New UCL/CLRA decision: Miller v. Bank of America

In Miller v. Bank of America, NT & SA, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Nov. 20, 2006), a judgment following a jury trial in a certified class action, with compensatory damages and penalties exceeding $1 billion, was reversed, wholesale. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant's conduct, which involved applying Social Security benefits deposited into its customers' accounts to pay various bank fees, did not violate either the UCL or the CLRA.

This morning's Daily Journal reports that "Billion-Dollar Reversal Lets Banks Tap Social Security Funds" (subscription), and the Recorder that "Billion-Buck BofA Ruling Struck Down" (subscription). In both articles, class counsel is quoted as saying he will seek Supreme Court review.

UPDATE: Here is a non-subscription link to the Recorder article. Also, the San Francisco Chronicle reports today that "Billion-dollar ruling against BofA tossed; Appeals court says deducting money to pay fees is OK." And the Los Angeles Times reports that "Judgment against BofA is overturned."

Comments

[RB]

No one ever said you could get by as a plaintiff's class action attorney without having some intestinal fortitude. But, wow, to lose a billion dollar verdict with not much more than a stroke of a pen, that is something.

[Kimberly A. Kralowec]

I had a similar reaction. For me as a plaintiffs' attorney, this decision was very hard to read. Just imagine the work that went into the case. On the other hand, the bank and its lawyers must have heaved a huge sigh of relief.

[george senda]

I am very interested in this case, as I am one of those who have had thousands of dollars taken out of my bank account for these nsf fees.

The case has been accepted for review by the state supreme court, but given the amount of money involved, perhaps the money was the consideration by the appeals court and not in doing what is right.

the law & the courts are not always moral, proper or ethical.

I would like to know specifically WHAT federal regulation forbids banks from touching the funds of those on ssi ? I find it shameful that the US government sided with BofA in this matter.

See my blog for MY comments on this matter...

[george senda]

I found it ironic that on the day this decision was announced, directly under the story of the decision in the SF Chronicle, was an article announcing that Bank of America bought a bank for $3 billion.

I guess BofA figured they could afford to spend the money...

I wondder when the Supreme Court is going to hear this case. I would like to be in the court when they do.

[ed wizrd]

It is indeed sad that the US government has sided with BofA in this case. BofA knowingly violated California law. It could have refused direct SSI deposits for those customers, proposed repayment plans in case of overdrafts, or have required those customers to get overdraft protection. Instead, they decide to break the law. Then you get the federal government trying to defend them and making claims that banks will not be able to function smoothly or that banks may have to discontinue the direct deposit service for such checks. Ok, then let customers go to a different bank. So what? Because federal law does not prohibit such a practice does not mean it allows it, just like so many other unregulated or to be regulated unfair and deceptive practices. But in this case BofA violated a clear state law which does not contradict any federal law. The Feds are in a power play, pure and simple, and inept at that. There is no profound reasoning except a wish to back up a financial institution which time and time again has gone out of bounds. And for what? Look at the subprime mortgage fiasco--"government backed." This case should be overturned back to the sound reasoning that upheld it in the first place. Pray that the wise protections that states provide to citizens stay because federal agencies have failed to provide these protections.