Posts by Frank Walker7

silverfox91 said:Drop the milk act? What am I supposed to do, start turning down gifts? To me, that's a gift. If she gives me $1000 instead of $100, then she (the teller) messed up and she’s the one who needs to fix it. If she gave me too much, that's her problem. It's the same as if she handed me ten cartons of milk when I only wanted one. She told me, "Take the milk," so I took it. Let the bank or the store deal with her. In almost every other industry, people who screw up have to own it. But in these sacred banks, nobody is responsible except always their customers. Nobody asks if the teller is doing okay; they just harass an innocent person.

If I had done this through online banking, I’d be singing a battle hymn because I’d be the one who screwed up. My problem. But if someone hands you a gift on the street, you take it. Doesn't matter if it's a candy bar or a car. Why should someone come sniffing around two days later asking for that candy back? They gave it to me.

You tell me to drop the milk thing, but you aren't even addressing the point. Ten cartons of milk is $17 and a significant amount of money to some. Why is that any different from these $1000 which don't mean much to me?

What about those groups that go out on the streets handing out Christmas money? Are they supposed to give it all back two days later once someone realizes they actually needed the cash?

I love how lawyers think they're the only holy, honest people left while everyone else is an idiot. We all know there aren't many people more dishonest or crooked than lawyers. Just turn on the TV at any hour.

Frank Walker7, remember that crew in Indianapolis with RBC? Remember how the teller and the outsiders did exactly that, and look what happened... the teller had to pay it all back along with those two outsiders. And she ended up in a jam because she wasn't just accidentally underpaying—she was stealing from people's accounts. She wasn't just transferring 10 million because someone told her to; she was looting accounts. It's just like that situation in Seattle or that guy... or that other guy...

This isn't about lawyers; it's about the law. If your stance is basically "screw the laws," okay, there's a remedy for that too.
People have already commented enough on the whole "gift" thing.

I don't know about the RBA situation, but I'm not going to comment until you show me something other than news articles, since those aren't really reliable sources for me.
But you're basically arguing with yourself here; she had to return the money to the clerk and the outside group. Get it?
And again, if a crime has been proven—and intentionally transferring money to someone else's account definitely is—then it's clear that all the benefits gained from that act must be returned.

Which guy in Seattle? Nodilo? That's a completely different story; he was using his authority to make investments. The money didn't just land in random accounts; he treated investments like gambling and couldn't stop once things started sliding downhill.

And yes, I will address your milk example.
If you pay for 10 liters of milk and they deliver 15, if the person delivering them were to sue, you wouldn't have to return the milk itself, but rather its monetary value.
Of course, that example is a bit of a caricature of the principle of unjust enrichment, but all the essential elements are there: the transfer of assets from one person to another without a legal basis

EDIT: The core of your logic is that it would be great if everyone made mistakes in your favor all the time so you could live off of it.
I just don't get the desire to hold onto something that isn't yours, unless it's just a craving for an easy life. There's nothing wrong with wanting a comfortable life, but it's worth working a little harder when you weren't born with millions.

Honestly, if things actually worked the way people wish they did—where you didn't have to pay back what you took—everyone would just team up with some banker to wire, say, $1.5 million, and then that employee could just walk away from her job.
Then, those twenty people she sent the money to could all just chip in a little bit to her husband's account, and everyone lives happily ever after in luxury.

The teller wouldn't have any cash herself, nor would she ever need it since there's zero reason to work when your husband is sitting on millions. So, the bank might as well just kiss that money goodbye.

It sounds like a dream, but once you have about a hundred "geniuses" pulling stunts like that, we’d run into a massive issue whenever someone tried to withdraw their savings because the bank would be completely broke. And then we'd all be in a real mess, though honestly, it feels like we might already be there.

Besides, what’s really the difference between using someone else's money when you steal it on purpose versus when you knowingly use it even if you didn't mean to rob them?

EDIT
@Steven Reed congrats, you hit your 10,001st post!

Richard Lewis16 said:Honestly, if I were you, I wouldn't give her a single cent back just yet...

I mean, why even stress about it? Just drag the whole legal thing out a bit longer. Tell them they were being aggressive, maybe even threatening, and that you tried to settle things reasonably but they wouldn't bud라—basically make sure they know this isn't on you at all...
Since you're short on cash right now
maybe wait until the third or fourth hearing before you even worry about the money...😉

Actually, your best bet is probably just to find a decent lawyer and let him handle everything...😉

Just feed him those little fairy tales about how everything was stolen or cursed, and trust me, it'll all come back to you eventually... you see it happen all over the world, how people who play dirty always end up paying the price...😉
It's just one of those stories those self-righteous moralists try to tell to keep you acting like a pushover.

