3 ms·

Was the bank really at fault here? From what I see they receive a legal letter from the Sheriff’s Department, and they complied with the letter. The article doe

Was the bank really at fault here? From what I see they receive a legal letter from the Sheriff’s Department, and they complied with the letter. The article doesn't say what was included in the letter to the bank, I assume the author doesn't know either. It could have the wrong SSN, or the Sheriff’s Department just looked up the defendant's name, found the author's account number and SSN, and sent those to the bank.

ScottBurson 10y ago
It's true, we don't know what was in the letter, but there was probably some information that didn't match. Even if not, the bank still failed to notify him in time to contest the levy. That makes it their fault.
justabystander 10y ago
Any major corporation has lawyers (either in-house or on retainer) to verify that court orders are valid before complying with them. Bank of America either chose not to use them, or they didn't do their own due diligence. You can bet this wouldn't have happened if the case involved several hundred thousands (or millions) of dollars. Court orders have to be specific for a reason - to protect property rights. If some of the information on a court order doesn't match the facts, the proper thing to do is challenge it. Using a warrant as an example, law enforcement isn't allowed to get a judge to allow them to enter a property and just take "anything incriminating". They need to specifically list what they're taking, what case it's in conjunction to, and how the property relates to the case. They're not allowed to take anything that doesn't match the exact specifics of the order. And if any of that information is wrong, the order is invalid and executing it makes people liable to civil suits. The bank should have challenged it themselves, since they had the necessary information to do so (a name and SSN). Failing that, they should have informed the customer with sufficient time to do it for them. Bank of America doesn't deserve a pass on this. They screwed up. The court did, too, but it's BoA's job to hold on to people's money and verify identities before handing it out. Had they just told the court that the bank account didn't match the specified person, the court would have taken "no" for an answer.

ScottBurson 10y ago

It's true, we don't know what was in the letter, but there was probably some information that didn't match. Even if not, the bank still failed to notify him in time to contest the levy. That makes it their fault.

justabystander 10y ago

Any major corporation has lawyers (either in-house or on retainer) to verify that court orders are valid before complying with them. Bank of America either chose not to use them, or they didn't do their own due diligence. You can bet this wouldn't have happened if the case involved several hundred thousands (or millions) of dollars. Court orders have to be specific for a reason - to protect property rights. If some of the information on a court order doesn't match the facts, the proper thing to do is challenge it. Using a warrant as an example, law enforcement isn't allowed to get a judge to allow them to enter a property and just take "anything incriminating". They need to specifically list what they're taking, what case it's in conjunction to, and how the property relates to the case. They're not allowed to take anything that doesn't match the exact specifics of the order. And if any of that information is wrong, the order is invalid and executing it makes people liable to civil suits. The bank should have challenged it themselves, since they had the necessary information to do so (a name and SSN). Failing that, they should have informed the customer with sufficient time to do it for them. Bank of America doesn't deserve a pass on this. They screwed up. The court did, too, but it's BoA's job to hold on to people's money and verify identities before handing it out. Had they just told the court that the bank account didn't match the specified person, the court would have taken "no" for an answer.