Posts by Thomas Ortiz3

Joseph Watson3 said:They can't. It's just like buying a stolen car—you might not know it's hot, but that doesn't stop you from getting in trouble.

Besides, I wasn't trying to lecture anyone on what's strictly legal; I was talking about what's actually fair here. If we're playing by the book, he has every right to keep the cash and just wait for a lawsuit—which, let's be honest, isn't happening over such a tiny amount of money.

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...

Arthur Mendoza5 said:Obviously, the company can't just write this off because we're talking about a payroll disbursement, and you can't dodge the taxes, withholdings, or social security contributions on that.
The only real way out is for the employer to just pay the difference—the part our guy doesn't actually have in his account because it got hit by a garnishment—directly in cash to the employee who was supposed to receive the full amount. That way, the worker isn't shortchanged and stays out of trouble, and the company doesn't have to chase our forum buddy, who isn't even at fault here, even though he technically owes the money.
That's the only move left—just sit down and make a deal, because I'm pretty sure there isn't a specific Law that dictates how to handle a mess this weird.

It can't be classified as salary since the user doesn't have an employment contract or any formal relationship with the company. They could declare it as a personal loan or a receivable from an individual. It would be much better for them to structure it as a debt recovery rather than income; if it's income, all those taxes kick in, whereas a loan only requires them to account for the minimum interest required by law. An accountant handles interest on a loan to an individual just like any other private loan. If the user denies the debt exists, they'll be stuck recording it based on a court order... though I'm not entirely sure how that works. 🤷
If a court eventually rules that there was no legal basis for the transfer—perhaps citing gross negligence or the intentional misuse of funds—then Company X might finally be able to write it off as a business expense.

Joseph Watson3 said:So, what you're saying is that pocketing money that landed in an account by mistake doesn't matter—and the court wouldn't have a single issue with how it was acquired? If the sheriff foreclosed on his house, or if his neighbor’s car somehow ended up in his driveway and he just decided to keep it, would that be irrelevant too?

You’re still stuck on this idea of "someone else's money." You need to realize that isn't the point here; the law handles those specifics. For instance, if I have $0.67 in my account, and a friend has a legitimate claim against me for $1.00, AT&T can certainly seize those $1.00 through a garnishment. According to your logic, that would somehow be "unjustified acquisition." How is AT&T supposed to know I owe a friend $1.00? We are talking about debt collection; money is simply a matter of liquidity and only matters regarding the timing of payments or seizures. If I recall correctly, we already agreed that both Company X and the bailiff hold valid claims against certain forum members, so I don't see what you're trying to prove... I know you previously convinced yourself that Qwerty and I were saying things we never actually said, so I'm not sure where the issue lies now...😕

Joseph Watson3 said:Einstein, your own quote tells the whole story: "(1) When a portion of a person's property is transferred to another person in any way, and that transfer lacks a basis in a legal transaction"...

The assets of Company X were transferred to the receiver, and—get this—there was absolutely no legal basis for it!

At this point, I can't tell if you're intentionally trolling me or if you're just refusing to actually read what I wrote, or even what the law says. Selective quoting isn't going to help you here. Try reading the statute one more time. Hint:

"... court orders, or other competent authorities or the law"

So, once one of those conditions is met, we aren't talking about an unjustified transfer anymore. As far as I know, seizures are carried out via court orders through authorized institutions like the IRS. What does a "legal transaction" have to do with anything if the seizure is happening under a court mandate and through the proper channels?

Joseph Watson3 said:It seems you're incapable of grasping a basic analogy. In this context, the "legal transaction" is the garnishment. Moving funds from Company X is an act without any legal basis—it's essentially the same as stealing a car without any legal justification.

God help us if this is the caliber of lawyers we have. If you actually claim to be a lawyer, it looks more like you're just desperately trying to play the part.

Were you suggesting the seizure was also baseless?

