Complaint Review: USBank - Napa California

I love how Edward says that USB is "making people overdraft".

Funny... I've never overdrafted. So Eddie, how exactly is USB forcing you to overdraft? I can't recall a time, when I, as an eight year USB customer, was held at gunpoint by a crazed USB associate threatening to murder me if I didn't overcharge my account. Well, maybe this hired goon just hasn't made his way to me yet. Perhaps sometime in the future it'll be my turn. Then I can get on ROR and boo-h*o about the big, bad bank persecuting me. Oh yes! I can finally use that textbook "let's start a class action lawsuit" line! 

Case: Gutierrez vs. Wells Fargo.  In this class-action lawsuit there are two separate class group. The Including-And-Deleting Class represents deceptive online balance and pending transaction information. The Re-Sequencing Class represents largest first posting order. Here are quotes of what the Judge really said when he decertified only the Including-And-Deleting Class:

''...plaintiffs expert assumed that every time any customer accessed his or her account online, or via an ATM, or in person (by visiting a teller window), he or she would have then learned and relied on the then available balance....It is easy to use an ATM without obtaining ones balance. It is easy to make a teller transaction without obtaining the balance. It is possible to consult an account online for reasons other than obtaining ones balance''

''This claim was originally sold to the Court as one in which the bank customer consulted the available balance between steps 1 and 2, noticed that a specific item had been subtracted, and then later consulted the available balance between steps 2 and 3 and relied on it without realizing that it looked larger than it really was due to the backed-out items. Now, however, plaintiffs seek to skip the first part and to broaden the claim to depositors who merely consulted the online balance between steps 2 and 3, whether or not they consulted it between steps 1 and 2. The damage study thus wholly ignores the very scenario that formed the basis for class certification.''

''For all of the foregoing reasons, the including-and-deleting class is hereby DECERTIFIED and shall not proceed as a class claim.''

The only reason the Including-And-Deleting Class was dercertified is because the Judge was legally obligated to do so. The plaintiff lawyers over reached by trying to broaden the scope of who might be affected from their original claim. The ruling had nothing to do with a check register and lack of customer responsibility. Then the Judge ruled against the bank's request to decertifiy the other class group and that class-action suit is still moving forward. Had the lawyers stuck with their original claim and not over reached with the first class group, it's likely that BOTH class-action suits would still be in progress.

I love how anyone who tries to explain the reason someone got a fee is accused of being a spotter for USB. (I'm looking at you, Charlie.) I don't work for USB, never have and never will. The only reason I log onto ROR is to see how dumb some people are. Truth be told, I get a kick out of these stories about how negligent people are with their money and their lives.

Enough with the conspiracy theories, overdrafters! Do you really think USB would employ a team of people to anonymously counterblog a paltry 300 or so whiners on a website? You brought this trouble on yourselves! Follow one rule! One rule, and you won't overdraft. That rule is: DON'T LET YOUR AVAILABLE BALANCE GO BELOW ZERO. Is this hard to understand? You can check your balance over the phone, at a branch, an ATM, the website, and you can sign up for FREE text or email alerts. So, other than the branch option, ALL of those are available 24 hours a day. USB also offers many overdraft protection services for a nominal fee. My credit line is 100% free unless I have to have it activate and then it's a few cents per day until I pay it back.

Overdrafters, you've run out of excuses. Submit to the facts. Any judge in the America is going to laugh you out of court after seeing USB's overwhelming evidence of how you've mismanaged your lives and your checking accounts, so don't waste your time. Get sober and take responsibility for your lives.

I love how anyone who tries to explain the reason someone got a fee is accused of being a spotter for USB. (I'm looking at you, Charlie.) I don't work for USB, never have and never will. The only reason I log onto ROR is to see how dumb some people are. Truth be told, I get a kick out of these stories about how negligent people are with their money and their lives.

