OMAHA, Neb. -- A federal court ruled this week that a non-member suing Mutual First FCU over the disclosure provisions of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act has not shown he was injured by the credit union’s failure to post its disclosures because it is not clear he paid the fee and ordered him to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska said it is not enough for the plaintiff to prove the missing disclosure violated provisions of the EFTA but the plaintiff must allege an injury in fact that was caused by the lack of an exterior fee notice, and the plaintiff, Jarek Charvat, has not illustrated he paid a fee or was injured by the absent notice outside the ATM.
“The provision for actual and statutory damages in the EFTA does not automatically mean that a litigant is entitled to damages when he has alleged no injury in fact,” wrote the court in its July 2 decision.
“Here, Charvat alleges only a statutory violation of the EFTA because First Mutual failed to provide an exterior fee notice on its ATM,” wrote the court. “Charvat has not alleged an injury in fact caused by Mutual First's violation of the notice requirements, and he lacks standing to bring this action. So the court order Charvak show cause why it should not dismiss his suit.
