Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Banking”

11th Cir. Holds 1-Year Period for Disputing Wire Transfers Cannot Be Modified by Contract  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that, consistent with rulings as to an identical New York law, the one-year period to make a demand for a refund of a fraudulent wire transfer under Florida Statutes § 670.202 may be not modified by contract.

9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of EFTA Claim for Unauthorized Charges, Hold Privacy Notice Created No Substantive Rights

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a consumer’s claims that a bank violated the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act by failing to fully reimburse her for losses suffered as result of fraudulent transfers from her account. 

Calif. App. Court (1st Dist) Rejects Bank’s Effort to Disqualify Arbitrator as Untimely

The California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, recently reversed a lower court’s orders denying a bank account holder’s petition to confirm an arbitration award and an order granting a bank’s petition to vacate the award, and remanded with instructions to enter an order confirming the award.

Illinois App. Court (5th Dist) Rejects Borrower’s Challenges to Creditor’s Evidence at Trial

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, recently affirmed a trial court’s judgment against a borrower on a credit card debt because it ruled that there were no errors in the admission of evidence, there was no evidence of judicial bias, and the judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Holds Claims Against Bank and Bank Officer for Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty Were Time Barred

The Illinois Court of Appeals, First District, recently affirmed a trial court's ruling dismissing claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and tortious interference as untimely and further affirmed the dismissal of claims for respondeat superior liability, prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees on the basis that the substantive claims were untimely.