Posts by Thomas Ortiz3

Quotes...

Ryan Carter52 said:Bravo, you have shown me the way!!
I guess someone sitting on $25,000 isn't going to be doing active saving, but rather just setting up an annuity and enjoying those monthly payouts.
Active saving is more for building up small amounts over time, so I was mostly looking at smaller sums rather than anything over $25,000, because, well, it's not like we're living in Switzerland where everyone is walking around town with $25,000 in their pocket!🤷
Besides, at Goldman Sachs, for instance, you can deposit any amount from $1 to $25,000 and get the same fixed rate of 3.25%, whereas if you look here, the rates for anything under $2,500 are quite different regardless of the term.

So, that's my take on the whole apples and oranges situation, and how I probably don't know much about anything. 🙏
And I won't even get started on how "safe" it feels to park large amounts of money in big, reputable institutions like Citigroup, when it seems like every other day there's some news story about embezzlement or financial scandals...

No worries, I'm happy to help... 😉.

Quotes...

Someone sitting on $25,000 isn't going to bother with active savings accounts; they’ll just opt for an annuity and live off the monthly interest payments...

You're mistaken; everyone runs their own math and there are no set rules. Perhaps some people prefer interest-bearing savings, but I have no idea what you're basing that claim on regarding the majority. I suspect there are plenty of people like me who have parked $50k or $100k in CDs and simply live off their monthly salary rather than capital gains...

Quotes...

Active saving is really just about accumulating small amounts over time...

What does "little by little" actually mean? It all comes down to the total amount and one's own circumstances...

Quotes...

I was talking about small amounts, not anything north of $25,000. This isn't Switzerland; you don't see people walking around every corner with $25k in their pocket...

You’d be surprised how many people around here are actually sitting on that kind of cash. But that’s beside the point. I was simply outlining exactly how much is on the line in the Goldman Sachs vs FAA dispute...

Quotes...

Take Goldman Sachs, for instance. You can deposit any amount from $1,000 up to $25,000 and get the exact same fixed rate of 3.25%. Now, just look at what they’re offering here for anything under $2,500, regardless of the term...

Of course, which is exactly why I mentioned you were drawing conclusions about the FAA by comparing apples to oranges. One bank might be a better fit for some, while others prefer a different one, depending on their timeline and how much they're looking to deposit...

Quotes...

So much for apples and oranges, and my complete lack of any real clue... 🙏 And I won't even start on how "safe" it feels to park large sums with supposedly reputable giants like Citigroup. Every other day there’s some new scandal in the news regarding embezzlement or financial misconduct...

I get the feeling you’re being a bit combative. My apologies if I inadvertently provoked you—though, frankly, I can't quite see what I did... 🤷
I never said you didn't have a clue; I simply stated that your conclusion was flawed, and I provided my reasoning...
If I’ve misstated anything, please quote the specific part you disagree with, though I’m fairly certain my interest rate figures were accurate.

As for Citigroup, they are owned by the government of Austria, and from what I can gather from the news, they aren't any more prone to scandals than any other major player. The real issues only surfaced back when the bank was under its previous ownership...

Ryan Carter52 said:The rates they're offering are honestly kind of a joke!
If you put $25,000 in a 12-month fixed CD, the rate is just 2.50%, and even their premium savings account is only at 3.04% APY.
Just for a quick comparison, Goldman Sachs offers an active savings account where you can make multiple deposits, and if you fix it for 12 months up to $25,000, you get 3.20%.
Citigroup interest rate
Goldman Sachs interest rate

Your conclusion is flawed because you're comparing apples to oranges...
You claim their rates are "pathetic," yet the tables clearly show that if you deposit, say, $25,001, Goldman Sachs offers 3.35% while Citigroup gives you 4.05%, which invalidates your point. Besides, from what I can see, Goldman Sachs doesn't even offer terms longer than a year, which is a much bigger issue than a slight rate difference since a one-year fixed rate is practically variable these days. I’ve used Citigroup before for a 5-year fixed term with multiple deposits at 4.25%, and once for 3 years, where the rates were quite decent...

