CARROLL COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. — NOT TO BE PUBLISHED - OPINION AFFIRMING

RENDERED: OCTOBER 9, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2025-CA-1171-MR CARROLL COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL APPELLANT v. APPEAL FROM CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE REBECCA LESLIE KNIGHT, JUDGE ACTION NO. 24-CI-00130 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. APPELLEE OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: ACREE, L. JONES, AND MOYNAHAN, JUDGES. MOYNAHAN, JUDGE: This appeal arises from a September 9, 2025, Carroll Circuit Court opinion granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) against the Appellant, Carroll County Memorial Hospital (“CCMH”). After review of the record on appeal, the briefs submitted, and analysis of the law, we affirm.

-- 1 of 6 --

-2- BACKGROUND On February 15, 2023, CCMH issued a check for $55,916.76, payable to Compumedics USA, Inc. (“Compumedics”). However, at the time of deposit, the check was altered to reflect payment to DMS Home Improvement (“DMS”). DMS was Wells Fargo’s customer, and Wells Fargo accepted the check without any endorsement on the back of the check, on March 1, 2023.1 Wells Fargo then presented the check to CCMH’s bank, The First National Bank of Kentucky (“FNBK”), after which the funds were withdrawn from CCMH’s account and deposited in DMS’s account at Wells Fargo. FNBK sent CCMH a statement reflecting the altered check on March 31, 2023. On May 31, 2023, sixty-one days later, CCMH reported the alteration to FNBK. CCMH and FNBK had an account agreement that placed a sixty-day time limit on the time to discover and report alterations to the account, which included statements pertaining to withdrawn checks. CCMH stated in its brief that it believed any claim it may have had against FNBK was barred because the timeframe for notification exceeded the contractually obligated window. On May 10, 2024, FNBK assigned any claims it may have against Wells Fargo to CCMH. CCMH then filed this action on July 16, 2024, bringing claims for breach of 1 The record is undisputed that the change occurred but does not provide any context for why the change occurred. Compumedics is the undisputed intended recipient and DMS is the undisputed actual recipient.

-- 2 of 6 --

-3- presentment warranty and conversion against Wells Fargo only. The Parties then filed Cross-Motions for summary judgment. The Carroll Circuit Court considered both motions and granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or “there is no genuine issue on the controlling facts of the case and a checkmate is certain.” Teague v. Reid, 340 S.W.2d 235, 240 (Ky. 1960); Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 56.03. Because summary judgment is a determination of law, and not fact, it is afforded a de novo review upon appeal. See Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2010). ANALYSIS On appeal, CCMH argues that the hospital is not precluded under Kentucky Revised Statutes (“KRS”) 355.4-406(6) and 355.4-208(3) from bringing a claim against Wells Fargo because, while it may be barred from bringing a claim against FKBK, CCMH – in the shoes of FKBK – is not precluded from bringing a presentment warranty claim against Wells Fargo. For the following reasons, we disagree and uphold the circuit court’s ruling.

-- 3 of 6 --

-4- I. Presentment Claim As a threshold matter, it is important to distinguish the time-barred presentment warranty claim that CCMH had against FNBK from the same claim that FNBK had (and subsequently assigned to CCMH) against Wells Fargo. KRS 355.4-406 provides up to a year for a customer to notify their bank of fraudulent activity. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court has recognized the option for parties to contract around this time limit. “A contract of deposit may include conditions precedent or the equivalent of a shortened statute of limitations.” Concrete Materials Corp. v. Bank of Danville & Tr. Co., 938 S.W.2d 254, 257 (Ky. 1997). This Court has held that sixty days is a reasonable timeline which may be contracted. Id.; see also, e.g., Holt v. Cmty. Tr. Bank, Inc., 2018 WL 679862 (Ky. App. Feb. 2, 2018).2 In this case, CCMH signed an account agreement with FNBK, which included a provision that limited CCMH’s notification window to a maximum of sixty (60) days. CCMH acknowledged that it failed to inform FNBK within the timeframe and that it was barred from recovering from FNBK. The contract is meant to carry the weight of the statute in this area of law, and Kentucky courts have indicated so by allowing account agreements to control the timing required 2 We cite this case for its illustrative value and not as authority. Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure (“RAP”) 41(A).

-- 4 of 6 --

-5- for “reasonable” notification.3 Presumably, because CCMH failed to adhere to this requirement of the account agreement, FNBK never reimbursed CCMH the funds that were fraudulently taken from its account. This brings us to our next point. II. Assignment Claim With no valid claim to bring against FNBK, CCMH instead sought and received the assignment of FNBK’s claim against Wells Fargo. CCMH asserted the terms of its contract with FNBK did not bar it from recovering against Wells Fargo. However, the argument CCMH makes based on this assignment is fundamentally flawed, because FNBK suffered no damages. See U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Cent. Bank & Tr. Co., No. 5:23-CV-00189-GFVT, 2025 WL 1657199, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Jun. 11, 2025) (finding that Kentucky’s UCC statutes prohibited a bank from recovering in a fraudulent check presentment scenario because, having never credited its client’s account, the bank did not sustain damages). As noted above, FNBK did not reimburse CCMH following the latter’s funds being used to pay the altered check accepted by Wells Fargo. As a result, CCMH—now standing in the shoes of FNBK—cannot, as it seeks to do in this case, combine its alleged damages with FNBK’s potential claim against Wells Fargo. See Jewell v. Kentucky School Bd. Ass’n, 309 S.W.3d 232, 236 (Ky. 2010) (holding that the 3 We do not reach the issue of reasonable promptness because CCMH is precluded from raising a claim against Wells Fargo and CCMH has waived any argument challenging the terms of its contract with FNBK.

-- 5 of 6 --

-6- rights created by a claim assignment are no greater than the rights of the assignor); see also Unifund CCR Partners v. Harrell, 509 S.W.3d 25, 29 (Ky. 2017). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s grant of Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment as to the claims made by CCMH. ALL CONCUR. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Jake A. Thompson Carrollton, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Benjamin B. Coulter Birmingham, Alabama

-- 6 of 6 --