Hart, an operations analyst with WaMu familiar with WaMu’s policies and procedures in January 2003 for opening bank accounts, testified that in her ten years of experience with WaMu, she had never seen a sole proprietorship account set up based upon an assumed name certificate with three names on it. WaMu also stated in its verified answer filed in the garnishment action that the 3775 Account was owned in the name of Pharmacy II, and an assistant financial center manager at WaMu stated in a letter that the 3775 Account was a business account. But WaMu failed to raise this defense in its garnishment answer and released funds belonging to the partnership in the account to Cambridge, as the judgment creditor of Bisong, not the partnership. See Sw. Bank & Trust Co., 694 S.W.2d at 200-01 (<HOLDING>). Thus, after applying the applicable standards
holding that companys president was trustee of trust funds because he had control and direction over the funds holding that theft by taking conviction was supported by evidence of unlawful taking rather than unlawful appropriation of funds where defendant who was given an electronic banking card encoded with the account number of another customer withdrew funds from bank account knowing that she was obtaining funds which did not belong to her and which she had no right to receive holding that in a case where a suspended attorney commingled funds between his attorney trust account and attorney business account and the funds could not be traced claimants state of new jersey and clients security fund reached an amicable agreement to divide the funds equally holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust holding garnishee bank liable for releasing funds when garnishee knew that funds in garnished account were held in trust for another and did not belong to debtor