[PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 03 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 0- cv -6 13 40 -PCH

CARLINE MERIS IER, Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a n at io na l as so ci at io n, Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 31 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d R IPPLE, Cir cu itJu dg es . *
Honora ble Kenne th F. Ripple, United States Circuit J udg e for the Seventh Circuit, * sitti ngby designation. Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 1 of 19TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e:

Thi s i s a c as e und er t he Elec tro ni c Fu ndTran sf er Act(“ EFTA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1 69 3 e t s eq . A ban k c us to m er s ue d h er b an k t o re co ve r fo r un au th or iz ed wit hd rawal s fr om

he r ch eck in g a cco un t, m ad e u si ng he r ch eckcardan d p ers on al id en ti fic at io n n um

be r (“ PIN”). EFTA requi res a ba nkto in ve st ig at e su ch di sp ut ed tra ns act io ns , to no ti fy

th e cu st om er i f itha s v eri fie d t he trans act io ns as aut ho riz ed , an d t o re cred itth e acc ou ntif t he wit hd rawal s wer e u nautho riz ed ; fa il ur e to do so ren de rs th e b an k l iabl e to th e cu st om er fo r up to tre bl e d am ag es . The b an k 1 in ve st ig at edth e wit hd rawal s atis su e in th is cas e, fo un d t ha t t he y were t he pro du ct of a sc he m e to de frau d t he bank , andde ni edli ab il ity forth e wit hd rawal s. The cu st om er, rep res en te d b y co un se l, b ro ug htsu it . By th e ti m e th e cas e was tri edto th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a, th e cu st om er was pro se. Aft er a t wo- da y be nc h tria l, t he Dis tri ctCo urt re jecte d th e cu st om er’s EFTA cla im s an d e nt eredjud gm en t fo r th e b an k. Sp eci fic al ly, th e Dis tri ctCo urt fo un d t ha t t he tra ns act io ns were au th or iz edbe cau se th ey were p art of a sc he m e to de frau d t he bank . The cu st om er ap pe al edpro se. Al th ou gh th e br ie fs are i nartf

ul ly drawn , sh e ap pe ars to ch al le ng e th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s fi nd in g a s cl earl y erro ne ou s. Aft er t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we fin d n o e rro r an d t he refo re af firm . These pr ovisions are discussed f urther in pa

rt I I .A, infra . 1 2 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 2 of 19I.

In20 09 , Carl in e Me ris ie r was a ne w Ban k o f Am eri ca ch eck in g- acco un t cu st om er. So were Ern a Gue rri er, Ri ve li no Ric hard , andVand amm e Je an ty. The se were i nd iv idua ls of Ha it ia n d es cen t, l iv in g i n S ou th Flo rid a, who ha d a ll at te nd edNort h M ia m i Hi gh Sch oo l t og ethe r. They ope ne d t he ir a cco un ts wit hi n si x m on th s o f on e an othe r; J ean ty sou rcedso m e o f th e fu nd s, o th ers were un tra ceab le cas h d ep os it s. At o ne ti m e o r an othe r, Mer is ie r an d Gu erri er were da ti ng Jea nt y ; J ean ty w as th e o nl y pe rs onMeri si er h adda te d s in ce d iv or ci ng he r hu sb an d, Dex te r Oli ve r. Whe n Ol iv er co nf ro nt edMeri si er ab ou t t ha t re la ti on sh ip , sh e sa idth e m ansh e was see in g was a co n a rti stwho was s te al in g m on ey . Mer is ie r kn ew th atJea nt y was a ls o d at in g Gu erri er. At o ne po in t, J ean ty had stud ie d l aw atth e Uni ve rs it y of M ia m i. In 20 07 , ho wev er, J ean ty, a n on ci ti zen , was ord eredrem ov edin ab se nt iaaft er fai li ng to ap pe ar fo r an imm ig rat io n he ari ng ; t hi s co urt uph el d t ha t re m ov al ord er i n 2 00 8. J ean ty w as arre st edne ar a ba nkinApri l 2 01 0 i n Nap le s, Fl or id a, fo r lo it eri ng an d fo r ob st ru ct in g a n o ffi cer; in hi s p os se ss io n was a cl on e o f Mer is ie r’s ch eckcard . He has be enwant edby the Co ll ie r Co un ty Sheri ff’s Dep art m en t s in ce No ve m be r 20 10 . On M arch 5, 2 01 0, M eri si er wen t t o aSo uth F lo rid a g as st at io n wh ere s he at te m pt edto us e h er Ba nkof Am eri ca– is su edch eckcard . It was reject edbe cau se 3 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 3 of 19of

a frau d b lo ck . Ban k p ers on ne l i ns tru ct edMeri si er t o c om pl et e a fraudaffi da vi t, whi chsh e subm it te d o n M arch 5; sh e fl ag ge d t ran sa ct io ns to ta li ng $1 5,7 75 .76 as un au th or iz edwithd rawal s fr om he r acc ou nt . 2 By subm it ti ng th is frau d a ffi da vi t t o B an k o f Am eri ca, Me ris ie r tr ig ge redan in ve st ig at io n i nt o t he di sp ut edtra ns act io ns . Ban k o f Am eri ca i nv es ti ga te d

The tra nsactions wer e desc ribed a s follows: 2 Transaction Date Am ount Desc ription 03/03/10 $300.00 Bof A ATM 03/03/10 $600.00 Bof A ATM 03/03/10 $600.00 Bof A ATM 03/03/10 $1001.78 Publix Super Mar ket 03/03/10 $1503.57 Publix Super Mar ket 03/03/10 $1504.38 Publix Super Mar ket 03/02/10 $300.00 Bof A ATM 03/02/10 $600.00 Bof A ATM 03/02/10 $600.00 Bof A ATM 03/01/10 $300.00 Bof A ATM 03/01/10 $600.00 Bof A ATM 03/01/10 $600.00 Bof A ATM 02/27/10 $500.00 Bof A ATM 02/27/10 $500.00 Bof A ATM 02/27/10 $500.00 Bof A ATM 02/26/10 $300.00 Bof A ATM 02/26/10 $600.00 Bof A ATM 02/26/10 $600.00 Bof A ATM 02/25/10 $66.03 0224 Sunshine [ Gas Station] 109 02/25/10 $300.00 [BofA ATM] 02/25/10 $600.00 [BofA ATM] 02/25/10 $600.00 [BofA ATM] 02/24/10 $300.00 [BofA ATM] 02/24/10 $600.00 [BofA ATM] 02/24/10 $600.00 [BofA ATM] 02/24/10 $600.00 [BofA ATM] 4 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 4 of 19Mer is ie r’s cl ai m an d d en ie d i t, i n p artbe cau se itha d v eri fie d t he earl ie stof t he wit hd rawal s as leg it im at e. On Fe brua ry 24 , 20 10 —t he da te of t he fir stall eg ed ly un au th or iz edtrans act io n— anatt em ptto wit hd raw $ 60 0.0 0 a t anATM tri gg ereda frau d a le rt; th e car d was res tri ct edpe nd in g v eri fic at io n. So m eo ne cla im in g t o b e th e car dh ol de r cal le d i n a ndan swe redth ree s ecu rity qu eri es co rrec tl y : t he da te an d do ll ar am ou ntof arece ntde po si t, t he em ai l ad dr es s as so ci at edwit h t he acco un t, an d t he go ve rn m en t-i ss ue d ID n um be r as so ci at edwith t he acco un t. The cal le r al so rai se d t he ATM wit hdrawal li m itfro m $3 50 .00 to $1 50 0.0 0. So m eo ne th en at te m pt edsev eral cas h wi th dr awal s fr om th e sa m e ATM an d was su cces sf ul each ti m e. On re vi ewin g M eri si er’s cl ai m s, Ba nkof Am eri ca d et erm in edth atth is act iv ity in di cat edth atth e tr an sa ct io ns were i n fa ctau th or iz ed . Meri si er h ad affi rm edth atsh e n ev er l os t p os se ss io n o f he r car d. Th us , th e fac t t ha t t ran sa ct io ns ha d b een m ad e u si ng he r car d i nd ic at edth atth e car d h adbe enco un te rfei te d o r

“ sk imm ed .” The d is pu te d t ran sa ct io ns , ho wev er, h adall be enPIN-b as ed tra ns act io ns , m ean in g t ha t wh oe ve r ha d c ou nt erfe it edMeri si er’s car d a ls o kne w he r PIN. A th irdparty cou ldha ve in te rcep te d M eri si er’s PIN as sh e at te m pt edto us e itat a n ATM—

bu t i n t ha t ev en t, t he sca m m er wo ul d n otha ve kn own th e an swe rs to th e b an k’s s ecu rity qu es ti on s. By pro ces s o f el im in at io n, t he n,

5 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 5 of 19Mer is ie r’s was a“ so ldacco un t” —s he ha d e xc ha ng edacco un t ac ces s fo r m on ey .

The so ur ce an d t im in g o f de po si ts to Meri si er’s acc ou ntwas a ls o su sp ic io us : ea ch wit hd rawal imm ed ia te ly foll owe d alar ge an d o ut -o f-t he -o rd in ary cas h d ep os it . Meri si er’s acc ou ntba la nc e typi cal ly avera ge d afew hun dr ed do ll ars . Then , bet ween Feb ru ary 16 an d M arch 3, 2 01 0, M eri si er m ad e ei gh t ca sh de po si ts to ta li ng $3 6,7 00 .00 . Thes e fac ts in di cat edth atwho ev er m ad e th e 3 de po si ts was i nf

la ti ng th e acc ou ntba la nc e whi le av oi di ng fed eral cas h- de po si t rep orti ng requi rem en ts . Altho ug h e ach di sp ut edwithd rawal sh ortl y fol lo weda 4 de po si t, t he re were no ba lanc e in qu iri es onMeri si er’s acc ou nt . Ban k o f Am eri ca co nc lu de d t ha t M eri si er h adco ll ud edwit h wh oe ve r ha d d rawn do wn h er ac co un t an d h adau th or iz edth e wit hd rawal s. O n S ep te m

be r 8, 2 01 0, M eri si er fi le d t he in st an t ac ti on ag ai ns t Ba nkof
The de posits were a s follows: 3 Deposit Date P osted Am ount ($) Counter Credit 02/16/10 3300.00 Counter Credit 02/22/10 6300.00 Counter Credit 02/24/10 5000.00 Counter Credit 02/26/10 1000.00 Counter Credit 03/01/10 9000.00 Counter Credit 03/01/10 1100.00 Counter Credit 03/02/10 5000.00 Counter Credit 03/03/10 6000.00 Gene rally , banks must report c ash transa ctions in ex cess of $10,000.00. See 31 U.S.C. 4 § 5331(a) . It is a fede ral c rime to structure cash de posits in s uch a w ay that the deposits do not trig g er f eder al re portingrequire ments. I d. § 5324(b). 6 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 6 of 19Am eri ca. Me ris ie r co nt en de d t ha t Ba nkof Am eri ca fa il edto co nduc t a r eas on ab le

in ve st ig at io n o f he r cl ai m , fai le d t o fo ll ow EFTA’s cl ai m -res ol ut io n p ro cedur es , an d u nl awfu ll y

he ldhe r li ab le for

un au th or iz edtra ns act io ns . Accor di ng ly, Mer is ie r cl ai m edth atsh e was en ti tl edto reco ve r actua l d am ag es —t he $1 5,7 75 .76 wit hd rawn fro m

he r acc ou nt—t reb le d fo r wil lfu l EFTA v io la ti on . Ban k o f Am eri ca d en ie d l iabi li ty andcla im edth atMeri si er s ch em edwit h J ean ty, Ri ch ard , an d Gu erri er t o d efraudth e b an k. The cas e was tri edon Marc h 1 , 20 11 ; t he fol lo win g e vi de nc e was pre se nt ed . Fi rs t, Ba nkof Am eri ca em pl oyee Tod d Ho lt , th e cl ai m s i nv es ti ga to r as si gn edto Mer is ie r’s cas e, rev ie wedMeri si er’s u naut ho riz ed -tr an sa ct io n c la im . Hol t reco m m en de d d en ia l b as edon (1) sec ur it y ve rif ic at io n fo ll owi ng th e fraudbl oc k, (2 ) th e se cu rit y

of M eri si er’s d eb itcardan d P IN, (3) th e ex cl us iv el y PIN-b as ed tra ns act io ns , and(4) th e st ru ctur edde po si ts in to th e acc ou ntbe fo re t he wit hd rawal s wer e m ad e. Part ic ul arl y , th e cl ai m was s us pi ci ou s b ecau se see m in gl y st ru ctur edde po si ts acco m pa ni edth e withd rawal s cl ai m edto be frau du le nt . 5 Seco nd , Rob in Nico rv o, a s en io r in ve st ig at orforBan k o f Am eri ca,

At the time he denie d Merisier’ s claim, Holt had also bec ome awa re that Richard had 5 filed an una

uthorized-transac tions claim. He wa s impressed by simil arities betwe en the Richa rd and Merisier claims, includinginflated ba lance s befor e withdra wals, multiple withdrawals, a nd the ra ising of w ithdrawa l limi ts. Holt also discovered that Richard knew J eanty . 7 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 7 of 19in ve st ig at edth e cl ai m s m ad e b y Ric ha rd , Guerrie r, an d J ean ty. Her in ve st ig at io n rev eal edth atRic ha rdan d Gu erri er re po rte d u naut ho riz edde bi ts onth ei r res pe ct iv e car ds an d tha t the ir a cco un ts ha d l ow b al an ces th atsp ik edbe fo re al le ge dl y un au th or iz edact iv ity . Am on g t he do cu m en ts sh e rev ie wedwere l et te rs on be ha lf o f Gue rri er an d R ic ha rd , res pe ct iv el y , th atBan k o f Am eri ca h ad rece iv edfro m

a pu rp orte d l aw fi rm . No su ch law fi rm or a tt orne y

ex is te d, ho wev er—th e ad dr es s an d t el ep ho ne nu m be r pr ov id edwere J ean ty’ s. Thi rd , Meri si er t es ti fie d t ha t s he op en edhe r Ban k o f Am eri ca ac co un t i n 20 08 to rece iv e ch il d s up po rt p aym en ts fro m ex -h us ba ndDext er Ol iv er. The n, jus t b efo re t he tra ns act io ns sh e rep orte d a s u naut ho riz ed , sh e d ep os it ed ap pr ox im at el y

$3 6,0 00 .00 in cas h. Me ris ie r cl ai m edth atth e d ep os it s re pr es en te d pr of it s fr om he r rea l es ta te co m

pa ny: sh e p ur

po rte dl y rece iv edco m

m is si on ch eck s atclo si ng s, ca sh edth em

at c he ckcas hi ng st or es , andth ende po si te d t he cas h. Mer is ie r cl ai m edsh e d idno t kno w who ha d c om pr om is edhe r acc ou ntwhen sh e fi le d h er cl ai m . Adm it te dl y , by th e ti m e o f he r de po si ti onsh e h adreal iz edth at he r acc ou ntha d b een co m pr om is edby an ex -b oyfrien d a ndackno wled ge d d at in g Je an ty. Mo reo ve r, Mer is ie r’s te le ph on e rec or ds in di cat edth atin th e m on th s

8 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 8 of 19le ad in g up t o h er fi li ng su itsh e h adcal le d J ean ty’ s n um be r 76 ti m es . It was

6
un di sp ut edth atJea nty

us edMeri si er’s car d o r a cl on e th ereo f an d t ha t J ean ty did kn ow M eri si er’s PIN. Nev erthe le ss , Meri si er m ai nt ai ne d tha t s he ne ve r au th or iz ed Je an ty to u se he r car d, n ev er g av e h im he r car d, n ev er g av e h im he r PIN, an d n ev er wro te do wn h er PIN an ywhe re. Mer is ie r de ni edha vi ng gi ve n J ean ty any pe rs on al in fo rm at io n, i nc lu di ng th e an swe rs to Ban k o f Am eri ca’s s ecu rit y qu es ti on s. Fo urth , Ban k o f Am eri ca’s ex pe rt, awhi te -co ll ar cr im e in ve st ig at or , op in ed th atJea nt y

di rect edanorg an iz edsch em e to de frau d B an k o f Am eri ca an d t ha t Mer is ie r an d t wo o th er i nd iv idua ls were wi ll in g p art ic ip an ts in th is sch em e. Alt ho ug h u nabl e to tes ti fy at t ria l, h is rep ort, wh ic h was adm it te d i nt o e vi de nc e, la idou t t he sch em e in whi ch Meri si er h adact edwit h J ean ty to d efraudth e b an k. At t he co nc lu si on of t he tri al , in anora l ru li ng , th e Dis tri ctCo urt ex pl ai ne d th atit s fi nd in gs were b as edon th e li ve wit ne ss es ’ te st im on y ; o n t he de po si ti on te st im on y of Gu erri er, Ri ch ard , andOli ve r; o n e xh ib it s s ub m it te d b y th e p art ie s; an d o n t he bankex pe rt’s re po rt. Re ga rd in g t he reas on ab le ne ss of t he in ve st ig at io n Ban k o f Am eri ca p erfo rm ed , th e Dis tri ctCo urt re as on ed ,
Simi larly , Merisier de nied knowingGuer rier, e ven though her phonerec ords showed 6 that she ca lled Guer

rier on se vera l occa sions around the time she f iled her c laim. She also denied knowingRichard—e ven whe n prese nted with a wa rra nty deed she and Richar d had both signed. She explained the simil arity of her complaint to those filed by Guer rier a nd Richard by

admitting that she had a cce ss to Guerrie r’s a nd Richard’ s Ba

nk of America f

iles and complaints. 9 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 9 of 19I th in k a ny reaso nabl e p ers on wou ldha ve co nc lu de d t ha t t he re was

frau d h ere. . . . [T] he cla im s wer e n otby mis ta ke bu t t he y were au th or iz edeit he r di rect ly or in di rect ly by [Mer is ie r] . . . . So , I am go in g t o d en y

th e [u nr eas on ab le -in ve st ig at io n] cla im . Mer is ie r v. B an k o f Am eri ca, 1 0- 61 34 0- CV-PC H, Tr. at 1 2– 13 (S.D. Fla . Mar. 2 , 20 11 ). The co urt t he refo re re jecte d M eri si er’s treb le -d am ag es EFTA clai m . The Dis tri ctCo urt the n m ad e th e fo ll owi ng fin di ng s: [Me ris ie r] hada ba la nc e th atwas h is to ric al ly low an d . . . a few da y s p rio r to th e subjec t t ran sa ct io ns . . . [s he ] de po si te d ap pr ox im at el y

$3 6,0 00 in cas h . . . . [T]his is a pa tt ern th atis co ns is te ntwit h afrau du le ntcla im ag ai ns t th e b an k fo r a co up le of r eas on s. One , th e fu nd s wer e . . . m ad e in cas h u nd er ci rcu m st an ces th at whi le th ey

were ex pl ai ne d b y

th e p la in ti ff I fi ndto be no t cr ed ib le . Seco nd , th ey

were p at te rn s s uc h a s t he y see m edto be st ru ctur ed , th atis to be cas h d ep os it s o f le ss th an$1 0,0 00 . . . .

. . . . [O]n Feb ru ary 28 th , 20 10 . . . anatt em ptwas m ad e b y

so m eo ne to wit hdraw $ 60 0 fr om

th e b an k a cco un t. . . . [B]ecau se of i nd ic at io ns or b ad ge s o f frau d t he ba nk. . . pu t a bl oc k o n t he pl ai nt iff’s acco un t . . . . Later t ha t d ay aft er th at. . . at te m

ptto wit hd raw $ 60 0 was de ni ed , withi n m in ut es . . . so m eo ne cal le d t he ba nk , andan swe redth ree s ecu rit y qu es ti on s . . . .

. . . .
10 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 10 of 19App aren tl y th atwas a ccep te d b y

th e b an k a ndth e n ex t at te m pt to wit hdraw $ 60 0 was ap pr ov ed . Sub se qu en tl y on Marc h t he fif

th pl ai nt iff subm it te d . . . a frau d a ffi da vi t, wh ic h g iv es ris e to [th is su it ]. Als o . . . so m eo ne . . . in crea se d n oton ly the am ou ntof m on ey th at was av ai labl e to be wit hd rawn bu t [a ls o] . . . in crea se d t he wit hdrawal li m it . Tha t was do ne su sp ic io us ly, I m ig htad d, ju stbe fo re t he se subjec t wi th dr awal s wer e m ad e. Andth e o bv io us pu rp os e o f th is was so th atlar ge r wit hd rawal s co ul d b e m ad e fro m th e acc ou nt . . . .

. . . . [E]ith er d el ib erat el y or i na dv ert en tl y

Ms . Meri si er . . . pro vi de d th is in fo rm at io n t o M r. Je an ty suc h t ha t h e o r so m eo ne at h is be he st m ad e th os e wit hd rawal s. I fi ndth e p la in ti ff i s re sp on si bl e fo r th os e, orat l eas t s he ha s no t p ro ve n b y

th e g reat er wei gh t o f th e ev id en ce t ha t t he se trans fers were u naut ho riz edtra ns fers . I fi ndth e ev id en ce s ug ge st s t ha t t he y were i n fa ctau th or iz ed tra ns fers . The p la in ti ff was eit he r a kno win g p art ic ip an t o r was dupe d b y Mr. J ean ty . . . . [S]he p ro vi de d h im with t he in fo rm at io n th atall owe d tho se wit hd rawal s t o b e m ad e. AndI fin d the y were n ot th e res ul t o f a m is ta ke bu t t he y were, i n fa ct , aut ho riz ed. . . .

. . . . I fi ndth atth ere’s b een co m pl ia nc e b y

th e b an k wi th it s ob li ga ti on s u nd er t he EFTA. I fin d t ha t b as edonth e num ero us ba dg es or i nd ic iaof f

rau d . . . th atth e b an k c on cl ud edin go odfai th th atth ey were fraudul en t t ran sf

ers . I fi ndth atth e p la in ti ff h as no t p ro ve n h er ca se by the gre at er weig htof t he ev id en ce an d I a m rul in g i n fa vo r of

de fen dant .
11 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 11 of 19Id . at 2 4– 27 . Thu s, t he Dis tri ctCo urt fo un d tha t Ba nkof Am eri ca was no t l iabl e

fo r th e am ou ntwithd rawn fro m Meri si er’s acc ou nt . On ap pe al , Meri si er co nt en ds th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt erredin fin di ng th at Ban k o f Am eri ca d idno t v io la te an y pro vi si on of EFTA. Inth is res pe ct , Meri si er arg ue s t ha t t he Dis tri ctCo urt ap pl ie d t he wron g b ur de n o f pr oo f to he r attri al , co nt en di ng th at , un de r EFTA, Ban k o f Am eri ca b or e th e b ur de n t o d em on st rat e th e tr an sf ers were au th or iz ed . Esse nt ia ll y , sh e m ai nt ai ns th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt’s fin di ng th atth e subjec t t ran sa ct io ns were au th or iz edwas c le arl y erro ne ou s. Sh e co nt en ds th e Dis tri ctCo urt m is ta ke nl y co ns id eredth e fo ll owi ng fact or s b ecau se th ey were m is ch arac te riz edby the tri al jud ge or i rrel ev an t: (a) ev id en ce o f a sc he m e to de frau d; (b) os te ns ib le ev as io n o f cas h- de po si t re po rti ng requi rem en ts ; an d (c ) th e so ur ce o f th e d ep os it s t o M eri si er’s acc ou nt . 7
Merisier a lso argues that the District Court er red by failingto find an EF TA violation 7 based on a

reque st for docume nts used in the bank’s investig ation. We rejec t this argument out of hand. She c ontends that Ba nk of America violated E FTAwhen, “ upon reque st of the consumer,” it failed to “promptly deliver . . . a ll documents which the fina ncial instituti on relied on to conclude that such err or did not occur .” 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(d). Me risier testified that she reque sted in writing the documents upon which B ank of America found no er

ror on he r ac count. At trial, she produc ed no evide nce of such a r equest a

nd admitted that she did not keep a copy of her le tter re questingthe documents. Appa rently , that letter wa s included with her c omplaint, but was ne ver pr oduced a

t trial or admitted into evidence . The District Court found that Me risier did not reque st the documents. Inasmuch a s the District Court based its findingon the evidenc e adduce d at trial, the District Court did not err in concludingthat Merisier ha d not reque sted the documents. We g ive due r eg ard to the D istrict Court’s cre dibilit y deter mination in impliedly reje ctingMerisier’ s trial testimony . See In re Chalik, 748 F .2d 616, 619 (11th Cir. 1984) (“ [T] he trial judg e is best able to a ssess the cr edibility of the witnesse s befor e him and thus the evidentiar y content of the ir testimony .”). And the District Court did not err in re fusingto 12 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 12 of 19II.

Mer is ie r be li ev es th atBan k o f Am eri ca d idno t d o wh atEFTA requ ire d i t t o do wit h re sp ectto tra ns act io ns sh e cl ai m edwere i n e rro r be cau se th ey were un au th or iz ed . EFTA, intu rn , requi res ba nk s t o fo ll ow o ne of t wo p aths in res po ns e to su ch anall eg ederro r on anacco un t: (1) to in ve st ig at e an d c orrectth e erro r if anun au th or iz edtra ns fer h as oc cu rred , or (2 ) to in ve st ig at e an d i nf orm th e cu st om er tha t n o e rro r oc cu rredif t he tra ns fer was au th or iz edby the cu st om er. The bankfol lo wedth e st ep s o f pa th (2) aft er i t d et erm in edth atMeri si er h adin factau th or iz edth e tr an sa ct io ns at i ss ue . Meri si er t hi nk s the ba nkou gh t t o h av e fo ll owe d p ath (1 ) be cau se sh e in si st s t o t hi s d ay th atth e d is pu te d t ran sa ct io ns were u naut ho riz ed . She th in ks th e Dis tri ctCo urt i m pr op erl y for cedhe r to pro ve th e b an k o ug htto ha ve fol lo wedpa th (1) an d fo un d fo r th e b an k wh ensh e d idno t. The Dis tri ctCo urt’s fa ctfin di ng s, h owe ve r, fo recl os e Me ris ie r’s po si ti on . The Dis tri ctCo urt fo un d t ha t t he ba nkco m pl ie d wi th EFTA becaus e th e d is pu te d tra ns act io ns were au th or iz ed —t he y were an att em

ptto de frau d the ba nk . Meri si er ha s ad vanc edno reas on why th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s fi nd in gs were cl earl y erro ne ou s. W e th eref

or e h av e n o o ccas io n t o d is tu rb th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s co nc lu si on th atBan k of Am eri ca d idno t v io la te EFTA.
consider matters not in evidence . 13

Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 13 of 19A.

Vari ou s EFTA p ro vi si on s g ov ern th e tr an sa ct io ns at i ss ue . EFTA app li es to

“ an y tra ns fer o f fu nd s . . . whi ch is in it ia te d thr ou gh anele ctro ni c te rm in al . . . so as to . . . au th or iz e a fi na nc ia l i ns ti tu ti on to de bi t o r cre di t anacco un t,” s uc h a s ATM an d P IN-b as edpo in t-o f-s al e cas h wi th dr awal s. 1 5 U.S.C. § 16 93 a(7 ). Whe n acu st om er b el ie ve s t ha t an ATM wit hd rawal was u naut ho riz edan d t hu s i n erro r, an d n ot ifi es he r ba nk , th e b an k h as a du ty to “ in ve st ig at e th e al le ge d e rro r, de te rm in e whe th er an erro r ha s o ccu rred , andrep ort o r m ai l t he res ul ts of s uc h in ve st ig at io n a ndde te rm in at io n t o t he co ns um er wi th in ten bu si ne ss da y s.” Id . § 1 69 3f (a). Th e b an k m

us t co rrec t an y

de te ct ederro r withi n o ne bu si ne ss da y aft er s uc h d et erm in at io n. Id . § 1 69 3f (b )– (c). A ban k t ha t d oe s n otso co m pl y 8
m ay be li ab le to th e cu st om er fo r da m ag es . 9
Correc tion is subj ect to the c onsumer’s limited liability for “ unauthorized transfe rs” 8 under § 1693g . 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(b). Section 1693gprovides as f ollows: A consumer

shall be liable for

any unauthorized elec tronic fund tra nsfer . . . only if the ca rd . . . utiliz ed for

such transf

er w as an a ccepted ca

rd . . . and if the issuer of such c ard . . . ha s provided a me ans whe reby the user of

such ca rd . . . ca n be identified as the pe rson authorized to use it . . . . I d. § 1693g (a) . I f these c onditions are met, EF TA limits custom er liability to the lesser of $50 or the amount withdrawn bef ore the customer a lerted the bank to unauthorized transac tions. I d. § 1693g (a) (1)–( 2). A bank that violates EF TA “is liable to such c onsumer in an amount equal to the sum 9 of any actua l damag e sustained by such consumer

as a r esult of such fa ilure [and,] i n the ca se of an individual action, an a mount not less than $100 nor g reater than $1,000.” 15 U.S.C.

14 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 14 of 19A withd rawal do es no t b eco m e an “ erro r” s im pl y be cau se a cu st om er l at er di sp ut es it—p art ic ul arl y

whenth e err orwas m an uf actur edas p artof afrau du le nt sc he m e. EFTA defi ne s an“ erro r,” fo r pu rp os es rel ev an t t o t hi s ca se , as “ an un au th or iz edele ctro ni c fu ndtrans fer.” Id . § 1 69 3f (f)(1 ). An u naut ho riz ed el ect ro ni c fu ndtra ns fer i s an ele ctro ni c tr an sf er i ni ti at edby a thi rdpa rty with ou t actua l au th or it y

to do so an d fr om

whi ch th e cu st om er d eri ve s n o b en efi t. Id . § 1 69 3a (1 2) . EFTA, ho wev er, ex cl ud es two pe rti ne ntcla ss es of t ran sa ct io ns fro m th is de fin it io n: th os e (A) “ in it ia te d b y a pe rs onot he r th anth e co ns um er wh o was fu rn is he d wi th th e car d, co de , or o th er m ean s o f acc es s t o s uc h c on su m er’s acco un t b y

su ch co ns um er,” u nl es s t he cu st om er al ert s h er b an k t ha t t he tra ns fero r is no lo ng er au th or iz edto m ak e tr an sf ers ; an d t ho se (B) “ in it ia te d wi th frau du le nt in te ntby the co ns um er o r an y pe rs on act in g i n c on certwit h the co ns um er.” Id .

“ Inan y act io n wh ic h i nv ol ve s a c on su m er’s l iabi li ty for an un au th or iz edele ctro ni c § 1693m(a)( 1)–(2) (A). I f a c ourt finds that (1) the f inancial institution di d not provisionally rec redit a c onsumer’s a ccount within . . . [ ten day s] and the financia l insti tution (A) did not make a g ood faith investig ation of the a lleg ed er ror, or (B ) did not have a

rea sonable ba sis for believingthat the consumer’ s acc ount was not in err or; or (2) the f inancial institution knowingly and willfully

conclude d that the consumer ’s acc ount was not in err or whe n such conc lusion could not reasona bly have be en drawn . . . , then the cour

t may awa rd treble damag es. I d. § 1693f(e ).

15 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 15 of 19fu ndtrans fer, t he bu rd enof p ro of is up on th e fi na nc ia l i ns ti tu ti on to sh ow t ha t t he el ect ro ni c fu ndtra ns fer was au th or iz ed .” Id . § 1 69 3g (b ). B. It i s i rrel ev an t wh ethe r th e Dis tri ctCo urt i m pr op erl y pl acedon Meri si er t he bu rd ento pro ve th atth e tr an sa ct io ns were u naut ho riz ed . Alth ou gh EFTA m ay pl ace t he bu rd enon ba nk s t o s ho w th atcla im s ar e u naut ho riz edbe fo re d en y in g cl ai m s, s ee i d., Me ris ie r’s tra ns act io ns were au th or iz edas am atte r of fact . The Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t fi ndforBan k o f Am eri ca b ecau se Meri si er h adfai le d t o pr ov e th atth e tr an sa ct io ns were u naut ho riz ed . Rath er, the Dis tri ctCo urt, as th e tri er o f fac t, m erel y

de te rm in edth atth e g reat er wei gh t o f th e ev id en ce s ho wedth at th e tr an sa ct io ns were au th or iz ed . In s ho rt, b ecau se th e Dis tri ctCo urt fo un d t ha t th e wit hd rawal s wer e au th or iz edas p artof afrau du le ntsch em e, Ban k o f Am eri ca effe ct iv el y

carr ie d i ts bu rd enun de r § 1 69 3g (b ) to sh ow t ha t t he wit hdrawal s at is su e were aut ho riz ed . Bas edon th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s fi nd in g, Ba nkof Am eri ca was no t l iabl e fo r th e wit hd rawal s fo r atlea ston e o f two reas on s. Me ris ie r furn is he d t he m ean s o f acce ss to he r acc ou ntvo lu nt ari ly, ei th er as a wil li ng pa rti ci pantin a frau du le nt sc he m e o r as on e dup edby Jean ty; Meri si er ad m it te d t he in fo rm at io n c ou ldno t ha ve fal le n i nt o J ean ty’ s h an ds by mis ta ke or a cci de nt . Firs t, the refo re, Me ris ie r 16 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 16 of 19fu rn is he d J ean ty w it h a cces s t o h er ac co un t wi th ou t n ot ifyin g B an k o f Am eri ca

th atsh e d idno t i nt en d h im to wit hd raw fu nd s. See id . § 1 69 3a (1 2) (A). Alt ern at iv el y , Meri si er co ll ab or at edwit h J ean ty, whi ch wou ldha ve bro ug htth e di sp ut edtra ns act io ns squarel y un de r § 1 69 3a (1 2) (B), wh ic h e xc lu de s t ran sf ers