Let’s try this one more time:

Quincy:

UNJUST ENRICHMENT General Rule Section 1111. (1) When property from one person is transferred to another without being based on a legal transaction, a court order, a decision by a competent authority, or the Law, the recipient is obligated to return it, or if that is impossible, compensate for the value of the benefit gained.

So, in this scenario, you're claiming the seizure was performed without foundation—meaning it lacked a "court order, decision by a competent authority, or the Law"? I'm no expert on asset seizures, but your argument is quite bold, implying the seizure happened without the "consent" of the authorities or the courts. I highly doubt that’s how the system works...

Quincy:

God help us with lawyers like this. If you actually are a lawyer, it feels like you're trying far too hard to play the part.

Come on, Joseph Watson3, there's no need for that tone. You started with the trolling and now you've moved to personal attacks. Should we call the moderators, or can we keep this civil?

quieteagle16 said:Look, I’m not even trying to argue that his various claims are all basically the same thing, but check this part out: "Company A accidentally wire-transferring money into his account shouldn't be any of the business of some collections agent chasing after a forum user, nor can that collector do anything about Company A's claim against said user." Honestly, I think that's a reach. From Company A's perspective, it matters immensely whether they get their cash right now or if they have to sit around waiting for him to hunt it down. Before this whole mess happened, the collections agent was the one stuck waiting to collect what was owed, so in my opinion, he definitely owes Company A that money—even if I highly doubt it’ll actually happen 🙂

There was no criminal act here—unlike stealing a car, where no subsequent action makes stolen goods legal—nor do I see any misdemeanor being committed, so the car analogy doesn't hold water. It's clear that from the user's perspective, things just got messy; it wasn't his fault, but if I understand correctly, he wouldn't be facing these complications if the funds hadn't been available in the first place. The costs of this mess, like interest and such, should fall on whoever caused the complication, which in this case is "Company A."
The key is for him to establish communication with "Company A," or rather, the Bank acting as the intermediary.
Company A would likely be helped by acknowledging the debt, as it would save them from having to deal with taxes and contributions...

quieteagle16 said:Personally, I think that car analogy works way better to paint the picture. Just because money is digital and easy to move doesn't change the fact that Person A got something from Person B through an illegal mistake, but now that asset is officially sitting in Person C's hands. C. therefore, we should probably look at this as if it were a physical piece of property to really figure out how to untangle the situation.

I missed the part about the car analogy—which article was that in? Though, honestly, I don't see why any other example would be necessary when this one is so glaringly obvious. We just need to stop thinking about "money" and start thinking about "debt." A bank balance is irrelevant to the existence of a debt. As long as a debt exists, the obligation to settle it remains. The only ways out are filing for bankruptcy or reaching some sort of shady settlement...

Joseph Watson3 said:Well, the account holder also has the legal right to spend every cent in that account, so—by your logic—they don't have to pay anything back?

No, we aren't circling. I never said the money shouldn't be returned; I'm saying it doesn't need to be returned immediately just because his debt was sold to a third party due to someone else's mistake. It seems to me this is the one tiny little nuance that you and our colleague just can't seem to wrap your heads around.

Hello, where did I even mention how the collection should be settled (if you're implying it was me)? I have no idea why you're doing this, but please don't put words in my mouth. He’ll pay it when he’s able or willing—essentially whenever a new garnishment hits—likely with all the interest included. Who ever said the money had to be returned right away?...

Joseph Watson3 said:Well, if you can't see that both the creditor and the OP acquired these funds without any legal basis, then there's really no point in me trying to clarify things further.

Take it easy, everyone...
I'm not questioning whether the creditor had the right to initiate the seizure—based on what other users are saying, they did. My point is that based on what the OP wrote, he didn't have a legal basis for receiving the money in the first place, which is why Company A is now coming after him. Whatever happened between Company A and this user is their business; a collector pursuing the user's account has nothing to do with Company A's claim against him...