Man, what an absolute drag... this is just dragging on forever.
Do you think the plaintiff can still manage things while the lawsuit is ongoing?
If he ends up being sued and decides to lay out the whole story to the judge in his response, the judge will probably schedule a hearing in no time at all and wrap the whole thing up. Once they hear the facts, everything will be crystal clear—it’s just a baseless lawsuit through and through. If you have a second, take a look back at a few pages of what I wrote about this earlier.

silverfox91 said:I’m completely lost here. I know where I live, but the idea that I’d have to pay someone back just because they handed me more than I asked for? That’s insane. Look at the milk example. Her issue is simply that she gave me more than I requested. She did it on her own. Nobody held a gun to her head.

Why does he even feel the need to justify himself to the bank? Honestly, who cares. Especially since he’s 12 miles from the bank and has to cover his own gas, bus, or train fare. Who’s going to reimburse him for all that time and money? Around here, nobody asks if you actually have the time or the cash to deal with their nonsense. If the situation were reversed, they’d just snatch the money right out of his account and he could fight all he wanted.

Oh, come on now, let's not be silly.
If you ever accidentally sent money to someone else's account, you’d definitely be singing a different tune. Listen to this guy—why on earth would I give back something that isn't mine? 👎Well, it’s really just because the law says you have to follow through; you can't exactly claim it was all an accident to get out of it.
Seriously, just stop with all the talk about milk...

Zachary Sanders said:$500 He holds them right now because they’re sitting in his account. However, that $1,500 now belongs to the creditor, who acted in good faith believing the funds were his actual property. In reality, he was just holding them.
It’s actually quite simple to prove that he just holds the assets without owning them. A single bank statement from JPMorgan Chase settles it. 😁

I just finished reviewing my new account agreement from JPMorgan Chase. There’s a clause in there that gives the bank the right to correct entries. It was buried in the fine print, but it’s definitely there.😁

I get where this guy is coming from; I wouldn't want to be in his shoes either. Generally speaking, bank contracts are written to favor the institution rather than the customer. Any legal battle he pursues would likely end up working against him. On the other hand, launching an action against both the bank and the employee could work in his favor, but that’s really just a question of how much time and money he wants to burn. Honestly, the easiest way out is to just sit down and reach a settlement with the bank and the representative.

If JPMorgan Chase tries to wash their hands of this while the teller keeps insisting on payment, I’m filing a lawsuit. A bank has every right to fix an entry if it doesn't hurt the client, but since this correction caused me actual problems, I believe it needs to be handled differently.

BringitbackI'm guessing you might be short on cash for a lawyer or legal counsel, so I’d suggest checking out this legal PDF or sticking to this forum. I can't access that specific link right now. If you have the text from the forum you want me to rewrite, just paste it here and I'll get to work on it. You'll definitely find the best answer right here.

There's really no connection to be made between ownership and possession here.
The only thing that really matters here is that his net worth was inflated without any actual justification, especially since his debt has already been cleared.

Joseph Watson3 said:Do you actually grasp the fact that someone undergoing foreclosure still has legal rights? A third party can't just settle someone else's debt and then immediately demand repayment under duress. That's essentially debt buying and aggressive collection tactics—which, in many states, borders on criminal behavior.

God, if our banks are really this disconnected from reality... It honestly makes me want to close every single one of my American accounts and just walk away.

🤣🤣🤣
I really hope you aren't a lawyer.....

You're mixing up a few different legal concepts here. If we're talking about a third party settling a debt, we could bring up assignment or personal subrogation if you want to get technical.
But that part about how it can't be done immediately under coercion really bothers me.
Two questions for you: if it can't happen immediately, when *can* it happen? And if it can't be done through coercion, then how is it actually done? Give me an alternative for when you're seeking repayment from someone.

We could potentially talk about a bank taking more aggressive action, but that's where the argument ends.

And as for closing all your accounts in the States—go ahead and close them, nobody's stopping you. There's no need to announce it on a forum.

Joseph Watson3 said:Even buying a stolen car—assuming you actually had no idea it was hot—isn't a crime, yet you still end up losing the vehicle regardless. Are we struggling with reading comprehension here?

I'd love to see you apply that exact logic to this specific situation from a legal standpoint—assuming we can all practice a little bit of reading comprehension along the way.