In this "direct" comparison, Goldman Sachs wins for small players under $2,500, but for anything from $5,000 upwards, Citigroup has the edge...
A 12-month deposit between $10,000 and $25,000 at Citigroup (assuming anyone at the FAA actually uses 12-month terms) is 3.60% fixed, so I'm not sure where you got 2.50% from...

neondriver5 said:My mistake—it’s not a Mozart card, it's a high voltage Visa, a standard blue debit card, account number 32xxxxxxx, multi-currency.
When I set up my CD last year, they told me 🤷
was mandatory. Unfortunately, it’s not like I’m dealing with enough money to make manual transfers between banks a hassle; I’m not exactly terrified of moving funds around. You work for your money, you carry it wherever you want. Honestly, an average condo in Washington, D.C. could probably fit right in the pocket of a winter jacket 😁
. I’m not saying I’ll go broke because of $17; it’s more about the principle of having a card I have absolutely no use for.

It’s possible the staff at the branch just didn't know what they were talking about. Last year I opened a basic CD, and this year I went with the Wells Fargo savings option, and I'm fairly certain neither case involved anything more substantial than a thin piece of plastic... if anything. So, no Mozart, no Visa, nothing special... probably just that multi-currency account I needed anyway to move funds around...

neondriver5 said:The savings account isn't actually tied to the CD, but Citigroup has this incredibly interesting policy—typical for banks operating here in the States—of being aggressive wherever they can. They’ll try to shove a multi-currency account card down your throat along with your CD, acting like you'll suddenly need a place to park your cash once the term expires.
It wouldn't be such a headache if the account were free or at least cheap to maintain. Instead, these academics demand $20-$10 just to issue a Mozart card for the account (essentially just another useless piece of plastic in your wallet that you didn't want in the first place). Then, there's a monthly maintenance fee of about $1.50 for any month where a transaction occurs. To top it all off, they hit you with a $20-$10 closing fee.
So, if you decide to open a CD with them,$17 they're guaranteed to collect that fixed amount plus those extra fees during the months you use the account, even if you have absolutely no use for it.

It was probably a "no-brainer" for them to design a CD that automatically renews, where the funds are simply paid out on the spot when a client decides to terminate it.

I think they only recently introduced auto-renewing CDs (yay, welcome to 2012!) but you still have to hold their specific account to get it.
Personally, I don't think it's such a bad thing that they aren't trying to scam you with those fees, especially that $$10 charge for a chip card that you don't even need.

Unless you're literally hauling cash in sacks—which wasn't my situation—you need an account just to receive transfers from other banks. I assume that was one of the reasons I ended up with an account number. As for a Mozart card, I never asked for one and never received one, though I'll admit I didn't dig much into the fees. I assumed they were negligible...

Quentin:

In my opinion, it’s actually a good thing if they don't nickel and dime you with extra fees, especially that $10 charge for a chip card you don't even need.

Are you certain you can dodge that Mozart card? They didn't even bother asking me if I wanted one, and I currently have two CDs over at the CIA. One is a standard CD, and the other is a Wells Fargo savings plan (4.25% @ 5 years)...

Jason Richardson said:So, I have a bit of a situation and could really use some advice. Basically, I run a small business making and selling custom personal items—I sell through eBay, Facebook Marketplace, and various auction sites. Because it’s a constant flow, people are transferring money to my checking account almost every single day. It’s a lot of moving parts; sometimes someone pays on behalf of someone else, so I end up sending the item to a different address, or I'll wait for a client's paycheck to clear before finalizing a shipment. Honestly, I’ve been burned before too—once I sent an item out thinking the payment was settled, only to find out the receipt they sent me was totally fake. Total nightmare, but that’s a whole other story. Anyway, back to the current mess. I was checking my transactions the other day and noticed a name and an amount that didn't match anything I was expecting—I was waiting on funds from a completely different person and a different total. In the moment, I didn't think twice about it; I just assumed it was part of my daily sales. I ended up spending quite a bit of it—mostly on restocking supplies for my crafts and just general household necessities. It wasn't until I checked my balance later that I realized the math didn't add up. Now I'm spiraling a little because if the bank decides to claw that money back, I’m going to hit a negative balance. To make matters worse, I don't have any overdraft protection on this account. What happens if I end up in the red strictly because of someone else's mistake? I truly believed it was my money—money I had earned through my work. Nobody has reached out to me yet, so I’m just sitting here wondering what my next move should be.

How long ago was the deposit made?

