a particular fund was not used for the purpose for which it was intended by the bank's customer, the amount so lost to the customer is a direct loss and the bank is liable therefor to its customer." Id. Countrywide, therefore, can be liable for its negligence in mishandling Davis's loan payment.
¶15 Since we conclude that the court erred when it concluded that there was no negligence as a matter of law, the question becomes whether the court was correct when it found that there were disputed issues of material fact. The undisputed facts show that Davis made the payment as he was required to do under the loan agreement. He did not submit a coupon with the payment because Countrywide had not yet provided him with aoption that required Countrywide to send checks to him by December 18, 2001. Countrywide did not send checks to him by December 18, 2001, and he paid the property taxes with money in his own accounts. Countrywide admitted that they "inadvertently" mailed the checks to the property address rather than to Davis. The complaint further alleges that Countrywide did not return the money to him. The documents submitted in support of summary judgment show that Countrywide did not refund the money to Davis until ordered to do so by the court in October 2002.
¶22 The Circuit court concluded that Davis had not established that he had suffered any damages as a result of Countrywide's actions. We disagree. Davis's damages on this claim would be the lost value of