The Latest news from the Victims of Chevy Chase Bank  Society

Finally some justice! Now we have to go after the rest of the banks that are raping the consumer and demand that Congress provide CONSUMER PROTECTION and implement USURY LAWS:

http://www.tlpj.org/News_PDF/baltsun_072706.pdf Chevy Chase finally has to pay and settles on $16.1 Million class action lawsuit!

From the Washington Post comes this GREAT news as the truth goes marching on! Follow this link and/or read below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43907-2001Mar8.html

Customers Can Sue Bank Over Rate Hike
Chevy Chase Rebuffed On Arbitration Rule

By Caroline E. Mayer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 9, 2001; Page E01

Maryland's highest court ruled unanimously yesterday that a group of credit card customers could sue Chevy Chase Bank over its 1996 decision to increase its interest rates above 24 percent after it promised it wouldn't.

The decision by the Court of Appeals of Maryland centered on an arbitration issue. It said consumers did not waive their right to a trial when the bank sent out a "change of terms" notice to cardholders saying all disputes would be resolved through arbitration instead of the courts.

The consumers allege that the bank breached its promise that interest rates "will never exceed 24 percent" -- the maximum rate permissible under Maryland law. In January 1996, the bank relocated its home office to Virginia, where there are no state limits on interest rates. It soon began raising its rates, charging some consumers 27 percent or 28 percent, even on balances accrued before the company moved to McLean, the suit said.

The bank tried to block the suit, citing the arbitration clause, and a local judge in Baltimore agreed. But the high court struck down the provision because the arbitration clause said the process would be started "at the request and expense of the claiming party" -- something the cardholders didn't seek.

The case will now go back to a lower court, which will hear the breach of contract dispute on the credit card interest rate.

The high court's narrowly crafted opinion affects only Maryland consumers and companies. But lawyers on both sides of the issue said yesterday that they expect it to be cited in dozens of other cases around the country. Consumer advocates are challenging the mandatory arbitration provisions now being written into many consumer contracts by banks, auto dealers and retailers.

Businesses argue that arbitration provisions limiting a consumer's ability to file suit help resolve disagreements faster and less expensively than the courts. Consumer advocates say arbitration can cost consumers thousands of dollars and limit the gathering of evidence that could give consumers a better chance of winning a case. Court opinions have varied widely on these provisions.

Lawyers predict that consumer advocates will cite the Maryland ruling because the court said federal arbitration law does not preempt Maryland law. Under federal law, consumers usually cannot appeal a court arbitration order until a final decision is issued in the case. But the Maryland court ruled that consumers can immediately appeal a Maryland court order requiring arbitration -- as was done in the Chevy Chase case -- even before the arbitration process has begun.

Paul Bland, an attorney for Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, which filed the case on behalf of the Chevy Chase cardholders, hailed the decision as a "real victory for cardholders who will now have their day in court instead of in an arbitration process they never agreed to." Bland estimated that several hundred thousand cardholders will be eligible to be part of a class-action suit.

Leslie A. Nicholson, executive vice president and general counsel for Chevy Chase Bank, said that while the bank "respectfully disagrees with the court's narrow reading of the arbitration clause, the bank continues to believe this matter will be concluded in the bank's favor when the case returns to the trial court. The bank complied with applicable federal and state laws in amending its cardholder agreements in early 1996 and these amendments were not even challenged by the plaintiffs until 1999."

Alan Kaplinsky, a attorney in Philadelphia who represents several financial institutions, said he was "disquieted" by the court's finding that the federal arbitration provisions do not apply to appeals of state court arbitration rulings.

But he said he thought the ruling was a "nonevent" because its key argument in striking down the arbitration provision would not apply to most such clauses.

Chevy Chase Bank had sold its credit card assets to First USA by the time the cardholder suit was filed in 1999. But it contended that the dispute had to be resolved through mandatory arbitration, as required by the agreement it sent to cardholders in early 1996.

The Circuit Court of Baltimore agreed, with Judge Joseph H. Kaplan ruling that the arbitration clause "provides a fair and cost-efficient arena to solve problems between the parties."

The case now returns to Kaplan's court.