The name of the case: Terry Case v. Bank of Oklahoma, N.A.
Name of the judge: Judge James Lawrence King
Facts:
The case was filed in the year 2009 at the federal district court in Oklahoma. The plaintiff made the case on behalf of approximately 270,000 customers. In his suit, the complainant alleged that the Ban of Oklahoma had betrothed itself in unjust and dishonest overdraft fee practices, which cost their clients a lot of money.
The Bank of Oklahoma then decided to settle the case and two other suits in state court in Oklahoma. The dispute was settled for $19,000,000. This sum makes up 46% of the overdraft charges that was lost by the victims. The attorneys received 29.4 percent of the money as their payment for representing the case.
Question of law
Terry Case v. Bank of Oklahoma, N.A. was a case that was grouped under the countrywide action class lawsuits filed to recuperate insufficient money charged that came about as a result of the policy practiced by many banks referred to as “High-to-Low Debit Card Transaction Sequencing.” This is a condition whereby the bank first eliminates the biggest debits regardless of the period in which the debt was made to the bank. As a result of the action, the accounts involved end up having insufficient funds that might be needed to settle the many small debits. The bank then charges an overdraft on the small debits.
The subject matter from which the law was stated to be broken is under consumer protection and contract. The procedural posture for the case followed the motion of order, approving the settlement, and finally, agreement. The Bank of Oklahoma was accused of engaging in terms that bridged the contract that it had with its clients. Therefore, based on consumer protection law, the bank had to stand up for the unfair treatment accorded to the customers.
Court ruling/decision
After the hearing, Judge King found the bank of Oklahoma to be on the wrong side. As a result, the judge made a ruling that the bank of Oklahoma makes a settlement summing up to $19,000,000. This fee was to cover all the expenses incurred by the victims and during the court proceedings. The victims who belong to the class members then received a sum of $13,414,000 on 6th November 2012. On the other hand, from the sum of the bank’s money, the attorneys who took part in the case were paid a sum of $5,586,000.
Opinion
Basing on the presented case, it is apparent that the ruling provided was fair. It was unjust for the bank to cut interest from the small debit customers on the grounds of High-to-Low Debit Card Transaction Sequencing. Therefore, the fee paid the bank as fine was just since it covered all the expenses used during the case and the money lost by the victims.
0
1705