grachevakautawil.blogspot.com
The class-action case centered on BofA’s collectingg check overdraft and other fees by taking moneyfrom direct-deposit accountzs set up to receive Social Security In 2004, a jury founc BofA’s actions violated California banking laws that prohibit bank from taking Social Security benefits to recoverr customer debts. But in 2006, the 1st District Courf of Appeal in San Francisco ruledBofA didn’t breach state banking laws. The appeals courtr said the lawsuit misapplied a 1974 California Supreme Courft decision that prohibits banks from using public funds depositesd into an account to pay thebank customer’ss separate credit-card account.
Monday’s unanimousd ruling upheld that decision. Charlotte-based BofA told the news agenct it was pleased with the which it saidrejected “a challengwe to account-balancing practices followed by ever y bank in California and across the
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment