4 ms·

> If you know a little bit about legal procedure dealing with something like this shouldn't be too hard. Well, responses on here vary from "sue the bank, it's

> If you know a little bit about legal procedure dealing with something like this shouldn't be too hard. Well, responses on here vary from "sue the bank, it's their fault," to "contact/sue the LASD, it's their fault" to "contact the plaintiff's lawyers, they'll fix it" to "contact the defendant's lawyers, they'll pay for it or else." So clearly, this is likely to cost more than a couple afternoons. One day, a sheriff showed up at my home and confiscated my guns. Turns out some lunatic that I don't even know had filed a domestic abuse restraining order against me and the state I was in grants a temporary order by default. Took 2 months to resolve this and cost me about $6k in legal fees. Took several months to get my guns back. While that's not the same as "you're not actually the guy named in the lawsuit", it illustrates how disruptive this kind of thing can be.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago
Absolutely. And he's lucky it was just $4k. What of it was $100k and included money you needed to live and pay the mortgage with? This type of negligence by the bank is downright scary.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- scrummytim 10y ago
  It's not clear to me that it's the bank's fault. The court must've done some kind of discovery to send the bank a garnish order. So was the bank lazy and just took money from a similar named account without checking the details? Or did the court identify the wrong defendant and issue a garnish order for the wrong person?
  - d_theorist 10y ago
    Either way, BofA should still have given the customer sufficient notification to enable them to object before taking the money.
    - jandrese 10y ago
      I wouldn't be surprised if they are specifically barred from doing this to avoid having defendants liquidate their assets right before the confiscate order comes through.
      - ianferrel 10y ago
        It's not like the only options are "take the money" and "let the customer liquidate it". The middle ground is "notify the customer and freeze the accounts while they're responding".
        pc86 10y ago
        Which is no different than just taking the money. You can't get a loan against a frozen account, you can't use a frozen account to buy groceries or pay your mortgage, and you can't get an extension on your credit cards because your account is frozen. Swap out "took my money" with "froze my account" in the article and 90% of the comments here would be identical.
        ianferrel 10y ago
        It is substantially different. One is an administrative hold that can be lifted by the bank. The other is an inter-bank transfer process that maybe has to go through the courts. The reason the person in this article has had such a hard time is that he has to convince more than just his bank that they screwed up because they don't have his money any more.
  - matt_wulfeck 10y ago
    You're right actually. The post doesn't mention whether it was the bank or the sheriffs office that goofed on the name. He also mentions something about his credit union being more competent. That suggests it may have been the sheriff's office that mixed up the names if two separate banks had garnish orders.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      It seems clear that its not a mistake of one party or the other, clearly its a mistake on both parts. The Sheriff should have checked better and the bank should have double checked.
  - kevinchen 10y ago
    If the details of the story are true, there is no way for the bank to be completely innocent here and it doesn't matter whether the police or court messed up. Upon receiving a legal order for some customer, the bank should at least make sure the name, SSN, and mailing address match before zeroing out the account.
late2part 10y ago
I'm sorry that happened to you. You shouldn't lose our 2nd amendment rights based on unsubstantiated claims that you can't defend against. Very unfair and not right. Unfortunately, this is the law in California. But it should be changed, because it's unconstitutional and it's not right.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago

Absolutely. And he's lucky it was just $4k. What of it was $100k and included money you needed to live and pay the mortgage with? This type of negligence by the bank is downright scary.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
scrummytim 10y ago
It's not clear to me that it's the bank's fault. The court must've done some kind of discovery to send the bank a garnish order. So was the bank lazy and just took money from a similar named account without checking the details? Or did the court identify the wrong defendant and issue a garnish order for the wrong person?
- d_theorist 10y ago
  Either way, BofA should still have given the customer sufficient notification to enable them to object before taking the money.
  - jandrese 10y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if they are specifically barred from doing this to avoid having defendants liquidate their assets right before the confiscate order comes through.
    - ianferrel 10y ago
      It's not like the only options are "take the money" and "let the customer liquidate it". The middle ground is "notify the customer and freeze the accounts while they're responding".
      - pc86 10y ago
        Which is no different than just taking the money. You can't get a loan against a frozen account, you can't use a frozen account to buy groceries or pay your mortgage, and you can't get an extension on your credit cards because your account is frozen. Swap out "took my money" with "froze my account" in the article and 90% of the comments here would be identical.
        ianferrel 10y ago
        It is substantially different. One is an administrative hold that can be lifted by the bank. The other is an inter-bank transfer process that maybe has to go through the courts. The reason the person in this article has had such a hard time is that he has to convince more than just his bank that they screwed up because they don't have his money any more.
- matt_wulfeck 10y ago
  You're right actually. The post doesn't mention whether it was the bank or the sheriffs office that goofed on the name. He also mentions something about his credit union being more competent. That suggests it may have been the sheriff's office that mixed up the names if two separate banks had garnish orders.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    It seems clear that its not a mistake of one party or the other, clearly its a mistake on both parts. The Sheriff should have checked better and the bank should have double checked.
- kevinchen 10y ago
  If the details of the story are true, there is no way for the bank to be completely innocent here and it doesn't matter whether the police or court messed up. Upon receiving a legal order for some customer, the bank should at least make sure the name, SSN, and mailing address match before zeroing out the account.

late2part 10y ago

I'm sorry that happened to you. You shouldn't lose our 2nd amendment rights based on unsubstantiated claims that you can't defend against. Very unfair and not right. Unfortunately, this is the law in California. But it should be changed, because it's unconstitutional and it's not right.