For many households trying to improve their finances, tossing out pitches from the bank has become almost automatic. But in recent weeks, Chase has been fanning special letters out to consumers with an offer that it urges them not to refuse.

"Your debit card may not work the same way anymore, even if you just made a deposit. Unless we hear from you," the message, emblazoned in large red type, warns. "If you don't contact us, your everyday debit card transactions that overdraw your account will not be authorized after August 15, 2010 -- even in an emergency," with "even in an emergency" underlined for emphasis.

As the government cracks down on the way banks charge fees for overspending on debit cards, the industry is mounting an aggressive campaign aimed at keeping billions of dollars in penalty income flowing into its coffers. Chase and other banks are preparing a full-court marketing blitz, which is likely to include filling mailboxes with various aggressive and persuasive letters, calling account holders directly, and sending a steady stream of e-mail to urge consumers to keep their overdraft service turned on.

Starting this summer, banks must get consumers to agree, or "opt in," to a service covering purchases on a debit card when there is not enough money in their account. The Federal Reserve has ordered the same restriction for banks that want to let people withdraw more than their balance at an automated teller machine. Many banks now automatically provide such coverage for fees of up to $35 or more.

So many people now dip their balance below zero that banks generated an estimated $20 billion from overdraft fees on debit purchases and A.T.M. transactions in 2009, according to Michael Moebs, an economist who advises banks and credit unions. All of this revenue is potentially at risk, since these are the two areas that the new Federal Reserve regulations cover. (Banks generate an extra $12 billion by covering checks and recurring bills; under the new rules, they can still cover those and charge fees without customers' consent.)

Over the last decade, these fees have become an increasingly important source of income for banks as consumers have turned to debit cards to pay for a wide variety of their purchases, whether monthly bills or a pack of gum. (Many banks also offer less controversial overdraft programs in which consumers sign up to cover shortfalls in their checking account by pulling money out of a savings account or a credit card.)

The persuasion campaigns, which are just getting under way, come at a precarious time for many banks and credit unions as they scramble to find new revenue streams amid an economic downturn and new laws and regulations that threaten profitability. For instance, new credit card laws that went into effect Monday limit banks' ability to raise interest rates on existing balances.

Given the billions at stake, consultants are urging banks and credit unions to hire them to help. "Your fee income will take a substantial 'hit' if you don't start getting consumers to 'opt-in' for POS/ATM overdrafts NOW!" Mike Sobba, president of Strunk & Associates, a financial institution advisory service, warned banks in a pitch on the company's Web site.

Some are even lobbying banks to focus their pitch on the minority of customers who are responsible for the vast majority of overdraft fees. According to a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation study in 2008, 93 percent of overdraft fees come from the 14 percent of people who exceed their balances five times or more in a year.

"Doesn't it make sense to try and protect this revenue stream and encourage these customers to opt-in?" said Eric Wittekiend, strategic adviser at Raddon Financial Group, in a report aimed at banks and credit unions. "Right now I'm favoring an aggressive opt-in strategy to protect as much revenue as possible," he said.

Another consultancy, Pinnacle Financial Strategies, advises an "Opt-in Total Solution" program for banks and credit unions trying to stem losses in overdraft fees. Pinnacle's briefing paper urges an "account holder identification process" to zero in on consumers who pay such charges repeatedly and persuade them to keep the status quo.

The banks' marketing campaigns range from subtle to alarming. In recent weeks, Chase has tested several direct-mail pitches to see whether an assertive or alluring tone will drive people into a branch to sign up for overdraft coverage. "Watch your mailbox so you can say 'Yes' to continue Chase debit card overdraft coverage," read one note, a toned-down version of an alternate letter warning consumers that their debit card might not cover unexpected emergencies, like a highway tow.

A spokesman for Chase said: "We have begun to reach out to customers and are encouraging them to sit down with a branch banker to make sure they understand overdraft services, which can be confusing. We want them to make an informed decision."

