Jessica Pownall vs. PNC Bank

Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant, PNC Bank's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint

more+
less-

Plaintiff, Jessica Pownall, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated (“Pownall”)filed a class action against Defendant, PNC Bank, a National Association, as successor in interest to National City Bank (“PNC”), based on PNC’s improper assessment of finance charges against Pownall and Class Members, despite timely payment, in violation of the Cardholder Agreement,

TILA and the Federal Reserve Board’s Regulations implementing TILA.

In sum, Pownall alleges that she paid, and PNC received, the full amount of her credit card balance on the due date as indicated on her Periodic Statement. Despite her timely payment

and in contrast to the terms of the Cardholder Agreement (“Agreement”) and Periodic Statement (“Statement”)1 (respectively, Exhibits A and B to the First Amended Complaint2), PNC imposed finance charges against Pownall’s account, thus breaching the contract. PNC, however, points to

language submerged within a paragraph relating to a different subject entitled “Crediting of Payments (Payments mailed through the United States Postal Service),” which states that when a

cardholder pays their balance in full at a branch bank, like Pownall did, “crediting” of those payments may be delayed up to five (5) days. The use of the word “crediting” in this provision is crucial, as pursuant to other provisions of the Agreement and Statement, finance charges would be avoided if the full balance was “paid” or “received” on or before the due date.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Business Organization Updates, Civil Rights Updates, Consumer Protection Updates, Finance & Banking Updates, Professional Practice Updates

Reference Info:Legal Memoranda: Motion Addressed to Pleadings | State, 6th Circuit, Ohio | United States