Plaintiff asserts the following;

On or about October 2d^{h 2015} Plaintiff Received a callfrom banks fraud prevention department, which by its name, it is assumed is meant to preventfraud. Plaintiff received the call after and only after the Plaintiffs Financial Institution authorized the charge in the amount $5,350 and the charge drained the plaintiffs account of the funds.

Plaintiff Further states the $5,350 in question is from the Plaintiff's checking account on deposit with the bank and is not by definition a credit instrument.

Plaintiff States Defendant TCF National Bank Is subject to Regulation E which governs unauthorized transactions of debit cards. Defendant exhausted their 7-10 business days to investigate Plaintiffs claim and is in violation of Federal Regulation E 1005.6 which state the person may notify the person orally or by telephone in writing. (5) Notice to financial institution; Notice to a financial institution is given when a consumer takes steps reasonably necessary to provide the institution with the pertinent information, whether or not a particular employee or agent of the institution actually receives the information. and in turn is obligated to provide Plaintiff a provisional credit in the amount of the unauthorized charge. 1005.7 of Reg E defines business days as the financial institutions business days. Oral notice was provided on the 20^th to the card issuer and phone records will be presented in any hearing as evidence that plaintiff had conversation with TCF bank fraud prevention 105.11 (i) states the requirement of crediting the consumer account.

Plaintiff has established that according to Regulation E has met his requirements under regulation Efor reporting requirements andfor receipt of a provisional credit and has been deprived of thousands by a Financial institution with millions to which Plaintiff has limited ability to fight back and this court is his only recourse. Defendant TCF Bank has demonstrated complete negligence and or plain carelessness for the regulations meant to protect consumers. The financial institution expects their rights to be asserted in the investigation BUT not the plaintiffs.

On 10/31/2016 Plaintiff and his Wife Nicole Holyfield stopped into a TCF Bank branch on Grand River Ave. in Novi, Ml. After lengthy discussion and Employee Ms. Renee Gracia taking the stance that the bank had until November 9^th to issue a provisional credit, she then got the branch manager, Steve Pode involved and went to a back room and my wife and I were told spoke to him. It is also relevant that Mr. Pode was in open cubicle next to us within hearing of our conversation. After Ms. Gracia and Mr. Pode's conversation I am told that a phone call was made to "kam" or "cam" at the "Regulation E" department. This call was made in front of my Wife and l. After the phone call I was informed a provisional credit had been approved in the full amount of $5,350.

Plaintiff States that on 11/1/2016 his account did not in fact reflect the temporary credit that was agreed to. Wife Nicole may be called as a witness in any court proceedings. At approximately 11:30 am Plaintiff received a callfrom Ms. Gracia stating that the agreement to issue a credit to Plaintiff's account would not be honored. I was told this was due to "Kam" or "Cam's" supervisor at the Regulation E department.

Plaintiff states that Ms. Gracia and Mr. Pode, being employees of TCF national bank and having responsibilities under the frank act and other consumer protection laws to report any wrong doing by banks which have been enacted to protect consumers from further damage by banks, be held personally liable to due to negligence and breach offiduciary duty. I request your honor to rule that the

Corporate Veil be pierced so that in this proceeding or in any subsequent ones The financial institutions and their employees who are to be held to the highest standards and notjust follow orders even if they violate federal regulation be held to that high standard.

Plaintiff requests unspecified damages for TCF Banks Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty In failing to stop a purchase that large in the amount of $5,250 BUT then proceeding with a call from the fraud department and putting a block on the card in question thereby admitting thefraudulent nature of the charge in question.

Plaintiff requests unspecified damages for TCF banks violations under the Americans with Disabilities act. On or about October 18^th Plaintifffunded his account. Plaintiff called TCF National Bank to notify them of the source of the funds and that they were auto accident related and due to a brain injury. Plaintiff was told if he wanted to make any large withdrawl's or deposits he would need documentation. This statement was made by "Barbara" who I was told works at the branch where I opened my account.

Plaintiff asserts on 10/31/2016 he acknowledged he would file a police report at the first request of TCF bank of 10/31/2016. TCF bank branch supervisor would not provide documents showing pages of attempted repeated high dollar charges that could be used to assist law enforcement. I was allowed to take a quick look but was told it could not be provided.

Plaintiff states unspecified damages due to TCF banks and their employee's negligent, and when it comes to the front office potentially fraudulent conduct, that has deprived me offunds that are neededfor medical expenses and have led to emotional distress; pain and suffering. Plaintiffs family has had to go without critical medical care due to banks unlawful and negligent action which has deprived Plaintiffs family of the necessary funds.