Enough with the conspiracy theories, overdrafters! Do you really think USB would employ a team of people to anonymously counterblog a paltry 300 or so whiners on a website? You brought this trouble on yourselves! Follow one rule! One rule, and you won't overdraft. That rule is: DON'T LET YOUR AVAILABLE BALANCE GO BELOW ZERO. Is this hard to understand? You can check your balance over the phone, at a branch, an ATM, the website, and you can sign up for FREE text or email alerts. So, other than the branch option, ALL of those are available 24 hours a day. USB also offers many overdraft protection services for a nominal fee. My credit line is 100% free unless I have to have it activate and then it's a few cents per day until I pay it back.

Overdrafters, you've officially run out of excuses. Submit to the facts. Any judge in the America is going to laugh you out of court after seeing USB's overwhelming evidence of how you've mismanaged your lives and your checking accounts, so don't waste your time. Get sober and take responsibility for your lives.

Negligent and intentional overdrafters of the world are costing vigilant, honest people money! All you jokers sticking the bank with negative balances are causing the bank to recoup lost funds from people that actually know how to manage their account when they can't recoup them from you. Right now my account is free, but if enough people take advantage of the bank in this way, they'll start charging customers to merely have an account. PNC Bank has already done this! My message to all you crack-addicted losers who don't pay attention to your balance and purposely overdraft is: stop hurting your bank because you're hurting good people as well!  

Charlie, nobody here works for the bank.  One of the things your lawyers are going to run into is the fact that Wells Fargo has decided not to settle any of these types of lawsuits anymore.  In the most recent case in California, the class was decertified by the court after the court ruled the class failed to perform any due diligence; in other words, the court decided that if the bank did everything right (including following the terms of the agreement) and the customer simply failed to follow simple rules like keeping a check register, then the bank cannot be held liable for the bad acts of its account holders.  The court took a dim view of people in the class who relied on the online system for balances, saying that the final bank statement (not the online version of it) is the true final document for reliance.  Gutierrez vs. Wells Fargo if you want to research it.

US Bank, BofA, Chase, Citibank, etc... are all going to use this case as precedent and no lawyer or law firm is going to make millions of dollars off the backs of consumers and insurance companies (the bank doesn't pay anything to settle these suits - only we do and the insurance companies do).

Quote from 'I am the law' c/o The Kangaroo Court:

''Has anyone ever considered that when someone overdrafts their account, they're putting the bank in a position of possibly being stuck with a negative balance on an account? The more someone's account is negative, the less likely they are to replenish the account. Obviously, a negative account is a risk for the bank. So, where's the justice for the bank there?''

Uh, it's always been my experience that if someone or something is going to put you at risk, and you have the ability to control or prevent it, you usually do so. To put it differently,  you don't, by default, allow or encourage that someone to do exactly what you don't want, thereby putting you at risk.

So then why would banks many times setup customer accounts with overdraft protection, courtesy overdraft buffers or allowance, by default? Seems kind of like the young beautiful girl pretending to run away from the handsome young man. But she runs half heartedly at a snail pace while looking back with a welcoming smile, hoping, anticipating he catches her. You can't get angry when your friend wrecks your car, after you give him the keys to take it for a spin, after you both just left the bar sloppy drunk.

Hypocrisy just flying all over the place.

     I love how people start screaming about justice and fairness after they get an overdraft fee. (A situation they brought on themselves, by the way.) Has anyone ever considered that when someone overdrafts their account, they're putting the bank in a position of possibly being stuck with a negative balance on an account? The more someone's account is negative, the less likely they are to replenish the account. Obviously, a negative account is a risk for the bank. So, where's the justice for the bank there?

    So, chronic and intentional overdrafters of the world, go ahead and file your stupid lawsuit. All the judge is going to say to you is, "You signed this legal account agreement saying you understand and agree to the terms of the account, including their fee structure. Too bad, case dismissed." So, don't waste your time hiring a lawyer.

