Jeffrey Haskins v. Financial Builders Federal Credit Union

── Jeffrey Haskins v. Financial Builders Federal Credit Union ── Court: Indiana Court of Appeals Date: April 20, 2026 Author: Stephen Scheele Category: General IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana Jeffrey Haskins, FILED Appellant-Plaintiff Apr 20 2026, 8:45 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals v. and Tax Court Financial Builders Federal Credit Union, Appellee-Defendant April 20, 2026 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-PL-1810 Appeal from the Howard Superior Court The Honorable Ryan D. Washburn, Judge Pro Tempore Trial Court Cause No. 34D02-2412-PL-4336 Opinion by Judge Scheele Judges Brown and Felix concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1810 | April 20, 2026 Page 1 of 8  Scheele, Judge. Case Summary [1] Jeffrey Haskins appeals the trial court’s grant of Financial Builders Federal Credit Union’s Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. Haskins raises one issue for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court erred in dismissing his overdraft-fees claim as time-barred under Indiana Code section 34-11-2-9(c). We affirm. Facts and Procedural History [2] Haskins was a member of Financial Builders Federal Credit Union (Financial Builders) where he held a checking account pursuant to a “Membership and Account Agreement[.]” App. Vol. II p. 142. On December 30, 2024, Haskins filed a class action complaint against Financial Builders. On March 7, 2025, Haskins amended his complaint asserting, in relevant part, a breach of contract claim based on Financial Builders’ assessment of overdraft fees. Specifically, Haskins challenged overdraft fees charged to his account on three dates— February 2, 2022, August 8, 2022, and September 1, 2022—alleging they were assessed while his account held sufficient funds to cover his transactions. Id. at 36. [3] Financial Builders filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) on March 27, 2025, alleging Haskins’ claim was time-barred under Indiana Code section 34-11-2-9(c)’s two-year limitations period. On June 26, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1810 | April 20, 2026 Page 2 of 8  the trial court granted Financial Builders’ motion and dismissed Haskins’ claim. 1 Haskins now appeals. Discussion and Decision [4] We review a ruling on a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion de novo. City of Fishers v. Netflix, Inc., 264 N.E.3d 69, 77 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied. “A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(B)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint: that is, whether the allegations in the complaint establish any set of circumstances under which a plaintiff would be entitled to relief.” Id. (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. of Ind. v. Blue Sky Innovation Grp., Inc., 230 N.E.3d 898, 901 (Ind. 2024), reh’g. denied). “An order to dismiss is affirmed when it is apparent that the facts alleged in the challenged pleading are incapable of supporting relief under any set of circumstances.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). Here, it is undisputed that Haskins held a checking account with Financial Builders and the overdraft fees were charged more than two years prior to the d