Plaintiff requests that your honor issue a written opinion on the legality of serving a requestfor admissions on the parties in this suit as well as interrogatories and any other limits to scope of discovery so that Plaintiff can have maximum preparation for any court proceedings. I would request your honor to compel the defendant to provide the full name and business address of "kam", the bank employee stated to have agreed to in conjunction with others provide provisional credit on Plaintiffs bank account. Until such information is known Plaintiff will serve notice at branch where agreement was made and telephone call took place.

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend complaint based on any further damages that arise out of issues known or unknown at this time.

Your honor I would also like to add that if a bank employee notices an employer committing a violation of law that regulated banks and in this case, would deprive consumers offunds, they have a statutory reporting requirement to the proper regulatory agency.

It is not my intent to be litigious your honor, in fact, if defendant(s) issue provisional credit in full amount to my account and allow me to withdraw it to avoid any further confusion, then I would have fully cooperated in their regulation E investigation as of yesterday. I reached out multiple times to a TCF bank branch and customer service to attempt to solve this before this court filing.

All I ask it that they honor their obligation to issue provisional credit since being put on verbal notice on the 20^th , which I have evidence of. If defendants were to take such actions immediately with no excuse such as their investigation suddenly being completed, which I alreadyfind biased based on their lack of regard for the regulation itself, I offered to waive any of the damages I assert in this lawsuit and immediately file motion for dismissal. Your honor with the unwillingness of this institution to budge and comply with Federal Regulation there are no doubt other who do not assert their rights through the courts. Banks being allowed to ignore regulations led to the 2008 financial crisis.

Plaintiff requests Court enterjudgement in the amount of $5,350 plus costs

State of Michigan 3^rd Circuit Court County of Wayne

Court address 2 Woodward Ave. Detroit, Mt 48226 Phone 313 224 5260

Emergency Motion for Injunctive relief

Anthony Holyfield

(((REDACTED)))

Phone (((REDACTED)))

TCF National Bank a Minnesota based corporation doing business in the State of

Michigan and a wholly owned banking subsidiary of TCF Financial Corporation

Now here comes the Plaintiff Pro Se Anthony R. Holyfield v. TCF National Bank a Minnesota based corporation doing business in the State of Michigan and a wholly owned banking subsidiary of TCF Financial Corporation

Plaintiff requests the court to grant Injunctive relief in favor of Plaintiff and respectfully request your honor issue court order compelling TCF National Bank to comply with Regulation E and compel TCF Bank to comply with regulation E 1005.6 which states by law a checking account with a debit card or other electronic access, if unauthorized activity is reported, requires the bank to grant in this case provisional credit in the amount of $5,350 to Plaintiffs checking account which is the amount in dispute of a covered transaction under Regulation E which covers such disputes that Banks must abide by.

The sections governing Regulation E that are pertinent are outlined below.

Plaintiff pleads to this court that depriving Plaintiff of these funds which Plaintiff is entitled to according to Reg E is effecting Medical Treatment, Child Support Payment, ability for child visitation and basic needs such as food and medicine. Your honor honor I request a this injunction be entered and I welcome a representative from TCF Bank to a hearing in your honors courtroom to present evidence.

Plaintiff States Defendant TCF National Bank Is subject to Regulation E which governs unauthorized transactions of debit cards. Defendant exhausted their 7-10 business days to investigate Plaintiffs claim and is in violation of Federal Regulation E 1005.6 which state the person may notify the person orally or by telephone in writing. (5) Notice to financial institution; Notice to a financial institution is given when a consumer takes steps reasonably necessary to provide the institution with the pertinent information, whether or not a particular employee or agent of the institution actually receives the information. and in turn is obligated to provide Plaintiff a provisional credit in the amount of the unauthorized charge. 1005.7 of Reg E defines business days as the financial institutions business days. Oral notice was provided on the 20^th to the card issuer and phone records will be presented in any hearing as evidence that plaintiff had conversation with TCF bank fraud prevention 105.11 (i) states the requirement of crediting the consumer account.

Plaintiff states there is a pending claim that has been filed in Oakland County 48^th District Court. Plaintiff contends that this matter is a separate issue that does not include multiple defendants as does the pending suit in District Court and does not seek monetary damages. A checking account contains the consumers own money or in this case the Plaintiff's. This emergency motion for injunction simply requests the court to compel the defendant to stop non-compliance with Federal

Regulation which by doing so is depriving the consumer or in this case the Plaintiff of his own money.

