The judge is a mute point in all this. Just becasue he found infavor of the defendants. Doesnt mean the judges rulings was right. Its how the judge personally interprets the law with what was presented to him in the case.
How many times have we seen a case appealed and the ruling changed back and forth in the asppeals. So the judge doesnt know who is right or wrong. Its their interpretation of the law. Why most judges will have different verdict on the same case.
So, you've just invalidated our entire legal system... yeah, its the judges opinion on interpretation of the laws... thats how our legal system works, judges make rulings, then you can appeal if you don't agree. So, yeah, the judges opinion does matter.
Sure maybe what WF did was a lil dirty. What about the account holder in this example knowingly didnt have the funds and still overdraft his account. If the person didnt cause the overdraft then he wouldnt have endure the fees.
The issue wasn't about overdraft fees, but about how they changed the way its drafts of the same day are processed, from low-high to high-low, for no other reason (according to internal documents and emails) to increase overdraft charges. This violates existing laws that say, if you change the way you process drafts, it has to be done in "good faith." They then intentionality made it CAA documents, long and complex to obscure this fact.
I agree with the judges ruling, (but don't agree it constitutes theft.)
When you overdraft your account, knowingly or not, one doesn't reasonably expect to get up to 10 overdraft charges. That was the issue.
Tom Ace said:
I never argued whether or not what they did is theft by the strict legal definition. The problem is that's not what you started out arguing either. Your original comment, as I showed, was not in reference to someone saying it was theft according to a strict legal definition. Your original comment claiming "theft" was an incorrect word was prior to Byteware's involvement in the thread (and mine), so what he was referring to is irrelevant.
I said theft was an incorrect word BECAUSE it doesn't fit the legal definition. Byteware then try to reason it DID fit the legal definition because the judge made them repay the money...
ME:
But you do nothing for your case when you refer to it as "theft" and "illegal." Its neither, just a crappy service, that, according to a judge, they didn't do a good enough job of informing their customers how crappy it was.
"You do nothing for your case," BECAUSE, this situation doesn't fit the legal definition of theft.
Byteware:
Obviously a judge agreed that it was theft, and ordered them to return the money.
So, I don't think it's out of line to refer to it as theft or illegal.
Byteware was wrong, the judge DID NOT agree it was theft. Read the judges opinion if you like
http://www.bank-overdraft.com/pdf/20100810-wells-fargo-finding.pdf
This then began a discussion centered around the LEGAL definition of theft, until you came along.
And I admit, the judge DID find their failure to properly inform customers of banking policy and how that effects their overdraft charges illegal, but not theft.
Can we end this now?
No, I don't. I've been very clear. There's no reason "theft" can't apply to what they did
Yes, there is a reason it can't apply, a reason you even acknowledged a few posts back.
Tom:
it wasn't wrong to call it theft, as long as he wasn't saying it is theft according to the strict legal definition used in court.
And Byteware one more time:
Obviously a judge agreed that it was theft
Byteware isn't only making a claim about WF actions fitting the legal definition of theft, he's also claiming the judge himself ruled it was theft, which he didn't, read the opinion.
The word "theft" appears in that opinion 0 times.
And just a little more recapping so hopefully we can end this silly dispute...
Me:
Just because you sued and a judge said pay back the money doesn't mean it was theft. There is a strict legal definition of theft
Byteware:
The judge found that to be illegal, i.e. theft. Therefore they are ordered to make restitution to their customers, a.k.a. victims.
I'm correcting you on your original assertion that the terms "theft" and "illegal" are incorrect in referring to what the bank did.
Yes, it was "illegal," I admit that... no it was not theft according to the law.
Yes, and that victim should be subject to the penalty as has been communicated to them. The problem was these victims were penalized according to a standard not communicated to them.
Wrong again, it was communicated to the customer, but according to the judge, not in an adequate way.
The CAA, entered into evidence:
The Bank may post Items presented against the Account in any
order the Bank chooses, unless the laws governing your Account
either requires or prohibits a particular order. For example, the
Bank may, if it chooses, post Items in the order of the highest
dollar amount to the lowest dollar amount. The Bank may change
the order of posting Items to the Account at any time without
notice. If more than one Item is presented to the Bank for payment
on a day the Bank determines there are sufficient funds to pay one
or more but not all of the Items, the number of Items paid and the
overdraft and returned Item fees assessed may be affected by the
order that the Bank chooses to pay those Items . . . . For example,
if the Bank pays Items in the order of highest-to-lowest dollar
amount, the total number of overdraft and returned Item fees you
are charged may be larger than if the bank were to pay the Items
in the order of lowest-to-highest dollar amount.
No one is saying they shouldn't be charged an overdraft fee. What we're saying is they should only be charged one overdraft fee, not 5.
Yes, that is correct.