Jury awards BofA customers $1B

Channel 14 news Charlotte ^ | 2/27/2004 11:54 AM | By: Michael Liedtke

[TaxRelief]

SAN FRANCISCO -- A California jury has decided Bank of America illegally raided the Social Security benefits of a million customers and awarded damages that could exceed $1 billion.

The San Francisco Superior Court jury verdict, reached Wednesday after a six-week trial, requires Bank of America to pay $75 million to the entire group, plus $1,000 in special damages to each customer who proves the bank's actions caused substantial emotional or economic harm.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America predicted the verdict will be overturned in a planned appeal. Even if the verdict is upheld, the bank believes its damages are unlikely to approach $1 billion.

[TaxRelief]

Can anyone explain to me how a bank can raid Social Security Funds?

[Glenn]

You might try reading the article you posted:

"centers on allegations that Bank of America collected some customer service fees by siphoning money from direct deposit accounts set up to receive Social Security benefits."

[liberallarry]

The class-action case, filed 5 1/2 years ago, centers on allegations that Bank of America collected some customer service fees by siphoning money from direct deposit accounts set up to receive Social Security benefits.

Attorneys representing the affected customers argued the Bank of America's actions violated California laws, citing a 1974 state Supreme Court case that prohibits banks from taking Social Security benefits to recover its own debts.

[AmericaUnited]

As is typical, the plaintiff's lawyers will receive $9,999,000 million in fees, and each plaintiff will receive a $5 discount coupon on the purchase of their next toaster.

[pointsal]

Heck...from my sorry experiences with BofA, that is a very "customer-unfriendly" environment. Rude tellers, branches in ethnically concentrated neighborhoods are NOT open on Saturday....you name it and BofA has a fee for it.

[Lael]

PIGGY, PIGGY!!!

Social Security funds are SACROSANT!!!

Not even in the Civil Case was O. J. Simpson's SS touchable!!!

Banks are expected to "make it up" on the 'float', which is considerable.

Remember, the Bank is the DEBTOR in this relationship!!

There is a reason that Bank of America is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina...not San Francisco...

Couldn't do any worse if they had "Outsourced" the Board to INDIA!!!

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

As is typical, the plaintiff's lawyers will receive $9,999,000 million in fees, and each plaintiff will receive a $5 discount coupon on the purchase of their next toaster.

Jealousy isn't pretty. But let me clue you in on a reality. If it were not for lawyers who were willing to risk years of their time, huge amounts of money in overhead and costs, based on the possibility of a contingent fee recovery, there would be many, many poor and middle-class people who would be denied legal justice. And for every contingent fee case that goes great, there are many that don't pay well enough to even break even, and some that lose altogether and the lawyer gets zero income for all the work, and has to swallow the overhead and costs.

You should be thankful you live in a place where the legal system is open to everyone, and that there are lawyers who are willing to work for FREE for you, or even lose money for you, based on the hope of a good recovery.

[TaxRelief]

Who is setting up direct-deposit accounts, Employers? Don't they send it directly into the government quarterly?

I use to do the bookkeeping for a small business. Periodically we filled out a coupon and mailed in the check to the IRS. My employer kept the money until then?

Is this not how it's done?

[TaxRelief]

Wait. I was looking at it from the wrong angle. They were taking money from customers to pay the checking account fees, because they did not set up the direct payment into a "totally free checking" account.

So, BofA is supposed to absorb all the costs of handling and processing checks and printing and mailing statements. Sort of like "forced charity"?

In other words the "rich" customers are supposed to pick up the bank expenses of the "poor" customers. Is that it?

[aynrandfreak]

You make it seem like lawyers take all cases, even if they don't think they're pretty certain to win. You don't seem to care to address at all the issue of runaway verdicts and frivolous class-action suits. I hope you're at least a lawyer. If not, it's even more pathetic.

[TheConservator]

You must be an attorney! :)

[FoxInSocks]

In that CD price-fixing case, the attorneys only took $20 million in fees and costs out of the $144 million settlement. That sure is a lot of hours. And they didn't even go to trial.

Did you read "King of Torts" by John Grisham? It paints a rather unflattering picture of class action suits. Yes, I know it's fiction.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not criticizing the system (my career is even in the legal field). I just don't feel that an attorney that wins $2 for each of his clients, and millions for himself, is a hero fighting for truth, justice, and the American way.

[Weirdad]

Your comment to AmericaUnited: "Jealousy isn't pretty."

Calling people jealous when as a way of attempting to make a point isn't pretty, in fact, it's downright ugly.

Payment to lawyers should be more proportional to the actual work done plus REASONABLE expenses with the cost of covering lost cases figured in. But by lawyer logic, for example, a physician ought to charge patients a percent of the value of a successful operation. That way if Bill Gates has a hand suggessfully reattached and would have claimed $100,000,000 damages the reattachment is botched, the physician can charge him, heck, $100,000,000 for a successful operation. And doctors can just turn down all the cases they don't want to gamble on.

Moreover the lawyer takeover of legislation is precisely what has turned American law into such a complex mess of crap that it "costs" ridiculous amounts to deal with it. Every year lawyers make new legal problems that they then get paid to address.

And why should it cost millions to pursue a case like this anyway? It doesn't. The numbers are bogus. It's like when a movie gets made by Hollywood and they say it "cost" $50,000,000 to make, but they don't bother to tell you that the director and star who own the endeavor paid themselves $20,000,000 each. If the movie breaks even for the investors the director and star still make $20,000,000 each and they cry all the way to the bank. The only reason it "costs" so much to pursue a case like this is the lawyers are claiming "costs" that are grossly inflated.

Your admiration for the present plaintiff-lawyer system suggests a personal conflict of interest is warping your thinking.

[AmericaUnited]

You should be thankful you live in a place where the legal system is open to everyone, and that there are lawyers who are willing to work for FREE for you, or even lose money for you, based on the hope of a good recovery.

Quite frankly I'M NOT! Most of the time these lawsuits are frivolous and wind up costing ME money, so a few can play the lottery and rape the rest of us.

Lawsuits are INSANELY OUT OF CONTROL! And drive up the cost of almost EVERYTHING!

[Oztrich Boy]

Senator Edwards, shouldn't you be posting at DU?

[Oztrich Boy]

I can remember a shyster on TV defending his "costs" which included photocopying at $5 a page. "Well there's the staffer's time, and toner and things like that that are included in that cost"

[TaxRelief]

Boy, you pegged him.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

Most of the time these lawsuits are frivolous and wind up costing ME money, so a few can play the lottery and rape the rest of us.

Honestly, and I'm really not trying to just bash you, but you have no idea what you are talking about. If "most of the time" these lawsuits were frivolous, then the lawyers would be out of business. Seriously, you have no clue what you are talking about.

The law already has a way to deal with frivolous suits. First, if a plaintiff loses, the Defendant gets their costs. Second, if you sue without a reasonable justification for doing so, you can be sued back for malicious prosecution.

One of the worst things about being a Republican, and an attorney, is having to deal with the sheer ignorance and bias of my fellow conservatives when it comes to the legal system.

The problem comes from people hearing headlines like "4 million for spilled coffee" and then thinking they actually know something about the legal system.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

...$1,000 in special damages to each customer who proves the bank's actions caused substantial emotional or economic harm...

Emotional harm from a fee being deducted?? How can anyone prove that?