Could you please answer my question so I can actually understand your perspective? Do you believe the cited statute doesn't apply here? And if you think it doesn't, why not...

Joseph Watson3 said:So, it's not Company A's money? Well, then I guess there’s no reason to pay them back, right?

Look, legally speaking, money can only have one owner. If it belongs to Company A, then the creditor had no business seizing it and they need to return it. If it belongs to the OP, then fine—everything is above board and he doesn't owe Company A a dime. But according to you and Frank Walker7, the money somehow belongs to Company A and the OP at the exact same time. How does that work?

I'm afraid you guys are just talking nonsense.

It isn't about the cash itself; it's about the claims against it. An account can be frozen or deep in the red, but that doesn't mean the underlying debts weighing down that account—or that individual—don't exist. You can't just "allocate" specific funds to different parties, claiming an amount from 500 to $333 belongs to Company A and another 1000 to 1500 belongs to Company B...

Essentially, legally speaking, money can only have one owner. If it belongs to Company A, then the creditor had no right to seize it and must return it. If it belongs to the OP, then everything is fine and they shouldn't return it to Company A. But according to you and Frank Walker7, the money belongs to Company A in one sense, yet simultaneously belongs to the OP in another...

Without getting bogged down in refuting your specific points, if I understand you correctly, you believe the section of the legal code I cited to my fellow forum member simply doesn't apply here. Even with the best intentions, I haven't been able to grasp the basis of your argument for why that law wouldn't hold in this case. Perhaps you could explain your perspective, because what is written in the statutes seems perfectly clear to me...🤷

Regarding the money, it is merely a medium—a tool used to settle outstanding claims. The actual subject of this debate is the existence of those claims. The priority order in which those claims are satisfied is a separate issue entirely; I wasn't arguing over who gets paid first, but rather stating that the claim itself exists...

I'm afraid you're all just talking nonsense.

No comment... ☕

Arthur Mendoza5 said:Man, I was just about to bring this exact point up
If we aren't talking about some basic over-the-counter cash deposit, but rather a wire transfer, then there’s almost zero chance the bank actually screwed up here. See, wire transfers involve a double-check system where everything is processed twice; you’ve got one employee entering the data and another validating it, so the odds of both of them fat-fingering the exact same number are basically non-existent. This points straight back to a mistake on the original payment order itself.

In a situation like this, the bank really needs to coordinate with Company A, since they were the ones who issued the payment order. It’s a messy one because we’re dealing with an account that’s been frozen due to a legal levy, but if that's all a misunderstanding, it should be simple—the account holder would just sign a waiver stating the funds aren't theirs and authorizing the transfer to the rightful recipient, provided Company A can prove the payment order was filled out wrong in the first place.

The bank is essentially just acting as a middleman trying to settle things without dragging the courts into it, which should benefit everyone involved. We also have to consider that a company can't just write off a mistaken transaction as a simple expense; there's a real risk they'll be stuck paying taxes and payroll contributions on that amount...

The bank could just as easily claim they don't give a damn because it's none of their business, but if Company A files a formal complaint, I don't see things going well for our colleague here. It's better if they reach an agreement. An admission of debt followed by installment payments sounds like a reasonable compromise...

James Roberts87 said:The connection is simple: the enforcement firm is holding the funds originally sent by that initial company. It raises a fair question—why on earth wouldn't they just go back to them?😕 (though we all know why they won't)😁

And how would they even know who to contact? How is Company A supposed to know about Company B, or why it should even matter to them? On what grounds could they claim that amount when the seizure is being carried out based on a specific legal basis? The law is quite clear on this... no need to overcomplicate things...

Joseph Watson3 said:So, the creditor has a legal right to grab cash from Company A despite having no direct relationship with them? Now that’s an interesting interpretation. :claps:

It isn't actually Company A's money being discussed; we're talking about the funds this fellow user has at his disposal (or had access to)...

