0101 Au Bank Statement Download
Azrael Zurlo
In April 1992 the plaintiffs opened a checking account with the defendant'spredecessor. When they opened their account, the bank issued the plaintiffs an overdraftprotection line of credit in the amount of $3,500. The bank notified the plaintiffs that itwould advance automatically the overdraft protection line of credit only when a check waspresented for payment and the plaintiffs' checking account contained an insufficient balance. Prior to September 5, 2000, the plaintiffs had never triggered the overdraft protection lineof credit.
Donna's employer, May Company/Famous Barr (Famous Barr), through its bankaccount with Northern Trust Company (Northern Trust), deposited semimonthly payrollpayments of approximately $947 into the plaintiffs' checking account on May 15, 2000, May31, 2000, June 15, 2000, June 30, 2000, July 15, 2000, July 31, 2000, and August 15, 2000. In late August 2000, Famous Barr directed Northern Trust to retrieve these wage paymentsfrom the plaintiffs' account. In a letter written to the defendant and dated August 24, 2000,Northern Trust confirmed its request for the return of the payroll deposits made to Donnabetween May 15, 2000, and August 15, 2000, advising the defendant that Donna'semployment had been terminated on April 21, 2000. Famous Barr had not terminated Donnaon April 21, 2000.
Matthew Liebheit, the defendant's assistant branch manager in September 2000,testified that the defendant did not notify the plaintiffs that it withdrew the funds. Matthewtestified that when Donna came to the bank to inquire about the funds withdrawn from heraccount, Matthew and Donna completed an affidavit requesting an investigation andasserting that the defendant had transferred the funds from the plaintiffs' account withouttheir authorization. After sending the affidavit to the defendant's automated clearinghousedepartment in St. Louis, Matthew notified Donna that because her employment had beenterminated in April, and pursuant to Northern Trust's request, the defendant had returned thefunds to Famous Barr. Matthew requested written documentation to document the legalityof withdrawing the funds without the plaintiffs' written permission.
Donna testified that she had not been notified of the problem with the checkingaccount until she received a letter from the defendant indicating that four checks had beenreturned for insufficient funds. At that time, she went to the bank and spoke with Matthew. Donna testified that Matthew told her to complete the affidavit of unauthorized transfer tosend to the defendant's automated clearinghouse department for investigation. At that time,Matthew removed the returned-item fees for the checks returned for insufficient funds. Donna told Matthew that she was very upset and frustrated. Matthew subsequently advisedDonna that Northern Trust had notified the defendant that Donna's employment had beenterminated, which was the basis for the withdrawal of the funds. Matthew told Donna to callChrystal. Donna left two messages on Chrystal's voice mail, but Chrystal did not returnDonna's phone calls. Between September 5 and October 6, 2000, the defendant charged theplaintiffs interest of $100 on the overdraft protection line of credit. Donna testified that shecashed a credit card check to put funds into their account to pay bills.
Brian Duffy, divisional vice president at Famous Barr, testified that in April 2000, he also notified Donna that her sick pay benefits had expired and that her pay would besuspended during the last week of April. Although Donna was not vested and had not earnedher vacation pay, Brian made an exception and directed that Donna receive funds for twoweeks' vacation in the month of May, but Donna was not entitled to her vacation pay and hersalary. During a routine payroll audit in late August, Brian realized that Donna was stillbeing paid, and he notified the payroll department. Brian identified a September 12, 2000,letter he wrote to Donna notifying her that she had been overpaid and that she should submita check to Famous Barr or discuss a repayment arrangement. In October 2000, when Brianlearned that Famous Barr had withdrawn funds from the plaintiffs' bank account, hecontacted the director of payroll and requested that Famous Barr return the funds to theplaintiffs' account.
Conversion is an unauthorized act that deprives a person of his property permanentlyor for an indefinite time. In re Thebus, 108 Ill. 2d 255, 259 (1985). "The essence ofconversion is the wrongful deprivation of one who has a right to the immediate possessionof the object unlawfully held." Bender v. Consolidated Mink Ranch, Inc., 110 Ill. App. 3d207, 213 (1982). "It must be shown that the money claimed, or its equivalent, at all timesbelonged to the plaintiff and that the defendant converted it to his own use. [Citation.]" Inre Thebus, 108 Ill. 2d at 261. To prove the tort of conversion, "a plaintiff must establish that(1) he has a right to the property; (2) he has an absolute and unconditional right to theimmediate possession of the property; (3) he made a demand for possession; and (4) thedefendant wrongfully and without authorization assumed control, dominion, or ownershipover the property. [Citation.]" Cirrincione, 184 Ill. 2d at 114. Illinois courts have sustaineda plaintiff's cause of action for conversion against his or her bank. Roderick DevelopmentInvestment Co. v. Community Bank of Edgewater, 282 Ill. App. 3d 1052 (1996); Tri StateBank of East Dubuque v. Colby, 141 Ill. App. 3d 807 (1986) (a bank committed conversionwhen it froze its customers' entire savings account, with funds over $9,000, when it had notyet accelerated the notes due it, as required by contract, and the customers' matured debt wasonly $3,000).
