#1 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Ken - Randolph (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, December 20, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
The suit was filed by a college student, who doesn't even have a lawyer. It will likely be tossed out of court, and could get even worse if the bank goes after him for court costs for filing a nuisance suit.
#2 Update By Author
AUTHOR: Andy - Danville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
Wouldn't the suit have to be a nuisance suit for the bank to come after me? Have you gone on PACER and even read the civil action? Read it, I spent 6 months preparing for this, so don't try to give the impression that this was just some crazy idea though up in one fun night drinking.
#3 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edgeman - Chico (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
The judgement will be very useful in future discussions about how banks process transactions and how overdraft fees are assessed.
#4 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Steve - Bradenton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
The lawsuit will get tossed, and you can bet the bank will countersue the person who brought it as it is clearly frivolous.
Here's why.
There is already precedence here on the issue of transaction sequencing. It is perfectly legal, as it is fully disclosed.
Furthermore, the NSF fees are VALID and in almost every case the result of the customer NOT maintaining an accurate checkbook register, and/or floating transactions, etc.
There reason the lawsuit will fail is that there is no breach of contract here, and there is nothing illegal about the bank practices.
Therefore there is no "cause of action" which means there is no case.
It gets tossed.
FYI...The posting order of transactions is absolutely irrelevent if a person adheres to keeping an accurate checkbook register, and does not initiate transactions before the funds are posted and available in the account to cover the transactions.
The days of floating checks are over.
Get over it.
Learn how to properly manage your account and you will have no problems.
#5 Update By Author
AUTHOR: Andy - Danville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
No faith at all Steve. You must work for a bank :)
Let me just go ahead lay out a little bit of law for you Steve.
Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) (15 U.S.C. Section 45) prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” This prohibition applies to all persons engaged in commerce, including banks Steve.
Unfair practices-
An act or practice is unfair where it:
causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers;
cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers and;
is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition
Deceptive practices-
where:
a representation, omission, or practice misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer;
a consumer's interpretation of the representation, omission, or practice is considered reasonable under the circumstances and;
the misleading representation, omission, or practice is material
#6 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Robert - Irvine (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
This case was just filed a few days ago. There have been no hearings on this, and probably won't be until next year. That will be the first test as to how far it may go. The way courts work anything is possible, but I am not expecting it to go very far. Cases similar to this have been attempted before and I believe that every one declared that the fees as well as the posting order were legal.
One interesting observation I see is that he states he spent 6 yes SIX months researching the suit. Just think if he(and others) spent a small fraction of that time actually managing their account. Would they be in a situation where posting order or fees actually matter...No.
#7 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Steve - Bradenton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
Andy,
Why would you assume I work for a bank?
Because I just tell you the plain truth and you cannot handle it?
FYI...I do not now, nor have I ever worked for ANY bank.
And, I know the law, and I know how to read.
And, knowing how to read is exactly why I make my points.
You see, something cannot be legally considered to be "deceptive" if it is fully disclosed!
And, the ONLY reason a person pays NSF fees is poor account management, including, but not limited to NOT keeping an accurate checkbook register.
The fees have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the posting order of transactions.
I currently bank with BB&T and have now for almost 2 years. Guess what?
NO NSF FESS. Ever. And, no problems whatsoever.
Why is that?
It comes down to reading and understanding the terms and conditions on the account that I agreed to when I opened it, and KEEPING AN ACCURATE CHECKBOOK REGISTER.
Furthermore, do you think you actually came up with something original here?
You need to get a grip on reality.
Like I said, just learn how to keep an accurate checkbook register and learn the fine art of responsible account management, and you will have no more NSF fees.
Guaranteed.
My 30 years of multiple checking accounts in multiple states prove that. And, I have run my accounts down to less than a dollar without a problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Submitted: 12/21/2008 12:56:36 PM
Modified: 12/21/2008 5:17:40 PM Andy
Danville, Virginia
U.S.A.
WOW Steve!!!!
No faith at all Steve. You must work for a bank :)
Let me just go ahead lay out a little bit of law for you Steve.
Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) (15 U.S.C. Section 45) prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." This prohibition applies to all persons engaged in commerce, including banks Steve.
Unfair practices-
An act or practice is unfair where it:
causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers;
cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers and;
is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition
Deceptive practices-
where:
a representation, omission, or practice misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer;
a consumer's interpretation of the representation, omission, or practice is considered reasonable under the circumstances and;
the misleading representation, omission, or practice is material
#8 Update By Author
AUTHOR: Andy - Danville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
Let me make it clear, this case is not completely about how you manage your checkbook. If someone loses their checkbook, they will have to go online, or to an ATM, or call the 800 number, or visit a bank to get their account balance. ATMs, online, and the 800 number could mislead you into thinking you have available funds, especially if you are close to overdrawing your account. I keep hearing the argument of manage your checkbook, but the bigger issue is the ethics or lack there of that BB&T and other national banks have. I never even knew banks did this until I first overdrafted back in July. There is NO justification for gouging someone for $35.00 if the overdraw $1.00 out of their account.
