Ent Credit Union is facing a class action overdraft protection lawsuit, which alleges the financial institution charged unfair overdraft fees when accounts had a positive account balance.

The claim was filed by two consumers, each alleging different experiences of unfair overdraft fees that allegedly violated Ent’s overdraft protection policy.

Plaintiffs Stephanie Nelson and Ashley Brymer filed this claim on behalf of themselves and a consumer class who allegedly experienced overdraft fees they reportedly incurred from “Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative” (APPSN) Transactions.

According to the class action overdraft protection lawsuit, the claimants were spurred to file legal action after discovering consumers were allegedly experiencing wrongful overdraft fees that contradicted the credit union’s policy.

Nelson says that she incurred a $25 overdraft fee on a debit card transaction on Aug. 26, 2018, in which the transaction was settled the same day. Even though the account balance was positive prior to this date, she claims she incurred an overdraft fee and had similar experiences on Sept. 16, 2018, Oct. 03, 2018, and Jan. 19, 2019.

Brymer reportedly had similar experiences, after being hit with a $25 overdraft fees on a $6.51 debit card transaction from Sonic restaurant on March 22, 2018, and was settled the same day. However, she says the account balance had been positive prior to that date, with Brymer alleging she had similar experiences for two different debit card transactions on July 31, 2018.

The plaintiffs argue these fees violated Ent’s own account agreement. According to Ent Account Documents, alleges the class action lawsuit, the credit union can only impose a $25 overdraft fee if the consumer’s account balance is overdrawn after the transaction, or reject the transaction and charge a single $25 insufficient fund fee.

The plaintiffs opted to file legal action after discovering that other consumers experienced similar problems.

Overview of Overdraft Fee Problems

Overdraft fees are incurred when an account holder makes a transaction that overdraws the account.

Overdraft fees specifically incur when the bank or credit union advances funds to cover the transaction or has to transfer money from a secondary account into the primary account to cover the purchase. Overdraft protection was supposed to be a discrete way for consumers to avoid embarrassing situations like card decline, but, according to the Center for Responsible Lending, the practice has become an abusive tool by big banks and credit unions over the years.

It is important to note that overdraft fees cost consumers billions each year, with some consumers reporting that they were not aware of these fees. Overdraft fees typically impact lower income families, with the most common cause of these fees reportedly being debit card transactions.

According to recent statistics reported by the National Consumers League, 50 million Americans overdrew their checking accounts at least once over a 12 month period, with 27 million consumers incurring five or more overdraft fees or other insufficient fund fees.

The class action overdraft protection lawsuit also claims that Ent regularly assessed improper insufficient fund fees. In one occasion, Ent allegedly charged Nelson a $25 insufficient fund fee twice after retrying a transaction on Dec. 14, 2018 when it was initially run on Dec. 7, 2018.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for all improper overdraft fees or insufficient fund fees, alleging the overdraft protection practices use contractual discretion to exploit customers.

The Ent Class Action Lawsuit is Nelson et al. v. Ent Credit Union, Case No. 1:19-cv-00634-KMT, in the U.S. District Court of Colorado.

If you were charged unfair overdraft fees by your bank or credit union, you could be eligible to participate in a FREE class action lawsuit investigation. If you qualify, an attorney will contact you to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you.

Fill out the form on this page now for a free, immediate, and confidential case evaluation.

Learn More

This article is not legal advice. It is presented
for informational purposes only.