SHARE

December 29, 2021

Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal in Overdraft Charges Dispute

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Subscribe now to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content. Your subscription is free.
Subscribe Now

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed a lower court's dismissal in a suit in which a customer of a bank challenged the bank's overdraft charge practices. See Johnson v. BOKF Nat'l Ass'n, 15 F.4th 356 (5th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff Sharonda Johnson, who holds a checking account with BOKF, National Association (the "Bank"), filed a putative class action challenging "Extended Overdraft Charges" assessed by the Bank, which were charged to her after she overdrew on her checking account in 2016. Extended Overdraft Charges are what the Bank terms the fees it charges to customers who overdraw on their checking accounts and fail to timely pay the Bank for covering the overdraft. Johnson alleges that when the Bank paid her overdraft, it extended her credit, and that the Extended Overdraft Charges the Bank assessed her when she did not reimburse the Bank timely for covering her overdraft constitute interest upon this extension of credit within the meaning of § 85 of the National Bank Act of 1864 (the "NBA"), which authorized national banks to charge "interest at the rate allowed by the law of the State . . . where the bank is located."  The District Court dismissed the complaint, and Johnson appealed.

In its de novo review of the lower court's dismissal, the Fifth Circuit rejected Johnson's argument, instead deferring to the Office of the Comptroller of Currency's (OCC) interpretation that Extended Overdraft Charges are not interest within the meaning of the NBA. In Interpretive Letter 1082, the OCC determined that the overdraft fees imposed by a bank constituted charges for non-interest deposit account services under 12 C.F.R.§ 7.4002(a).  The Fifth Circuit then looked to recent Supreme Court reaffirmation in Kisor v. Wilkie 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) that courts should defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of its own regulations when the regulation's text is "genuinely ambiguous," and the "character and context of the agency's interpretation entitles it to controlling weight." When applicable, this deference regime, referred to as Auer deference, dictates that an agency's interpretation is "controlling unless ‘plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'"

To determine whether to grant Auer deference, the Fifth Circuit looked to OCC commentary that suggested that the history of § 7.4001(a) supports the conclusion that the rule is truly ambiguous as to whether excess overdraft fees like the ones Johnson challenged fell within its scope. The Court also determined that the OCC's determination that these sorts of fees are classified as deposit account services, and not a new loan, was reasonable. Finally, the Court characterized Interpretive Letter 1082 as an "authoritative statement" drafted by a senior OCC official, fitting squarely within the agency's expertise and strongly indicating that it represents the OCC's official position on the matter of whether Extended Overdraft Charges should be classified as non-interest charges, thus entitling the Interpretive Letter to controlling weight on the matter. This led the court to conclude that Extended Overdraft Charges are non-interest charges, not subject to the NBA's usury limits.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP

SEC May Require Advisers and Funds to Draft Cybersecurity Policies and Disclose Incidents

By Michael P. O'Mullan Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP February 11 , 2022

Following the rise of cybercrime and on the coattails of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) promulgating final rules concerning cybersecurity requirements for the financial services sector, we knew that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was not far behind.

New York Insurance Disclosure Act May Cause Significant Changes In New York State Court Lawsuits

By Brian E. O’Donnell Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP February 10 , 2022

On December 31, 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (the “Act”)

FINRA to Prioritize Cryptocurrency, Options Account Paperwork, and Expungement Reform in 2022

By Michael P. O'Mullan Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP January 24 , 2022

During a January 19, 2021, webinar with the SIFMA Compliance & Legal Society, FINRA president and CEO Robert Cook discussed with participants FINRA’s priorities for 2022.

More From Financial Services and Banking

Connecticut Banking Dept. Issues Cease and Desist Order to Stop Fintech Loan Finder From Operating Without Small Loan License

By Stacey L. Valerio Ballard Spahr May 19 , 2022

The Connecticut Department of Banking (“Department”) has issued a temporary cease and desist order (“Order”) that directs SoLo Funds, Inc., (“SoLo”) a fintech company that uses peer-to-peer technology to assist consumers in obtaining small dollar loans from third-party lenders, to immediately stop engaging in such activity because it is not licensed as a small loan company in Connecticut. The Order also directs SoLo to stop enforcing loans made to Connecticut residents and make restitution of any amounts it obtained in connection with such loans together with interest.

U.S. Treasury Releases 2022 Strategy for Combatting Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing

By Nikki A. Hatza Ballard Spahr May 18 , 2022

On May 13, 2022, the U.S. Treasury (“Treasury”) released its 2022 Strategy for Combatting Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing (“2022 Strategy”). The proposed 2022 Strategy, prepared pursuant to Sections 261 and 262 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), outlines four goals to address the key risks identified by the 2022 National Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, and Proliferation Financing Risk Assessments:

CFPB Advisory Opinion Clarifies that ECOA Applies Throughout Credit Lifecycle

By Tonya M. Esposito Greenberg Traurig May 11 , 2022

On May 9, 2022, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB or the Bureau) issued an advisory opinion to clarify that the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B (Reg B) protect individuals and businesses against discrimination in “all aspects of a credit arrangement.” According to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, the protections afforded under ECOA and Reg B do not “vanish” after the application process. The opinion comes at a time when the Bureau has heightened its focus on ensuring fairness and racial equality in both credit and non-credit aspects of consumer finance.

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...