Plaintiff has established that according to Regulation E has met his requirements under regulation E for reporting requirements and for receipt of a provisional credit and has been deprived of thousands by a Financial institution with millions to which Plaintiff has limited ability to fight back and this court is his only recourse. Defendant TCF Bank has demonstrated complete negligence and or plain carelessness for the regulations meant to protect consumers. If your honor declines to grant this motion Plaintiff believes it would continue to deprive him of his rights under law and cause further irreparable harm.

Respectfully,

Anthony Holyfield

State of Michigan 3^rd Circuit Court County of Wayne

Court address 2 Woodward Ave. Detroit, Ml 48226 Phone 313 224 5260

Emergency Motion for Injunctive relief

Anthony Holyfield

 

TCF National Bank a Minnesota based corporation doing business in the State of

Michigan and a wholly owned banking subsidiary of TCF Financial Corporation

Now here comes the Plaintiff Pro Se Anthony R. Holyfield v. TCF National Bank a Minnesota based corporation doing business in the State of Michigan and a wholly owned banking subsidiary of TCF Financial Corporation

Plaintiff respectfully requests your honor issue a court order compelling TCF Bank to halt due to severe non compliance, the investigative process that covers consumers unauthorized transactions ; specifically due to the banks refusal to comply with Federal Regulation E 1005.11 (c) .1n order to clarify Plaintiff is not requesting an injunction related to 1005.11 (i) which pertains to provisional credit. Plaintiffs basis for request for preliminary injunction is based on banks refusal to comply with 1005.11 (i) provisional credit to consumer, while simultaneously exhibiting quasi compliance with certain sections of the Regulation.

With substantial non compliance of 1005.11(i) of Regulation E provisional credit to consumers account, TCF Bank has deprived the consumer of his funds. Despite plaintiff providing a demand letter to TCF outlining claim with evidence bank refuses to comply. TCF Bank in this case, is unable to conduct unbiased investigation into the unauthorized transaction under Reg E as evidenced by their substantial non compliance.

^th

Plaintiff states there is a pending claim that has been filed in Oakland County 48 District Court. Plaintiff contends that this matter is a separate issue that does not include multiple defendants as does the pending suit in District Court and does not seek monetary damages

Plaintiff request this honorable court enter this preliminary injunction in order to not further bias any investigative process under Regulation E and cause irreparable harm to plaintiff.

I would request that in connection with this preliminary injunction, This honorable court issue an order compelling TCF Bank to have Minnesota based Regulation E department based employee(s) appear in your honors courtroom in connection with any follow up hearing to explain the decision to not comply with Regulation E. I am fully aware that if your honor were to grant such an order and the bank failed to comply a contempt order could be issued.

State of Michigan 3^rd Circuit Court County of Wayne

Court address 2 Woodward Ave. Detroit, Ml 48226 Phone 313 224 5260

Complaint

Anthony Holyfield

 

TCF National Bank a Minnesota based corporation doing business in the State of

Michigan and a wholly owned banking subsidiary of TCF Financial Corporation; Brian W. Maass, Chief Financial Officer of TCF Financial Corporation

47500 Grand River Ave. Novi, Ml 48374

Phone 800-823-2265

Now here comes the Plaintiff Pro Se Anthony R. Holyfield v. TCF National Bank a Minnesota based corporation doing business in the State of Michigan and a wholly owned banking subsidiary of TCF Financial Corporation ; Brian W. Maass, Chief Financial Officer of TCF Financial Corporation

Plaintiff requests your honor issue preliminary injunctions preventing TCF Bank from further violating Federal banking regulations and causing irreparable harm to plaintiff.

Plaintiff to the best of his knowledge believes Brian W. Maass based on the general job description and responsibilities of a Chief Financial Officer has oversight and or some responsibility of the departments in question in Plaintiff's claim for alleged negligence. Mr. Maass, with his extensive experience as an Officer at Wells Fargo and Now at TCF Bank based on the professional history through TCF Bank's website, Is responsible forfinancial aspects of the company at the executive level.

Plaintiff does not seek monetary damages at this time. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief in the form of Preliminary injunctions. Motions for Preliminary Injunction to request this honorable court to order the bank to comply with federal banking law and consumer protections laws will be filed separately.

Respectfully,

Anthony Holyfield