On March 26, 2012, Dale M. Smith deposited a cashier’s check drawn from Chase Bank in the amount of $294,500.99 to his account at The State Bank. The next day, Smith requested State Bank to wire $275,000 from his account to an account in Japan. State Bank contacted Chase bank to confirm the amount of the cashier’s check and that there were no stop-payment orders on it. Upon receiving confirmation, State Bank wired the money to Japan. On March 28, 2012, Chase returned the cashier’s check to State Bank with the notation “refer to maker.” Upon presenting the check to Chase a second time, State Bank was informed that the check was different from the official cashier’s check issued by Chase. Moreover, the check was missing a security symbol and did not have an authorized signature. On May 16, 2012, The State Bank filed a complaint against Chase Bank, alleging that Chase wrongfully dishonored the check. Chase argued that because the check did not contain an authorized signature by Chase, they were not liable for it. The State Bank fired back, stating that because it was a holder in due course, it did not matter that Chase did not authorize the check and that Chase was still liable. The trial court sided with Chase Bank and granted their motion of summary disposition. State Bank appealed. Do you agree with the trial court decision? How do you think the appeals court decided?