Freelance bookkeeper Elizabeth Mulder perpetrated a nearly five-year fraud against her client, plaintiff Kurtz-Ahlers, LLC. Both Kurtz-

Ahlers and Mulder coincidentally had their checking accounts at defendant Bank of America, N.A. (the Bank). Mulder ran her scam through her account at the Bank. Mulder’s scam consisted of the following acts: First, she added the fictitious business name (or dba) “Income Tax Payments” to her existing checking account at the Bank. Then Mulder instructed Kurtz-Ahlers to write its checks for quarterly state and federal income tax payments to “Income Tax Payments,” rather than to the Internal Revenue Service or Franchise Tax Board, and to give the checks to Mulder for mailing. After laying that groundwork, Mulder began depositing Kurtz-Ahlers’s tax payment checks drawn from the Bank directly into her personal account at the Bank. Over a period of nearly five years, Mulder swindled Kurtz-Ahlers out of more than

$700,000. Eventually, Mulder pleaded guilty to several federal crimes and is currently in federal prison.

After discovering the fraud, Kurtz-Ahlers notified the Bank and made a claim for its losses. The Bank denied the claim and Kurtz-

Ahlers sued the Bank for negligence. The complaint alleged the Bank acted negligently in failing to monitor Mulder’s account for fraudulent activity after permitting her to add the “inherently suspicious” name “Income Tax Payments” to the account. After a two-week jury trial, the trial court granted the Bank’s motion for nonsuit essentially holding the Bank owed Kurtz-Ahlers no duty to investigate or monitor Mulder’s account. Kurtz-Ahlers appealed. Does the bank owe a duty to investigate Mulder’s account? Why or why not?