Andrew Barrett4 said:I think everyone seems to be overlooking the fundamental reality here: a person finds themselves in this mess because they’re broke
and they're basically dancing on the edge of a total financial meltdown

And now, instead of cutting the cord, the plan is to tighten the noose, push them deeper into a hole, and demand they cough up $1,500 that they simply don't have

Do you honestly believe that's considered responsible or fair???

Survival follows its own set of rules, I suppose
and it’s easy to play the noble, politically correct, or morally superior card when you actually have a healthy savings account

Maybe they could just pay it back in small installments, without all these extra fees and interest hikes
if they don't sign anything immediately, they might at least have a chance to work something out with their bank

That's exactly what I was saying earlier—if you look above, I really think he should try to negotiate with the bank to wait until he actually has some funds available, hopefully without all those interest charges. They won't waive the principal amount, obviously, but maybe they could at least cancel those ridiculous $$33 penalties and interest fees per item.

Andrew Barrett4 said:It’s not even about whether he’s holding onto something that doesn't belong to him; that's not the point here.
He should just return those $1,500 before the bank comes after him with a garnishment order.
I suppose he could just issue a one-time authorization to wire the $1,500 back to the sender's account.

Besides, he didn't personally pocket anything to justify keeping it; it was all just due to circumstances beyond his control.

Just as a precaution in case this ends up in a legal dispute.

He shouldn't have to suffer because of someone else's screw-up. He needs to just bite the bullet and settle it, that's all.

That's true, but even if those $1,500 get pulled back, it feels like moving money from one empty pocket to another since a new debt of the exact same amount will just pop up.
At least there aren't interest rates as crazy as when Suker handles the loans...

Steven Reed said:This is truly inspiring. 😍
Tips on how to hold onto something that doesn't actually belong to you. 😍
It’s hardly a mystery why this country finds itself in such a state. 🙏

Finally, someone making sense and sticking to the letter of the law.

I’m still scratching my head over the math here; he got $1,500 back because his garnishment was reduced by that much, but he still owes a fresh $1,500.
Sure, there are extra headaches involved, but hey, that's just how it goes...

Andrew Barrett4 said:Just one more thing I’d suggest:
- start keeping a chronological log of everything. Write down the order of events, who reached out to you, and exactly what was said—word for word if possible.
- after that, insist on handling all further correspondence in writing. For anything else, just be "unavailable."
The whole point is to maintain a paper trail of how things unfold, because let's face it, details get fuzzy and forgotten pretty fast.
- also, don't forget that every bank and teller window (especially where money changes hands) has security cameras. They can back up your story regarding how the staff behaved, and they can prove you didn't defraud anyone. Those recordings should be accessible for review during any legal dispute.

Closing the account might actually be a decent move. Of course, you’d need to go to a different branch, and only if the balance is sitting at zero. You could then open a new account and try to shift your existing obligations or debts over there.

What for?
what kind of dispute?

He’ll lose that case in a single hearing! Once he tells his story to the judge, it's over... there's no Al I didn't do anything wrong, you accepted someone else's money, so you have to pay it back. It's that simple.

Joseph Watson3 said:The responsibility to return the funds lies with whoever collected them from the wrong person via garnishment. Think about it—what happens when you buy a stolen car? The police take it back to the rightful owner, and you're left to chase down the thief who sold it to you.

Under US law, there are protections regarding how much of your income can be garnished—you know, those legal limits designed to keep people afloat. Now, because of some blunder at JP Morgan Chase, this person is basically being told to pay back a debt that falls right within those protected limits, effectively forcing them to waive their own legal rights. Personally? I wouldn't do it.

It is honestly mind-boggling how many piles of nonsense have been written here just to defend one incompetent bank employee.

Not necessarily.
The funds were sitting right there in the account, so they were rightfully collected. This isn't some criminal matter, and comparing this to a stolen car just doesn't hold up.

Drew Scott13 said:I can weigh in from a legal standpoint.
Look, if you want to be difficult, you can hold your ground and refuse to pay anything because: you didn't do this on purpose, and legally, they aren't allowed to touch the funds in your account labeled $3333. This entire thing boils down to your own willingness to cooperate.
If the clerk was being unprofessional, here is how you handle it. From a moral and ethical perspective, you have to make things right (don't take what isn't yours). Honestly, she probably lost enough sleep over her own rudeness that it serves as its own punishment. Legally speaking, she is obligated to rectify the deficit, and if she were to face a private lawsuit for damages, she'd likely lose and end up footing the bill for court costs plus all your expenses and attorney fees. What I recommend is reaching out in writing first to express your desire to repay the amount. It's up to them to figure out the logistics. You won't get a loan from a bank for this because there's no legitimate basis for one. Your best bet is to settle it by having her cover your travel costs (like gas or whatever) and then agreeing to pay her back in installments whenever you have the cash. That is the only way to stay honest, ensure justice is served, and prevent the telecom company from trying to seize your computer through a garnishment. You could even offer to trade some labor or a service if you have a skill she needs. There are a hundred ways to do this, but there is only one way to be truly fair.

