In 2006, Mike Sanchez completed a “Consumer Account Application” at Wells Fargo Bank in which he was denominated the “Primary Joint Owner” and his sons Joe and Gilbert were denominated “Secondary Joint Owners.” In October 2006, a writ of garnishment was issued in connection with a civil lawsuit in which Carmen and Isidro Alcantar had obtained a judgment against Joe. The writ, which was addressed to the Bank, identified Joe as the judgment debtor and specified that the outstanding balance exceeded \($36,000.\) In its answer, the Bank indicated that it owed Joe \($17,474.77.\) This was the entire amount held jointly in the accounts by Mike, Joe, and Gilbert. The Bank took immediate possession of all of the funds, such that none of the joint account owners could access them. Mike filed a motion to intervene, asserting that he was in fact the sole owner of all funds in the accounts and contending the garnishment was wrongful. After the motion was granted, Mike filed a complaint against the Bank claiming conversion of the funds. The Bank filed a motion for summary judgment in which it contended its seizure of the funds was in accordance with the terms of the consumer account agreement as well as the law pertaining to garnishment. The district court found in the Bank’s favor and granted summary judgment with respect to all of Mike’s claims.

Mike appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Should the Bank be held civilly liable to Mike for its wrongful seizure of the entire account? Why or why not?