On February 26, 2026, the Court of Civil Appeals released its opinion in Paker et al. v. Valliance Bank, 2026 OK CIV APP 5, — P.3d —, which addresses a financial institution’s obligations to its customers under the Oklahoma Financial Privacy Act, 6 O.S. § 2201 et seq. (the “OFPA”), when responding to subpoenas duces tecum. The OFPA was enacted to protect the confidentiality of a financial institution customer’s financial records and to regulate how said records can be disclosed.
Financial institutions must comply with the OFPA’s notice and challenge procedures
Under the OFPA, when a party seeks financial records of a financial institution’s customer and that customer is not a party to the pending litigation, the requesting party must serve the customer with a copy of the subpoena at the last known address and provide the customer fourteen (14) days to file a motion to quash. 6 O.S. § 2204.
Further, before the financial institution can produce financial records in response to a subpoena duces tecum, the OFPA requires the requesting party to provide the financial institution a written certification confirming compliance with the OFPA’s notice and challenge procedures. 6 O.S. § 2208. Pursuant to the OFPA, a financial institution may in good faith rely upon the written certification and is not liable for the disclosure of the customer’s records. 6 O.S. § 2208.
Foreclosure lawsuit leads to the issue of a subpoena duces tecum
Parker arises out of financial transactions and a foreclosure suit involving Greenway Park, LLC. Greenway Park, LLC, obtained a loan from Valliance Bank, which was secured by real property. As part of the underwriting of that loan, the members of Greenway Park, LLC, provided Valliance Bank with certain financial information relevant to showing the members could guarantee the loan. The member’s financial information became a part of Valliance Bank’s loan file.
Subsequently, a judgment lien was recorded against Greenway Park, LLC, for $500,000.00, by an unrelated party. Greenway Park, LLC, filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Valliance Bank then sold the note and mortgage to DMWP, LLC, an entity managed by a brother of a member of Greenway Park, LLC. DMWP, LLC, then filed a foreclosure action against Greenway Park, LLC, and the unrelated judgment lien holder.
During the foreclosure action, the attorney for the unrelated judgment lien holder issued a subpoena duces tecum to Valliant Bank seeking a copy of its loan file. The subpoena duces tecum was issued without serving Greenway Park, LLC, or the bankruptcy trustee with a copy. Additionally, the subpoena duces tecum did not include the written certification of compliance required by 6 O.S. § 2208.
Disclosure of confidential financial records violates the OFPA
Valliance Bank moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum. Eventually, Valliance Bank’s corporate representative was presented for a deposition and produced the requested financial records.
The day after the deposition was completed, counsel for the members of Greenway Park, LLC, issued a cease-and-desist letter demanding that the parties stop reviewing the financial records of the members of Greenway Park, LLC. The attorney for the unrelated judgment lienholder refused and named the members of Greenway Park, LLC, as third parties to the pending foreclosure litigation.
The members of Greenway Park, LLC, then filed suit asserting claims for negligence, violation of the Oklahoma Financial Privacy Act, and breach of fiduciary duty. They argued that Valliance Bank wrongfully disclosed confidential financial records causing them damage. The trial court entered a directed verdict in Valliance Bank’s favor, which was upheld on appeal.
Parker ruling upheld on appeal
On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals noted that the attorney for the unrelated judgment lienholder issued the subpoena duces tecum as an officer of the Court, and therefore, the subpoena was properly issued pursuant to 6 O.S. § 2203(b).
The Court of Civil Appeal continued: “Nonetheless, the Bank was prohibited from releasing its customer’s financial records ‘until the government authority seeking the records certifies in writing that it has complied with the applicable provisions of the Financial Privacy Act.’ 6 O.S.2021 § 2208(A).”
However, the attorney for the unrelated judgment lienholder did not provide the certificate of compliance required by the OFPA. The Court of Civil Appeals concluded that, when Valliance Bank produced the requested financial records, it violated the OFPA.
Court of Civil Appeals rules that the OFPA affords limited protections for bank customers
The Court of Civil Appeals’ analysis did not end there. Although the members of Greenway Park, LLC, established a violation of the OFPA, the Court of Civil Appeals found that they could not assert a valid negligence claim against Valliance Bank. The Court of Civil Appeals emphasized the protections afforded under the OFPA extended to the customer whose records were requested but not the records of other customers that may legitimately appear in the customer’s file.
As the Court of Civil Appeals explained: “To the extent that some of the Documents in the Greenway Park loan file included personal financial records of the [members of Greenway Park, LLC], those documents were voluntarily provided by those Bank ‘customers’ to obtain financing for another Bank ‘customer,’ Greenway Park. Although the Act required the Bank to obtain a certificate of compliance from the issuer of the [ ] subpoena before producing Greenway Park’s documents, the Act did not require the Bank to segregate and withhold from production documents lawfully in its possession because they happened to have also related to or been provided by another customer whose records were not the subject of the subpoena.” (Parker, ¶ 27.)
The Court of Civil Appeals also rejected the breach of fiduciary duty claim by the members of Greenway Park, LLC, stating that by statute a bank does not owe its customers a fiduciary duty absent an express written agreement. Because there was no express written agreement creating a fiduciary duty, the claim by the members of Greenway Park, LLC, failed as a matter of law.
What the decision in Parker means for Oklahoma financial institutions
For financial institutions doing business in Oklahoma, the Court of Civil Appeals decision in Parker is important on multiple fronts.
It reminds us that compliance with the OFPA is both technical and mandatory. Production of financial records without obtaining the written certification required by the OFPA is a statutory violation even if no damages result. This means that financial institutions should develop and ensure strict compliance with OFPA procedures for responding to subpoenas duces tecum.
Those procedures should include a requirement that the requesting party provide a written certification to the financial institution before producing any financial records.Those procedures should also require a detailed review of the requested records to determine whether other customers’ records are included in the responsive information and, if so, why.
- This opinion reminds us that while a financial institution may not be required to segregate financial records belonging to other customers that are legitimately a part of the requested information. That said, the Court of Civil Appeals pointed out that the OFPA also requires that financial institutions use reasonable measures to prevent inadvertent disclosures of financial records of other customers.
- This opinion reminds us that financial institutions should be mindful of the fact that fiduciary duties arise only through written agreements between the financial institution and its customers.
Gungoll Jackson banking and finance attorneys serve financial institutions throughout Oklahoma
It is important that financial institutions have legal counsel they can trust to help navigate Oklahoma’s statutes and regulations that impact their day-to-day operations. Schedule a meeting with Gungoll Jackson’s banking and finance attorneys to discuss how we can help you. Contact us today to get started.
