Fort Financial Credit Union: Consumers beware!

Patrick Feher is a 23-year-old Fort Wayne transplant from Toledo, Ohio. He has lived in Fort Wayne for several years, working for one of the area's premier small business success stories. He and his wife made the move to accomodate a shorter drive to work, and have purchased a home on the North East side of town. Patrick and his wife are both employed full-time, and are expecting their first child.

Monday morning, Patrick received a phone call from his bank, Fort Financial Credit Union. The caller asked him if a series of withdrawals made in the Dominican Republic over the weekend were authorized transactions. He clearly indicated that they were not authorized, and then proceeded to cancel both of their debit cards that were attached to the account....but not before the crooks made off with about $600 of Patrick's money.

The following is the federal law that spells out consumer liability in this situation:

Commerce and Trade - 15 USC § 1693g

Sec. 1693g. Consumer liability(a) Unauthorized electronic fund transfers; limit A consumer shall be liable for any unauthorized electronic fund transfer involving the account of such consumer only if the card or other means of access utilized for such transfer was an accepted card or other meanas (!1) of access and if the issuer of such card, code, or other means of access has provided a means whereby the user of such card, code, or other means of access can be identified as the person authorized to use it, such as by signature, photograph, or fingerprint or by electronic or mechanical confirmation. In no event, however, shall a consumer's liability for an unauthorized transfer exceed the lesser of - (1) $50; or
(2) the amount of money or value of property or services obtained in such unauthorized electronic fund transfer prior to the time the financial institution is notified of, or otherwise becomes aware of, circumstances which lead to the reasonable belief that an unauthorized electronic fund transfer involving the consumer's account has been or may be effected. Notice under this paragraph is sufficient when such steps have been taken as may be reasonably required in the ordinary course of business to provide the financial institution with the pertinent information, whether or not any particular officer, employee, or agent of the financial institution does in fact receive such information.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, reimbursement need not be made to the consumer for losses the financial institution establishes would not have occurred but for the failure of the consumer to report within sixty days of transmittal of the statement (or in extenuating circumstances such as extended travel or hospitalization, within a reasonable time under the circumstances) any unauthorized electronic fund transfer or account error which appears on the periodic statement provided to the consumer under section 1693d of this title. In addition, reimbursement need not be made to the consumer for losses which the financial institution establishes would not have occurred but for the failure of the consumer to report any loss or theft of a card or other means of access within two business days after the consumer learns of the loss or theft (or in extenuating circumstances such as extended travel or hospitalization, within a longer period which is reasonable under the circumstances), but the consumer's liability under this subsection in any such case may not exceed a total of $500, or the amount of unauthorized electronic fund transfers which occur following the close of two business days (or such longer period) after the consumer learns of the loss or theft but prior to notice to the financial institution under this subsection, whichever is less.
(b) Burden of proof In any action which involves a consumer's liability for an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the burden of proof is upon the financial institution to show that the electronic fund transfer was authorized or, if the electronic fund transfer was unauthorized, then the burden of proof is upon the financial institution to establish that the conditions of liability set forth in subsection (a) of this section have been met, and, if the transfer was initiated after the effective date of section 1693c of this title, that the disclosures required to be made to the consumer under section 1693c(a)(1) and (2) of this title were in fact made in accordance with such section.
(c) Determination of limitation on liability In the event of a transaction which involves both an unauthorized electronic fund transfer and an extension of credit as defined in section 1602(e) of this title pursuant to an agreement between the consumer and the financial institution to extend such credit to the consumer in the event the consumer's account is overdrawn, the limitation on the consumer's liability for such transaction shall be determined solely in accordance with this section.
(d) Restriction on liability Nothing in this section imposes liability upon a consumer for an unauthorized electronic fund transfer in excess of his liability for such a transfer under other applicable law or under any agreement with the consumer's financial institution.
(e) Scope of liability Except as provided in this section, a consumer incurs no liability from an unauthorized electronic fund transfer.

Now, having read (or not) that fine statute, one can clearly deduce that Patrick is in no way, shape or form liable for those charges, and that Fort Financial Credit Union is saddled with the burden of proof, if they choose to claim his liability in the transaction.

However, after 3 days of non-stop phone calls, messages, emails and inquiries of all kinds, Fort Financial has disclaimed any and all liability in this instance and refuse to let Patrick even discuss this problem with anyone at the managment level of their operation. He has been told that "there is nothing they can do," and that it must be his fault...that he must have given his PIN to someone. Furthermore, Patrick has exercised amazing levels of restraint, at times choking down his rage to keep from getting stonewalled further.

The Better Business Bureau has indicated that Fort Financial has had recent complaints filed against them.

The NCUA has indicated that Fort Financial is indeed in "the wrong" and that if Mr. Feher was so inclined, they would proceed with sanctions.

The above-referenced Federal law clearly indicates that Patrick's money should be returned to him.

So why, may I ask, is Fort Financial continuing to act in such a hostile fashion? Surely a financial institution is prepared for small liabilities such as this one, especially considering the law. And yet, they continue to implicate Patrick and his wife in this fraud.

I know my bank has told me that if such a thing happens to me, my account will be reimbursed within 24 hours. A few quick phone calls around Fort Wayne produced 5 more banks that were very up-front about the exact same policy. As a matter of fact, out of the seven financial institutions I contacted yesterday regarding this matter, all of them have policies that comply explicitly with the above-referenced law.

Why is Fort Financial Credit Union posturing themselves to break the law? Why are they treating their customers like criminals? Quick advice: If you are a Fort Financial customer, get your money out now.