Yep the automatic "they work for the company" line. Well if I actually did work for every company I have been accused of working for, there wouldn't be enough hours in the day to get to each of them. I do not work for, nor ever have worked for this or any other bank. Also, with the exception of I believe one other poster who does indicate they are an employee no one else here works for these banks either. If you really think that the lawyers are not in it for the money, then why don't they do it "pro bono". That is unless you think that a multi-million dollar payday for the lawyers vs. $78 per person is fair. The fact is, as was pointed out the tide is turning. More and more of these "Class Action Lawsuits" are going nowhere. Will this one be the same, only time will tell. But it is interesting that after 3 months there have been no additional hearings.

Charlie. the latest class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo was just decertified; in other words, the court ruled in favor of the Bank. The banks were willing to settle in the past - not so anymore. It would seem banks are going to use the WF case as precedent (see Gutierrez vs WF) as well. I think lawyers have made enough off of us...don't you think?

This lawsuit will benefit all those cheated out of money by USBANK. No, it's not just for the lawyers, anymore than other class action lawsuits have been. People here that constantly defend this disreputable company have an "interest" in doing so. Do not be fooled by them. They have their (paid) agendas, WE HAVE OURS ! Justice will prevail, sooner or later. Again, please join this class action lawsuit.

I read the summary of the suit and the key points and in actuality there does not seem like there is anything new. "Re-sequencing Scheme: The lawsuit alleges the bank reorders transactions posted each day from largest to smallest - this artificially increases the number of transactions eligible for overdraft fees." - Banks(not just US Bank) have been doing this for decades. There have been many suits against this process. When they have been ruled on, each time they have been found to be legal as long as it was disclosed. "Hidden Account Hold Scheme: Plaintiffs claim the bank places a hold on funds for previously scheduled debits. The bank deducts this amount from the available balance but fails to reflect the deduction in the running account balance online. " - If they can actually make the case that it is the banks responsibility to manage a person's account, they may have an argument. But if there are any disclosures about this, then the slim chance they had is pretty much gone. "Undisclosed Overdraft Scheme: The suit claims U.S. Bank refuses to notify customers when an electronic transaction into which the customer is about to enter will result in an overdraft. This denies customers the option of canceling the transaction to avoid fees or paying with alternate means." - And just how can they guarantee this 100% of the time? What if the merchant is "off-line" and submits the debit a week later? What if the person has $1100 and writes a $1000 check that hasn't hit the account. How is the bank supposed to know this if they try and spend $1050? What if a company authorizes $1(like a gas station), but ends up spending $50. So while the courts can be unpredictable. I have a feeling that this case will go the way of many others. That is either dismissed or settled "out of court" where no judgments are made and the only people who get any decent money out of it are the lawyers involved. Take for example the last suit against BofA. BofA out of court agreed to pay UP TO 35 Million. Where did that 35 Million dollars go. Well the lawyers get 8.125 Million, the courts get 2.5 Million(for administrative costs), the original plantiff gets $10,000 and each "class member" gets up to $78(about the cost of 2 overdrafts). The actual amount depends on how many class members make a claim, so while it won't be more than $78 it could be less. Not a bad payday for the lawyers. But I only heard things such as how the "evil bank" lost, yet not one report on the "evil lawyers" who took just under 25% of the total settlement.

Well, the real basis for any class action lawsuit is that the practices or policies of the company were not or have not been disclosed to the consumer. i.e., US Bank is doing something that they did not inform you they were going to do. That is a hard case to make. When you open an account, you get a Deposit Account Agreement book that gives you the account terms. Those terms may be onerous, confusing and non consumer friendly, but as long as you are aware of them, then you agree to abide by them when you open your account. Most banks terms and conditions booklets are written so that the bank has total control over the terms. Deposits, transactions, debit cards issues are all at the discretion of the bank. But that is the deal. In exchange for this, the bank is letting you transact business in todays economy. Without a bank account of some sort it would be very hard to purchase things or get paid. Not impossible, but very difficult. So keep that in mind before trotting off to court.