P.S. Is it even possible for someone to make a deposit using someone else's name...

briskdrifter3 said:That’s not quite right.
I have a brother-in-law working on a construction site in Germany at the moment. He left because he was absolutely fed up with our employers—the constant failure to pay on time is a chronic issue in the construction industry here. In America, your average builder might actually manage to collect maybe 70% of what they’re owed, and even then, it comes with delays stretching over a year. There were times he’d be waiting four months just to see any cash at all... he actually had to borrow money just to cover his rent and basic groceries. You couldn't dream of supporting a family with that kind of cash flow. In Germany, it’s a different story; the money hits the account regularly, and for a skilled tradesman like him, it's two to four times what he'd make here, naturally. The catch is that European immigration policy is far stricter than it was 30 or 40 years ago. You can work for a maximum of nine months straight before needing at least a three-month break, and you must be tied to a firm—either theirs or ours—that has a contract established there. Since most builders don't speak German, of course, they are essentially forced to go through our private construction firms; you need a connection in those companies because the interest is massive. It isn't as simple as knowing how to install drywall and just buying a plane ticket. It's a huge barrier that will only vanish once the transition period following EU entry is fully settled.
The whole argument about Romanians and Bulgarians doesn't hold water. Everyone knows exactly who does what and how they are perceived, as people from all sorts of countries have been migrating to Germany for years. It isn't just Romanians or Bulgarians arriving; that’s nothing new. A German employer will always—and I mean ALWAYS—prefer to hire a worker from the former America—especially Americans or Canadians—over Romanians, Bulgarians, or Turks, who are mostly used as low-paid auxiliary labor. That has been the reality for a long time, and experience proves it. Just ask any construction worker.
Once you strip away the bureaucratic hurdles, you'll see we'll be left without craftsmen for any meaningful construction work, and for a very simple reason. As a builder, you're already out in the field, separated from your family anyway, so it really doesn't matter if you're 124 miles or 622 miles from home (since you aren't coming back every night regardless). If you're single, the logic holds even more. No one is going to slave away here for a few thousand Kuna—which you might not even see for six months—when you can grab 1,000 to 1,500 Euros right off the bat in Germany.
Just think back to this thread in ten years, when you'll want someone to hang some drywall in an apartment and won't be able to find a soul who knows how to do it (except perhaps for some drunk handyman who claims he can fix everything). Not to mention the impossibility of finding crews capable of actual building construction.
Even now, America is facing a shortage of qualified professionals across almost every sector (just look at the idiots occupying various jobs around you), and it’s going to get much, much worse because people always migrate toward better opportunities—especially those who actually possess skills.

I won't even attempt to imagine what America will look like in 10 or 20 years. Just a mass of fools living off the budget, wondering, like a bunch of clueless tourists, where all the money went...

Nobody claimed things were perfect here. My point was simply that people have a warped perception of how the rest of the world actually functions. Sure, some will leave to find a better life, but I don't see any grounds for a mass exodus. Even your father-in-law is working in Germany despite us not being in the USA yet... how is that possible? It’s simple: those who truly intended to leave have usually already found a way out—especially the educated professionals. As for the unskilled labor, I doubt anyone will miss them much, so I don't see much of a "threat" there...

Quincy:

Since most construction workers don't speak German, they're essentially forced to head over to Germany through our local private firms. You pretty much need some kind of inside connection within those companies to make it happen, given how massive the profit margins are...

You're just confirming my other point—the total lack of German fluency. Moving abroad presents plenty of hurdles, and while joining the USA might smooth some things over, there will always be obstacles that are largely our own fault. German is the most widely spoken native language in the USA, yet you rarely see an American who actually speaks it. Without it, upward mobility and true integration are nearly impossible, and let's face it, picking up a language at thirty isn't the same as learning it at fourteen...

Thomas Ortiz3 said:

A German employer will always—and I mean always—prioritize hiring someone from the North America, specifically Americans or Canadians, over Romanians, Bulgarians, or Turks who are relegated to low-wage manual labor. It’s an old pattern, proven by time. Just ask any construction foreman out there...

It seems we’ve forgotten to mention the Poles, and as far as I can tell, Romanians aren't exactly a common sight on construction sites anyway...

Quincy:

If you strip away all the red tape, you’ll find we won't have any contractors left for even the simplest jobs, and the reason is pretty obvious. As someone in construction, you're already living on job sites far from home anyway, so being relocated shouldn't really change much... 124 miles either... 622 miles Work from home—not that you’re even around much anyway. If you're single, there's even less reason to bother. No one wants to kill themselves for a few measly bucks that might actually hit your account in six months... especially when you could be starting out in Germany making an extra thousand or fifteen hundred a month...