When consumers get to the bank, another pitch awaits. Mark Sorenson went into a Dallas branch of Bank of America to turn off the overdraft function on his debit card recently and got a distressing response.

Beware, his banker cautioned. If Mr. Sorenson used the card to buy gas, the station might place a hold on his account and he might not be able to fill up at all, even if he had enough money in the bank to cover a full tank.

"My impression was that it was something he'd been briefed on," said Mr. Sorenson, an architect who said he had tired of paying multiple fees when the bank automatically covered shortfalls on his debit card. "He was trying it out on me."

A Bank of America spokeswoman said that its efforts, including giving consumers a document called "Opting Out of Overdraft Coverage," were not meant to encourage customers to remain in overdraft services but to make sure they understood the complexity of the issue.

Rebecca Borné, policy counsel for the Center for Responsible Lending, said banks still had "tremendous incentive to get as many consumers to opt in as possible." That is because new Federal Reserve regulations taking effect this summer would still allow banks to charge high fees for overdraft, with no limit on the number of times they impose the penalty.

Twinned with the blitz is a lobbying campaign in Washington by community banks and credit unions against several Congressional measures that would impose tough limits on overdrafts. They argue that their overdraft fees tend to be less than the large banks, and that overdraft provides a valuable service to customers, helping them overcome short-term money woes and saving them from the embarrassment of having a card rejected.

Several members of Congress have proposed legislation that would allow banks to charge just one overdraft fee a month, and six a year, and prohibit the reordering of transactions from largest to smallest to maximize fees. But while Democratic leaders insist overdraft legislation remains a priority, the bills have languished as lobbyists have pushed for delay and Congress focused on other financial issues.

"The ultimate strategy was not delay for delay's sake," said Steve Verdier, director of congressional affairs at the Independent Community Bankers Association. "The strategy was to ask Congress for enough time to explain the complexity."

Amid a growing public outcry over these fees, several large banks announced changes to their overdraft policies last year. Bank of America said it would not charge a fee when customers exceeded their balance by $10 or less per day and would limit overdraft fees to four per day. At the end of March, Chase is eliminating overdrafts for customers whose accounts are overdrawn by $5 or less and has already limited overdrafts to three per day.

But even with those changes, customers could still incur more than $100 in fees a day if they opt to take overdraft coverage.

At least one credit union is using the new Fed rules to try to differentiate itself from its competitors. On its Web site, the UW Credit Union in Madison, Wis., says, "While we expect some financial institutions may aggressively market the idea of a consumer 'opt in' within the boundaries of this regulation, we have no such plans."

Michigan and other states began cutting costs a few years ago by offering unemployment insurance and other benefits on debit cards. Even the Social Security Administration has a Direct Express debit card.

The plastic can be easy to use at ATMs, stores and the like. And the debit cards for jobless benefits can be especially helpful for laid-off workers who do not have bank accounts.

But the cost-cutting and convenience of the cards comes with a price. Like other types of plastic, government benefit debit cards can carry plenty of ridiculous, ding-you-when-you're-down fees.

U.S. Rep. Sander Levin, a Royal Oak Democrat, has introduced a bill called the Benefit Card Fairness Act that would set limits on some fees connected to government-benefit debit cards. Some states -- thankfully, not Michigan -- require that jobless workers receive their benefits on a debit card. Levin's bill would require that beneficiaries be given a choice of receiving benefits via debit card or direct deposit.

Keeping the costs of convenience down

I've never liked any fees tied to plastic. So, it should come as no surprise that I take any opportunity I get to grumble about the long list of fees attached to the debit cards issued to people drawing unemployment benefits in Michigan.

A dollar to check your balance at an ATM? How exactly do you know if you've got $25 left to buy gas?

Sure, there's no fee for the first inquiry at a Chase/Allpoint ATM each time benefits are added to your card. (You also can avoid a fee by checking the balance amount via the Internet or by telephone.)

But why should you have to pay anything ever to see how much money is left?

