Posts by Lawrence Cruz

I’m having a bit of a hard time keeping up with these two different freezes over at the FIN 😁 —but maybe that’s just me.😁

Brian Morris7 said:First disclaimer: my own account isn't frozen 😁

Look, if that's the case, then we aren't talking about a legal issue—it's a technical one.

All that sounds great in theory, but what does that have to do with me? Why should I be the one paying the price because they can't figure out how to fix their own systems? If they aren't capable of handling the job properly, they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

That’s why I’m wondering if this is actually unconstitutional—and if it is, why isn't anything being done about it? Hasn't anyone filed a formal complaint or even taken this to court yet?

I seriously have no clue what you're trying to say there—you're totally lost.

If it's possible to use a standing order to automatically deduct a portion of funds—and if banks can already set up agreements to automatically take, say, two-thirds of a paycheck—then why is this specific thing not possible?

And there's the mess I was talking about. It wastes people's time and sends them running in circles without any prior notice.
Who do you even contact to file a complaint about this, besides calling the news stations?

I'm sorry, Eloquent, that I don't have an answer for you, but I really hope you guys solve this mystery soon (personally, I would definitely check for any unpaid utility bills or issues with telecom companies—those are usually the culprits mentioned in threads like this)

They weren't ready—plain and simple. The legislation had been in development for months, yet the actual instructions didn't land until the final week of the year, right before everything went live on January 1st. FIN had to find a way to make this work, and technically, they did—if you only count what looks good on paper. Three months down the road, the technical side was nonexistent. The staff at FIN were completely overwhelmed by a massive wave of garnishments that hit all at once; it was physically impossible to process them all given the constant stream of new ones arriving daily. As for the banks, the directive was straightforward: stop handling these matters yourselves. Instead, creditors contact FIN directly, and the banks are expected to freeze accounts based on our orders—even though they’re still trying to follow court or attorney mandates, which—let's face it—is already a mess.
Honestly, nothing new here. It’s just like everything else in America—another policy on paper with zero actual support behind it. We’re completely unprepared.

That’s exactly why I’m asking—is this actually unconstitutional? And if it is, why hasn't anyone stepped up to do anything about it yet? Has nobody filed an appeal or even thought about bringing a lawsuit?

I agree—but this just opens up a whole can of worms regarding all the other messy issues we face here in America. It also brings up the question of why someone wouldn't just pay what they owe in the first place to avoid reaching the point of legal garnishment. That said, most of these collections cases end up being over simple cell phone bills.

I didn't quite catch what you were getting at there—seriously.

Me neither. 😁 Smart—let me break this down for you. 😍

If it’s possible to set up a recurring transfer through a standing order—essentially automating a portion of my funds—why can't the bank just follow a previous arrangement to automatically withhold, say, two-thirds of my paycheck? It seems like such a straightforward way to handle things.

A standing order is set up by the account holder to cover specific bills or loan payments—either for a fixed amount or a variable one where the recipient sends the monthly total directly to the bank. Essentially, you can't set up a standing order ahead of time just to pre-emptively cover a garnishment that hasn't even happened yet. It simply isn't possible.

Here is that nonsense I was mentioning earlier—it’s just ridiculous. A guy gets his time wasted and ends up being sent on a wild goose chase, all without any kind of heads-up.
And who else can I turn to for a complaint about this—besides the press?

The bottom line is this: 😁 pay your bills on time 🙂

Regarding the payout for protected income.
Anyone receiving these payments MUST contact the FIN to request a specialized account for protected funds—these accounts can't be frozen (and they won't be), so you have full access to withdraw your money whenever you need to.

I don't think that's actually possible. From what I understand, an account is either frozen entirely or not at all—it isn't really a sliding scale. It feels more like a technicality to me.

If I’m reading this right—FIFA is actually asking for money just to explain why or on whose behalf an account was frozen?!!?? I mean, come on.

