Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, No. B184489.

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtCoffee
Docket NumberNo. B184489.
PartiesCanieva HOOD et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SANTA BARBARA BANK & TRUST et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Decision Date28 September 2006
49 Cal.Rptr.3d 369
143 Cal.App.4th 526
Canieva HOOD et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
SANTA BARBARA BANK & TRUST et al., Defendants and Respondents.
No. B184489.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6.
September 28, 2006.

[49 Cal.Rptr.3d 373]

The Sturdevant Law Firm, James C. Sturdevant, Monique Olivier, San Francisco; The National Consumer Law Center, Stuart Rossman, Chi Chi Wu, Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs and Appellants Canieva Hood and Congress of California Seniors.

Tom Greene, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Albert Norman Shelden, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Reiter, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Michele R. Van Gelderen, Deputy Attorney General, for Attorney General Bill Lockyer as Amicus Curiae in support of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Eric Halperin, Washington, DC, Kathleen Keest, Amanda Quester for Center for Responsible Lending and National Association of Consumer Advocates as Amici Curiae in support of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, D. Ronald Ryland, San Francisco, for Defendants and Respondents Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, a division of Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., and Pacific Capital Bank N.A.; Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Julia B. Strickland, Stephen J. Newman, Deborah E. Barack, Nancy M. Lee, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents Beneficial National Bank, Household Bank, F.S.B., HSBC Taxpayer Financial Services Inc., formerly known as Household Tax Masters, Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Bank One, N.A. (Ohio).

COFFEE, J.


Canieva Hood and the Congress of California Seniors appeal from an order of dismissal of their class action complaint seeking monetary and injunctive relief against Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (Santa Barbara) and other respondents. This dispute concerns Santa Barbara's seizure of Hood's tax refund. While seeking a tax refund anticipation loan (RAL) in 2002, Hood completed Santa Barbara's RAL application which provided that she would (1) pledge her 2001 tax refund as security for a RAL, (2) authorize the IRS to deposit her refund into a Santa Barbara account, and (3) authorize Santa Barbara to use her 2001 refund to pay her preexisting debts to other RAL lenders. Santa Barbara denied Hood's loan application because a third party bank claimed that she owed it money for a preexisting RAL. After the IRS deposited Hood's 2001 refund into the Santa Barbara account, Santa Barbara paid it to the third party bank.

Appellants' complaint includes a tort claim for conversion, and other causes of action based on several laws, including the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ.Code, § 1750 et seq. [the CLRA]), the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq. [the UCL]), and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civ.Code, § 1788 et seq.). Although Santa Barbara denied Hood's loan application, the trial court granted respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that federal regulations governing lending and other banking activities expressly preempted appellants' claims. We reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jackson Hewitt, Inc. (Jackson Hewitt) and its affiliates, Cendant Corporation and Tax Services of America market tax preparation services to consumers.1 Many low income taxpayers who receive the earned income tax credit seek assistance preparing their returns from tax preparation

49 Cal.Rptr.3d 374

services. With Santa Barbara, Jackson Hewitt and its affiliates offer RAL's and similar products to low income taxpayers and other consumers.

An RAL is a short term loan secured by a consumer's expected tax refund. When a lender accepts an RAL application, it establishes a bank account to receive the tax refund. The RAL applicant signs documents authorizing the IRS to deposit the applicant's tax refund in that account. If the applicant's tax refund is less than expected, or is not deposited, the bank holds the consumer liable for any outstanding RAL balance (including outstanding balances that the applicant may owe to other specified lenders for RAL's issued in prior years), plus late fees. In 2002, Santa Barbara charged an annual percentage rate ranging from 59.35 to 405.58 percent for RAL's.

Banks making RAL's, including Santa Barbara and respondent Household Bank, participate in agreements with other banks to collect outstanding RAL debts from RAL customers (cross-collection agreements). RAL lenders include a provision in RAL applications to implement the cross-collection agreement (cross-collection provision).

Appellant Hood is a taxpayer who received the earned income tax credit for several years. On January 31, 2002, Hood went to a Jackson Hewitt office for tax preparation service. A Jackson Hewitt employee told Hood that she had two options for a quick refund — a "rapid refund" that she could receive the next day, or another refund that would be payable within 48 hours. The Jackson Hewitt employee did not explain that these options were loans. Hood selected the option for payment within 48 hours.

After preparing Hood's tax returns, the Jackson Hewitt employee instructed Hood to sign and initial a set of documents. Hood did not have an opportunity to read those documents, including a "Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Refund Anticipation Loan Application and Agreement" (RAL application). The Jackson Hewitt employee did not inform Hood that the RAL application contained a provision allowing Santa Barbara to seize her anticipated tax refund if she had any prior outstanding RAL debts payable to other RAL lenders.

The RAL application consists of four pages, each containing two columns of very fine, single-spaced text. The cross-collection provision appears as section 6, at the bottom of the second page of the RAL application, as follows:

"COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT RAL. You authorize JHI [Jackson Hewitt] and SBBT [Santa Barbara] to exchange information about your current and prior RALs with other RAL lenders including Bank One, N.A., Beneficial National Bank/Household Bank, First Security Bank, River City Bank, County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, DE and Republic Bank & Trust Company/Refunds Now. If you have delinquent RALs from prior years with SBBT or any one or more of these lenders that have not been discharged in bankruptcy, you will not be eligible for a RAL but will instead receive an ACR [Accelerated Check Refund]. Upon receipt of your tax refund, you authorize SBBT to deduct from the Account, after deducting the applicable fees as set forth in Section 2 above, the total amount due on the prior year RALs and forward such amount to the appropriate RAL lender(s) prior to disbursing the balance of the Account to you."