I began criticizing these fees last summer as the jobless rate soared -- even though Michigan's card reportedly isn't the worst.

Now the Benefit Card Fairness Act, introduced last month by U.S. Rep. Sander Levin, a Royal Oak Democrat, would put a stop to some ridiculous fees on all government benefit debit cards -- including a ban on all fees for balance inquiries.

Levin's bill also would:

  • Prohibit inactivity fees. In Michigan, you can be hit with a fee of $1.50 a month for a debit card that hasn't been used in 365 days. The card is considered inactive when no benefit payment is deposited onto it, no money is withdrawn and no purchases are made with it. Other states can charge inactivity fees of $2 or $2.50 a month.

  • Ensure that all beneficiaries receive one free withdrawal from an in-network ATM and one free withdrawal from a bank teller per deposit to the card. The Michigan card offers two free withdrawals from Chase/Allpoint ATMs each time benefits are added to the debit card, but charges $1.50 for each ATM withdrawal after that. Additional surcharges also may apply.

  • Require customer service by telephone and error resolution to be free.

    While such fees are not assessed in Michigan, "some people do get charged for calling customer service" in other states, said Michelle Jun, staff attorney for Consumers Union in San Francisco. Other states also may restrict the number of free calls and then charge 50 cents or $1.25 a call.

    Many people drawing benefits in Michigan avoid the fees by using direct deposit if they have a bank account. A few states don't offer such an option, but they would have to under Levin's bill.

    Not surprisingly, again, people who aren't getting a regular paycheck don't like the fees that can eat into their limited benefits, either.

    "Whatever we get, we're grateful for and we don't want to spend it up in service fees," said Bradly Vaughan, 48, who was out of work about nine months last year.

    Vaughan, who lives in Ray Township and now has a job as a truck driver, said he agreed to get his jobless benefits through the Michigan debit card because he did not have a bank account.

    His solution to avoid fees: He withdrew all the jobless benefits from the card each time money was added. The Michigan card has no fee for the first withdrawal by teller each time benefits are added but additional bank teller withdrawals are $4 each.

    To get the free withdrawal at a teller, you'd need to go to a Chase bank or a participating bank or credit union that displays the Visa logo.

    "Sometimes you can't get to the bank that issued the card," Vaughan warned.

    But again, should you be required to analyze fee charts when you're out of work? Or could you use that precious time to look for a job?

    If you're out of work, all those fees easily can look like a money grab -- and one more way to kick people when they're already down.

  • When money's tight, a quick cash infusion is hard to resist. That's why tax refund anticipation loans (RALs) continue to lure consumers -- 8.4 million of them in 2008, according to the latest figures from the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC: undefined, undefined, undefined%) and the Consumer Federation of America (CFA: undefined, undefined, undefined%) -- even though they come with a hefty price of excessive fees and surcharges.

    How refund anticipation loans work
    A refund anticipation loan is a short-term cash advance against an anticipated tax refund. Here's how it works:

    • Consumers pay a loan fee, and sometimes an application or administrative fee, to their tax preparers and a participating financial institution, and those fees can range anywhere from $50 to several hundred dollars, depending on the size of the refund.
    • Banks then issue a short-term loan to the consumer within a day or two, and the tax preparer acts as the intermediary between the customer and bank.
    • When the refund is processed by the IRS, the funds are then transferred back to the bank that issued the loan.
    • If the consumer wants the cash immediately, then another fee is typically added on.

    RALs drained the refunds of 8.4 million American taxpayers in 2008, costing them $738 million in loan fees, plus over $68 million in other fees, the NCLC and CFA said in a Jan. 19, 2010 report. About 1 in 17 tax returns involved a RAL.

    Also pitched as "fast cash," "refund now" or "instant cash," RALs, which emerged in the early 1990s, are offered primarily through big national tax preparation firms, such as H&R Block and Jackson-Hewitt, though smaller, independent firms can offer them, too. In addition to the bank fee and the application fee, consumers must also pay the preparer for assembling the tax return.

