LEAH BRITT, FOR HERSELF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANT,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Leah Britt appealed the dismissal of her class action complaint challenging Bank of America's $5.00 fee for cashing payroll checks drawn on the bank by non-account holders. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that federal law preempts Florida's statutory prohibition on settling checks at par by allowing national banks to charge convenience fees.
Federal law permits national banks to charge convenience fees when cashing checks drawn on the bank, and therefore Florida Statute section 655.85's prohibition against settling checks otherwise than at par is preempted by federal law. The trial court did not err in dismissing Britt's complaint.
[1] Federal law permits national banks to charge convenience fees when cashing checks drawn on the bank.
[2] A state statute prohibiting a national bank from charging convenience fees for cashing checks drawn on it is preempted by federal law.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Federal law allows national banks to charge convenience fees when cashing checks drawn on the bank.”
Establishes the core holding that federal regulations permit the Bank's practice of charging fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBritt, a non-account holder, was charged $5.00 by Bank of America as a condition for cashing a payroll check written by her employer, who maintained a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Preemption cases and more on FLexlaw
Leah Britt appeals the final order entered by the trial court dismissing with prejudice her complaint against appellee, Bank of America. We affirm.
Britt’s complaint alleged that the Bank’s practice of charging non-account holders $5.00 as a condition for cashing payroll checks (written by Britt’s employer, an account holder at the Bank), violates section 655.85 of the Florida Statutes (2008) (which provides that an institution may not settle any check drawn on it otherwise then at par).1 The Bank moved to dismiss Britt’s complaint with prejudice, arguing that Britt’s statutory claim was pre-empt-ed by federal law which permits national banks to charge such fees. The trial court granted the Bank’s motion and dismissed Britt’s complaint.
Britt challenges the trial court’s ruling, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that the federal law preempts her cause of action. We disagree. Federal law allows national banks to charge convenience fees when cashing checks drawn on the bank. See 12 C.F.R. § 7.4002 (2008); see also OCC, Interpretive Letter No. 932 (Aug. 17, 2001); OCC, Interpretive Letter No. 933 (Aug. 17, 2001); OCC, Interpretive Letter 934 (Aug. 20, 2001); OCC, Interpretive Letter No. 1094 (Feb. 27, 2008). Thus, even assuming arguendo that section 655.85 of the Florida Statutes prohibits the Bank from charging convenience fees, said prohibition would be preempted by federal law. See Wells Fargo Bank of Texas, N.A. v. James, 321 F.3d 488 (5th Cir.2003 Xholding that a Texas statute, which required banks to settle checks drawn on it against an account at par, was pre-empted because the state statute prohibited the exercise of a power expressly granted to national banks by federal law); Baptista v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 2342436 (M.D.Fla. June 4, 2010)(holding that section 655.85 of the Florida Statutes is pre*811empted by federal law). Accordingly, the trial court did not err by dismissing Britt’s complaint.
AFFIRMED.
LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vida Baptista v. PNC Bank, 91 So. 3d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…of-state state banks. The only reason that section 655.85 does not apply to national banks is because a different federal statute permits national banks to charge a fee and that statute preempts the state law. See Britt v. Bank of Am,., N.A., [*233] 52 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).2 REVERSED AND REMANDED. SAWAYA, J., and MAHL, J., Associate Judge, concur. TORPY, J., concurs and concurs specially with opinion. . To accept Appellee's argument, we would have to conclude that no part of section 655.85…