AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff, an account holder at Century Bank, filed a class action petition against the Bank, challenging the assessment of overdraft and return item fees on her deposit account for debit card and certain electronic payments. The dispute centered on the Bank's practices under four agreements between the Bank and the Plaintiff, including account agreements from 2016 and 2019, and Bounce Protection Disclosures from 2014 and 2019.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Bank's actions breached the agreements and violated the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (UPA) by improperly charging overdraft fees on transactions authorized on a positive balance but settled on a negative balance (the Authorized Positive/Settle Negative theory) and by assessing multiple fees on a single item that was returned for insufficient funds and later reprocessed (the Multiple Fee theory).
• Defendant: Contended that the agreements unambiguously allowed the Bank to charge the fees in question and that the Plaintiff's claims were precluded due to failure to report errors within the time specified in the agreements. Additionally, the Bank argued there were no misrepresentations or causal connections to support a violation of the UPA.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Bank's charging of overdraft and return item fees breached the agreements between the Bank and the Plaintiff.
• Whether the Plaintiff's claims were precluded by her failure to report errors within the specified time in the agreements.
• Whether the Bank's actions constituted a violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's amended complaint. Specifically, the Court found that the Plaintiff did not state a claim for breach of contract under the Authorized Positive/Settle Negative theory but did state a claim under the Multiple Fee theory. The Court also found that the Plaintiff adequately pleaded compliance with the reporting provision and adequately pleaded a claim under the UPA related to the Multiple Fee theory.

Reasons

• WRAY, Judge (HANISEE and YOHALEM, JJ., concurring): The Court concluded that the agreements unambiguously permitted the Bank to assess fees at the time of settlement rather than authorization, thus dismissing the APSN theory. However, the Court found the term "item" in the 2016 Account Agreement to be ambiguous regarding the Multiple Fee theory, allowing for the possibility that the Bank could not charge multiple fees for the same item when reprocessed after being returned for insufficient funds. The Court also determined that the Plaintiff's claims were not precluded by the reporting provision in the agreements, as the Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that the fees charged were not errors but intentional actions by the Bank. Finally, the Court found that the Plaintiff had adequately pleaded a claim under the UPA related to the Multiple Fee theory, as the allegations supported a knowing misrepresentation by the Bank regarding how fees would be charged (paras 2-19).