Whoa, easy there...
Legally speaking, he actually has to pay it back.
We seem to run into these issues with mistaken payments on this forum all the time, and it's rare to find someone who brings up the actual legal principle designed to protect people who accidentally send money to the wrong person. It's a pretty straightforward concept.
It goes like this: When part of one person's assets transfers to another without a valid legal reason, a court order, or statutory authority, the recipient is obligated to return it—or, if that's not possible, compensate for the value of the benefit received.

In this specific situation, the person who started this thread is considered an "unjust recipient" because their debt was reduced by an amount that landed in their account without any legal basis—it was simply an error.
The person who collected the money isn't the one at fault here, because there was a legitimate legal basis for the collection—the enforcement order.

The OP hasn't really seen a change in their financial status because while their previous debt dropped by $500, a new debt of the exact same amount has effectively been created.

Ideally, they should work things out with the bank to hold off on any lawsuits or aggressive tactics since the blunder was on the bank's end, but again, the law is meant to protect those who made an honest mistake.
And let's not start the whole debate about whose fault the mistake was. For all we know, that payment could have been intended for someone's medical treatment, and what would anyone say then? "Who cares, let them suffer, I'm keeping the cash."
The law doesn't, and can't, make distinctions between a massive bank and a struggling patient.

driftingnomad68 said:Honestly, the best way is just to zoom in on your browser, turn off that setting, and enjoy the view. 😁

👍

That’s exactly what I was looking for!

I'm still struggling a bit with how inconsistent the font sizes look across different threads and posts here, but oh well, I'll make it work...

Honestly, it’s kind of frustrating when the font size stays tiny for reading, plus I get this nagging feeling that the page content isn't actually filling up my whole screen, which just adds to the annoyance.

EDIT
Here is what YouTube looks like using Firefox http://img815.imageshack.us/content_...ng&via=mupload

And here is how it looks over in IE http://img577.imageshack.us/content_...ng&via=mupload

You can clearly see how much smaller the video window appears on Firefox, regardless of whether I try to bump up the text size by hitting ctrl +

Here are a couple of examples:
Yahoo http://img691.imageshack.us/content_...ng&via=mupload
My main issue is just how disproportionate the threads and topics feel compared to everything else,

also, check out how The New York Times handles the white space on the side here http://img18.imageshack.us/content_r...ng&via=mupload

and here are two more screenshots from The New York Times
http://img403.imageshack.us/content_...ng&via=mupload
http://img254.imageshack.us/content_...ng&via=mupload

I tried using Ctrl and the plus key to bump up the font size, but it just scales the text within its current little box instead of actually enlarging everything properly.

Hopefully this gives enough of a clear picture of what I'm running into; I'm using Firefox and I have a hunch the issue might be tucked away in there somewhere.

Hey everyone, I could really use a little help here.
I just finished installing Windows 7 today, but I’m running into some weird issues with my fonts and the general layout of websites. For instance, when I visit sites like Index or The New York Times, there's this massive empty space—maybe about two inches—on both sides, making everything look centered in a tiny column. Even the YouTube video player looks strangely small, almost half its usual size.
Does anyone have any clues on how I can fix this?
I tried lowering the resolution, but that just leaves me with those annoying black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

blueridge32 said:Their lawyers are solid, though. Once you try to take them to court, good luck—most cases just end up dragging on forever.

The legal team is definitely 🙏 🙏 🙏 top-notch.

Look, I'm not trying to stick up for Chase, but this has to be one of the wildest takes I've seen on this entire forum.
Talking about statutes of limitations in civil law? Man, if you let your case expire like that, you basically have no one to blame but yourself.

driftingviper12 said:I disagree. It’s not 5% of the total sum insured. It’s based on the disability schedule. If that leg is rated at 25% disability, you get 5% of that 25%.

I'm a little confused by what you mean there.
How does 5% of 25% even work?