And what Richard Perez3 is saying is the absolute truth. A buddy of mine had his account locked on March 15th. He didn't even realize it until the 16th—even though they had already partially frozen a smaller amount, despite him being within the overdraft limit for about two-thirds of the total freeze. On the 17th, he headed down to FIFA to figure out who authorized it, what happened, and how much it was—though I’d have to ask him if they charged him a fee just for that inquiry. By the 18th, he cleared the entire negative balance and brought himself back into the black for the full amount they were looking to collect (since apparently, they aren't supposed to pull funds if you're within your overdraft, though based on what they took, that’s clearly not the case). As of yesterday, nothing has happened.

Overdraft limits are typically set based on your regular incoming cash flow—things like your paycheck or Social Security. It might be worth sitting down with your branch manager to see if they can work out a repayment plan for your negative balance. Usually, these decisions hinge on your salary, but given your current situation, there isn't much wiggle room for either side—you or the bank. Honestly, it’s not really in the bank's interest to carry around a negative balance indefinitely, so it's definitely worth a shot.

Thomas Ortiz3 said:I actually read a German court ruling on this once, and it stuck with me because of how it played out. The crux of the matter was that the recipient genuinely didn't know the funds weren't theirs. It went something like this: a person was expecting a payment from someone else, checked their balance at an ATM, saw the funds had arrived, and assumed it was the expected transfer. In reality, it was just a botched transaction. The individual started spending the money, thinking it was rightfully theirs, while the actual expected payment never materialized. Since they truly believed the money belonged to them, the judge ruled they had no obligation to investigate the source of the funds. Had the judge ordered the money returned, it would have unfairly punished someone who did nothing wrong and had no ill intent. Because the person wasn't responsible for the error, the court decided the claim should be dropped...
In my view, that’s the only somewhat fair way to handle such a situation. If the person had known they were spending money that wasn't theirs, the story would be entirely different—just as it would be if the mistaken transfer hadn't been spent yet...

It seems this has become established legal precedent, though proving a lack of intent or genuine ignorance is where things likely get complicated...

And that is a very sensitive area. My take? Any misdirected payments would likely fall under a "reasonable expectation of payment" defense.😁

Thomas Ortiz3 said:The car analogy again. If I buy a stolen vehicle, legally speaking, I haven't actually bought anything because the sales contract is void. I've simply been in possession of stolen property—which is a crime if there was intent, though one can dodge the penalty if they were unaware...

Money isn't comparable to a car. If AT&T executes a garnishment based on a court order, that isn't "unjust enrichment"—please re-read that article carefully. Possession of stolen goods and unjust enrichment are entirely different legal concepts under completely different statutes. Let's stop conflating them...

Besides, I wasn't arguing what the law dictates, but rather what would be fair in this situation. If we are strictly discussing legal rights, he has an absolute right to withhold the money and wait for a lawsuit, which likely won't ever materialize over such a small amount.

Law and justice—what "should be fair"—are often confused. There is no justice here, only the question of compromise. None of the parties involved acted with malice, yet everyone ends up dealing with the fallout... time, money, stress. This isn't even necessarily gross negligence; it's just one of those things that happens to anyone...

In my first post, I mentioned the scenario where someone spends the money without realizing it wasn't theirs. Legal precedent in Germany suggests that in such cases, one might not be required to pay it back. While Germany isn't America, this isn't about "spending money," it's about a garnishment. Theoretically, a judge here could rule that the funds can be kept if they determine the company wasn't responsible for any increase in the debt. Generally, the legal system tries to align itself with justice whenever realistically possible...

Am I following this correctly? So, if Person A accidentally transfers funds to Person B's account in Germany, Person A might just have to eat the loss—meaning they wouldn't have any legal right to claim it back?

I suspect the bank won't allow him to make any changes—like increasing his overdraft—as long as the account remains under garnishment.

Look, I get it—he can't pay back that extra $1,500 or whatever because the money just isn't there. That's why I’m saying he should just head down to the corporate office—since they'll catch on via phone anyway—and have a real conversation with the head of accounting.

Chris Doyle4 said:It looks totally intentional on paper, but I promise you, it isn't. The company is demanding I pay back money that—if you ask the clerk there—I don't even owe them. I have zero connection to this business; they just accidentally wired me some cash by mistake, and it happens to be the exact amount of some woman's salary.

