## Facts

- The U.S. Air Force investigated Larry O. Anderson (then an active-duty lieutenant colonel) for alleged misconduct under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including suspected theft of nonappropriated funds.
- An Air Force investigating agent met with a senior vice president of La Junta State Bank and orally asked for the Andersons’ bank records.
- The vice president accessed the Andersons’ account on a computer but did not allow the investigator to view any screen or documents.
- The vice president orally stated that the account contained nothing relevant and that only Mr. Anderson’s military paycheck was deposited into the account.
- Air Force investigators later obtained the Andersons’ bank records through a subpoena issued using RFPA procedures.
- The Andersons sued the Bank under the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA), seeking damages based on (i) alleged deprivation of an opportunity to challenge the subpoena and (ii) the earlier oral disclosure in response to the oral request.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Bank, and the Andersons appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a government investigator’s oral request, and a bank officer’s oral description of an account (without permitting inspection of documents or computer screens), constitutes government “access to” or “disclosure” of “financial records” under the RFPA.
2. Whether the RFPA’s civil liability provision permits damages against a bank for such an oral exchange when RFPA procedures for obtaining records were not used for that interaction.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Bank.
- The court held the RFPA did not provide a damages remedy based on the bank officer’s brief oral statement, because the government did not obtain, inspect, or receive “financial records” as the statute contemplates.
- Because the oral exchange did not involve disclosure or release of covered records, the Bank was not liable under the RFPA’s civil liability provision.

## Legal Principles

- RFPA is a limited statutory scheme that protects customers by regulating the manner in which federal authorities may obtain a customer’s “financial records” from a financial institution.
- RFPA procedures are triggered by government efforts to obtain covered “financial records,” not by every informal communication about an account.
- A bank’s civil liability under RFPA depends on a prohibited “disclos[ure] or releas[e]” of “financial records” within the statutory meaning; a non-documentary oral summary that does not provide government inspection or possession of records is not enough.
- Courts construe RFPA remedies narrowly in light of the statute’s defined terms and procedural structure.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit ruled that a bank is not subject to RFPA damages for a bank officer’s brief oral account description given to investigators, where investigators neither inspected nor obtained the customer’s financial records through that interaction.


Anderson v. La Junta State Bank, 115 F.3d 756 (10th Cir. 1997)