The cross-collection provision is referenced elsewhere in the RAL application, for example, as "amounts due pursuant to section 6" or as "the collection authorizations in section 6." This provision implements

49 Cal.Rptr.3d 375

cross-collection agreements whereby participating banks collect each others' RAL debts by seizing the tax refunds of taxpayers who apply for RAL's or similar products.

In signing the RAL application, the applicant acknowledges having read, understood, and agreed to each of its terms and conditions and having consented to the collection authorizations in section 6. The applicant also assigns his federal income tax refund and his "[a]ccount, and all funds deposited therein, to the extent necessary to reimburse [Santa Barbara] for . . . any other amounts pursuant to this RAL application." In addition, the applicant certifies having "read all documents relating to [the] RAL Application." (RAL Application, sections 7, 8, 9.)

Santa Barbara sent Hood a letter dated February 3, 2002, stating that her RAL was denied because Santa Barbara had "been informed of an outstanding [RAL] debt with [Household Bank]." Santa Barbara's letter stated that Hood's 2001 tax refund would be used to satisfy the Household Bank RAL debt and that Santa Barbara would send Hood any funds remaining after the Household Bank RAL debt was satisfied.

Hood did not receive her 2001 tax refund. Nor did she receive the Accelerated Check Refund described in the RAL application as an alternative product for applicants who were ineligible for RAL's. Without her tax refund, Hood could not pay her rent and she received an eviction notice. Hood and other class members suffered substantial economic losses as a result of the seizure of their tax refunds.

Appellants filed an amended class action complaint seeking damages and other relief for the tort of conversion, and under the UCL, the CLRA and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Respondents filed demurrers to appellants' third amended complaint. The trial court overruled the demurrers to the third amended complaint (except as to one cause of action against Jackson Hewitt and another cause of action against Cendant Corporation and Tax Services of America).

After the court overruled respondents' demurrers, Santa Barbara filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnity from other cross-collection agreement participants: Household Bank, F.S.B.; Beneficial National Bank; Household Tax Masters, Inc.; Bank One, N.A. (Ohio); First Bank of Delaware; Republic First Bank; First Security Bank of Mackinaw, Illinois; Republic Bank & Trust Company; River City Bank, Inc. Santa Barbara and the cross-defendants filed motions for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary adjudication, based on the affirmative defense of preemption. Because the trial court had issued orders limiting discovery, appellants opposed the motion for summary adjudication as premature while substantively opposing the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the regulations of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) expressly preempted appellants' state law causes of action.

DISCUSSION

The trial court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Parks v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., No. G040798.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 1 Septiembre 2010
    ...of OCC's preemption regulations is readily applied to the circumstance before us. (See also Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 526, 547-548, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 [declining to defer to OCC's preemption regulations].) The language of 12 Code of Federal Regulations part 7......
  • People v. Nguyen, G048228
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 23 Abril 2014
    ...(American Financial, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1255, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 453, 104 P.3d 813; cf. Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 526, 537, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 [“There is a general presumption against preemption unless the state regulates in an area where there has been a ‘s......
  • White v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-1007-BBM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • 2 Julio 2008
    ...Act, conversion, and breach of implied covenant of good faith claims on grounds of preemption); Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, 143 Cal.App.4th 526, 543, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 (2006) ("Based on the record before us, it does not appear that the state's contract, tort or debt collection laws......
  • Aguayo v. Bank, No. 09–56679.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 1 Agosto 2011
    ...statute or OTS regulation issued under the exclusive HOLA “cradle to grave” regulatory authority. Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, 143 Cal.App.4th 526, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 369, 379 n. 5 (2006). Because OCC regulations are not interpreted under the broad umbrella of field preemption, Hood sugg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Parks v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., No. G040798.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 1 Septiembre 2010
    ...of OCC's preemption regulations is readily applied to the circumstance before us. (See also Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 526, 547-548, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 [declining to defer to OCC's preemption regulations].) The language of 12 Code of Federal Regulations part 7......
  • People v. Nguyen, G048228
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 23 Abril 2014
    ...(American Financial, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1255, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 453, 104 P.3d 813; cf. Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 526, 537, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 [“There is a general presumption against preemption unless the state regulates in an area where there has been a ‘s......
  • White v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-1007-BBM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • 2 Julio 2008
    ...Act, conversion, and breach of implied covenant of good faith claims on grounds of preemption); Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, 143 Cal.App.4th 526, 543, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 (2006) ("Based on the record before us, it does not appear that the state's contract, tort or debt collection laws......
  • Aguayo v. Bank, No. 09–56679.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 1 Agosto 2011
    ...statute or OTS regulation issued under the exclusive HOLA “cradle to grave” regulatory authority. Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, 143 Cal.App.4th 526, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 369, 379 n. 5 (2006). Because OCC regulations are not interpreted under the broad umbrella of field preemption, Hood sugg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT