1. Olga Ensenat, an 88-year-old woman, had substantial investment accounts. Eventually her niece, Diana Flores, moved in to take care of Ensenat. While living with her, Flores withdrew on Ensenat's accounts, forged Ensenat's signature, and deposited the money into Flores's accounts. In the end, Flores embezzled $157,386.30, all of which was deposited at Hancock Bank, where Flores had an account. Ensenat alleged that she did not herself withdraw or authorize any other person to withdraw retirement funds from her accounts. Ensenat sued Hancock Bank, claiming that it was responsible because it allowed the checks to be paid or deposited without her endorsement, signature, or autho-rization. Did the court agree with Ensenat and find Hancock Bank liable for the deposited checks? Why or why not? [Hancock Bank v. Ensenat, 819 So. 2d 3 (2001).]