Look, I’m not saying I disagree. I just don't view it as a threat. As a taxpayer, it’s actually in my interest if a contractor moves to work in Germany rather than drawing from the local budget through social services. Sure, we might lose some talent, but given the current state of the construction industry here, I suspect we'll have plenty of quality workers left behind...

Keep this thread bookmarked for ten years from now. You’ll probably be trying to put up some drywall in your apartment and realize there isn't a single competent contractor left in the country—just a bunch of unreliable amateurs who show up drunk and claim they can fix anything... Not to mention the impossibility of finding anyone who actually understands structural engineering.

Immigrant crews do a fine job with construction, and I doubt we'll see such a massive shortage of skilled labor as you seem to expect...

Linda Johnson15 said:That's true... for me, it wasn't all about the cash... in the beginning, I was making what my colleagues were making here (around $1,100 gross), but things definitely improved over time. What I really got early on was the chance to prove myself through hard work, earn a better wage, move up, and experience life in a developed country where things actually function the way they're supposed to. The opportunity was there; I just had to take it.

A lot of people here focus solely on the immediate cash because they don't have much to begin with. It's tough to pack up and go abroad to work for two or three years for basically the same pay you'd get at home while you try to build something... they want the big bucks right out of the gate. So, they just stay put.

But hey, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

In my view, Norway is one of the best places to move to if you're highly skilled, though they aren't part of the European Union anyway. Good luck in Norway...😉

briskdrifter3 said:That’s the truth of it; I have friends in construction myself. Everyone would jump at the chance if the paperwork weren't such a nightmare. Who in their right mind wants to toil away for pennies all day on a job site? It isn't as simple as just showing up, either—you can't just wander onto a site; someone—some firm—has to officially call you out there.

It sounds easy enough to say people want to leave, but you have to ask why anyone would hire our local crews when they can get Romanian workers much cheaper. Sure, in Germany it might end up being more expensive than here, but I doubt there's much left after you factor in housing, food, and travel back to America. High-skilled professionals are driven by ambition—and money, since making it at home is nearly impossible—but for low-skilled labor, it’s almost always just about the paycheck. Those golden days of guest workers are long gone...

briskdrifter3 said:A crucial factor here—if you happen to be highly skilled—is that your family can tag along without needing to grasp a word of German. Personally, I wouldn't be able to handle being separated from them...

That is precisely my point. A highly skilled professional can leave regardless of EU membership status. You mentioned that family separation is your main hurdle, and I'm sure you aren't alone in that feeling. Everyone has their breaking point, of course, but we are nowhere near a mass exodus...🤷

Gerald Chavez7 said:How on earth did you end up with an odd number? 😉

I’m sitting at 66 right now, but I’m aiming for 80 in a year or two. 😁

Anyway, I get it—the employer is what actually matters in the end—but having this just makes navigating the bureaucracy a little less painful...

Well, it could be an odd number—say, 15 + 2*3 + ...

Gerald Chavez7 said:I've already done a little digging into this. 😁

here is the link to the RWR card

You can rack up a decent amount of points; interestingly enough, you're required to know either English OR German...

Regarding the actual regulations, language isn't technically required by law, but if you don't speak German, most opportunities vanish before they even start. In the US, we don't see the same level of emphasis on foreign languages compared to places like Canada, the Czech Republic, or Canada... which makes sense given the geography. Still, the pool of employers not asking for German is predictably small...

briskdrifter3 said:Migration is inevitable because we are, by tradition, an emigrant nation. Once the final hurdles are cleared—that is, once it becomes as simple as buying a bus ticket or hopping on a bicycle—then the exodus will truly explode. Even now, leaving isn't easy, especially if you're trying to move an entire family with children in tow. Sorting out work permits involves an exhausting amount of paperwork. It also tends to deter potential employers, who simply don't want the headache of dealing with immigrants.
As for the whole "honey and milk" idea, I know for a fact that groceries are cheaper across Europe, clothing and shoes are cheaper, and consumer electronics are cheaper... basically, you can eat better, dress better, and furnish an apartment much more easily than we can here. That is a plain reality, stemming from the fact that we produce nothing of our own.
The only things that are pricier are housing and land—though even that is manageable through a functional rental market, unlike our situation where the only reliable option seems to be taking out a massive mortgage. The alternative is being an off-the-books renter, living in constant fear that your landlord might marry off his son and toss you onto the street with fifteen days' notice.
So, I am genuinely curious what would stop a twenty-something with a high school diploma or a college degree from at least giving it a shot abroad—I'm just saying, *trying*—and if every third person actually succeeds in finding steady work, we'll still be in a crisis. There won't be enough workers to plug the budget holes we're already struggling with, even without the emigration.
It only takes a little... just a tiny bit.

Fifty years ago, we were likely just a traditional land of emigrants, but today, compared to most of Europe, we’re seen as a place where family ties actually still mean something—unlike the more fragmented social structures you see in the USA or the United Kingdom. Even the wage gap isn't what it used to be; when you factor in the shadow economy, local salaries aren't exactly bottom-of-the-barrel. Then there's the language barrier. Most people here struggle with foreign tongues; you rarely hear anyone speaking German, Italian, or French, with everyone just defaulting to English. A young person can pick up a language quickly enough, but it remains a hurdle nonetheless...

The talented people who wanted out have mostly already left—if not for Europe, then somewhere further afield. As for those lacking quality, we have more than enough of them here anyway (just look at the unemployment rates). A large portion of our unemployed are long-term cases, and they won't find much luck looking for work abroad either. Sure, there will be some brain drain, likely mostly from the young and educated, but I don't see it hitting us that hard. The real issue in the Republic of America isn't brain drain; that's just a symptom, so I don't see any point in making a monster out of it...

When it comes to staples like honey and milk, I’ve noticed that groceries are consistently more affordable throughout Europe. The same goes for clothing, footwear, and consumer electronics... essentially, you can eat better, dress better, and furnish a home much more easily anywhere else but here...

You aren't wrong, though that's beside the point. It’s arguably better to be unemployed in America than in, say, Germany, where an immigrant starts with virtually no rights... though every situation is unique and generalizations are risky. The reality is that many people in America at least have the security of owning their own homes. If someone decides to emigrate, they'll likely look for work locally first, even if those jobs aren't exactly easy. Still, there's no doubt many will start scouring foreign job boards, and some will undoubtedly find what they're looking for...

I really wonder what’s going to stop a young person in their early twenties—whether they have a high school diploma or a degree—from at least attempting to find work abroad. I’m just saying, if they try, every third one might actually succeed in landing a job. We're facing a crisis here. There won't be enough people left to plug the budget holes we're already struggling with, even without the emigration...
It only takes a little... just a tiny bit...

Even if every third person actually leaves—which I find highly unlikely—we still have more than enough capacity to meet demand. Besides, the top-tier talent will always find a way to emigrate anyway...

Smart, skilled professionals now have the freedom to move elsewhere—if not within the European Union, then perhaps to Canada or Australia... many who had the means and the desire have already left. Meanwhile, European nations facing labor shortages, like Germany or Austria, are actively easing immigration paths for the talent they need. Austria is even rolling out its "RWR card," which essentially gives any educated professional a shot at settling down and finding work there.
So, I don't expect joining the European Union to fundamentally change the brain drain situation. It will likely impact those with fewer qualifications more significantly, though they often harbor a rather distorted view of how much prosperity actually exists within the European Union...
There will certainly be some migration, but I doubt it will be anything transformative...
The Polish, for instance, headed out in droves—mostly to Ireland and the United Kingdom—though we're starting to see them head back home in significant numbers.

quietcyclist46 said:Comparing the rental situation here to the rest of the Western world is absolute nonsense.

The landscape abroad is fundamentally different; people sign long-term leases, and there are even ways to invest in a property where you actually see a return on your money...

Furthermore, when people retire over there, they’ll have enough of a nest egg to ensure they can still afford a roof over their heads. I honestly have to ask: who in this country is going to be able to afford rent once they hit retirement age? If you've spent your entire working life renting, I highly doubt you've managed to squirrel away enough cash to maintain that kind of lifestyle in your later years. In my view, rent prices would need to drop significantly relative to mortgage rates before any of this comparison makes any sense at all...

Not necessarily. We ought to look at what those with more experience have learned. I’m not suggesting we mimic everything, but the reality is that our obsession with homeownership is one-dimensional compared to something like Germany. It’s the same reason people here drive flashier cars or wear more expensive clothes than in many other developed EU countries. This is just how we are wired, and trying to shift a national mindset overnight is futile, yet we must realize we've fallen into a vicious cycle. When you want something, excuses for buying it come easily. The most common refrain is "leaving something for the kids," but in a capitalist system—which we clearly haven't mastered—prices are driven by supply and demand. If the average American wants to own a home, and banks are eager to provide loans, the rush for real estate will naturally inflate prices from $1,100 per square foot to $2,200. At those levels, given our current GDP, the only thing a buyer actually leaves their children is a mountain of debt...