#9 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Robert - Irvine (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, December 21, 2008
I will say that I am truly interested in how far this goes. But based on what appears to be your grounds and past cases I am pretty sure that this is going to not go very far at all. Oh and no I do not work for this or any other bank.
In one of your rebuttles you gave the definition of Unfair and Deceptive practices. Unfortunatly those definitions are going to be your undoing.
"Unfair practices-
An act or practice is unfair where it:
causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers;
cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers and;
is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition"
- These fees can be resonably avoided by the consumer. It just takes work by the consumer to keep an accurate register. I can not see you going infront of a judge and making the case that it is NOT reasonable for you to keep track of YOUR own accounts.
"Deceptive practices-
where:
a representation, omission, or practice misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer;
a consumer's interpretation of the representation, omission, or practice is considered reasonable under the circumstances and;
the misleading representation, omission, or practice is material"
- These fees are disclosed and not hidden. The term "reasonable" is placed in the definition again. You have to prove that your interpetation of their terms is "reasonable", and with that you are going to have a serious problem.
Your analogy of someone loosing your checkbook does not work. It is not the bank's fault that you lost your checkbook. It is impossible for the bank to know what you have used your debit card on or wrote a check for until they receive it and that is under the control of the merchants. So of course the balance you call in for or go on line could be wrong. They are not mind readers. So if you do happen to loose your register and are close to $0 balance, the reasonable thing to do is don't use that account for a few days until you are sure that everything has been posted.
"I never even knew banks did this until I first overdrafted back in July"
- Previously you stated you have been looking at this for 6 months. From the above statement it seems that the first time you overdrafted your account in July, instead of trying to figure out what you did wrong(spending more than you had). You instantly figured that it must be the banks fault and spent from July to December trying to figure out how to file a suit..Ummm obsess much?
#10 Update By Author
AUTHOR: Andy - Danville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, December 22, 2008
POSTED: Monday, December 22, 2008
I'm not obsessed, I just had other things to do. I could have put this together in 1 month if I would have devoted all my time to it. Go on PACER, subscribe and read the complaint, maybe then you will understand. This is about BB&T taking advantage of the consumer. BB&T's overdraft fees mirror predatory lending practices. There has been survey polls taken on this issue. Here is the result of one of those surveys; "For many consumers, overdraft charges on their ATM or debit accounts come as a complete surprise. A recent public opinion poll of 1,000 representative adults conducted for CFA by Opinion Research Corporation International reveals that 82% of consumers believe overdrafts without notice at the ATM are unfair, with 63% saying it was “very unfair.” Twice as many consumers thought that banks permitting overdrafts without getting their consent was unfair (68%) rather than fair (29%)".
One of my favorite adds I found selling Bank overdraft software states as a selling point; "1. Increase noninterest income-- It's not often you have an opportunity to double fee income without raising fees. A courtesy overdraft program can cover check, debit card, ATM, and Internet banking transactions. For each item presented where insufficient funds are available, you pay the item, charge your customary fee, and notify the customer that the service has been provided".
It maybe should read; "It's not often you have an opportunity to take advantage of your customers by charging outlandish fees and ripping off low income individuals who can least afford overdrafts."
#11 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Steve - Bradenton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, December 22, 2008
POSTED: Monday, December 22, 2008
Andy,
Like Robert said. The bank is NOT responsible for you losing your checkbook.
And, the bank has MULTIPLE disclosures that tell you that ATM balances, online balances, and phone balances ARE NOT up to date and SHOULD NOT be used to determine your available balance.
There is NO SUBSTITUTE for a checkbbok register or other physical ledger.
This is the ONLY accurate means of determining your available balance.
Furthermore, I could lose my checkbook, and quickly and easily re-create it as I keep all of my reciepts for every type of transaction until I get my statement.
I am organized, and diligent in the management of my checking account, therefore I never have a problem.
You can make up all of the "what if" scenarios you like, but the fact of the matter is that NSF fees are ONLY generated by accountholder error.
Stop blaming others for your lack of responsibility, and take the same amount of time and energy you are wasting here on this frivolous lawsuit and channel it into learning how to PROPERLY manage your account.
#12 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: J G Shrugged - Austin (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, December 22, 2008
POSTED: Monday, December 22, 2008
The FTC doesn't have jurisdiction over the banks, the OTS and Federal Reserve do, and they have their own unfair practices regulation.
I can't wait to see a judicial notice on this, no matter what the outcome. Assuming, of course, that BB&T doesn't pull a Wells Fargo and ignore the lawsuit, resulting in tons of "Wells Fargo loses NSF lawsuit" type postings on the internet when someone wins by default.
