ILNews

First Merchants Bank accused of overdraft fee violations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A lawsuit alleges that Muncie-based First Merchants Bank manipulated the timing of customers’ transactions to cause their checking accounts to bounce more frequently, generating millions of dollars in overdraft fees.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, was transferred May 23 to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Plaintiff Brenda Lear, of Trafalgar, originally filed the suit last month in Delaware Circuit Court.  But attorneys for First Merchants filed to transfer the case to federal court in Indianapolis, saying some of the customers also reside in Ohio and that the amount of money at issue likely exceeds $5 million.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified dollar damages for “thousands” of First Merchants customers. The bank has branches in two dozen Indiana counties, and employs about 275 people at numerous locations in the Indianapolis metro area.

The suit alleges the bank, using sophisticated software, reordered electronic debit transactions from highest-to-lowest dollar amounts, and processed debits before credits to deplete a customer’s available funds “as quickly as possible.”

Customers paid a $35 fee for each overdraft.

The suit says the bank sought to maximize the number of overdraft fees, as well. It cites, as an example, a customer who had an account balance of $100 and made four debit transactions during one day, of $10, $10, $10 and $95.

If processed in order of when the debits were made, the $95 charge would have been made against a $70 balance, resulting in a single overdraft fee. But Lear alleges the bank’s software would read the $95 transaction first and each $10 transaction thereafter — resulting in three total overdraft fees.

The complaint also alleges First Merchants manipulated transactions so that many customers’ accounts were not actually overdrawn, “either at the time of the debit transaction or at the time the overdraft fees were charged.”

“This automatic, fee-based overdraft scheme was intentionally designed to maximize overdraft fee revenue for FMB,” states the complaint.

Neither First Merchants nor its attorneys at Bingham Greenebaum Doll could be reached for comment.

Banks have been coming under more scrutiny regarding overdraft fees. Earlier this year, Wells Fargo was ordered to pay $203 million to settle class-action litigation accusing it of imposing excessive fees. In a separate case, Bank of America Corp. paid $410 million and JP Morgan Chase paid $210 million to settle similar litigation.

Nationwide, banks collected $32 billion in overdraft charges in 2012, according to Moebs Services. The suit points to Federal Deposition Insurance Corp. data that for the typical bank, overdraft fees amount to 74 percent of total service charges on deposit accounts.

Lear’s local counsel is Kathleen Farinas of Indianapolis-based law firm George & Farinas LLP. Also representing Lear is the New York law firm of Squitieri & Fearon LLP, which is no stranger to bringing such overdraft cases.

In February, Squitieri & Fearon won a $3 million settlement with First National Bank of Pennsylvania, over nearly identical allegations of deposit account data manipulation. A federal court ordered the parties into mediation.

The Pennsylvania bank denied the allegations but cited the prospect of years of costly litigation for agreeing to the settlement.

First Merchants stands to become the second-largest Indiana-headquartered bank, with the planned merger with Munster-based CFS Bancorp., announced earlier this month.

First Merchants will grow to $5.4 billion in assets from $4.2 billion. That compares with the $9.5 billion-asset Old National Corp., of Evansville, which is the largest Indiana-based bank.

After the merger, First Merchants will have nearly 100 offices in 26 Indiana counties, along with a presence in Ohio and Illinois.

It stepped up its central Indiana presence in 2008, when it bought Lincoln Bancorp., in Plainfield.

Last year, First Merchants bought loans and deposits of the failed SCB Bank of Shelbyville.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Ah ha, so the architect of the ISC Commission to advance racial preferences and gender warfare, a commission that has no place at the inn for any suffering religious discrimination, see details http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 ..... this grand architect of that institutionalized 14th amendment violation just cannot bring himself to utter the word religious discrimination, now can he: "Shepard noted two questions rise immediately from the decision. The first is how will trial courts handle allegations of racism during jury deliberations? The second is does this exception apply only to race? Shepard believes the exception to Rule 606 could also be applied to sexual orientation and gender." Thus barks the Shepard: "Race, gender, sexual orientation". But not religion, oh no, not that. YET CONSIDER ... http://www.pewforum.org/topics/restrictions-on-religion/ Of course the old dog's inability to see this post modern phenomena, but to instead myopically focus on the sexual orientation issues, again betrays one of his pet protects, see here http://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/files/fair-pubs-summit-agenda.pdf Does such preference also reveal the mind of an anti-religious bigot? There can be no doubt that those on the front lines of the orientation battle often believe religion their enemy. That certainly could explain why the ISC kicked me in the face and down the proverbial crevice when I documented religious discrimination in its antechambers in 2009 .... years before the current turnover began that ended with a whole new court (hallelujah!) in 2017. Details on the kick to my face here http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/329933/ Friends and countrymen, harbor no doubt about it .... anti-religious bias is strong with this old dog, it is. One can only wonder what Hoosier WW2 hero and great jurist Justice Alfred Pivarnik would have made of all of this? Take this comment home for us, Gary Welsh (RIP): http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2005/05/sex-lies-and-supreme-court-justices.html

  2. my sister hit a horse that ran in the highway the horse belonged to an amish man she is now in a nurseing home for life. The family the horse belonged to has paid some but more needs to be paid she also has kids still at home...can we sue in the state f Indiana

  3. Or does the study merely wish they fade away? “It just hasn’t risen substantially in decades,” Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law told Law360. “What we should be looking for is progress, and that’s not what we’re seeing.” PROGRESS = less white males in leadership. Thus the heading and honest questions here ....

  4. One need not wonder why we are importing sex slaves into North America. Perhaps these hapless victims of human trafficking were being imported for a book of play with the Royal Order of Jesters? https://medium.com/@HeapingHelping/who-are-the-royal-order-of-jesters-55ffe6f6acea Indianapolis hosts these major pervs in a big way .... https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Royal-Order-of-Jesters-National-Office/163360597025389 I wonder what affect they exert on Hoosier politics? And its judiciary? A very interesting program on their history and preferences here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtgBdUtw26c

  5. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

ADVERTISEMENT