UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ DOUG GOODMAN, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ > No. 22-5238 │ v. │ │ COMMERCIAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, │ Defendant-Appellee. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Jackson. No. 1:21-cv-01003—S. Thomas Anderson, District Judge.

Argued: January 11, 2023

Decided and Filed: June 26, 2023

Before: KETHLEDGE, READLER, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: William Lewis Jenkins Jr., JENKINS, DEDMON, AND HAYES LAW GROUP LLP, Dyersburg, Tennessee, for Appellant. Walter Preston Battle, IV, BAKER DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: William Lewis Jenkins Jr., JENKINS, DEDMON, AND HAYES LAW GROUP LLP, Dyersburg, Tennessee, for Appellant. Walter Preston Battle, IV, BAKER DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Under Tennessee’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code, when is a bank entitled to a remedy (here, restitution) from a payee for mistakenly paying a negotiable instrument (here, a check)? And when does a payee take a check No. 22-5238 Goodman v. Com. Bank & Trust Co. Page 2

in “good faith” and “for value,” enabling the payee to defend against a payor bank’s claim for restitution? Those questions are posed here, as they were before the district court. At summary judgment, the district court held that two checks cashed at Commercial Bank and Trust were paid to Doug Goodman by “mistake” within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-418(b), and that Goodman could not demonstrate that he took the checks in good faith and for value, see id. § 47- 3-418(c), entitling the Bank to restitution. We agree and thus affirm.

I.

At heart a dispute over how to interpret Tennessee’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code, this suit has its origins in a crop insurance contract issued to farmer Doug Goodman. The story begins with Goodman contacting Doug Martinek, of Southern Risk Insurance Group, Inc., to obtain crop insurance for a Missouri farm Goodman owned. Through Martinek, Southern Risk assisted Goodman in obtaining a policy from an insurance company.

Later that year, Goodman discovered that certain portions of his Missouri property could not be farmed due to excess moisture. Goodman filed a claim under the policy. But the insurer denied the claim as beyond the scope of the policy.

Frustrated, Goodman accused Martinek and Southern Risk of failing to obtain proper coverage. Martinek and Goodman discussed the matter. Although no formal resolution appears to have been reached, Martinek did provide Goodman with two checks drawn from Southern Risk’s account at Commercial Bank and Trust Company. One was for $100,000, the other $200,000. At the time the checks were written, however, Southern Risk’s account had insufficient funds to cover the draws.

According to Martinek,