The depositor was a customer of the bank with two open accounts, a personal account and an account belonging to her deceased husband’s estate. Notably, the executor of the estate conveyed the estate’s right to sue to the depositor. The depositor received a phone call from a scammer purporting to work for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), who told her that her accounts were compromised, and he had been assigned to her case. The scammer convinced the depositor to make several wire transfers to another bank account after converting the funds into cryptocurrency. The depositor went to her bank and attempted to transfer the funds to the requested account. The bank complied with the depositor’s request and sent the wire transfer. The depositor then made a series of wire transfers to a cryptocurrency exchange. In addition, the scammer transferred funds from the estate account to her personal account. In total, the scammer had fraudulently transferred nearly $2 million of the depositor’s funds. Subsequently, the depositor contacted the FTC about the scammer, and she learned that she had been defrauded. The depositor submitted a fraud report to the bank detailing the fraudulent transfers. The bank recovered a portion of the transferred funds and credited her account. The depositor sued the bank for “violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count I); violations of Florida's UCC Article 4A (Count II); negligence per se (Count III); breach of contract (Counts IV and V); breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count VI); negligent undertaking (Count VII); negligent hiring (Count VIII); negligent supervision and retention (Count IX); and promissory estoppel (Count X).” The bank moved to dismiss the lawsuit under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
In Bucklin v. Bank. Of Am., N.A., Case No.: 2:24-cv-278-JLB-NPM, 2025 WL 1504043, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 43707 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2025) (opinion not yet released for publication), the court granted the bank’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court began by dismissing the bank’s argument that the depositor lacked legal standing to sue under Rule 12(b)(1) regarding her claims related to the bank account belonging to her deceased husband’s estate and that the conveyance of the estate’s right to sue was invalid. The court stated that the depositor had standing and that the bank did not provide any authority to prove that the conveyance was invalid. Next, the court analyzed the bank’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. First, the court dismissed Count I because the bank was federally regulated and Fla. Stat. § 501.212 was inapplicable to federally regulated banks. Second, the court dismissed the depositor’s claim that the bank violated the Florida UCC by “fail[ing] to utilize ‘commercially reasonable methods of providing security.’” However, the court found that the depositor had in fact authorized the transactions and could provide no evidence that the bank had knowledge or suspicion of fraud. Third, the court dismissed Count III because the depositor’s negligence per se claim was under the Florida Adult Protective Services Act (FAPSA), which did not confer the depositor a private right of action. Fourth, the court denied the bank’s motion to dismiss the depositor’s breach of contract claim, arising from the bank’s Online Banking Agreement. The bank argued that this agreement was not a contract and that, regardless, there was no breach of a material obligation. The depositor claimed that the bank had breached a material obligation by holding her liable for unauthorized transactions after she had notified the bank within the prescribed time in the Online Banking Agreement. The bank countered that it had sent the depositor a written explanation and that this was sufficient to preclude liability. However, the court found that the bank had provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the written explanation “absolve[d] it of liability for an unauthorized transaction.” Fifth, the court dismissed Count V because the depositor failed to provide the court with the documents that she claimed the bank had breached. Sixth, the court dismissed the depositor’s breach of good faith and fair dealing claim because “Florida law does not impose a duty on banks to investigate transactions.” Lawrence v. Bank of Am., N.A., 455 Fed. Appx. 904, 907 (11th Cir. 2012). Seventh, the court dismissed the depositor’s negligent undertaking claim. In Florida, liability arises for negligent undertaking if “(a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking.” The depositor failed to show any of these elements, and the court dismissed her claim. Next, the court dismissed both the depositor’s negligent supervision and negligent hiring claims. Regarding the negligent hiring claim, the depositor provided no evidence that the bank should have conducted an investigation before hiring the employees who authorized the transactions. The depositor’s negligent supervision claim fails because she failed to provide evidence that the “bank (1) received actual or constructive notice of the employee’s unfitness, and (2) it did not take corrective action.” Finally, the court found that the depositor’s promissory estoppel claim was “adequately pleaded.” The depositor relied on the Online Banking Agreement and timely filed her claim for reimbursement in a timely manner. Thus, the court found that the depositor had provided sufficient evidence to survive the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Ultimately, the court dismissed all the depositor’s claims for failure to state a claim, except for Count IV and Count X, dismissing Counts I and III with prejudice and Counts II, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX without prejudice, and granting leave to amend by April 1, 2025.
By Hayden Mariott [email protected]
Edited By Callighan Ard [email protected]