On XXXX/XXXX/2015, my account with Comerica Bank was charged XXXX ( XXXX : {$7.00} and {$7.00} ) overdraft fees for transactions that were pending. The {$7.00} is a monthly service fee that comes out of the account systematically on the XXXX of every month. The {$7.00} was a charge to XXXX XXXX, which was breakfast purchase XXXX/XXXX/2015. According to the ledger balance before checking my balance there was a positive balance of {$18.00} on XXXX/XXXX/2015. This figure was double checked by adding back the pending transactions in case there was something not seen on the computer ledger. According to my personal records, the balance was accurate. The same evening of XXXX/XXXX/2015 at XXXX XXXX, I charged {$31.00}, which clearly put the account in over draft. The {$31.00} cleared the bank and {$200.00} deposit posted to the account XXXX/XXXX/2015. On Monday, XXXX XXXX, 2015, we received a letter stating that our account was overdrawn the pending charge left {$2.00}, which was not enough to over the prior XXXX pending charges of {$15.00} ( {$7.00} and {$7.00} ) ; we were being charged {$50.00}. Despite the fact that {$31.00} was not charged until the evening of XXXX/XXXX/15 ; did not clear until XXXX/XXXX/2015, we were told by XXXX representatives that we did not have enough to cover the {$7.00} and {$7.00} on XXXX/XXXX/2015 because {$31.00} was pending when {$7.00} and {$7.00} cleared. Despite the fact that {$7.00} had been pending since XXXX/XXXX/2015 and {$7.00} had been pending since XXXX/XXXX/2015, the transaction for {$31.00} began pending on XXXX/XXXX/2015 after XXXX XXXX, which is clearly after {$7.00} and {$7.00} became transactions were taken away from the " available balance '', on XXXX/XXXX/2015. The customer service representative stated in the initial response that " we take the largest to smallest transactions first ''. Is this not what Comerica Bank was found guilty of in " The case is XXXX v. Comerica Bank NA, Case No. XXXX, in the U.S. District Court for the XXXX District of Florida. It is part of multidistrict litigation known as In re : Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, Case No. XXXX, in the U.S. District Court for the XXXX District of Florida '' . 
If largest to smallest applies, then how does Comerica explain that smallest the posted on XX/XX/XXXX and the largest was on XX/XX/XXXX. Next, we were also told that the account does not subtract from the balance until charges actually post to the account. I have had charges pending that were never charged to the account, I was not charged overdraft for the charges that clearly would put the account in overdraft during the hold period. 
1. Transaction ( 1 ) - {$7.00} - XXXX/XXXX/2015 - cleared on XXXX/XXXX/2015 2. Transaction ( 2 ) - {$7.00} - XXXX/XXXX/2015 - cleared on XXXX/XXXX/2015 *available balance as of XXXX/XXXX/2015 less transaction XXXX & XXXX would have been {$18.00} 3. Transaction ( 3 ) - {$31.00} - XXXX/XXXX/2015 - cleared on XXXX/XXXX/2015 4. Transaction ( 4 ) +XXXX - XXXX/XXXX/2015 Transactions XXXX & XXXX did not overdraft the account {$31.00} overdraft the account if we are to agree, but according to XXXX Comerica representatives, transaction # XXXX & # XXXX overdraft the account. According to Comerica 's philosophy, the account is not charged until the transaction cleared, # XXXX, # XXXX, and # XXXX all clear the account because they are not certain if the pending charge will ever become an actual charge. The solidifying fact and according to Comerica 's own philosophy, " charges is not an actual charges until the charge posts to the account, which in this case there was enough money available on both XXXX/XXXX/2015 and XXXX/XXXX/2015 to cover the charges respectively. If they are to charge by the authorization date ( pending date ), there should have only been XXXX overdraft charge. We received XXXX overdrafts for items that visible in the account balance versus the available balance. If we were to following the flow of transactions XXXX through XXXX, there would NOT have been any charges assessed to the account.