Banks can tap Social Security to cover bounced-check fees
— -- In a verdict that could have far-reaching implications for elderly and disabled bank customers, the California Supreme Court ruled this week that banks can tap Social Security benefits in bank accounts to cover bounced-check fees.
The decision, in the Miller v. Bank of America case, effectively reverses a 2004 San Francisco trial court ruling ordering the bank to pay at least $284.4 million in damages to more than 1.1 million customers.
The Center for Responsible Lending, an advocacy group, has found that consumers heavily dependent on Social Security income pay $1 billion in overdrafts a year. Most overdrafts are triggered by small-dollar debit card transactions, says Eric Halperin, director of the center's Washington office.
The California ruling — along with a 2002 federal verdict in Lopez v. Washington Mutual Bank favoring the thrift — could make it more daunting to challenge banks' ability to deduct overdraft fees from government benefits. "It will make plaintiffs pause at least in bringing other cases," says Greg Taylor, associate general counsel at the American Bankers Association, a trade group.
But Margot Saunders, counsel for the National Consumer Law Center, says the Supreme Court ruling merely "interprets a California statute" and doesn't prevent similar cases from moving forward elsewhere. It also won't stymie general lawsuits dealing with overdrafts, she says.
BofA, in an unrelated overdraft case, recently agreed to a $35 million settlement. The lawsuit alleged the bank processed transactions and provided account information in a way that increased overdraft fees. In settling, the bank denied the claims and said it fully complied with the law.
