FOLLOW US

(USA Herald) -Wells Fargo is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit in New Mexico federal court over allegations that it refused to refund stolen funds from debit cards preloaded by the state for unemployment insurance and child support. Plaintiffs Ana Munoz and Michael Tilley filed a complaint, represented by Nicholas H. Mattison of Feferman Warren & Mattison, and Daniel A. Schlanger and Evan S. Rothfarb of Schlanger Law Group LLP. They accuse Wells Fargo NA, Conduent State & Local Solutions Inc., and Conduent Business Services LLC of violating the Electronic Fund Transfer Act by refusing to refund stolen funds.

According to the complaint, Conduent and Wells Fargo contracted with the state of New Mexico to create the EPPICard program, which provides prepaid Visa debit cards to residents. The accounts typically contain funds owed to residents by the state for unemployment insurance, child support, and foster care maintenance. However, bad actors gained access to the plaintiffs' accounts and stole thousands of dollars through fraudulent, unauthorized transactions.

Munoz claims that she had more than $5,000 in child support in her account by early 2022. However, she discovered that over $5,500 had been withdrawn from her account through unauthorized transactions, leaving her with only $34 in the account. Tilley had a similar experience, learning that roughly $13,300 had been stolen from his account. Both plaintiffs claim that Wells Fargo and Conduent refused to refund the stolen money despite their obligation under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to promptly credit the accounts.

The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo and Conduent violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which bars financial institutions from holding customers or account holders liable for the unauthorized use of their accounts. The complaint also brings claims under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act. Munoz and Tilley are seeking damages, declaratory relief, attorney fees, and a jury trial.

This lawsuit serves as a reminder of the importance of financial institutions safeguarding customers' accounts and promptly investigating claims of fraud. Policyholders expect prompt and fair payment from their insurers, and when they don't receive it, they have the right to seek legal recourse. In this case, the plaintiffs claim that Wells Fargo and Conduent failed to conduct good-faith investigations into their claims and refused to refund the stolen money.

The plaintiffs' attorneys are confident that the defendants' actions were in flagrant disregard of federal law and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. They are seeking justice for their clients and are also bringing the case on behalf of two classes. The first class includes anyone who has or previously had a New Mexico EPPICard and notified the defendants of disputed charges but were denied a refund within a year of the complaint's filing. The second class includes the same individuals but increases the time frame to four years of the commencement of the current action.

In conclusion, the case of Munoz et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al. is an example of the need for financial institutions to safeguard customers' accounts and promptly investigate claims of fraud. Customers expect prompt and fair payment from their financial institutions and deserve to be protected from fraudulent activity. The court will now determine if Wells Fargo and Conduent violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and if the plaintiffs are entitled to damages, attorney fees, and a jury trial.

By Samuel Lopez, Legal News Contributor for USA Herald