Courts
HIGHLIGHT
In the fight against predatory lending, the courts are a key battleground. CRL monitors cases that could set precedent; submits legal briefs on key legal issues; and works with partners on litigation aimed at strengthening protections against abusive lending.
- Banks in California cannot deduct overdraft fees from Social Security benefits
December 14, 2007CRL's amicus briefs in support of the plaintiff class in Miller v. Bank of America. CRL argues that California law concerning banks' set-off powers forbid banks from deducting overdraft fees from public benefit payments, including Social Security benefits, and this law is not preempted by the National Bank Act or regulations issued by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency. The trial court entered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff class; CRL participated in this case before the California Court of Appeals, First Appellate Division, and the California Supreme Court.
- Banks in California cannot deduct overdraft fees from Social Security benefits
January 22, 2007CRL's amicus briefs in support of the plaintiff class in Miller v. Bank of America. CRL argues that California law concerning banks' set-off powers forbid banks from deducting overdraft fees from public benefit payments, including Social Security benefits, and this law is not preempted by the National Bank Act or regulations issued by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency. The trial court entered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff class; CRL participated in this case before the California Court of Appeals, First Appellate Division, and the California Supreme Court.
- Banks in California cannot deduct overdraft fees from Social Security benefits
January 19, 2006CRL's amicus briefs in support of the plaintiff class in Miller v. Bank of America. CRL argues that California law concerning banks' set-off powers forbid banks from deducting overdraft fees from public benefit payments, including Social Security benefits, and this law is not preempted by the National Bank Act or regulations issued by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency. The trial court entered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff class; CRL participated in this case before the California Court of Appeals, First Appellate Division, and the California Supreme Court.
- Consumers can sue abusive payday lenders without going to arbitration
September 23, 2005CRL's amicus brief in support of the respondent in Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna. CRL argues that consumers who received payday loans should not be required to arbitrate their claims against the lenders before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of the consumers.