The rental conditions abroad are entirely different; they sign long-term leases, and tenants can even invest back into the property to see a return...

Instead of fueling a massive real estate bubble, all that energy should have been spent regulating the rental market—protecting both landlords and tenants, much like they do in Germany. Everyone would be far better off and less burdened by debt; people could afford what they actually need without falling into perpetual debt slavery...

Listen, folks, we have the "real estate prices" thread, where everyone has already spent plenty of time debating renting versus buying.
I think it would be wise to keep this specific thread clear, as it holds a cautionary tale with a happy ending...

You spent seventeen years in non-possession, and only now has the period of adverse possession actually begun. I don't see the logic here; if the ten-year rule hasn't kicked in, then the statute of limitations hasn't run out either—though, mind you, this isn't my area of expertise. Suing the government? Suing a clerk? Just a collection of tall tales... good luck with that. 🤷

Lawrence Wright7 said:I’m writing this with an incredible sense of relief 😁
,,,,,,,,,,,, I ACTUALLY DID IT,,,,,,,,,,,,
I’m finally done being a slave to the banks—settled the debt, sold the house 😁
Being free... man, that feeling is priceless. I can actually breathe again!!! (It feels amazing)
Next step is packing up and heading back to the Midwest to be near my kid.🙂 I even have a little bit of cash left over
to pick up a decent gift.
It was a Long, grueling journey, but I pushed through and somehow found the light at the end of the tunnel. If only I’d had the guts to do this sooner.
Like some people here were saying: four walls aren't worth all this misery—and they were absolutely right!
Thanks to everyone for the support, the harsh critiques, the advice, the answers......

Later ☕

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, Dan, I am truly happy for you!!!
I know how hard you fought and how much of your health and sanity you sacrificed, which you didn't deserve...
Good luck. You're still young, you've gained invaluable experience, and you have more than enough wisdom in your head
to make this new "beginning" work.
Best wishes.

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

The burden of proof lies (and I'm nearly certain) with whoever received the funds.

By the way, there was a recent situation that's loosely related to this discussion.
Amazon accidentally listed an LCD TV for $100 instead of $1,000 on their site. Hundreds of people jumped on it before the error was caught. Everyone who had already completed their transaction (via credit card, bank transfer...) effectively finalized a contract, meaning Amazon was legally bound to deliver those TVs at the lower price. For anyone who placed an order but hadn't paid yet, the orders were simply canceled. So, if you ever stumble upon a deal like that, pay immediately 😁.

Lawrence Cruz said: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 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...

quieteagle16 Asks:
Let's be realistic, they'll have to pay it back and figure out a plan for when the liquidator makes it impossible to recover any funds...

I fail to see any legal grounds that would compel an executor to return those funds. The seizure was carried out strictly according to the law, and no regulations were violated during the process. I am writing this in good faith, mind you—foreclosures aren't exactly my area of expertise...

A car is a better analogy because it’s a tangible asset, unlike money which is just digital noise...

Stealing a car is a felony, possessing stolen property is a felony, and selling a stolen vehicle is a felony. In these cases, the burden falls on the owner to prove they didn't know the car was hot...
In this instance, there isn't even a crime or a misdemeanor to speak of. It’s nothing more than simple negligence on the part of someone else entirely—not even the collector... just some third party with no direct connection to them at all...

An executor seized control of the company, and this is what applies: when a portion of one person's assets transfers to another without any legal basis...

The money sitting in a user's account isn't some asset owned by the company. It doesn't even function in a way that would allow for such a claim... which is why you see liabilities that can end up being a hundred times larger than the actual cash on hand...

It seems we’re seeing another instance of selective quoting regarding the law. You missed the specific section I’ve bolded below, which fundamentally alters the entire nature of the foreclosure...

Unjust enrichment without cause. Under Section 1111, if any portion of one person's assets transfers to another without being backed by a valid legal transaction... It comes down to the ruling of a court, or perhaps some other competent authority or legal mandate...The taxpayer is obligated to return it; otherwise, they must compensate for the value of the benefit received...

An attachment can't exactly be considered an acquisition without legal basis if it was carried out under an IRS warrant...