In my experience, if an injury is assigned a value of 5%, 10%, or whatever the official scale dictates, that exact percentage of the total policy coverage is what gets paid out.
There really isn't any reason for them to reduce that scheduled percentage, especially in your example where it would drop them down to 95%!!!

blueridge32 said:It all depends on where you're at and what kind of fine print you signed.

If you just went with a standard life insurance policy, you're probably out of luck since those don't cover fractures—they're strictly for disability. But, if you grabbed one of those extra policies that actually includes injury and bone breaks? Then yeah, you could see some cash.

And don't think you can just haggle over the payout amount, either. You've gotta show up to the insurance company with your official medical records and discharge papers to prove everything.

That isn't quite right.
If you only have basic life insurance, you aren't entitled to anything.

But if you also signed up for accident insurance:
The term disability in an accident policy can cover a huge range of injuries depending on what you paid for in your premium; I remember back in the day, even a simple sprain could trigger a payout, though that's not really how it works anymore.
So, even a minor fracture that heals perfectly fine without leaving you with any lasting issues could still qualify as a "disability" according to the insurance company's specific charts. It’s not necessarily about being in a wheelchair or needing a cane to get around.

wiredwalker30 said:Don't sweat it if your policy hasn't physically arrived in the mail just yet... there's a temporary coverage window in place. You're effectively protected from the exact moment you sign the paperwork and settle the premium until that document actually hits your doorstep. That said, if your policy doesn't specifically include accidental disability coverage—meaning you've only opted for a basic savings component—then you can pretty much kiss any potential payout goodbye.
When you go to file a claim, you'll need to present all your medical records. From there, a medical review board evaluates those documents, often coupled with a physical assessment, to determine your specific disability percentage.
The final payout amount is entirely dependent on the coverage limit you selected (assuming you actually have accident coverage in your plan). Just keep in mind that you can't really start chasing that money until your treatment is fully concluded; for instance, if you end up needing surgery, you won't be able to collect from the insurance company until everything is completely wrapped up.

Everything wiredwalker30 mentioned is true, but I personally feel like you shouldn't necessarily have to wait until all treatment is over; if you broke your fibula and the policy schedule lists a fibula fracture as, say, 5% of the total value, there's no reason to wait for the bone to fully knit back together before filing, since the fact that it's broken is the key part.

crimsonsailor7 said:I get why it’s optional, which is why it doesn't really sit right with me, but honestly, it feels like I'm the only one seeing it this way... 😁

Oh, don't be so hard on yourself!
To me, it makes perfect sense, because when you're working as a certified interpreter, you aren't just translating legal jargon—you're translating everything from technical manuals to medical reports.
So, having an International Chamber of Commerce certification is great for contracts, much like how specialized medical or construction terminology helps when you're handling expert witness testimony,
And I've always felt that a CPA qualification covers all those subtle linguistic nuances, so it seems to me that someone with that background might actually have a bit of an edge over someone who just has a standard CPE.
Anyway, I'm probably just overthinking things... besides, you have to shell out five grand just for the interpreter training anyway.

Finding a well-paid junior interpreter out in a coastal city like Miami is practically like hunting for a unicorn these days.

crimsonsailor7 said:haha... honestly, I thought you were talking about books 😁

The oral part at the International Chamber of Commerce is super short, and the examiners are all British 😁 the weirdest thing about that whole exam is that it doesn't even qualify you to be a court interpreter 🙄 like, you pass the legal English portion and they still demand you have a CPA🙄

Well, I actually *was* talking about books! That one from Amy Krois Lindner came my way $93, and a few others did too $150.
Actually, it makes sense why the International Chamber of Commerce wouldn't recognize the CPA, because the CPA is just general English proficiency. It's similar to how specialized exams for medical or business English aren't usually accepted for other roles.
And man, let me tell you, the CPA is brutally difficult—it is honestly such a grueling exam.

crimsonsailor7 said:Sorry about the mix-up 😁 I just double-checked my textbook, $55 and yeah, it comes with two CDs included.
Which one are you looking at for $280? 😕
There are other books out there, obviously, but this specific one is the one approved by Legal Research, so everyone basically uses it and nothing on the exam falls outside what's covered in there...

No work coming my way from colleagues lately, I don't think my job security is in danger just yet... 🙄

Man, Microsoft really ripped me off.
There are plenty of other exams besides just this book, so I think I'll stick with Legal Research instead; I honestly can't stand the thought of dealing with the International Chamber of Commerce after how I felt passing my CPA exam—it was such a frustrating experience.

Swing by Chicago sometime, I'd love to catch up!