    If a taxpayer chooses to file electronically for their return instead of opting for a RAL, the waiting period for the funds to be directly deposited into a bank account is typically the same amount of time -- about two weeks -- and it's free.

    "A RAL is like opting for overnight shipping for faster delivery and being willing to pay more for quicker service," says Debbie Whiteley, executive vice president of investor relations for Santa Barbara, Calif.-based Pacific Capital Bancorp, the parent for Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, which processed refund anticipation loans for Jackson Hewitt until it was ordered out of the RAL business by federal regulators in 2009. RALs enjoy better than 70 percent annual repeat business, says Whiteley.

    SBBT processed 1.83 million refund anticipation loans in 2007, earning $118 million in fees, as one of the higher-priced RAL lenders, according to Robert Hobbs, deputy director of the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center. SBBT charged about 40 percent more than some of its competitors, says Hobbs.

    RALs target the poor
    Consumer protection groups, however, have long been trying to get the word out that RALs target low-income and unbanked consumers -- particularly those who qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC: undefined, undefined, undefined%).

    "The tax refund is often the biggest chunk of money low-to-moderate income taxpayers get all year," says Chi Chi Wu, NCLC staff attorney. Adds Peter Skillern, executive director of the Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina, 63 percent to probably more than 85 percent of households receiving the EITC are targeted for refund anticipation loans. The EITC is a federal refundable income tax credit for low-income working individuals and families.CFA and NCLC estimate these families lost approximately $800 million from "quickie tax refund loans."

    "The RAL industry would collapse if EITC people weren't being marketed to," says Skillern.

    Other lures of refund anticipation loans are that they offer a way to pay for tax preparation without any out-of-pocket expenses and cater to consumers who don't have bank accounts to accommodate direct deposits. But when you consider the high -- up to 500 percent to 700 percent in some cases -- interest rates if annualized, plus fees to get your refund faster, the instant gratification comes at a high price. Consumer advocates say the high costs of a refund anticipation loans aren't transparent enough when marketed to the public.

    If paying for tax preparation is a concern, tax and consumer experts say that you can get your taxes prepared for free. "There are volunteer organizations that prepare taxes for low-to-moderate income families without charge," says Catherine Williams, vice president of financial literacy for Houston-based Money Management International. The IRS Web site offers a toll-free number, (800) 829-1040, to locate the nearest free community-based site.

    For consumers without bank accounts, it may be helpful to know that some banks will open accounts without fees. "Even with fees, you can open one for a month just to accept a direct-deposited refund, which is still cheaper than an RAL," says William Henry Jones, member and former chairman of the Taxation of Individuals Committee for the New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants.

    IRS, states take on RALs
    The free-flying era of RALs may soon be clipped, however. After several years of wrangling with the issue, in January 2009 the IRS proposed new regulations that would prevent tax preparers from disclosing tax return information to a third party (which in this case would be the financial institution issuing the loan) for the purpose of selling refund anticipation loans.

    While the proposals put forth by the IRS haven't yielded any final rulings, the agency had tax preparation firms that joined its Free File e-filing program agree to remove all ancillary offerings such as refund anticipation loans.

    And on Jan. 2, 2009, H&R Block agreed to halt marketing refund anticipation loans in the state of California as "early tax refunds." The decision settled a 2006 lawsuit with California Attorney General Jerry Brown. As a result of the settlement, the company agreed to pay $2.45 million in restitution to customers, as well as paying $500,000 in penalties and $1.9 million in fees and costs. The company admitted no wrongdoing.

    Patience pays off  in dollars
    The temptation to run to the nearest tax preparer with your W-2s, or even with just your paystubs and thus estimating refunds, proves too tempting for many. Unfortunately, mistakes do happen. That big refund may be illusory when you discover later that the form was filled out incorrectly and only $74 is coming to you or that you owe child support payments that will be withheld, but you've already spent the refund. Kevin McKeon, a spokesman for the IRS, says that these "offsets" do absolutely occur with refund anticipation loans. "It could be because of state back taxes, a student loan, or child support," says McKeon.

