Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Can a bank be held liable for violating a law that since has changed? Argument is scheduled this morning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on that very question.
The law involved is the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), which required automated teller machine (ATM) operators that imposed a fee on consumers to notify consumers of the fee two ways: 1) on the machine; and 2) on the screen or on paper. In 2010, a consumer who was charged a fee even though the ATMs she used allegedly did not have the required on-machine notice sued the bank. In December 2012, however, Congress amended the EFTA by removing the requirement that banks post the notice on machines.
The case is Lisa Mabary v. Home Town Bank, N.A.
Attorneys involved include: William Frank Carroll, Thomas Butler Alleman, Aubrey Brook Colvard, Cox Smith Matthews, Inc., Dallas, TX, for defendant-appellee; Gary F. Lynch, R. Bruce Carlson, Carlson Lynch Ltd., Pittsburgh, PA, Adina H. Rosenbaum, Allison M. Zieve, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, D.C., Emil Lippe, Jr., Lippe & Associates, Dallas, TX, for plaintiff-appellant.
Contact the author at firstname.lastname@example.org.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.