## Facts

- The Jefferson Parish School Board maintained a checking account with First Commerce Corporation/First National Bank of Commerce.
- To streamline payments, the School Board adopted a facsimile-signature system and executed a facsimile-signature resolution with the Bank.
- The resolution authorized the Bank to honor checks “purporting to bear” the School Board’s facsimile signatures, “regardless of by what means” the signature was affixed, so long as the signatures resembled the facsimile specimens on file.
- The resolution placed the risk of unauthorized use of the facsimile signature on the School Board.
- In November 1992, the Bank paid several checks that appeared to be School Board checks.
- After reviewing its monthly statement, the School Board determined the checks were fraudulently produced and submitted an affidavit of forgery and the items to the Bank, seeking recredit.
- The Bank refused, asserting it acted within the authority granted by the facsimile-signature resolution because the signatures resembled the specimen.

## Issues

1. Whether a bank is liable to recredit a customer’s account for forged checks when the customer’s facsimile-signature resolution authorizes payment of checks “purporting to bear” the facsimile signature if the signature resembles the specimen on file.
2. Whether summary judgment is proper when the only disputed liability element is contractually limited to whether the signatures resembled the specimen and that resemblance is not genuinely disputed.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Bank.
- The court held the facsimile-signature resolution contractually authorized the Bank to honor checks bearing signatures that resembled the filed specimens, even if unauthorized.
- The court concluded there was no actionable basis to recover the paid funds because the contractual condition for payment—resemblance to the specimen—was satisfied.
- The court determined the only material fact was the nature of the signatures, and there was no genuine dispute that the signatures were nearly identical to the specimen.
- The court found persuasive authority in a similar case enforcing a comparable facsimile-signature resolution to bar recovery for forgeries that matched the specimen.

## Legal Principles

- Parties may allocate the risk of loss for unauthorized facsimile signatures by agreement, and clear terms authorizing payment of items “purporting to bear” a facsimile signature can shift loss to the customer.
- When a facsimile-signature resolution authorizes a bank to pay items regardless of how the signature is affixed, the bank’s duty may be limited to confirming that the signature resembles the filed specimen.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where the contract makes signature resemblance the controlling factual question and the record shows no genuine dispute on that point.

## Conclusion

Because the School Board’s facsimile-signature resolution authorized the Bank to pay checks that appeared to bear facsimile signatures resembling the filed specimen, and the resemblance was not genuinely disputed, the Bank was not liable to recredit the account for the forged checks and summary judgment was properly affirmed.


Jefferson Par. Sch. Bd. v. First Com. Corp., 669 So. 2d 1298 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996)