## Facts

- Robert E. Davis, Sr. maintained an IRA serviced by brokerage firm Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc. (Sterne Agee) and adviser Linda Daniel.
- Over time, Davis changed the IRA beneficiary designation multiple times, alternating between his wife, Mary G. Davis, and his sons (Mary’s stepsons).
- In December 2001, Daniel received by mail a change-of-beneficiary form purportedly signed by Davis that changed the beneficiary from Mary to the sons.
- Daniel did not compare the signature on the December 2001 form to other known signatures to verify authenticity.
- Davis died in February 2002.
- After Davis’s death, Daniel told Mary she was not the designated beneficiary and declined to provide her detailed account information.
- Based on account records listing the sons as beneficiaries, Daniel provided the sons account information and, at their request, liquidated the IRA and distributed proceeds to them.
- Mary obtained copies of the recent beneficiary-change forms and retained a handwriting expert, Steven Slyter, who opined that the signature on the December 8, 2001 form was forged.
- Mary sued Sterne Agee and the sons seeking relief tied to the allegedly forged beneficiary-change form and the distribution of the IRA proceeds.

## Issues

1. Whether handwriting-expert testimony that a beneficiary-change signature was forged constituted substantial evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact that precluded summary judgment on forgery- and transfer-based claims.
2. Whether Mary produced substantial evidence for each element of her asserted tort and equitable claims (including fraud theories, conversion/wrongful transfer, negligence/wantonness, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment) against Sterne Agee and the sons.
3. Whether the trial court properly entered summary judgment on all claims, or whether certain claims had to be remanded for trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the summary judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded.
- The court held that expert handwriting testimony disputing the authenticity of the signature on the beneficiary-change form was substantial evidence creating a jury question on whether the form was forged.
- Because the authenticity of the form was central to entitlement to the IRA proceeds and the propriety of their distribution, summary judgment was improper on claims premised on the alleged forgery and resulting transfer of funds (including conversion/wrongful transfer and forgery-based fraud theories) against Sterne Agee and, to the extent applicable, the sons.
- The court affirmed summary judgment on certain fraud theories (including misrepresentation-based claims) where Mary failed to present substantial evidence of required elements such as reliance and resulting compensable damages.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, once the movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.
- Expert handwriting testimony disputing a signature’s authenticity can constitute substantial evidence sufficient to require a jury determination on forgery.
- Claims premised on an allegedly forged instrument and an allegedly wrongful transfer of funds may survive summary judgment when the record contains substantial evidence creating a fact dispute about the instrument’s genuineness and the transfer’s lawfulness.
- Fraud by misrepresentation requires substantial evidence of, at minimum, a false representation, reliance, and damages caused by that reliance; failure of proof on reliance or damages supports summary judgment.
- Fraudulent suppression similarly requires substantial evidence of duty to disclose, suppression of material facts, reliance, and resulting damages.

## Conclusion

The court held that substantial evidence of a forged IRA beneficiary-change form—supported by handwriting-expert testimony—required trial on claims tied to the allegedly wrongful distribution of the IRA proceeds, while affirming summary judgment on fraud theories lacking proof of reliance and damages, and remanded for further proceedings.


Davis v. Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc., 965 So. 2d 1076 (Ala. 2007)