Case Brief

Your Name
Course Name
Semester & Year
Case Brief
Citation: May-Li Barki v. Liberty Bank and Trust Co., 20 P.3d 135, 1999 OK 87 (Okla., 1999)
Facts: Doctor May-Li Barki had written some checks worth $385,639.90 that was to be endorsed in her account at Capitol Federal Savings bank. This occurred in between 1985 February and August of 1988. Dr. Barki gave the checks to her accountant by the name Gary Reed to go and endorse on her behalf. Reed in turn went and endorsed the cash in his account even though the check had the name of Dr. Barki in the same Capitol Federal Bank.
Later in the year 1991 when Dr. Barki discovered that the checks were endorsed in Reed’s account and not hers, she decided to sue the Capitol Federal for the loss that she had undergone. This was in order so that the Capitol Federal bank could compensate for her losses.
Issue I: Was it correctly held by the court that the Liberty Bank had no defense against the case that was presented by Dr. Barki under 12A O.S. § 3-405(1)?
Issue II: Did the court trial affirm that the cause of action by Dr. Barki was not being denied by the limitation’s statute?
Issue III: Were the actions made by the court within the discretion by omitting some of the evidence during the trial?
Issue IV: Was it acceptable for the court to deter Liberty’s intention to give evidence they wanted to present before the court?
Decision: Yes/ Yes/Yes/Yes.
Rationale: Liberty’s analysis was denied by the caught since the checks that were presented by Reed were made to have a restrictive endorsement in Reed’s account in the Capitol Federal.

The court also confirmed that Barki’s checks were not endorsed effectively by the payee as it would have been done. The court also depended on the argument of the West Virginia Supreme Court since they were similar to the case that was presented by Dr. Barki. And therefore Barki was to be compensated by Liberty for her losses.