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. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT