Indiana Court Upholds Two-Year Statute for Deposit Disputes
Summary
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of a putative class action challenging overdraft fees charged by Financial Builders Federal Credit Union, ruling that Indiana's two-year statute of limitations for deposit account actions under Indiana Code § 34-11-2-9 applies to all claims concerning a deposit account — including fee disputes. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that a ten-year written-contract limitations period governed his challenge to 2022 overdraft fees filed in December 2024, finding the credit union's motion to dismiss properly granted. The ruling is the first appellate interpretation of the 2024 legislative amendment that shortened the limitations period from six years to two years.
About this source
JD Supra is the legal industry's open library where US and UK law firms publish client alerts, regulatory analysis, and case commentaries. The Finance & Banking section aggregates everything published by partners at firms covering bank supervision, payments, capital markets, fintech, securitization, AML, and consumer finance. Around 400 alerts a month from across the bar. Watch this if you want primary-source law-firm thinking on the latest CFPB rule, OCC bulletin, FCA consultation, or Basel update, before it shows up in trade press. The signal-to-noise ratio is genuinely good because firms only publish when they have something to say to their own clients. GovPing pulls each alert with the firm name, author, and topic.
What changed
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Jeffrey Haskins' putative class action against Financial Builders Federal Credit Union, holding that Indiana Code § 34-11-2-9's two-year statute of limitations governs all causes of action concerning a deposit account, including overdraft fee disputes. The court rejected Haskins' argument that the ten-year limitations period for written contracts under Indiana Code § 34-11-2-11 applied because the overdraft fees arose from a service component of his account agreement. This is the first published appellate decision interpreting the current codification of Indiana Code § 34-11-2-9 after the 2024 amendment shortened the period from six years to two years.
Indiana financial institutions — including both banks and credit unions — benefit from reduced exposure to stale fee-dispute claims, as claims arising from transactions more than two years before filing are now subject to dismissal regardless of how they are framed. Plaintiffs seeking to challenge overdraft or other deposit account fees should be aware of the compressed limitations period and act promptly. The plaintiff may petition the Indiana Supreme Court for transfer, but such transfer is discretionary and rarely granted.
Archived snapshot
Apr 23, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
April 23, 2026
Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Two-Year Statute of Limitations for Deposit Account Disputes — Including Challenges to Overdraft Fees
Brett J. Ashton, Libby Yin Goodknight Krieg DeVault + Follow Contact LinkedIn Facebook X ;) Embed
On April 20, 2026, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action challenging overdraft fees assessed by an Indiana credit union, ruling Indiana’s two-year statute of limitations on “[a]n action upon a deposit account” encompasses any cause of action premised on or concerning a deposit account. In Haskins v. Financial Builders Federal Credit Union No. 25A-PL-1810 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2026), the plaintiff, Jeffrey Haskins, challenged overdraft fees charged in 2022, more than two years before he filed suit in December 2024.
Haskins argued that his claim was governed by the ten-year statute of limitations for written contracts under Indiana Code § 34-11-2-11, on the theory that the overdraft fees arose from the “service” component of his account agreement rather than from a contract strictly for the payment of money. The trial court disagreed and granted the credit union’s motion to dismiss based on the two-year statute of limitations in Indiana Code § 34-11-2-9. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Why This Matters for Indiana Banks and Credit Unions
The Court of Appeals’ published opinion is the culmination of efforts in the Indiana General Assembly to reinforce the nature of the contractual relationship between a financial institution and its depositor. In 2024, the General Assembly amended Indiana Code § 34-11-2-9 to shorten the limitations period for deposit account actions from six years – which is the general statute of limitations for actions on written contracts for the payment of money – down to two years. Haskins is the first appellate decision to interpret the current codification of Indiana Code § 34-11-2-9, and it resolves in favor of financial institutions the principal argument plaintiffs have advanced to escape the shorter limitations period — the claim that fee disputes are “service” claims subject to a ten-year statute of limitations.
What Happens Next
The plaintiff in Haskins may petition the Indiana Supreme Court for transfer. However, transfer is discretionary and the Supreme Court grants transfer in only a small percentage of cases.
;) ;) Report
Related Posts
- EBSA Issues New Enforcement Guidance with Significant Implications for ESOPs
- Take Five: 5 Things You Need to Know About Indiana Government - March 2026
- Wisconsin Introduces True Lender Legislation
Latest Posts
- Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Two-Year Statute of Limitations for Deposit Account Disputes — Including Challenges to Overdraft Fees
- IEEPA Tariff Refunds Update: CBP Opens Refund Portal, Marking Start of Claims Phase See more »
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Attorney Advertising.
©
Krieg DeVault
Written by:
Krieg DeVault Contact + Follow Brett J. Ashton + Follow Libby Yin Goodknight + Follow more less
PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA
- ✔ Increased readership
- ✔ Actionable analytics
- ✔ Ongoing writing guidance Join more than 70,000 authors publishing their insights on JD Supra
Published In:
Appellate Courts + Follow Banking Sector + Follow Banks + Follow Class Action + Follow Consumer Financial Products + Follow Contract Disputes + Follow Credit Unions + Follow Deposit Accounts + Follow Fee Disputes + Follow Financial Institutions + Follow New Legislation + Follow Overdraft Fees + Follow Putative Class Actions + Follow Statute of Limitations + Follow Statutory Interpretation + Follow Civil Procedure + Follow Finance & Banking + Follow more less
Krieg DeVault on:
"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"
Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra: Sign Up Log in ** By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.* - hide - hide
Related changes
Get daily alerts for JD Supra Finance & Banking
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from Krieg DeVault.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when JD Supra Finance & Banking publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.