Thursday, April 23, 2015
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 opinion(s) today (and 5 NFP memorandum decisions)
For publication opinions today (2):
In Old National Bank v. Steven Kelly, Jon A. Cook, and Rebecca F. Cook, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, a 19-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:
The Bank presents a single (consolidated) issue: whether it is entitled to summary judgment upon each of Depositor’s claims because those claims are preempted by federal law or because the Bank, as movant for summary judgment, has negated essential elements of each of those claims. * * *In J.B. v. State of Indiana, an 8-page opinion, Sr. Judge Sharpnack writes:
The common factual allegations included an allegation that the Bank manipulated customers’ electronic debits5 from highest to lowest dollar amount, thereby depleing customer funds and maximizing the occurrences of $35.00 overdraft fees.6 (App. 13.) Depositors also alleged that the Bank grouped together transactions from multiple days, defying a reasonable contractual expectation of the consumer that instantaneous electronic transactions would be posted in chronological order. According to Depositors, “customer accounts may not have been actually overdrawn at the time the overdraft fees were charged, or at the time of the debit transaction.” (App. 6.) Finally, Depositors alleged that the Bank failed to provide accurate and timely information to Depositors regarding their balances or to warn that an overdraft was in progress.
[ILB: The details here are worth reading in full] * * *
C.F.R. § 7.4002 authorizes a bank to charge overdraft fees, but does not authorize banks to ignore state contract or tort law. Depositors have alleged that the Bank acted inconsistent with its contractual obligations and assessed improper overdraft fees. The Bank has not negated Depositors’ state law claim for a breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing. However, Depositors’ claims for conversion, unconscionability,7 and unjust enrichment have been negated. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[Issue] [W]hether the juvenile court abused its discretion in admitting evidence obtained from J.B.’s encounter with a police officer. * * *NFP civil decisions today (1):
Under the totality of the circumstances, Officer Wallace did not act unreasonably in detaining J.B. to confirm his observation that J.B. had discarded a handgun, and there was no violation of J.B.’s rights under article 1, section 11.
J.B.’s federal and state constitutional claims are without merit, and the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence obtained from Officer
Wallace’s encounter with J.B.
NFP criminal decisions today (4):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 23, 2015 01:22 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions