Debbie Brooks and Martha Tingstrom lived together. Tingstrom handled their finances. For five years, Brooks did not look at any statements concerning her accounts. When she finally reviewed the statements, she discovered that Tingstrom had taken $85,500 from Brooks's checking account with Transamerica Financial Advisors. Tingstrom had forged Brooks's name on several checks paid between one and two years earlier. Another year passed before Brooks filed a suit against Transamerica. Who is most likely to suffer the loss for the checks paid with Brooks's forged signature? Why?

Forgery refers to the crime pertaining to, alternation of legal obligation or rights in writing of another person. It is the production of the spurious work which is being considered to be genuine such as a painting, and coin. It is the action underlying imitation or forging a copy of the document, banknote, work of art and signature.

In the case, Debbie Brooks is solely responsible for the loss caused to her by the forged transaction. The fraud took place due to the recklessness of Debbie Brooks as she allowed Martha Tingstrom to handle her financial resources and accounts which in itself is a mistake. She failed to notice the transaction details promptly issued to her periodically  by her bank and provided the details of such transaction to the bank within a period of 30 days. The bank is not liable as it has perform its obligation to the fullest. Therefore, it is ascertained that Debbie Brooks is solely responsible for the loss caused to her by the forged transaction made by Martha Tingstrom.

Explanation:

how big are hotdogs, answer this or you get a dunce cap