Jury Found that Bank of America Violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

by Jay Chatarpaul on Jan. 08, 2015

Business Banking & Finance Business  Contract Consumer Rights  Consumer Protection 

Summary: Bank America Consumer Fraud

Jury Found that Bank of America Violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

In a case tried by our firm, a jury in Jersey City found that Bank of America violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act when it lost the records of a customer's $26,000 deposit in two separate CDs, and then refused to return the customer's interest and principal when the customer appeared at the bank with the two original certificates to redeem them.

The plaintiff, a retired grandmother, deposited $26,000 in two CDs (automatically renewable every 7 months) with Bank of America predecessor bank. Seven years later, the plaintiff appeared at Bank of America predecessor bank to redeem her CDs, which had then increased to more than $40,000 in principal and interest. The bank refused to honor the plaintiff’s request contending that they could not find any records of her deposits.

A New Jersey banking law provides that that if a customer presents a genuine CD (or a passbook savings account) along with an affidavit that she did not redeem the CD, a bank MUST pay the customer the value of that CD (principal plus interest) unless the bank possess evidence that payment was already made.

Despite having no records of payment on the CD, Bank of America continued to refuse to honor the CDs. Despite Plaintiff's 6-month efforts trying to obtain her money, the bank refused to honor the CDs. Plaintiff told a bank employee that she will obtain a lawyer, and the bank employee’s response was (in paraphrase) “do what you have to do.”

Plaintiff then sued the bank for breach of contract and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, which makes it unlawful for a business to commit an "unconscionable commercial practice" against a consumer.

Bank of America, through their attorneys, first denied all allegations of the plaintiff, even the existence of the CDs. Then a few months later, changed its mind, and admitted that they breached their contract with the plaintiff. But then alleged that the CDs paid interest rates of less than 7% -as low as 1% in some years! Obviously, a judge did not buy that defense. The judge ruled that Bank of America (as a successor in interest) breached its contract with the plaintiff and ordered the Bank to pay the customer the full value of the CDs, which had grown to nearly $45,000. Bank of America did not comply (or refused to) with that order until 30 days later, and paid only after plaintiff's initial attorney threatened to file a motion in court. The Bank then paid the money - albeit reluctantly.

Plaintiff's consumer fraud claim remained. The bank refused to settle with the plaintiff despite plaintiff's attorney offer of a modest settlement. The bank then somehow obtained a dismissal of plaintiff's consumer fraud claim. However, with prior counsel, an appellate court reversed that dismissal finding that a lower court judge was wrong to dismiss the case. The case was then sent for trial and we were retained as counsel.

At trial, a former employee was called to testify on behalf of Bank of America. He testified that he received no training from Bank of America when a customer comes in with a passbook savings account or CD and the bank does not have any records of that customer’s deposit. That is, all he can do in such as situation is say to the customer "sorry, we can't help you." This is in direct opposite to a New Jersey Banking law (the Record Retention Statute) which states that in such a situation, the bank is required to obtain an affidavit from the customer, and if the bank cannot find proof of payment, the bank MUST pay the customer. 

After a 2-day trial, the jury found that Bank of America committed an unconscionable commerical practice in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by refusing to pay the plaintiff on her CDs and requiring her to sue them just to collect her own money.

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer

Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.

Now Chatting...