Monroe Retail, Inc. v. RBS Citizens, N.A.

589 F.3d 274 (2009)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Monroe Retail, Inc. v. RBS Citizens, N.A.

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
589 F.3d 274 (2009)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

Under the National Bank Act, national banks could exercise their incidental powers without interference from states. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the comptroller) promulgated a regulation that provided an interpretation of incidental powers. The regulation gave national banks explicit authority to impose charges and fees on deposit accounts. Under Ohio state law, creditors were permitted to bring garnishment actions to garnish debtors’ bank accounts. The garnishment law provided that the garnishee (i.e., the bank) must receive a $1 fee. In practice, banks charged an additional $25 to $80 service fee for processing garnishments. The banks extracted their service fees before disbursing garnished funds to the garnishors. Thus, if a bank account did not have enough funds to cover both the garnishment amount and the service fee, the bank received its full fee at the expense of the garnishor. Monroe Retail, Incorporation; Jerome Phillips, Esq.; and Leo Marks, Incorporated (the debt collectors) (plaintiffs) were all judgment creditors in Ohio who had garnished debtors’ accounts at banks like RBS Citizens, N.A., and several others (the banks) (defendants). The debt collectors brought a class-action suit against the banks, alleging that the deduction of service fees before disbursing garnished funds was an illegal conversion of funds, among other claims. At some point, the comptroller issued an opinion letter at the banks request regarding service fees for garnishment. The comptroller opined that service fees for garnishment were permissible under the incidental power of national banks to impose charges and fees. Further, the comptroller opined that national banks had the authority to post fees to accounts in any order that suited their operations. The district court dismissed the debt collectors’ claim. The debt collectors appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gibbons, J.)

Dissent (Cole, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership