• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Interest rate dispute

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

BrianL

Junior Member
I am in California.
When another credit union acquired the assets of my credit union, it discontinued the flex-rate certificates of deposit with a statement to migrating members that “As of 10/31/08 the ‘flex-rate’ feature will be discontinued and the then current rate on the certificate will be honored until its maturity.”

Here is the mechanism that had always been used for adjusting the flex rate: “The dividend rate change will equal 50% of [the change in] the Commercial Prime Rate in effect on the last business day of the month prior to the change.” This meant that a rate change for, say, July would have been based on any change in the Commercial Prime Rate in June.

For the month of October 2008, including the last day of the month, my rate was 4.27%.

If the normal flex rate mechanism had continued, I would have had a different and lower rate for November because of a change in the Prime Rate in October. But that new rate would not have been effective until November 1, 2008.

The credit union changed the rate going forward, not giving me the rate earned on October 31, but the rate that would have been effective November 1 if the original mechanism had continued. They did not give me “the then current rate” I was earning on 10/31/08.

They interpret “then current rate” to mean the rate that they calculate on October 31 that would be applied in November if the flex-rate feature were not discontinued, but they have discontinued the flex-rate feature as of October 31.

I interpret “then current rate” to mean the rate I was earning on October 31.

If there is an ambiguity in the policy they created, they are interpreting it to their advantage, and they may have created the ambiguity with the intention of allowing them to use the existing rate if the rate would have risen or stayed the same, and to use a lower rate if (as happened) the Prime Rate fell.

Do I have a good change of winning in small claims court if I sue for the difference between what the CDs finally earned and what I would have earned if my rate had continued at 4.27%, arguing that the ambiguity in the policy ought to favor the customer? Is it likely that a small claims judge would see it that way?
 


Antigone*

Senior Member
I am in California.
When another credit union acquired the assets of my credit union, it discontinued the flex-rate certificates of deposit with a statement to migrating members that “As of 10/31/08 the ‘flex-rate’ feature will be discontinued and the then current rate on the certificate will be honored until its maturity.”

Here is the mechanism that had always been used for adjusting the flex rate: “The dividend rate change will equal 50% of [the change in] the Commercial Prime Rate in effect on the last business day of the month prior to the change.” This meant that a rate change for, say, July would have been based on any change in the Commercial Prime Rate in June.

For the month of October 2008, including the last day of the month, my rate was 4.27%.

If the normal flex rate mechanism had continued, I would have had a different and lower rate for November because of a change in the Prime Rate in October. But that new rate would not have been effective until November 1, 2008.

The credit union changed the rate going forward, not giving me the rate earned on October 31, but the rate that would have been effective November 1 if the original mechanism had continued. They did not give me “the then current rate” I was earning on 10/31/08.

They interpret “then current rate” to mean the rate that they calculate on October 31 that would be applied in November if the flex-rate feature were not discontinued, but they have discontinued the flex-rate feature as of October 31.

I interpret “then current rate” to mean the rate I was earning on October 31.

If there is an ambiguity in the policy they created, they are interpreting it to their advantage, and they may have created the ambiguity with the intention of allowing them to use the existing rate if the rate would have risen or stayed the same, and to use a lower rate if (as happened) the Prime Rate fell.

Do I have a good change of winning in small claims court if I sue for the difference between what the CDs finally earned and what I would have earned if my rate had continued at 4.27%, arguing that the ambiguity in the policy ought to favor the customer? Is it likely that a small claims judge would see it that way?
Why are you balking about the interest rate on a CD from 2008:confused:. If you didn't tick off any judge you came before, then he'd (she") bust up laughing, but I'd venture to say either way he'd (she'd) toss you out of the courtroom faster than you can say Federal Funds Rate.
 

BrianL

Junior Member
Not much advice there from Antigone. Are respondents usually this snarky? Is "balking" really the word for this? I am pursuing the matter now because the amount involved (the difference between what CDs earned and what they would have earned) is significant enough, and because the CDs did not mature until this summer. I could not sue in small claims court to have the rate changed; in small claims I can only sue for the loss, and rather than sue every month for two years, I have waited until I had a total loss figure.
Maybe I don't know judges, but what would tick them off or make them laugh? Is it unreasonable to try to get money you believe you are due?
 

Antigone*

Senior Member
Not much advice there from Antigone. Are respondents usually this snarky? Is "balking" really the word for this? I am pursuing the matter now because the amount involved (the difference between what CDs earned and what they would have earned) is significant enough, and because the CDs did not mature until this summer. I could not sue in small claims court to have the rate changed; in small claims I can only sue for the loss, and rather than sue every month for two years, I have waited until I had a total loss figure.
Maybe I don't know judges, but what would tick them off or make them laugh? Is it unreasonable to try to get money you believe you are due?
Please make sure you come back and tell us how you fared. I'd really like to know if the time and effort you'll expend will be worth it. If you want any type of resolution with this type of case, you'll need an attorney who will require a nice retainer.:rolleyes:
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top