#13 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Trust Small Banks - York (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, January 08, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, January 08, 2009
I have personal knowledge where a BB&T employee released private personal banking information.
The information furnished by the BB&T employee was given freely.
The employee released this information, with total disreguard to the privacy laws and regulations in banking.
This says nothing as to the position the BB&T customer was placed in because of this released information!
The BB&T cutomer had a privacy incident approxmatly 12 months ago with a different BB&T account.
The two actions were reported to BB&T fraud and security department, the customer was told the employee would be severly delt with.
As of this date to the best of my knowledge this employee is in the same position a "Branch Bank officer with BB&T".
Maybe Andy did not keep a balanced account register, only he knows.
What I do know, there is a great possibility he was given half truths, lied to,and or misled by a employee of BB&T!
#14 Update By Author
AUTHOR: Andy - Danville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, January 11, 2009
POSTED: Sunday, January 11, 2009
Due to the nature of the action and the attention that this action has brought, the law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernstein,LLP have been retained as counsel and will be applying to the court seeking certification as a class action. BB&T has not filed an answer with the court in response to the complaint yet.
#15 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Steve - Bradenton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, January 11, 2009
POSTED: Sunday, January 11, 2009
Andy,
I just have to take a minute to thank you and all of the other irresponsible checking account holders for paying all of those fees that keep my checking account absolutely free!
Keep up the good work!!
I have been with BB&T for almost 2 years now, and have not had any sort of problem with them, and find them to be the all around best bank in the area and I have used a few.
Thanks again!
I really do enjoy my TOTALLY free checking!
PS..you will find that your "lawsuit" is baseless and will be a waste of your time and money. Be sure to post the docket # and court location of said "class action" here so we can follow it. I just love a good laugh!
#16 Update By Author
AUTHOR: Andy - Danville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, January 11, 2009
POSTED: Sunday, January 11, 2009
I've never seen someone who claims they do not work for a bank, specifically BB&T, spend so much time on a consumer website rebutting everyone that speaks out against BB&T specifically. Steve we are not stupid. We know you probably work for BB&T and are very proud of your employer. Please don't speak about things which you know nothing about. This law firm is taking this case on a contigent basis. They have been investigating BB&T for these actions over a year now. Your petty rebuttals equate to a needle in a haystack of evidence that contradicts everything you say. I already put the docket number in the report I initially filed on here. Your opinion does not matter here since you are not a party to the action, nor judge, nor a jury member. So keep defending your employee as vigorously as you have and enjoy your free checking.
Cheers
#17 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Robert - Irvine (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, March 09, 2009
POSTED: Monday, March 09, 2009
Well it's been almost 3 months. How far has your suit gone?
#18 Update By Author
AUTHOR: Andy - Danville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, March 22, 2009
POSTED: Sunday, March 22, 2009
Counsel has come on to represent myself and a class consisting of "All BB&T customers who have or had an account with BB&T from December 18,
2003 to the present, who incurred overdraft fees on transactions when they had
sufficient funds in their accounts to cover those transactions when BB&T received
them, but who were assessed an NSF fee as a result of BB&T's practice of resequencing transactions from highest to lowest dollar amount before processing
transactions". We filed an amended complaint on March 10th and are awaiting BB&T's response.
#19 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Saylorscreek - Lexington (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, May 27, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Thanks for the updates, Andy. I am currently speaking with counsel and presenting my evidence on the same issue. My attorney will appreciate this information.
#20 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Dj - Conyers (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, July 29, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, July 29, 2009
I am a victim also. This is a problem I have been fighting for years.
What happened to the consumer rights that should be enforced by FDIC regulations?
Why hasn't anything been done about this?
Who will help those who can not afford counsel?
#21 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Jim - Anaheim (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, July 29, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Case precedent has now been set and the rule of thumb now is that the class must show there was due care exercised (in other words maintaining an accurate register) by members of the class and proof of wrongdoing per the terms of the account agreement. Wells Fargo decided not to settle the case like the other banks have done in the past - I suppose the reason is to finally get a decision on this done by the courts. Either that, or the class wouldn't settle.
#22
AUTHOR: Georgia - Raleigh (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, September 22, 2009
POSTED: Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Hi Andy,
I just joined BB&T. I did it online and I transferred money from my old account to the new BB&T account online. I took in another deposit. A certified US Post Office money order. I didn't know they held it for 11 business days! I have never heard of that. Well it caused 6 NSF fees.
Then they also tell me that when I use my card, they take that amount from my available balance but then move things around to make things negative. I didn't even close my account with the other bank and deposit all my money, yet. But I thought it was odd that my checkbook register did not match the online, the phone or the tellers records.
Are there any updates on your case? This can't possibly be legal. I hear several banks do this too. Where can a person bank where the bank is actually ethical and honest?
Why file a report here? Ripoff Report is a permanent record! Other complaint sites copy our content then remove reports for money.
