It’s a feeling many of us know all too well. You check your bank account, and the balance is a little lower than you thought.
An overdraft fee. Maybe $30, maybe a bit more… Slammed on you for a purchase you were sure you could cover. An ATM fee that seems to have doubled. For Jamila Grice from South Carolina, this was an exploitative pattern from her very own banking company.
She looked closer at the statements from her account with Independent Bank and saw what she believed were three unfair practices draining money from her and potentially thousands of other customers of Independent Bank. First, the bank was hitting people with overdraft fees even when their accounts seemed to have enough cash to clear the transaction.
Second, it was turning a single mistake into multiple penalties by charging more than one insufficient-funds fee for the same rejected transaction. And third, a single trip to another bank’s ATM could trigger two separate out-of-network fees.
For people on a tight budget (like the majority of this country), these fees can cascade, turning a small shortfall into a significant financial hole. So Jamila Grice decided to fight back. She sued Independent Bank, not just for herself, but on behalf of every other customer across the country who might have been hit by the same fees. She wanted to bring a nationwide class-action lawsuit.
And that’s when the bank pulled out its secret weapon. A dusty, old South Carolina law nicknamed the “Door Closing Statute.”
The Legal Jujitsu
Independent Bank, an entity organized under Michigan law, wasn’t ready to argue in court about whether its fees were fair. Instead, it tried to stop the fight before it could even begin. Its lawyers pointed to this “Door Closing Statute,” a law designed to keep certain lawsuits out of South Carolina’s courts.
Here’s how it works, in plain English: The law says that if you’re not a South Carolina resident, you can’t sue an out-of-state company in a South Carolina court unless the problem you’re suing over actually happened in South Carolina. Think of it like a bouncer at the courthouse door, checking IDs and turning away anyone not on the local list.
The bank’s argument was clever and cynical. They claimed that because of this state law, Jamila Grice had no right to represent customers from, say, Ohio or California whose claims arose outside of South Carolina.
If the judge agreed, the nationwide lawsuit would be dead on arrival. It would shrink from a powerful, unified group of thousands into a smol handful of South Carolina specific residents. A group so small, in fact, that it wouldn’t meet the requirements for a class action at all.
This is a classic play from the corporate legal playbook. When you can’t win on the facts, you fight on procedure. You find a loophole, a technicality, an obscure local rule, and use it to make the case go away. You divide and conquer, ensuring that the cost and complexity of fighting back are too high for any single person to bear.
All factual claims in this article are sourced from the public record of Grice v. Independent Bank, No. 24-1395, a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on August 5, 2025.
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