    If you use loan money to pay off credit card debt, you could almost see its usefulness, says MMI's Williams, but because it's seen as "gift money" it's often used for purchases such as a big screen TV to watch the Super Bowl. This simply is a lose-lose proposition, say consumer groups.

    A. From a security standpoint, signature debit payments are better than using your PIN. That's because when you authorize a transaction with your PIN, the money is immediately debited from your bank account. But a "signature" payment on a debit card with a Visa or MasterCard logo--usually required when you choose the credit option at checkout and use a debit card--is processed through a credit card network, so the actual withdrawal may take a few days. That extra time can be an advantage to you should fraud occur, "because once the money leaves your account, it's a bigger hassle trying to get it back," notes Avivah Litan, a security analyst with Gartner Inc.

    Retailers prefer PIN transactions because they pay lower fees to the bank issuing the debit card--roughly 20 cents on a $100 purchase. A signature debit payment, meanwhile, costs them about seven times more in bank fees. That may help explain why more banks now offer rewards on debit cards when they are used like credit cards for everyday purchases.

    Neither type of debit card transaction offers as much protection as credit cards. Under law, your total liability for fraudulent use of a credit card is only $50, no matter the amount of unauthorized charges. And credit card issuers often waive that amount. But unless you notify the bank within 48 hours after learning your debit card was lost or stolen, your liability for fraudulent use could be as much as $500. Fail to notify the bank within 60 days, and you may be liable for all depleted funds, as well as any resulting overdraft fees.

    Things have been tight for Trina Lee, an Arizona-based nursing assistant, since she got laid off two years ago and suffered some medical problems that have kept her from working full time.

    So, she meticulously watches her bank balance, which is often close to zero.

    Feeling temporarily flush because she has prepaid most of her bills and figured income from child support and a part-time job were coming in, she splurged on a $65 meal with her mom and brother, knowing that this could overdraft her checking account.

    Debit card transactions such as this require a signature and usually take a couple of days to clear, so Lee monitored every purchase after that, copying her daily bank account activity into a computer file each night to make sure she wasn't stepping over the line.

    The night before her son's support payment was due, she breathed a sigh of relief. At 10:45, the dinner charge still hadn't posted and wasn't listed as pending.

    After subtracting every pending payment, she had 16 cents in her checking account. She went to bed imagining that she'd dodged an overdraft because she would get $156 in the morning.

    But before crediting her account for the child support payment, Chase Bank put through the dinner charge and "reordered" every pending transaction, turning one potential overdraft into four.

    The overdraft charges of $35 each then triggered two additional overdraft charges for small debit transactions Lee did that day, before she'd realized her account had gone into the red.

    In total, Chase levied $210 in overdraft charges -- $175 more than Lee imagined possible.

    "I accept responsibility for one overdraft," said Lee, a 29-year-old mother of two. "But they created the rest of these. It's really frustrating."

    Bank spokesman Greg Hassell said Chase would not reverse these charges because "Ms. Lee intentionally overdrafted her account, knowing she had insufficient funds for all her purchases."

    The fact that Chase in effect created five of the overdrafts by changing the order of her transactions, deducting the biggest items first, is policy, Hassell said.

    That policy is common among big banks, industry experts say.

    Bankers justify the practice by saying it ensures that big, important transactions, such as mortgage payments, have less a chance of bouncing.

    Critics, however, say that argument doesn't hold water because the banks pay all the transactions regardless. In that case, changing the posting order simply magnifies the effect of a single overdraft by turning it into several, just as it did with Lee.

    Indeed, an FDIC study found that policies such as this had caused overdraft fees to quadruple in two years, ringing up some $24 billion in revenue for the banking industry in 2008.

    Industry consultant Michael Moebs estimates that overdraft charges have continued to soar and are likely to account for some $38.5 billion in revenue this year, with roughly 90 percent of those fees being paid by just 10 percent of bank customers.