“ in it ia te d wi th frau du le ntin te ntby the co ns um er o r an y pe rs on act in g i n c on cert wit h t he co ns um er.” Eit he r way , EFTA’ s erro r-co rrec ti on pro to co ls di d n otap pl y to th es e tr an sa ct io ns . 1 0 On ap pe al , Meri si er h as adva nc edno reas on to di sturb t he Dis tri ctCo urt’s fin di ng s. Th atth e tr an sa ct io ns were au th or iz edis a factua l d et erm in at io n t ha t we wil l re ve rs e o nl y

forcle ar erro r. See Pr ou df oo t Co ns ul ti ng Co . v. Go rd on , 57 6 F.3 d 1 22 3, 1 23 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . “ A fin di ng is cle arl y erro ne ou s ‘when alt ho ug h th ere i s ev id en ce t o s up po rt i t, t he rev ie win g c ou rt o n t he en ti re ev id en ce i s l eft wit h t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.’” Newm an n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 9 38 F.2d12 58 , 12 62 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (quo ti ng And ers onv. Ci ty of Bes se m er Ci ty, 47 0 U.S. 5 64 , 57 3, 1 05 S. Ct. 1 50 4, 1 51 1, 8 4 L. Ed. 2d51 8 (1 98 5) ). Meri si er h as fai le d t o m ak e su ch a sh owi ng ; h er ar gu m en ts Rather, B ank of America promptly complied with the EF TA provisions that did apply 1 0 to Merisier’ s claims. Ba

nk of America “ investigate[d] the alleg ed er ror, de termine[d] whether an err or ha[d] occurre d, and . . . mail[ed] the re sults of such investigation and deter mination to [Merisier] withi n ten business day s.” 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(a) . The ba nk also “de liver[ed] . . . t o [Merisier] an expl anation of its finding s within 3 business day s after the conc lusion of its investigation.” I d. § 1693f(d) . 17

Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 17 of 19fo cu s o n h er p erce pt io n t ha t t he Dis tri ctCo urt erro ne ou sl y requi redhe r to pro ve th atth e withd rawal s wer e u naut ho riz ed . It i s t hu s u nd is pu te d t ha t s ub st an ti al ev id en ce s up po rts th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s fi nd in g t ha t t he tra ns act io ns were au th or iz ed . See i d. We are th us lef t wi th no “ de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti onth ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m

m it te d.” Id. Th e Dis tri ctCo urt the refo re d idno t err in fin di ng th atth e tr an sa ct io ns were au th or iz edan d, co ns eque nt ly, th atBan k o f Am eri ca h adno t v io la te d EFTA. 1 1 III. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we co nc lu de th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t err by de nyin g M eri si er’s EFTA cla im s ag ai ns t Ba nkof Am eri ca. Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t o f th e Dis tri ctCo urt i s
We rejec t Merisier’ s argument that District Court premised its fac tual conclusions on 1 1 irrele vant information. Ac cordingto Merisier, the D istrict Court ought not to have c onsidered evidenc e sug g estinga sche me to defr aud, evide nce sug g estingthe skirting of cash- deposit repor ting r equire ments, or evidenc e ra ising suspicions about the sourc e of the funds in Merisier’ s acc ount. These f

acts a re a ll releva

nt beca use they sug g est the withdraw als wer e author ized. See Fe d. R. Evid. 401 (“Evidenc e is rele vant if: (a) it has any tendenc y to make a f

act more or less probable than it would be without the evidenc e; and (b) the fa ct is of conse quence in determining the ac tion.”). Thus, Mer isier has fa iled to show err or on the District Court’s pa rt for c onsidering such evide nce. See United States v. Vince nt, 648 F.2d 1046, 1051 (5th Cir. 1981) ( “The trial judge has broa d discretion as to re levanc e and materiality of evide nce, a

nd his rulings re g arding such will not be disturbed on appe al abse nt a clea r showingof an a

buse of discr etion.”). We also rejec t Merisier’ s argument that, essentially , the District Court’s finding s were err oneously

colore d by

Ba nk of America’ s investigation, which Merisier be lieves wa s unsatisfac tory . The District Court’s finding s, howeve r, we re ba sed on an a lleg edly insufficient investigation. I f this investigation was too cursory , further development of

this case ha s yielded only additional evidenc e of f

raud. 18 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 18 of 19AFFIR MED. 1 2

Merisier’ s remainingarguments are without merit and war rant no discussion. 1 2 19 Case: 11-11036 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 19 of 19