James Roberts87 said:Fair point, so why not just sue the company that processed the levy?
If it isn't his money (and it isn't), then it isn't theirs either.

From what I can gather, the company initiating the seizure didn't act without legal grounds. I don't see any link between the collection agency and the company that mistakenly wired the funds to his account...

Chris Doyle4 said:Alright, here’s the latest update on this whole mess, my company accidentally wired the funds to the wrong account—basically, they just sent it to mine by mistake. Now, look, the clerk isn't to blame here at all, so nobody is losing money out of their own pocket, but I'm still stuck in the middle of it. I had a polite little chat with my personal banker over the phone this morning, but honestly, I don't get why the bank is riding my back so hard about this. Like, why couldn't the bank just reverse the transaction themselves immediately?
So, I’m heading into the branch this Monday, and here’s the plan: I fully intend to return the half of the money that’s sitting there, but as for the other half... well, I'm still figuring that part out.

What happens if the company can't actually see my private info? What are my actual chances here—can they actually sue me or whatever else they might try?

A bank can't just void a deposit if they weren't the ones who authorized the transfer. If the bank itself made the mistake, they would have simply reversed it already.
Yes, the company could file a report against an unidentified individual for unjust enrichment. As for why the bank is pressuring you, I couldn't say. Perhaps it's a major corporate client and they're feeling the heat, but from what I gather, the bank isn't directly involved. There is no loss or gain for them, and there is no legal mandate forcing them to act, since this is strictly between you and the company.

P.S. This thread belongs in the PDF Law section; we already have a dedicated topic for that over there.

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.

I haven't read every single post here, but I don't quite follow your logic regarding why you wouldn't owe them the money. According to the law...

Quincy...

The legal framework governing mandatory obligations... Unjust enrichment. Under Section 1111, if assets shift from one party to another without a legal basis—be it a contract, a court order, or specific statute—the recipient is obligated to return what was taken. If that’s no longer an option, they have to pay out the value of the benefit received... Just another way the system tries to correct itself...

If you aren't even aware that you're spending someone else's money—assuming we’re talking about the burden of proof and intent—then there might actually be a chance to shake those funds loose... since there was no actual intention to spend money acquired without a legal basis...
Reading the opening post, I realize that reclaiming funds is a bit more complicated due to the garnishment issues, but that doesn't change your underlying obligation...

The law states the same thing...

Quincy:

The scope of the refund... Section 1115... When assets acquired without legal basis are returned, they must include all accrued interest and profits—provided the recipient acted in bad faith from the start. Otherwise, the clock only starts ticking from the date the claim is filed... Expense reimbursements... Section 1116... An employee is entitled to reimbursement for both necessary and useful expenses, though if they acted in bad faith, that entitlement shrinks to necessary costs alone... How long can one hold onto what they've received... Article 1117... You can't go clawing back payments made for personal injury or wrongful death settlements if the money was already handed over to a bona fide purchaser... It's just how the law works. An individual is deemed to be acting in bad faith from the moment the decision to grant an extraordinary legal remedy is served. They become obligated to return all received funds based on the original grounds, plus interest, calculated from the exact point they were considered to be acting in bad faith...

So, are you on the right side of this or not? If you’re playing it straight, things might look better for you—these garnishment costs and similar fees could potentially be classified as "necessary" expenses... though I couldn't say for certain...

swiftcyclist58 said:Oh, please... find me one single idiot who would actually guarantee a loan for a foreigner, because they wouldn't even pay for your coffee once they left the country.

Sure, co-signing isn't quite as common in the States as it is back home, but I still don't know anyone who doesn't have a close relative who could theoretically take out a loan in their own name or act as a guarantor. For instance, I actually offered to help a family member who's struggling because of those Swiss Franc loans. We've heard every possible horror story about co-signers, and most of them are true, but everyone's life circumstances and motivations are different. If the risk to me is practically zero, I'm going to try to help someone I care about...

restlesscrane8 said:Sure, and that’s with an interest rate of only 4%. Over 30 years. $0.50 Monthly.
The second point is very well taken—that million dollars will have significantly less purchasing power due to inflation, though you'll still effectively have half a million in today's terms... there are just so many variables at play here.

