5 ms·

Not sure if you have small claims court in America. In Canada for losses under 10000$ process is fairly straightforward. You should file and follow the process.

Not sure if you have small claims court in America. In Canada for losses under 10000$ process is fairly straightforward. You should file and follow the process. If they don't give money back, go to the court and execute writ of seizure. One guy did this. http://business.time.com/2011/06/06/homeowner-forecloses-on-bank-of-america-yes-you-heard-that-right/ http://business.time.com/2011/06/06/homeowner-forecloses-on-...

josh_fyi 10y ago
They would say "we had no choice, it was a court order. The sheriff's department is responsible for the mistake."
- perlpimp 10y ago
  Obviously bank didn't even validate SSN: “Is the last four digit of your SSN not 5189 (not the actual digits)?” Sounds like brunt of this mistake lies with the bank.
  - jasonjayr 10y ago
    Or who ever drafted the legal order to the bank. Could have been a typo there, and the bank is just following orders.
    - dugmartin 10y ago
      If it was just a typo, like the article says, this would be very much like Brazil (with much low stakes though)
    - rectang 10y ago
      A typo that results in a matching social security number? Unless an incredible coincidence occured, the bank did not match the SSN.
      - jandrese 10y ago
        The branch didn't even have a copy of the court order, there is no way they could have matched the SSNs. They were just doing whatever the county clerk told them.
    - FireBeyond 10y ago
      That would be a hell of a coincidence: "Typo'ed SSN just happens to give someone else who is a customer with the same bank and multiple components of the same name (Cheng Jiang vs Cheng Xian Jiang, IIRC).
- probably_wrong 10y ago
  In theory: the blog's author would counter argue that BoA didn't perform due diligence in checking that the order mentioned the correct person, and even then, they didn't send the notification on time. The court rules against BoA, and it's up to their lawyers to recoup the money. In practice: BoA pays straight out of their pocket, sends those $3.4K to losses, and shuts this down before the media finds out. And based on the speed of votes this article is getting, they will find out.
  - patio11 10y ago
    Absolutely correct. This is pocket lint to Bank of America. The big banks operate at an absolutely mammoth scale; BoA has 208k employees. More consequential mistakes than this happen by the thousands every day. There is, quite literally, a budget for it. It is an unfortunate reality for the US that you have to present as a savvy professional, but as soon as BoA is institutionally aware that there is a savvy professional who is at the point of involving a lawyer, I give them ~48 hours to make the decision internally "We're totally paying that" and a total resolution time of under two weeks. If it were me here, I'd ask for the branch manager at my first visit immediately after getting the run-around from tier 1 CS. I give better-than-even odds that the branch manager can self-resolve this, particularly for a longer-term customer or relationship they'd otherwise have reason to care about. If the branch manager isn't super receptive to that immediately, walk into any lawyer's office and say "I want a letter written to Bank of America saying that they owe me $X plus whatever you charge for the letter." (If you for whatever reason can't afford a lawyer or can't get a lawyer to take you seriously, you can get much of the same effect by saying "Regulation E" on paper. [+]) Your lawyer won't even have to threaten a suit over this. Everyone knows the score here. (I use to ghostwrite letters to banks. One of my weird hobbies.) [+] Regulation E governs electronic funds transfers at US financial institutions. People who know that are very dangerous people for banks to annoy, because Regulation E contains a state machine which is very consumer-favorable, and there is an implicit threat of "I bring your operation of the state machine to the attention of a bored regulator who has no joy in their life other than opportunities to hold your feet to the fire for improperly operating state machines."
    - 10y ago
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. The legal order required them to withdraw money from someone with a different name and SSN than who was involved in the case? That's not a winning argument.
maxlybbert 10y ago
Small claims court is actually mentioned in the Constitution. However, the actual guarantee in the Constitution is for claims of less than $20. All states also allow you to file for larger amounts, usually something like $5000.
- wyldfire 10y ago
  I think you're referring to Amendment VII which provides for jury trials in matters greater than $20, not less than. This refers to guarantees of federal civil courts, in which this matter (all parties local to CA?) would likely not fall. > "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
  - maxlybbert 10y ago
    You are right. Thanks for the correction.
- kevin_b_er 10y ago
  Assuming he's not also under mandatory binding arbitration, a monkey court that will side with BoA's theft of 3 thousand dollar.s

josh_fyi 10y ago

They would say "we had no choice, it was a court order. The sheriff's department is responsible for the mistake."

