(1). PLEASE SUMMARIZE TWO CASES ( page case start from 614 to 617) (a) THE FACTS OF THE CASE(b) THE ISSUE AT THE LAW THE COURT IS CONSIDERING(c) HOW THE LAW WAS APPLIED IN THIS CASE(d) CONCLUSION OF

**** ** ******************* ** ********************* * HONEYCUTT(a) *** ***** ** *** ******* **** ******** *** ***** ** Christine Honeycutt *********** money ***** for ******* a ******** ****** *** ********* *** ********* ********* *** * ******** ******** account **** *** bank ** ******* **** ******** * ********* card *** *** ******* **** ******* off *** box requiring *** signature ** ******** ** ****** ** the Sheldon ****** ******** *** *** ********* were the legal ***** **** could ******** ** ****** ** *** ****** ***** *** death ** *** Christine ******** *** ***** *** thus ******* contested *** issue **** ********** **** *** **** was ************* *** breached the *** ******* ******* argued **** there *** a breach ** **** ** care **** *** ** ******* ** ********* *** ********* ** ********* into *** *********** *** ***** ** THE *** *** ***** IS ************** ***** ** *********** ** *** **** ***** in ******** ** the ********* ** *********** ** ****** of *** business The court **** ***** ** ********* if Christine was **** of the *********** **** **** ********** to ******** The ***** ** *********** ******* ********* breached *** ******** ** ******* *** *** ********** ******* ** withdraw ***** *** *** ******** Thus ** *** ********** **** unlawful this ***** **** ** *** *********** *** *** *** *** ******* ** THIS CASEThe **** ********** a ********* **** ***** constitutes the ******** ******* *** ******** *** the bank The signature **** *** * ******** agreement between the ******* and ** is ******* ** ********* ******* ** the ********** ** *** rights *** ****** *** ********* **** **** **** a *********** obligation **** ******* *** **** ** *** *** ********** funds *** ***** ******** ** the ********* **** *********** **** *** and Christine to transact ** behalf ** *** ******* ******* ** they **** ********** persons The ***** also ******** the bank's ************* ** signature checks orders ** ******* ** well ** *** transaction ** *** business to Sheldon ********** CONCLUSION ** *** ******** bank ********* **** *** **** *** *** ****** *** *** ** it ********* *** ********* card *** *** ******* *** ******** **** ********* was *** ********** signatory on the ******* *** **** ****** *** bank *** ******* required to ******* *** funds as Christine has the ******* ********* ** *** *** signature **** **** *** ********* card ****** ** ******* *** *********** *** the court **** * ******* ******** **** *** in favor ** *** **************** ** * ****** PSFS **** ******** ASSOCIATIONTHE ***** ** *** ******* case ******** *** actions ** *** **** to ******* * ***** ***** ******* oral orders Liebling ** ** ******** *** maintains an ******** ***** ******* ** ****** Bank Mellon *** a ************ ****** *** ********** checks ******** who ** a ********* ********** ***** * defendant in * settlement **** *** **** resulted ** settlement costs ***** *** plaintiff ****** to ***** ***** check ** 1031 * **** ***** *** ********* ****** ******* check ** Ramos **** ********* the ***** *** ********* ******* ***** ** ******* the ***** ** ***** informs Mellon **** ** **** ********** *** ***** However * year later the ***** is ******* to *** **** by ***** *** ********* *** ***** in **** **** ** ** ******** whether *** **** ****** to ***** the ********* *** ******* Ramos was ** fault **** *** ***** considered who broke *** ******* ********** ******** ISSUE ** THE LAW *** ***** ** ************** ***** ** *** court ******* ** why Mellon Bank *** **** ***** to process * stale ******* *** court considered whether *** ******* ** ****** were in good ***** as *** *** ******* Commercial code of fair ******** *** ***** **** considered *** **** ** ******* if it *** consistent *** ********* faulted the **** ** ****** ** good ***** ** ********** *** ***** *** *** plaintiff had ******** ** **** stop ***** **** *** court ********** *** ******* ** **** *** ********* *** **** and Ramos ********** the check *** *** reasons ****** *** processing ** *** ***** ** *** BankHOW THE LAW *** ******* IN **** ****** *********** ******* *** **** ***** ** **** faith *** ***** relied ** *** uniform ********** ***** and *** **** ** inquiry *** ************ with *** provisions ** ********** ******** ** the ********** ** *** effectiveness ** **** orders Based on *** UCC ** ** ****** *** ************ ***** ********** ******* *** banking procedures ** the United ****** *** ********* did *** *** ** *** ***** ** using *** computerized ***** ****** ** ******** * ***** ***** *** bank ** good ***** despite *** ********** *** ********* on the issue ** this case *** ****** ********** ** **** *** ******* *** *** ******* ** **** **** the ********** of the **** payment ***** Thus the bank *** *** ***** ** ********** *** stale check ** the **** **** order *** expiredCONCLUSION ** *** ******** ***** concluded that the ****** conduct to *** issue *** **** *** ** the ********** commercial ********* *** ********* *** not ****** and ****** ** ******* ** ******* ***** **** no *********** as per *** **** *** **** ***** ** faulted ** ********* *** ***** ******* * stop ***** being ***************** **** MORTGAGE ***** *************** **** parole *** ‘Linda ****** ******************* ***** was arrested *** the *********** ******* scandal **** *** *********** ******* ** Michigan *** ***** parts ** *** country ***** *** collapse ** *** ******* bubble *** was ********* *** ** ***** ** racketeering ******* The ****** is **** to have ****** *** million ******* **** *** **** by the **** * company she **** *** ** based in ******* The ******* ********* ****** documents ** **** **** 1 ******* foreclosure that **** **** ** ***** and attorneys *** illegal ************ ** housing ********* ** O'Connor ****** *** fraud was ****** as ************ *** information *** ****** *** ********* **** ********* *********** *** **** ****** *** name "Linda ****** ** ********* of ****** in *** Nation *** ******** **** ********* ************ *** ****** was aimed at ****** ********** ******** ******* *** use ** **** documents *** implications ** *** **** ******** *** *********** ******* ** *** ******* ** lots of money **** **** in *** ******* **** led ** *** ************ ** ***** ** *** ******* ** forgery Mnuchin **** ***** *** ****** ******* ** ************ *********** *********** **** **** Dayen ****** *** focus is on ******* who lied ***** ***** ******** ** *** ************ *********** ********* ********* ** ******* *** **** **** *** not **** *** ********* In **** ** **** ** *** *** *** ********* of the One West **** *** *** ********** to ******** ******* **** ******** *** ************ ******* was ********** ******** companies ********** *********** indicating **** they *** ******** *** ******** *********** and ******* **** ******* ** foreclosure **** was contrary ** **** had ******* ****** off ******* ** *** fraudulent ********** the ************ **** processed despite *** records ***** ******** *** ******* ****** ** Thrift *********** attested the ***** ******* Mnuchin ******** ****** ****** *** ****** committee evidence showed that *** **** *** ******** in falsified information *********** it paid ********* ** ******* ** ******* *********** **** ** *** *** part ** the banks **** *** ****** *** *************************************************** * (2017) ******* **** ***** *** ******** History ** ************ *********** ********* Retrieved **** ********************************************************************************************************************** * (2016) ******** **** ****** for ******** ******** robo-signer ********* from **************************************************************************************************************************

Click here to download attached files: Case summaries.docx