White v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that plaintiffs’ exercise of their rights “does not more than incidentally affect Wachovia’s deposit-taking powers.”
• holding that a claim under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act that a bank engaged in unfair or deceptive business practices by manipulating the posting of transactions to an account in order to impose overdraft fees was not preempted
• rejecting argument that plaintiffs’ state law contract and tort claims were preempted by the OCC
• finding no preemption of claim brought under state consumer protection statute where plaintiffs claimed that the bank “charged overdraft fees when there was actually money in the account sufficient to pay their drafts”
• high to low posting practice not substantively unconscionable because the practice is consistent with the UCC
• “[A]s explained in declining to dismiss the breach of contract claim, Plaintiffs have alleged that Wacho-via imposed Overdraft Fees when .there was in fact no overdraft. The trover and conversion claim may proceed for now.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).