perlpimp 10y ago
Obviously bank didn't even validate SSN: “Is the last four digit of your SSN not 5189 (not the actual digits)?” Sounds like brunt of this mistake lies with the bank.
- jasonjayr 10y ago
  Or who ever drafted the legal order to the bank. Could have been a typo there, and the bank is just following orders.
  - dugmartin 10y ago
    If it was just a typo, like the article says, this would be very much like Brazil (with much low stakes though)
  - rectang 10y ago
    A typo that results in a matching social security number? Unless an incredible coincidence occured, the bank did not match the SSN.
    - jandrese 10y ago
      The branch didn't even have a copy of the court order, there is no way they could have matched the SSNs. They were just doing whatever the county clerk told them.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    That would be a hell of a coincidence: "Typo'ed SSN just happens to give someone else who is a customer with the same bank and multiple components of the same name (Cheng Jiang vs Cheng Xian Jiang, IIRC).
probably_wrong 10y ago
In theory: the blog's author would counter argue that BoA didn't perform due diligence in checking that the order mentioned the correct person, and even then, they didn't send the notification on time. The court rules against BoA, and it's up to their lawyers to recoup the money. In practice: BoA pays straight out of their pocket, sends those $3.4K to losses, and shuts this down before the media finds out. And based on the speed of votes this article is getting, they will find out.
- patio11 10y ago
  Absolutely correct. This is pocket lint to Bank of America. The big banks operate at an absolutely mammoth scale; BoA has 208k employees. More consequential mistakes than this happen by the thousands every day. There is, quite literally, a budget for it. It is an unfortunate reality for the US that you have to present as a savvy professional, but as soon as BoA is institutionally aware that there is a savvy professional who is at the point of involving a lawyer, I give them ~48 hours to make the decision internally "We're totally paying that" and a total resolution time of under two weeks. If it were me here, I'd ask for the branch manager at my first visit immediately after getting the run-around from tier 1 CS. I give better-than-even odds that the branch manager can self-resolve this, particularly for a longer-term customer or relationship they'd otherwise have reason to care about. If the branch manager isn't super receptive to that immediately, walk into any lawyer's office and say "I want a letter written to Bank of America saying that they owe me $X plus whatever you charge for the letter." (If you for whatever reason can't afford a lawyer or can't get a lawyer to take you seriously, you can get much of the same effect by saying "Regulation E" on paper. [+]) Your lawyer won't even have to threaten a suit over this. Everyone knows the score here. (I use to ghostwrite letters to banks. One of my weird hobbies.) [+] Regulation E governs electronic funds transfers at US financial institutions. People who know that are very dangerous people for banks to annoy, because Regulation E contains a state machine which is very consumer-favorable, and there is an implicit threat of "I bring your operation of the state machine to the attention of a bored regulator who has no joy in their life other than opportunities to hold your feet to the fire for improperly operating state machines."
  - 10y ago
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
I'm not sure I follow. The legal order required them to withdraw money from someone with a different name and SSN than who was involved in the case? That's not a winning argument.

maxlybbert 10y ago

Small claims court is actually mentioned in the Constitution. However, the actual guarantee in the Constitution is for claims of less than $20. All states also allow you to file for larger amounts, usually something like $5000.

wyldfire 10y ago
I think you're referring to Amendment VII which provides for jury trials in matters greater than $20, not less than. This refers to guarantees of federal civil courts, in which this matter (all parties local to CA?) would likely not fall. > "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
- maxlybbert 10y ago
  You are right. Thanks for the correction.
kevin_b_er 10y ago
Assuming he's not also under mandatory binding arbitration, a monkey court that will side with BoA's theft of 3 thousand dollar.s