    Worse, the FDIC study found that most bank customers had no inkling they could suffer an overdraft charge because they'd been automatically enrolled in an overdraft program without their consent or knowledge.

    So, millions of bank customers used debit cards for small purchases, assuming the swipe would be rejected if they didn't have sufficient funds.

    They learned later that a $2 coffee cost $37 with the $35 overdraft fee, a practice so common that many experts say using a debit card has become dangerous.

    Starting in July, banks will need permission before enrolling customers in overdraft programs, according to the Federal Reserve.

    Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., have also introduced legislation demanding that banks stop systematically "modifying posting order" and post transactions chronologically.

    The overdraft legislation, which has been stalled by health care reform and other financial regulations, also would require that fees bear some relationship to the cost of processing an overdraft and limit the number of overdraft fees a bank could charge to a single consumer in any given month or year.

    "To actively reorder checks to cause a tidal wave of overdrafts is unconscionable," said Ginna Green, a spokeswoman for the Center for Responsible Lending, which has been pushing for the legislation. "This is exactly why we still need legislation."

    In the meantime, several banks -- including Chase -- have announced they will voluntarily revamp their policies.

    Chase's new policy, spokesman Hassell said, will eliminate changing posting order -- the crux of Lee's complaint.

    It will also reduce the maximum number of overdraft fees the bank would charge in a day, reducing it to three per customer from six, and it will eliminate fees for overdrafts of $5 or less.

    Any of those changes would have helped Lee. Chase's policies have an amorphous starting date -- "in the first few months of 2010," according to Hassell. And the legislation is expected to be voted on early this year.

    Thanks to modern technology, some laid-off workers collect their unemployment on debit cards.

    However, fees associated with the cards can take a significant bite out of the benefits.

    "You need every dime when you've got to put food on the table," said Bradly Vaughan, a Ray Township resident who was out of work for nine months before landing a job.

    "... If you use (a debit) card three or four times, that could be $10."

    U.S. Rep. Sander Levin doesn't think that's right. Levin, D-Royal Oak, has introduced legislation he hopes will rein in exorbitant debit card fees charged to those who receive unemployment benefits.

    "The last thing unemployed workers need when trying to make ends meet is to be charged bank fees when they use their unemployment benefits," Levin said.

    "This legislation would prohibit banks from setting unnecessary fees attached to benefit cards and ensure workers have access to clear information about the terms of these cards."

    Rules regarding the dispersal of unemployment benefits vary by state. In Michigan, recipients can have their benefits deposited directly into bank accounts, or they can use debit cards. In some other states, debit cards are the only option.

    The banks that issue the cards are permitted to charge fees for their use. Those fees are dictated by the contracts the banks sign with the states.

    In some cases, Levin maintained, the fees can become unwieldy. In Illinois, for example, unemployment recipients are charged 95 cents for each ATM withdrawal they make using the card. In Colorado, a teller transaction will cost $5, and in Michigan, a simple balance inquiry will cost $1 after one free transaction per deposit period.

    Levin's legislation, called The Benefit Card Fairness Act, "essentially would make uniform the requirements and (recipients) would not be charged the fees they are now."

    The act would:

    Require beneficiaries have the option of receiving benefits through direct deposit;

    Ensure that all recipients receive one free ATM withdrawal and one free bank teller withdrawal per deposit;

    Prohibit fees for balance inquiries or card inactivity;

    Require free telephone customer service and error resolution.

    The legislation would apply only to unemployment recipients.

    "People are being hurt by this," said Richard McHugh, an attorney with the National Employment Law Project, an agency that deals with unemployed workers.

    "It might be a small hurt, but it's death by a thousand cuts."

    Michael Grzech, unemployed since last July, would like to see Levin's proposals become law.

    "You're at the mercy of the bank or the ATM machines," Grzech said.

    SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- It will soon be more difficult for banks to charge overdraft fees.  That's the charge for your bank to cover any overdraft transactions.  It sounds like good news, but could end up costing you.  To recoup losses, most banks will impose more rules on free checking accounts.

