Suntrust Bank v. Jeff Bickerstaff, Jr.
332 Ga. App. 121
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Bickerstaff opened a SunTrust personal checking account in 2009 subject to SunTrust’s "Rules and Regulations for Deposit Accounts," which included a mandatory arbitration clause.
- After a 2010 federal decision finding SunTrust’s arbitration clause unconscionable, SunTrust amended its rules in June 2010 to add a written opt-out procedure (deadline October 1, 2010) and later disclosed the change in an August 2010 account-statement notice and by posting the revised agreement in branches and online.
- Bickerstaff filed suit alleging usurious overdraft fees on July 12, 2010 and amended his complaint on August 9, 2010 — both before he received notice of the opt-out window and before the October 1 deadline.
- SunTrust moved to compel arbitration after the opt-out deadline; the trial court denied the motion, finding Bickerstaff had substantially complied with the opt-out requirement by filing suit and communicating the required information to SunTrust.
- Bickerstaff later moved to certify a class of Georgia SunTrust customers charged similar overdraft fees; the trial court denied certification on numerosity grounds, concluding Bickerstaff could not opt out on behalf of other account holders because the Deposit Agreement limited enforcement and rejection to each individual account holder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing suit before receiving notice satisfied SunTrust’s written opt-out requirement so as to avoid arbitration | Bickerstaff: filing suit substantially complied because required information was communicated to SunTrust and showed intent to litigate | SunTrust: strict contract compliance required; suit does not satisfy the written, mailed opt-out procedure | Court held substantial compliance was sufficient — SunTrust had actual notice of required info and Bickerstaff’s intent, so arbitration was not compelled |
| Whether trial court should have considered SunTrust’s business records to show no timely opt-out | Bickerstaff: (implicit) trial court properly relied on record showing SunTrust had the information | SunTrust: bank records would show Bickerstaff failed to timely/properly opt out | Court deemed this argument abandoned for lack of preservation and citation; did not reach merits |
| Whether a named plaintiff can opt out of arbitration on behalf of putative class members pre-certification | Bickerstaff: his pre-suit act (filing suit) opted him out and satisfied class prerequisites including numerosity for the class | SunTrust: each account holder must individually opt out under the contract; plaintiff cannot bind or alter others’ contracts | Court held plaintiff cannot opt out on behalf of others; contract language limits rights to each depositor, so numerosity not met and class certification properly denied |
| Whether the court should address enforceability of arbitration for other SunTrust customers independent of Bickerstaff’s claims | Bickerstaff: argued arbitration unenforceable against other customers (lack of assent/waiver) | SunTrust: enforcement appropriate unless individual customers opt out | Court declined to decide claims of nonparties as moot in light of denial of class certification and Standard Fire precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 734 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (district court decision finding SunTrust’s arbitration clause unconscionable)
- In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., [citation="459 F. App'x 855"] (11th Cir. 2012) (appellate decision addressing arbitration-clause conscionability)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (U.S. 2011) (federal policy favoring arbitration and limits on defenses that uniquely target arbitration)
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (U.S. 2013) (named plaintiff cannot bind putative class members before certification)
- Dasher v. RBC Bank (USA), 745 F.3d 1111 (11th Cir. 2014) (federal policy favoring arbitration considered in applying state law)
- Terry v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 269 Ga. 777 (Ga. 1998) (contract interpretation: plain language controls when unambiguous)