Let's start over here. 🙄

You DO owe them that money—regardless of the nonsense being written here suggesting otherwise. And the idea that you aren't liable simply because some teller at Chase told you so? I honestly can't believe that.

🤣 🤣

I honestly don't get how you two even communicated about this. Did she actually tell you they messed up the payment, or what? What does your receipt actually say?

Of course the company can sue you—that's just how it works. You should probably head down to their office and try to settle the difference. Unless, of course, you actually work there or something...

Regarding this whole "unauthorized" data usage issue.

Let’s try looking at this from a different angle.

Imagine someone walks up to a teller at Chase with $300 to deposit, but his aunt accidentally processes it as $30 instead. Both parties missed the error—he didn't check the screen, and she didn't catch her own slip-up.
By the end of the day, she’s sitting there with an extra $900 in her drawer.
Based on your logic, she isn't allowed to go through the transaction logs to find where things went sideways. So, she does exactly that and finds two potential culprits, but she isn't 100% sure yet. What now? Am I supposed to believe she’s also forbidden from using client info to call them and verify the mistake?

Look, even if the fine print says customers are responsible for counting their cash and the bank isn't liable for certain errors... the bank still has a duty to identify and correct mistakes. At the end of a shift, the books have to balance. Period.

But under your reasoning—if she can't call anyone or look at the accounts—she could easily just pocket the difference and walk away. After all, the client didn't double-check their receipt, and nobody is watching her anyway.

🤷

nimbleviper142 said:Nah, won't do that. You're just trolling for the hell of it. If you actually said something useful or gave some real advice on how to fix the issue, I wouldn't even bother. But this? This is just obnoxious. Your comment is straight-up rude and completely misses the point of the thread.

Just read the whole post.

And if my comments are "stabbing" you, maybe you should close your eyes so you don't get hurt.

nimbleviper142 said:And why do you even care why the guy has debt, how he got it, or why he hasn't paid it back yet? It’s none of your business, and nobody asked you to play moral police.

If my posts bother you, feel free to look elsewhere.

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

I think it’s pretty obvious to everyone that he's dancing on the edge.

The guy is broke—it’s pretty obvious he's dancing on the edge here. An eviction or a bank levy isn't going to happen overnight, though. Honestly? My favorite kind of collections are those aggressive cell phone service garnishments. 🙄 That brings us to 1,500. 😲 Was he the one talking about that money—or was it someone else?

He’s been sitting on that debt for ages—way too long, honestly—but he hasn't lifted a finger to settle it. It's certainly a responsible way to handle things, if you consider that being honest. 😕

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

If that bank teller was really acting the way she’s being described—I honestly don't get why he didn't demand to speak with the branch manager right then and there. He could have easily signed off on recovering half the amount immediately (since the garnishment ate up the other half) and then just worked out a structured payment plan for the rest over a few months. Simple enough.

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.

But he is legally obligated to return funds he didn't actually earn. It hit his checking account.

Quoting again:

When assets from one person pass to another without a legal basis—like a contract, a court order, or specific statutory authority—the recipient is required to return them. If they can't be returned directly, they must compensate for the value received.

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.

Given his current situation with the court order and active collection, that might actually fly right now. 🙄

Nobody is saying she isn't at fault—the question being asked is simply whether the money needs to be paid back.

Mark Wilson66 said:I’m honestly a bit lost on how this all played out.

When exactly did everything fall apart? Was it the incorrect transfer, settling the garnishment, or that call from the bank representative?

If you ask me, it all should have been handled on that same day, and if it had been, everything could have been straightened out right then and there.

I agree—but who’s to say she didn't try calling him that very same day? 🤷

Foreclosures also run through the Fed's system—unless I'm mistaken—so it might have been too late within five minutes.

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.

That logic would only apply if the seizure had actually pulled funds from my account to pay off your debt.

Under US law, there are protections for a portion of your income—but now, because of a bank error, he’d essentially be forced to pay back a debt that falls within that protected amount, effectively signing away his legal rights. Personally, I wouldn't do that.

True, but those protected earnings go into a protected account. That isn't what happened here.

It’s incredible how much nonsense has been written here just to defend some incompetent clerk.

If you had ever actually handled money the way these bank tellers do, you wouldn't be saying any of this.