    When you swipe your debit card, even if you don't have enough money in your account, chances are good that you can still make your purchase but you have to pay for it.  For a fee, your bank will cover you if you overdraw your account. 

    Following complaints that banks have been abusing this feature by charging excessive overdraft fees, the federal government is cracking down.  Beginning July 1, they will not be allowed to charge an overdraft fee that occurs because of an ATM transaction or a one-time debit card transaction unless the customer opts in to the overdraft program. 

    It's a change that's likely to cost banks billions in fees and cost you your free checking account.  According to bankrate.com, to recoup their losses, banks will likely impose more rules on free checking accounts.  You might be required to keep a minimum monthly balance, take statements electronically, or use your debit card a certain number of times per month.

    For customers like Deloris Merritt, it would be enough to make her consider leaving the bank she's been with for 20 years.  "It would be hard to go to different bank, but I'm gonna do what I need to save money," she said.

    For many customers, even a small monthly fee is too much. 

     

    Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Toronto-Dominion Bank's U.S. retail unit was accused of gouging debit card holders by charging "abusive" loan fees on overdrawn accounts, according to a lawsuit by a New Jersey customer.

    TD Bank NA processes debit card transactions that exceed available balances on accounts and provides "courtesy" overdraft loans without notifying customers that they are overdrawn, according to the complaint filed yesterday in federal court in Camden, New Jersey.

    "TD Bank is turning these overdraft 'loan fees' into an enormous profit center by manipulating the debit-clearing process so that its customers get caught paying substantially more fees than necessary," according to the complaint, which seeks to proceed as a group, or class-action, lawsuit.

    Toronto-Dominion Bank is Canada's second-largest bank. It spent more than $15 billion to expand in the U.S., including the acquisitions of Portland, Maine-based TD Banknorth and Cherry Hill, New Jersey-based Commerce Bancorp Inc.

    "We believe our methods of handling our customers' transactions are both fair and legal," Rebecca Acevedo, a spokeswoman for the Toronto-based bank, said in an e-mailed statement. "Since the suit was just filed, it would be premature to discuss it at this time."

    Customer Donald Kimenker claims in his complaint that TD Bank "deceptively reorders" an account's debit card transactions in its computers to maximize overdraft fees. Such fees are processed from highest dollar amount to lowest, rather than in chronological order of purchases, according to the complaint.

    Overdraft Fees

    "Charging the largest debits against available funds ahead of smaller debits results in more overdraft fees, as available funds decrease faster than they would otherwise, thereby generating hundreds of millions of dollars in additional overdraft fees for TD Bank," according to the complaint.

    Kimenker claims that a customer with $1,150 in an account who makes six debit transactions totaling $180 and then writes a $1,100 rent check would have overdrawn her account by $130. Rather than charging a single $35 overdraft fee on the rent check, TD Bank processes the rent check and then charges five separate $35 fees for a total of $175, according to the complaint.

    The bank "will make every effort to ensure a customer can complete his or her transaction," Acevedo said in her e-mailed statement. "TD Bank will accommodate the overdraft so our customers avoid the embarrassment and hassle of having their transaction publicly refused."

    Deduction Order

    She said that deposits are applied first to accounts, and then debits are deducted "in order from largest to smallest amount," to ensure that "larger (and usually more important) items like a mortgage are paid first."

    The bank also gives customers the option of opting out of the overdraft program, she said.

    The complaint alleges that TD Bank engaged in fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and that it violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. It seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

    While converting some of its U.S. branches at the end of September onto a single platform, some clients were delayed in processing transactions because of a technical issue. The bank told investors in December that the problems had ended.

    The case is Donald Kimenker v. TD Bank NA, 10-cv-136, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Camden).

    INDIANAPOLIS | State Sen. Lonnie Randolph, D-East Chicago, wants a paycheck.

    State lawmakers, like other state workers, are required to receive their pay via direct deposit or through electronic transfer onto a debit card.

