*희* 스토어

*희*

개인

팔로워0 팔로우

소개

등록된 소개글이 없습니다.

전문분야 등록된 전문분야가 없습니다.

판매자 정보

학교정보

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

직장정보

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

자격증

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

판매지수

판매중 자료수

1개
전체 판매량

0개
최근 3개월 판매량

0개
자료후기 점수

-
자료문의 응답률

-

전체자료 1개

[법학] Case Brief-Krusers v. The Bank of America

1. CitationKruser v. Bank of America, 281 Cal.Rptr. 463 (Ct App 1990).2. PartiesLawrence Kruser and Georgene Kruser – customers, plaintiffs at trial in District Court, appellees in Circuit Court, respondents in Court of Appeals.Bank of America—bank, defendant at trial in District Court, appellants in Circuit Court, petitioners in Court of Appeals.3. Statement of the CaseCustomers filed a complaint against bank claiming damages for unauthorized electronic withdrawals from their account by someone using his card.4. Procedure(a) The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Bank because it determined appellants had failed to comply with the notice and reporting requirements of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). (15 U.S.C. § 1693-1693r; 12 C.F.R. § 205.6(b)(2).)(b) Circuit Court affirmed the judgment and awarded costs on appeal to respondent.5. Statement of Facts(a) The plaintiff maintained a joint checking account with the Bank, and the Bank issued a card allowing access to funds in their account from ATM.(b) The December 1986 account statement reflected a $20 unauthorized withdrawal of funds by someone using his card at an ATM. In September 1987, the plaintiff had 47 unauthorized withdrawals, totaling $9,020, made from an ATM, by someone using his card.(c) The plaintiff notified the bank of these withdrawals within a few days of receiving the statements, but the Bank refused to credit his account with the amount of the unauthorized withdrawals.6. Issue(s)(a) The failure to report the unauthorized $20 withdrawal which appeared on the December 1986 statement barred appellants from recovery for the losses incurred in July and August 1987.7. Result on Appeal(a) Affirmed the judgment and awarded costs on appeal to respondent8. Holding(s)(a) Yes. The resolution of this issue requires the interpretation of section 909 of the EFTA (15 U.S.C. § 1693g) and section 205.6 of regulation E (12 C.F.R. § 205.6), one of the regulations prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in order to carry out the purposes of the EFTA. (15 U.S.C. § 1693a(3); 15 U.S.C. 1693b(a).)9. ReasonsDoctrinal reasons:Regulation E provides:(b) Limitations on amount of liability. The amount of a consumer’s liability for an unauthorized electronic fund transfer or a series of related unauthorized transfer shall not exceed $50 or the amount of unauthorized transfer that occur before notice to the financial institution under paragraph (c) of this section, whichever is less, unless one or both of th following exceptions apply:(2) If the consumer fails to report within 60 days of transmittal of the periodic statement any unauthorized electronic fund transfer that appears on the statement, the consumer’s liability shall not exceed the sum ofThe lesser of $50 or the amount of unauthorized electronic fund transfrs that appear on the periodic statement or that occur during the 60-day period, andThe amount of unauthorized electronic fund transfers that occur after the close of the 60 days and before notice to the financial institution and that th financial institution establishes would not have occurred but for the failure of the consumer to notify the financial institution within that time.Policy reasons:Here, although the unauthorized transfer of $20 occurred approximately seven months before the unauthorized transfers totaling $9,020, it is undisputed that all transfers were made by someone using Mr. Kruser's card which the Krusers believed had been destroyed prior to December 1986. According to the declaration of Yvonne Maloon, the Bank's Versatel risk manager, the Bank could have and would have canceled Mr. Kruser's card had it been timely notified of the December unauthorized transfer. In that event Mr. Kruser's card could not have been used to accomplish the unauthorized transactions in July and August. Although appellants characterize this assertion as speculation, they offer no evidence to the contrary.The evidence appellants rely upon indicates in late 1986 or early 1987 Mrs. Kruser underwent surgery and remained in the hospital for 11 days. She left her house infrequently during the first six or seven months of 1987 while she was recuperating. Mrs. Kruser admits, however, she received and reviewed bank statements during her recuperation. Therefore, we need not consider whether Mrs. Kruser's illness created circumstances which might have excused her failure to notice the unauthorized withdrawal pursuant to the applicable sections. She in fact did review the statements in question.

법학| 2004.11.21| 4페이지| 1,000원| 조회(347)

법, 법학, 상법, Law, bank

미리보기

닫기