In the present case, the jury properly found that the defendant wrongfully convertedthe plaintiffs' funds. When Famous Barr voluntarily transferred the funds to the plaintiffs'account, Famous Barr created a debtor-creditor relationship between it and the plaintiffs. See General Motors Corp. v. Douglass, 206 Ill. App. 3d 881, 892 (1990) (a debtor-creditorrelationship was created when General Motors Corp. mistakenly overpaid its dealer). Although the plaintiffs were alleged debtors of Famous Barr, the plaintiffs maintained theirright to the funds in their bank account with the defendant and their absolute andunconditional right to the immediate possession of the funds. Mutuality allows a bank tooffset debts owed by the depositor to the bank (see Symanski v. First National Bank ofDanville, 242 Ill. App. 3d 391, 396-97 (1993)), but the bank may not offset debts owed bythe depositor to third parties (see Highsmith v. Department of Public Aid, 345 Ill. App. 3d774, 779 (2004) (even in a garnishment action, a creditor does not have the automatic rightto garnish the funds of a debtor on deposit in a joint account)). The plaintiffs had a right tothe funds in their bank account, had the absolute and unconditional right to the immediatepossession of the funds in their account, and made a demand for possession, and thedefendant wrongfully and without authorization assumed control, dominion, or ownershipover the plaintiffs' property. See Cirrincione, 184 Ill. 2d at 114. The evidence supported theplaintiffs' conversion cause of action against the defendant, thereby establishing anindependent tort for which punitive damages may be awarded.
When viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence at the trialrevealed that the defendant withdrew funds from the plaintiffs' checking account solely onan unsupported request from another bank and that the defendant did not notify or gainpermission from the plaintiffs to withdraw the funds or to trigger the plaintiffs' overdraftprotection line of credit. When Donna questioned the defendant, it refused to return thefunds to the plaintiffs' account and indicated that the funds had been withdrawn because shehad been terminated from her employment, which was incorrect. It is unclear whether thedefendant attempted to determine whether its actions were proper or legal.
The defendant's unauthorized removal of the funds from the plaintiffs' account,including its activation of the overdraft protection line of credit, was an individual, isolatedincident, was a purely private wrong between two parties, and did not affect consumersgenerally. See Bankier, 225 Ill. App. 3d at 875. The plaintiffs and the defendant disagreedabout the interpretation of the contract in question, i.e., whether the contract allowed thedefendant to withdraw funds previously deposited by a third party into the plaintiffs' accountand to trigger the plaintiffs' overdraft protection line of credit. See Bankier, 225 Ill. App. 3dat 875. The plaintiffs' theory of the defendants' deceptive practice was far-fetched, i.e., theplaintiffs argued that the defendant, who was in the business of banking, agreed to hold theirmoney in their account and receive direct deposits with the intent to breach that agreementto allow a third party to gain from the plaintiffs' loss. See Exchange National Bank v. FarmBureau Life Insurance Co. of Michigan, 108 Ill. App. 3d 212, 215 (1982). The trial courtproperly found in favor of the defendants and rejected the plaintiffs' claim pursuant to theConsumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West2002)), and we affirm the trial court's judgment on this issue.
I'm not sure what is going on but this doesn't make any sense to me. I bank with PNC in the US and I haven't had any issues or weird fees previously. My waived fee of 2.99% was still active when I deposited into the CDC app. I bought $50 of TSUD to put on my debit ruby card and it came to $50.39 on my bank statement - ok no problem there. I received the money at $49.63 TUSD - ok that's fine. I used my debit card once and made a $28 purchase, worked fine.
So, then I notice the $50.39 charge on my bank statement disappear. This disappeared for almost a week and the money went back into my bank account. A week later the money was taken back out and the $50.39 was back on my bank statement. The problem here is that there are two charges on my statement from this transaction:
760c119bf3