I just wanted to point out that it's a flawed mindset to think you'll leave something behind for your children by spending almost your entire paycheck on a mortgage while barely scraping by. It's much better to invest—and I don't just mean basic savings accounts or mutual funds, but primarily investing in actual businesses. Savings are really just a way to shield your cash from inflation while getting minimal returns.

Taking out a loan for investment purposes makes sense if you're looking to generate profit. However, using debt for expenses (like a home, a car, or consumer loans) is a heavy burden, and you won't build wealth that way when you consider how much money you're handing over to the bank for that "service." That's why I support Danco's decision to sell, even though renting wouldn't be such a bad move either. I have a friend where, between summer tourists and students during the off-season, they can cover almost the entire mortgage on a property like that.

"Mere" 4%? Once you factor in inflation on long-term savings, you're looking at a real return of maybe 1-2%. You were originally talking about saving $150 $0.33 a month—roughly 20% of an average salary—but now you've bumped it up to $220. For most people, that isn't exactly pocket change...

I agree with the rest. Though, if you ask me, the smartest investment is getting a kid through college and sending them somewhere their skills actually command a premium...

Megan Grant4 said:Well, that Austrian guy is using a residential mortgage, whereas the only thing I could actually qualify for was
a personal loan, which carries the highest interest rates imaginable.

You're absolutely right that it's strange how banks handle repayments here compared to elsewhere...
Even the banks themselves choose to lend to the government at around 4.5% plus LIBOR.
America is basically a playground for banks. The profit margins they pull here are just insane.
I actually got a late payment notice from my bank in Austria because of a typo in my transfer details, and
they charged me 8 €.
That’s like getting a notice here and being slapped with a 15-$$6.75 fee.
Give it a little more time and our notices jump straight up to 50 or $67 bucks.

True, and I assumed yours was a personal loan. What kind of insurance is backing it?

Megan Grant4 said:I am definitely not joking.
When you set up a loan, you decide on the principal repayment period.
The monthly payment stays fixed. But if interest rates drop (which is happening in my case),
a bigger chunk of that payment goes toward the principal, so the balance starts shrinking "faster."
In just 26 months, I’ve already knocked $7,000 off a $50,000 loan.
If the LIBOR doesn't spike above 6%, I'll be totally done with this debt in 11 years instead of 15.
A lot of this stuff is standard practice in Austria.
Plus, the life insurance my wife and I pay $40 a month for (we’re both covered for $50,000 each) isn't just a basic policy; it acts like an accumulating account that could potentially cover, say, the final year of payments (about $6,000).
There aren't even any prepayment penalties.
Starting next year, they’re opening an account here in the States, so I won't have to deal with those annoying foreign transaction fees anymore.
And so on...
In the old system, after three years, you’d still end up owing the bank extra just to settle the amount you originally took out.
And that's just talking about dollars. As for the people holding loans in Switzerland, I don't even want to get into those calculations—it's a nightmare.

So we’re looking at constant, automatic reprogramming that they clearly aren't charging for. I wouldn't call that unusual—the computer is just running the interest calculations anyway—what's actually strange is that banks here don't even offer that service...

Then there's my colleague, an Austrian, who bought a house in Austria about two years ago. He secured a mortgage at 1.5% plus LIBOR. He did mention having a solid broker; a bad one will struggle to pull anything better than 2-2.5% plus LIBOR. It makes no sense why mortgages would be cheaper than personal loans—assuming yours is nearly double what he got—if the collateral is sound, like a Lombard loan. I fail to see how higher rates could be justified by any increased risk...