, nor was the new C.D. number mentioned in the power of attorney. Columbus Bank asserts it acted in accordance with the power of attorney terms when disbursing the funds. The power of attorney explicitly appointed Mary Stillwell as the agent to manage funds in the C.B.T. Bank of Russell County, specifically for a nine-month money market account identified by certificate number 215654, totaling $67,715.26. The document allows her to demand, collect, and hold these funds, and to perform any necessary actions related to this account. However, it does not grant authority over another certificate of deposit, certificate number 216901, amounting to $42,782.05. Citing established legal principles, powers of attorney must be strictly interpreted to limit the agent's authority to what is clearly stated or necessarily implied. Stillwell successfully presented evidence that countered the Columbus Bank's compliance claims regarding the power of attorney, leading to a determination that the summary judgment against her was incorrect. Consequently, the court reversed and remanded the case, with a dissent from Judge Thigpen.