688 F.3d 1203
11th Cir.2012Background
- This is an EFTA case where Merisier sued Bank of America for unauthorized withdrawals from a Bank of America checking account.
- Bank investigated, determined withdrawals were part of a fraud scheme, and denied liability; district court trial denied EFTA claims.
- Merisier, initially represented by counsel but later pro se on appeal, contends the district court erred in finding the transfers were authorized.
- Evidence showed a fraud scheme involving Jeanty and others, including suspicious deposits, PIN-based withdrawals, and status of account access.
- District Court found Merisier either knowingly participated or was duped, concluding the bank complied with EFTA by treating transfers as authorized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the withdrawals authorized as a matter of fact? | Merisier argues transfers were unauthorized and the bank bore the burden to prove authorization. | Bank contends transfers were authorized as part of a fraudulent scheme, shifting the burden. | Authorized; District Court's finding supported; affirmed. |
| Did Bank of America comply with EFTA’s investigation requirements? | Merisier asserts bank failed to follow EFTA's investigation and reporting requirements. | Bank argues it conducted a good-faith investigation and complied with 1693f. | Yes; bank complied and not liable. |
| May the court consider evidence of a fraud scheme and cash-deposit structuring in evaluating authorization? | Merisier contends such evidence was irrelevant to whether the withdrawals were authorized. | Bank asserts the evidence is relevant to show authorization or participation in fraud. | Relevant; district court properly considered it. |
| Does §1693g(b) burden-shift govern the outcome given a finding of authorization? | Merisier contends the burden was on the bank to show authorization would fail. | Bank argues it satisfied §1693g(b) by proving the transfers were authorized. | District Court’s authorization finding satisfies §1693g(b); bank not liable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. Gordon, 576 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for factual findings; clear-error review)
- Newmann v. United States, 938 F.2d 1258 (11th Cir. 1991) (clear-error standard; definite and firm conviction of error)
- In re Chalik, 748 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1984) (credibility of witnesses; trial judge’s discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Vincent, 648 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir. 1981) (district court’s evidentiary rulings; relevance and materiality of evidence)