Monday, December 6, 2010

CHASE Overdraft Fees? Seeking Class Representatives

Our firm is currently seeking a few good class representatives for an ongoing lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase, Inc. which was filed in October of 2009.

We are looking for: 1) you must have had your checking account overdrafted one or more times, incurring fees of approximately $35 per overdraft; 2) overdrafts could be due to a check or debit debit card transaction; 3) you must have saved your paperwork; 4) you must have replenished your account to correct the overdraft and the fee within a day or two after you were notified of the overdraft situation.

As explained otherwise on this blog, overdraft fees in most cases are illegal. The bank does not incur any actual damages when it returns a check or it accepts a debit card transaction, knowing your account will be overdrafted when it could have declined the transaction. Both of these are forms of consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices under Illinois law. The banks do not get to take fees when they have not done any work. There is no money for nothing and chicks for free in life, and this includes the banks.

I prefer plaintiff who are responsible, responsive and are tech savvy and who are good at email and check and return emails promptly.

Ex-chase employees are preferred.

You will be compensated for your time, if and when the case is won. You will turn in your hours and the judge will set your hourly rate based upon your performance and experience. Generally, $10 to $20+ per hour is not atypical for a class action representative, and there are those making more than this amount.

If you are a Chase ex-banker or teller, you may make a reasonable hourly rate as you did at Chase. If you are an accountant or other professional, you may be awarded that rate for your work.

Please email me further at JoAnne@denisonlaw.com

thanks

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Answer to my question about

the illegality of overdraft fees.

but those were already dealt with in the court decisions Wells Fargo and MultiDistrict Lit in Fla.

because banks are enforcing illegal fee, fine and penalty clauses, and the courts have let them so far (big mistake) they got bolder and bolder and all of them do it. there is no real "shopping around". every consumer is stuck with huge, unrealistic fees, fines and penalties.

1) they were told to do so by the OCC (let the customer know and reject a transaction that will incur a fee)

2) they have the ability to do it

3) none of them have offered this feature, even tho they were told to do it 5 years ago!

it is illegal because under basic contract law, you only get actual damages. liquidated damages must be realistic and related to actual, anticipated damages. the banks are supposed to follow the 4 OCC guidelines on setting these fees.

all good reasons.

again, i can do this, neither can you, so why do banks get to do it. i could put it in my contract and on my website and still no court would allow it.

Two recent court decisions

The first one is the Multi District Litigation in Florida wherein class action plaintiffs sued banks--9 major banks were involved–Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank, etc.–you name it! The court held that the following claims will stand for discovery: 1) breach of contract for lack of good faith and fair dealing 2) unconscionability ($35 is unconscionable) 3)unjust enrichment; 4) consumer fraud and 5) deceptive trade practices.

whether you know it or not, the banks constantly manipulate balances in their favor. they use sophisticated software to maximize their fees.

this is NOT the law. the law is, if you breach a contract, you only get actual damages and not made up or phanthom damages. fees, fines and penalties are not permitted.

Yesterday someone asked about this and I gave her the law for her case.

One of the things you should know is that the OCC has dictated that before the banks set out fees, fines and penalties, the bank must follow 4 rules in setting these or changing these. The rules are:

(b) Considerations. The establishment of non-interest charges and fees, and the amounts thereof, is a business decision to be made by each bank, in its discretion, according to sound banking judgment and safe and sound banking principles. A bank reasonably establishes non-interest charges and fees if the
bank considers the following factors, among others:
(1) The cost incurred by the bank, plus a profit margin, in providing the service;
(2) The deterrence of misuse by customers of banking services;
(3) The enhancement of the competitive position of the bank in
accordance with the bank's marketing strategy; and
(4) The maintenance of the safety and soundness of the institution.

what the court found is that while the banks had a lot of memos on maximizing BSE or Balance Sheet Engineering, they had no memos or meetings that they followed these 4 criteria at all. Hence WF fees were found illegal.