## Facts

- Carolyn J. DeLuca worked for Joseph G. Rotondo, a 78-year-old practicing attorney.
- On January 27, 1989, Rotondo became ill and called Carolyn to take him to the hospital.
- Before going to the hospital, Rotondo and Carolyn stopped at Rotondo’s office, where Rotondo signed several blank payroll checks drawn on his account at BancOhio National Bank, Inc.
- Rotondo also told Carolyn that he had a check for her in his desk.
- At the hospital, Rotondo told Carolyn that if something happened to him, she should take the blank check from his desk and fill it in for the amount needed to cover her debts—$75,000.
- After Rotondo died, Carolyn returned to his office, completed payroll using the signed checks, took the remaining signed blank check, filled it out for $75,000 payable to herself, and deposited it into her BancOhio account (associated with Carolyn and her daughter, Jacqueline).
- BancOhio credited the deposit to the account and told Carolyn the funds would be available the next banking day.
- Rotondo’s son, acting as co-executor of the estate, obtained a temporary restraining order from the probate court directing the bank to stop payment/stop transfer of the disputed funds.
- After receiving the restraining order, BancOhio dishonored the $75,000 check, removed the credit from the DeLucas’ account, recredited Rotondo’s account, and returned the check to Carolyn with an explanation that it was dishonored due to the temporary restraining order.
- The DeLucas sued BancOhio, alleging the bank removed $75,000 from their account without authority and wrongfully refused to honor the check.
- At the close of the DeLucas’ evidence, the trial court granted BancOhio’s motion for a directed verdict, and the DeLucas appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether BancOhio’s crediting of the $75,000 check constituted “final payment” under Ohio’s U.C.C. provisions, preventing the bank from revoking the credit and charging back the item.
2. Whether BancOhio could lawfully dishonor the check and reverse the credit after receiving a probate-court temporary restraining order directing a stop of payment/transfer.
3. Whether the evidence presented by the DeLucas was sufficient to allow reasonable jurors to find the bank liable for wrongfully removing the credited funds.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the directed verdict for BancOhio.
- The court held the credit given for the deposited check was not shown to be final payment; it remained provisional under the U.C.C. collection framework.
- Because final payment had not occurred, BancOhio could revoke the settlement/credit and charge back the item when the check was dishonored.
- The bank acted properly in dishonoring the check and reversing the credit upon receiving the temporary restraining order.
- Under the directed-verdict standard, the DeLucas’ evidence did not permit reasonable minds to reach a verdict in their favor against the bank.

## Legal Principles

- Under U.C.C. Article 4 as adopted in Ohio, a depositary bank’s credit for a deposited check is generally provisional; the customer’s right to keep the funds depends on whether the item is finally paid.
- “Final payment” requires an act or event that ends the payor bank’s right to revoke (for example, an irrevocable settlement or expiration of the bank’s right to return/dishonor within the statutory time limits); a routine credit and a statement that funds will be “available” do not, by themselves, make payment final.
- If an item is dishonored before final payment, the bank may reverse the provisional credit (charge back) consistent with the U.C.C. charge-back rules.
- A bank that receives and complies with a court order restraining payment or transfer of funds tied to a disputed check may dishonor the item and adjust the related credits/debits without incurring liability to the depositor merely for following the order.
- A directed verdict is appropriate when, construing the evidence most strongly for the nonmoving party, reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion.

## Conclusion

DeLuca held that BancOhio was not liable for removing the $75,000 credit and dishonoring the check because the credit was provisional rather than final under the U.C.C., and the bank acted within its rights when it reversed the credit and dishonored the item after being served with a probate-court temporary restraining order.


DeLuca v. BancOhio National Bank, Inc., 598 N.E.2d 781 (1991)