Guest Commentary By Beverly M. Weber and Elizabeth L. Grube, Armstrong Teasdale
A Cautionary Case on the Use of Model Disclosures by Financial Institutions
“A good template serves as a guide, not gospel. It must be here.” – Hon. Stephanos Bibas
Te District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion admonishing a Delaware credit union for failing to ensure a model disclosure accurately described its policies. [Miller v. Del-One Fed. Credit Union, No. 1:21-CV-01433- SB, 2022 WL 2817875 (D. Del. July 19, 2022)]. Te district court’s finding serves as a warning to all financial institutions that use the model language of Regulation E in their disclosures or otherwise rely on model language provided by regulators. In Miller, a credit union’s overdraſt policy was more expansive than Regulation E’s definition of “overdraſt” because the credit union’s policy considered upcoming bills when determining how much money was available in its customers’ accounts. Because of this, a customer could overdraſt their account despite having sufficient funds to cover the expense — a situation that would not be considered an overdraſt under the definition in Regulation E.
Upset that the model disclosure provided by the credit union did not accurately describe its policy and practice, the customer sued the credit union for violating Regulation E and Delaware’s Consumer Fraud Act.
Te court interpreted the requirement of Regulation E — that the credit union must give its customers “a notice in writing … segregated from all other information, describing [its] overdraſt service” — to mean that all relevant information about the overdraſt policy must be contained in the disclosure. For that reason, the court found it irrelevant that the credit union accurately described its policy in other documents provided to the customer.
18
mobankers.com
Te credit union further argued it was protected from potential liability because it used the model disclosure language of Regulation E. However, the court noted that Regulation E provides a shield from liability for allegations that the disclosure was not made in the proper form when financial institutions use the correct model clause. However, the regulation does not provide a shield from liability for allegations that the substance of the disclosure was inaccurate, as was the case here.
In short, the court allowed the customer’s claims to proceed against the credit union despite the fact that the credit union used the model language of Regulation E in its disclosure and found irrelevant the fact that the overdraſt policy was described accurately in other documents provided to the customer. “If a bank charges overdraſt fees only when the customer spends more money than she has in her account, the model language might be accurate.” In this case, because the credit union charged overdraſt fees not only when the customer spent more money than was in the account but also when a hypothetical overdraſt might arise in light of upcoming bills, the disclosure was inaccurate despite the use of Regulation E’s model language, and thus the credit union was potentially liable.
In light of this recent decision, financial institutions should heed the court’s warning and review their use of model language to ensure it accurately reflects current policies and practices.
Estate Services practice group in Kansas City, has nearly 20 years of Visit
armstrongteasdale.com for more details. Armstrong Teasdale is an MBA associate member.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32