Friday, December 21, 2018

Supreme Court of Texas, Compass Bank v. Calleja-Ahedo, Docket No. 17-0065


Internet Law
Identity Theft
Data
Bank Account
Statement of Account
Texas Law and UCC


An identity thief drained F. C.-A.’s bank account through a series of fraudulent transactions in 2012 and 2013. C. sued his bank to recover the stolen funds. The question now is whether C. or his bank must suffer the financial consequences of the theft.

Section 4.406 of the Business and Commerce Code contains the Texas legislature’s answer to that question. If a bank sends or makes available a statement of account . . . the customer must exercise reasonable promptness in examining the statement. . . to determine whether any payment was not authorized and must promptly notify the bank of the relevant facts regarding the unauthorized payment. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 4.406(c). Section 4.406 limits the liability of the bank when the customer fails to comply with these duties. Id. § 4.406(d).

(…) Section 4.406 precludes C.’ s attempt to hold his bank liable for the losses.

The deposit agreements between C. and his bank do not alter this outcome. (…) (Parties may, by agreement, alter the requirements of section 4.406).

Although the Bank sent statements to the imposter’s address, it made the statements available to C. by other means, triggering his statutory duties to promptly examine the statements and report the fraud. The only remaining question is whether the deposit agreements modify the statute to require a result different from that dictated by applying the text of section 4.406. (…) We conclude that they do not.

C. never signed up for online banking. After June 2012, C. did not receive statements at his brother’s address. He did not notify the Bank of any concerns until eighteen months later, in late January 2014.

(See also Kaplan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 2358240, at *7 (N.D. Ill. May 12, 2015) (holding that statements were made available to customer under UCC § 4-406 because they were available online and customer could obtain statements by requesting them in person or by phone, and rejecting customer’s argument that the statements were not made available because she never received them)).

(…) Recovery of these remaining amounts is nevertheless barred by subsection 4.406(d)(2), which provides that, after an initial unauthorized withdrawal, subsequent withdrawals by the same wrongdoer cannot be recovered from the Bank if the customer had been afforded a reasonable period of time, not exceeding 30 days, in which to examine the item or statement of account and notify the bank. The UCCs official comment accurately explains the effect of this provision.


(Supreme Court of Texas, Compass Bank v. Calleja-Ahedo, Dec. 21, 2018, Docket No. 17-0065)


Affaire rendue en application du droit de l’état du Texas, lequel reprend le contenu de l’UCC, de sorte que l’on peut s’attendre à des décisions identiques dans les autres états qui considèrent également l’UCC dans ce domaine.
Manifestation de volonté par Internet : selon le droit texan et l’UCC, un relevé de compte bancaire périodique mis à disposition du client doit être contesté dans un certain délai. A défaut, le client est déchu de son droit une fois le délai écoulé.
De la sorte, et c’est en cela que la présente affaire est d’intérêt, un relevé de compte bancaire, mis à disposition du client par le système gratuit e-Banking, sans égard au fait de savoir si le client a installé ce service, et sans savoir si le client dispose d’Internet, est réputé valablement communiqué au client. Ainsi, après le délai prévu pour contester le relevé, le client qui n’a ni consulté Internet ni contesté le relevé est déchu de son droit de contestation.
Cette réglementation légale peut être modifiée conventionnellement.
En l’espèce, le client avait demandé à la banque d’adresser ses relevés à un membre de sa famille. Puis un imposteur est parvenu à obtenir en sa faveur des versements, en plusieurs fois, portant sur la totalité du compte. Dès le premier versement, les relevés bancaires ont été adressés à l’imposteur et non plus au membre de la famille du client. Ni ce proche ni le client ne se sont préoccupés de cette situation, le client ne remarquant que bien plus tard que son compte bancaire était vide. En application de ce qui précède, il ne peut rendre la banque responsable de cette situation et doit supporter intégralement sa perte.



No comments:

Post a Comment