upon the documents provided by Ashu and Bisong. Moller recognized that Pharmacy II was a partnership when she decided that she could not open the account as a partnership account without a partnership agreement, even though Ashu and Bisong provided to WaMu documentation indicating Pharmacy II’s status as a partnership. Farnsworth testified that when responding to a writ of garnishment, WaMu would look at the terms of the Master Account Agreement for an account to ensure that the debtor named in the writ was the owner of that account. Given WaMu’s reliance on the terms of the Master Account Agreement when responding to a writ of garnishment, WaMu could have reasonably anticipated that setting up an account incorrectly could result in wrongful garnishment. See Bank One, 824 S.W.2d at 558 (<HOLDING>) WaMu also had a duty to disclose any defense
holding that a writ that failed to fix an amount of bail or escrow was invalid on its face meaning that the sheriff had no jurisdiction to detain the plaintiff based on that writ holding that bank was entitled to attorney fees on appeal when agreement did not prohibit such fees holding that the bia is entitled to rely heavily on state department reports holding that the fdic may rely on erroneous bank records to determine whether there was an insured deposit at the time of the banks failure holding that a bank is entitled to rely on its deposit agreement when responding to a writ of garnishment