    That doesn't make any sense, Randolph said.

    "We're right here. We're here every day. Why can't they just give it to us," Randolph asked.

    Unlike other state employees, however, Randolph is in a position to do something about it.

    He's filed Senate Bill 123, legislation that would allow state lawmakers to request receipt of their pay by warrant, state government's term for a check.

    His proposal has been referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, which has yet to hold a hearing on the legislation.

    Randolph left the state Senate in 1998 to serve as judge of the East Chicago City Court. He returned to his old seat in 2008. -- By Dan Carden, The Times

    Banks are cutting overdraft fees, but there are other hidden charges.

    In the wake of the uproar over bank fees charged to debit card holders--and the looming threat of congressional action--banking giants Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase announced Tuesday drastic changes to their overdraft policies.

    What banking customers might be missing is that debit card overdraft fees are the tip of the iceberg. Banks nickel and dime their customers in numerous other ways that can easily cost the average person $100 or more per year. Adding insult, many of the fees are poorly disclosed and levied regardless of any action the customer does--or doesn't--take. del.icio.us

    Digg It!

    yahoo

    Facebook

    Twitter

    Reddit

    rss



    "There is a long list of fees that people pay that doesn't require any type of acknowledgment on the part of the consumer," said Greg McBride, a senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com. Here are five major areas of hidden bank revenues.

    Balance transfer fees. Banks commonly mail out ads pitching low interest rates for customers willing to transfer credit card balances from another institution. What many don't advertise is that there is often a balance transfer fee of between 3% and 5% hidden in the fine print.

    "If you're transferring a balance from a card with a rate of 15% to a card with a rate or 13%, but you're paying a 3% admission fee, you're not saving any money," McBride said. Moving a balance of $5,000 from one credit card to another with a slightly lower interest rate could result in a $150 charge being added to the balance that you owe and pay interest on.

    If you're thinking about switching to a card with a lower interest rate, ask the bank what type of transfer fees it charges. These fees are separate from the annual interest rate that you pay.

    Cash Advances. Consumers who take cash advances from their credit cards will also be hit with a transaction fee that they might not have been expecting. As with balance transfers, cash advances often come with a fee that ranges between 3% and 5%. That's not all.

    "If cash advances weren't costly enough with interest rates in the high teens, there's no grace period, and the interest clock starts ticking right away," McBride said.

    Foreign Currency Surcharges. Using a debit or credit card while traveling overseas is wonderfully convenient. Perhaps too convenient. Over the past few years, banks have commonly started charging a 3% fee for any purchases made in foreign currencies. That means if you go to Paris on vacation and buy presents in euros, the charges will show up on your statement in dollars--with the 3% fees built in.

    If you plan to use a debit or credit card abroad, consider opening an account with Capital One ( COF - news - people ) or Charles Schwab ( SCHW - news - people ), whose foreign currency exchange fees run as low as 1%. If you are going to be taking money out of an ATM in another country (another place where banks ring up additional charges), Wells Fargo ( WFC - news - people ) and PNC ( PNC - news - people ) offer some of the lowest fees.

    Balance Requirements. Many banks offer to waive monthly service fees on checking or savings accounts if customers maintain a collective balance above a set minimum. Dip below it, and you could be hit with a charge of $8 or more every time your balance falls below the minimum.

    "These requirements are really a lose-lose proposition," McBride says. "If you don't maintain the balance, you get socked with a fee. If you do maintain it, you have the opportunity costs of stranding money in a low-yielding account when you could be earning a more competitive return in an online savings account."

    ATM Fees. Bank of America ( BAC - news - people ) and other banks now charge customers from other banks $3 to withdraw money from its ATMs. But at least you have to agree to pay the fee at the terminal. What some customers may not realize that is that their own bank often levies a $2 fee every time they use a competitor's ATM as well. Adding up all the bank fees, it may cost $5 to take out $20 of your own money. That's a 25% commission, and the bank didn't have to do a thing.