The customer of the bank filed suit against the bank for disregarding his Power of Attorney (POA). The customer executed the POA, which appointed an agent and granted him power over his bank-related business “in the event of mental or physical disability of the Principal.” The customer alleged that the agent presented the POA to a teller at a bank branch. However, the teller did not allow the agent to withdraw from the customer’s account unless he had a certified statement from the Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital “describing and certifying” the customer’s medical condition. The customer then went to the VA Hospital and acquired a statement from a nurse who cared for the customer. The statement stated that the customer was unable to perform certain activities and had experienced memory loss; however, the letter did not include her position with the VA. The agent brought this statement back to the bank, but again, it declined the requests to allow him to access the customer’s account because there was no physician’s statement, office letterhead, or prescription pad. The customer subsequently filed suit against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for the bank’s failure to accept his appointed POA. Several months later, the customer provided the bank with a statement from his attorney as an attempted “certification as to the validity of the POA,” which stated that the customer was “physically and mentally disabled.” Additionally, the letter requested that the bank allow the agent to conduct the customer’s financial affairs. The agent then showed this letter to the bank when attempting to withdraw from the customer’s account, and the bank again denied the request. After the bank denied his agent access to his accounts, the customer filed suit and alleged ten causes of caution based on various discriminatory violations. He alleged violations of the (1) D.C. Uniform Power of Attorney Act, (2) violations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on his veteran status, race, sex, age, and reprisal, (3) violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), (4) violations of the DC Human Rights Act, (5) retaliation, and (6) breach of contract. The bank filed a motion to dismiss the customer’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
In Delk v. PNC Bank N.A., No. 23-1365 (ABJ), 2024 WL 4280827, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2772803 (D.D.C. Sep. 9, 2024), the court granted the bank’s motion to dismiss on all claims. The court looked first at the POA under the D.C. Code sect. 21-2601.09(a), 21-2601.02(5)(a)-(b), stating a POA that is effective in the event of the principal’s incapacity is only effective if attested to by either a physician or an attorney, judge, or appropriate government official. Here, the customer failed to present evidence of either a physician or appropriate legal entity verifying his incapacity. Thus, the court held that the bank acted within the capacity of the law and correctly identified the customer’s failure to make his own POA effective. Therefore, the claim that there had been a violation of the D.C. Code was dismissed. Second, the court examined the alleged Title II violations of the Civil Rights Act. The court first affirmed the bank’s argument that discrimination based on veteran status, sex, age, and reprisal are not covered under the plain text of Title II and promptly dismissed the claims. The remaining claim, then, was racial discrimination under Title II. The court again noted that the bank’s position on requiring appropriate medical affirmation of the POA was appropriate and legal. Next, it explained that the customer failed to allege any facts that indicated that the bank denied his requests based on race. Further, the court stated that the customer could not point to any facts about how the bank treated people of other races differently. The court held that the customer failed to allege racial prejudice. Therefore, the claim could not survive the bank’s 12(b)(6) motion, and the claims were dismissed. Third, the court turned to the alleged violation of the ADA. The court, for purposes of evaluating the bank’s 12(b)(6) motion, assumed that the customer was disabled and that the bank was a place of public accommodation but found no evidence that the bank discriminated against the customer so as not to allow him full and equal opportunity to enjoy their services. With the absence of allegations of fact for this claim, the court dismissed the ADA violation claim. Next, the court turned to the alleged D.C. Human Rights Act and retaliation claims. It cited the aforementioned factual finding that the bank acted within the scope of the law in denying the customer’s request and reiterated the ineffectiveness of the customer’s POA; thus, there had been no violation, and the claims were dismissed. Lastly, the court addressed the customer’s breach of contract claim. The court held that no material breach of the contract had occurred because the customer could not point to a provision that stated the bank had to recognize a POA despite statutorily necessary verification. Accordingly, the court dismissed the breach of contract claim. Overall, the court repeatedly emphasized that if the POA were ineffective, the bank acted within the bounds as statutorily required of it, and the court noted that the bank had acted according to its duty to “be vigilant” in protecting their customer’s money. With all claims dismissed, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.
By Gavvy Lott: [email protected]
Edited By Callighan Ard: [email protected]
Edited By Ashley Boyce: [email protected]
Edited By Hayden Mariott: [email protected]