Legal Opinion

Springfield Township v. Mellon PSFS Bank

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 30, 2005No. 252 MAP 2003PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

JUSTICE EAKIN.

The sole issue before this Court is whether a bank must have actual knowledge that it is dealing with a fiduciary at the time of a transaction in order for the bank to be entitled to the protections of § 9 of the Uniform Fiduciaries Act (UFA).1 We hold that a bank need not have actual knowledge it is dealing with a fiduciary in order to be protected under § 9 of the UFA, and therefore reverse the order of the Superior Court.

Appellee, Springfield Township, retained Robert J. Kuss through his firm, Robert J. Kuss & Associates, Inc., to manage and administer pension plans…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Buffalo Township v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Coretsky v. Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Zions First National Bank v. Clark Clinic Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Coeur D'Alene Mining Co. v. First National BankIdaho Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Johnson v. Citizens National BankAppellate Court of Illinois · 1975

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Bucci v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
  2. White v. Conestoga Title InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  3. Cohen v. Chicago Title InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2007
  4. Alberton v. Commonwealth Land Title InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
  5. Nisenzon v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2008

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API