## Facts

- Rhona Graves maintained checking (opened 1980) and savings (opened 1986) accounts at Riggs National Bank, governed by a deposit agreement and “Rules and Regulations.”
- The agreement required the customer to notify the bank of any account “error,” including an “unauthorized payment or other irregularity,” within 60 calendar days of the mailing date of the earliest statement reflecting the item; otherwise the statement was deemed correct and the bank disclaimed liability.
- Graves deposited a substantial lottery payment into her Riggs accounts.
- On June 8, 2002, Graves suffered a severe stroke that left her unable to communicate; she later resided in a nursing home until her death on November 9, 2002.
- Between May and December 2002, withdrawals were made by checks, telephone transfers, and ATM transactions; ATM withdrawals included repeated $500 daily-limit withdrawals during the period of incapacity and additional withdrawals after Graves’s death.
- The estate alleged total misappropriation of $131,278.61, including withdrawals after death.
- Riggs mailed periodic account statements to Graves’s address during and after the withdrawals.
- No notice disputing transactions was provided to Riggs within 60 days of any statement reflecting the challenged activity, either by Graves during her life or by someone acting for her.
- Winston D. Peters, Graves’s son and personal representative, learned of the withdrawals after his appointment and filed suit more than one year after his appointment.

## Issues

1. Whether the estate’s breach of contract and negligence claims were barred by the deposit agreement’s 60-day statement-review/notice provision.
2. Whether claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) were barred by EFTA’s one-year statute of limitations and its notice requirements for alleged unauthorized electronic transfers.
3. Whether Graves’s incapacity and death excused noncompliance with the contractual and statutory notice and limitations periods.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Riggs National Bank.
- The court held the contract and negligence claims were time-barred by the 60-day notice provision because no timely notice was given disputing the statements.
- The court held the EFTA claims were independently barred by EFTA’s one-year statute of limitations and by failure to provide timely notice under EFTA’s error-resolution framework.
- The court rejected arguments that incapacity or death justified tolling or avoidance of the contractual or statutory time limits on these facts.
- Because the chronology and lack of timely notice were undisputed, no genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Contracting parties may shorten an otherwise applicable limitations/notice period by agreement if the shortened period is reasonable.
- A reasonable bank deposit-agreement clause requiring notice of unauthorized transactions within a set time after statement mailing is enforceable and can bar recovery when notice is not timely given.
- A personal representative can assert only the decedent’s rights and remains subject to the same contractual defenses and time bars that would have applied to the decedent.
- EFTA actions must be brought within one year of the alleged violation, and recovery may be precluded when the consumer (or representative) fails to provide timely notice required by EFTA’s error-resolution process.
- Incapacity and death, without a legally recognized basis for tolling, do not defeat clear contractual notice provisions or statutory limitation periods.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the deposit agreement’s 60-day statement-notice requirement and EFTA’s statutory deadlines, holding that the estate’s failure to provide timely notice and to sue within the prescribed periods barred contract, negligence, and EFTA claims based on allegedly unauthorized withdrawals.


Peters v. Riggs Nat’l Bank, N.A., 942 A.2d 1163 (D.C. 2008)