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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT