Look, I deal with this stuff almost every day at my job, and my experience is different. I’ve seen banks accept a simple employer verification even after a notary has started the process... honestly, it just depends on the bank. Every one of them has its own way of doing things. As for your situation—I have no idea how a main branch would refuse to give you info regarding your own account and income. If I were you, I probably would have threatened them with a lawsuit or something similar. I get why a satellite branch wouldn't know anything; they can't see past their own monitors. But for the headquarters to receive the garnishment order, freeze the account, and then act like they don't know what's going on? It's pretty obvious they're just being lazy. 😉
You're wrong on this one. From what I've seen personally, a company can absolutely issue a confirmation stating that, per judgment number xxx/xx, the full principal, interest, and legal fees have been paid in full. That document is specifically issued to unfreeze a checking account. It’s entirely up to the bank whether they'll accept a confirmation from someone like Visa; sometimes they insist on getting it directly from the law firm handling the case. The court doesn't have anything to do with it... honestly, they should be doing that themselves. I’m speaking from experience here. I have no idea why anyone would expect a court confirmation—how is a judge supposed to know if all the lawyers, the corporation, and the creditors have been paid? edit: I'm looking at an enforcement order right now where it says a notary public issued the order based on credible documents, and there isn't a single mention of a court. Any objections to the enforcement are filed with the law office, not the court.
Banks act pretty stupid in these situations. Usually, the garnishment order goes straight to the main headquarters—most often in a major hub like New York City—while the staff at local branches just see a frozen account on their screens. There’s basically nothing they can do locally. In these cases, you need to call the main branch and ask for the collections department (that's what most big banks call it) to get actual details. If you're the one caught in this mess, the best move is to fax or mail proof of payment directly to the main office. Honestly, it might be faster to go straight to Verizon or the law firm handling the claim; if they send a formal request to the bank confirming everything is settled, the account should be unfrozen. One more thing, unrelated to this specific case: once a garnishment hits, you aren't just paying the principal; there are legal fees involved too. Most people try to dodge those by only paying the base amount, but unfortunately, neither the bank nor the law firm will unfreeze your account until every cent of interest and fees is paid. Ideally, once the bank pulls the full amount from your account, the freeze should lift automatically since the debt is cleared, but banks frequently miss that step.
In my opinion, if someone inherits an apartment, they should probably settle any outstanding utility bills...that’s the bare minimum you can do when you walk away with such a valuable asset. But now, if you actually inherited a debt—like in your situation—that seems legally unsustainable. I assume there were co-signers on the loan, or perhaps some other legal tie? Who's to say you had a good relationship with your father? Under what law would you even agree to take over his debt after he passed?
I don't think anyone here has actually crunched the numbers on interest rates yet... but let's look at it this way: if you lent me 500 $0.00, what amount would you realistically expect back from me after $10? What could you actually accomplish with that capital over a 30-year span? Even a major bank like JP Morgan Chase pays you interest just to hold your savings. Just consider how much you'd need to park in an account today to have $166667 ready in 30 years 😉... and that's just for a standard mortgage. In my opinion, people don't take out these types of loans without a serious reason. Not everyone has a windfall waiting for them from a parent or a spouse to solve their housing needs.
I was hoping for better :P .. I used to have their SMS alerts, and honestly, they were a total disaster back then. They’d send me a text about my balance, but there was zero info on who took what or when... so I had to switch over to JPMorgan Chase 😁
Funny table 🙂 I’m going to have to call Wells Fargo and demand they start emailing me my statements instead of mailing them, otherwise they'll just keep charging me for the paper $1.75..thanks 🙂 BTW where exactly is that mentioned? I couldn't find it in the Wells Fargo fee schedule... if a bank teller tries to play dumb, I want to be able to throw it right in their face 😁
Regarding this thread, some people here claim it’s in a bank's best interest to keep their clients happy. My experience suggests that half of this PDF proves otherwise...
Just heard a segment on the radio about consumer protection codes. It’s wild how banks play these games. I wouldn't call it outright fraud—after all, people are responsible for their own choices—but let's be real: those contracts are intentionally designed with tiny, gray font to make them impossible to read. If they printed everything in standard black ink with a legible font, half the population wouldn't touch a loan once they actually saw the terms. I honestly wonder how the staff at Chase would react if I walked in and demanded a high-contrast, large-print version just so I could actually read what I was signing. It’s not directly related to our discussion, but it proves that banks don't actually want "informed" clients; they just want happy ones who aren't paying attention.
Steven Reed said:Nicholas Turner, your logic is a bit flawed—comparing a person’s life and health to mere cash is laughable, if not outright trolling.
Look, I don't see the equivalence—whether a bank teller accidentally shortchanges me by $167 or a surgeon accidentally removes my right leg. What are we even talking about here, 😕 🤷 🤔
Even if the fine print says late claims won't be honored, I know—a friend told me—that if a client walks into a Chase branch to complain about an underpayment, they’ll actually balance the till (always with a supervisor present) and check the security footage if there isn't a surplus in the drawer. It isn't in a bank's interest to have clients who feel cheated—whether by mistake or malice. Honestly, I have no idea how some people think, 🤷 I certainly wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I had taken $667 from someone else's paycheck; anyone who can do that is answerable to God. That’s exactly why this country is the way it is.😉
🤣 🤣 🤣 😂 😂 😂
I just don't get why this PDF has at least a dozen threads, some over ten pages long, where people are complaining about the exact same banks. If it's not in their interest, 🙄 🙄 🙄 why is this happening?
If everyone is supposed to answer for their actions, then why is it okay to screw up just because "we're all human"? I wonder if anyone in Scandinavia actually sued the incompetent fool who bypassed safety protocols at Chernobyl. How did he answer for that radioactive cloud that drifted over Finland, not to mention the rest of Europe or Ukraine? That plant didn't belong to him; it belonged to the citizens of the USA, yet he was playing games with it without anyone knowing. ☕ And staying on topic... I read somewhere in one of the posts above that if an employee finds extra cash in the register, they set it aside in a separate account until the owner shows up. I’m curious, what happens if nobody ever claims it? (Which, let's be honest, happens all the time.) Where does that money actually go? Maybe the bank just uses those funds to cover their own gaps?
And what exactly would be the grounds for a lawsuit here? Maybe the guy just gave that employee a ride from New York to Miami and they settled the payment via direct deposit? Or maybe he was just paying back an old loan? It's all speculation.
Kenneth Lopez15 said:It all really comes down to how you were raised back home. If their pattern was to never pay back what they owed, then you probably won't either—and vice versa, I suppose. As for me, I don't think I could ever sell out my integrity like that.
My parents raised me to always pay my debts... and I did... and then I almost got framed for theft because of it😲 😲 😲 so yeah... 👎
shadowcrane12 said:But that isn't even his money. I honestly can't wrap my head around the idea of someone deciding not to return cash that doesn't belong to them. 🙄
If it hit his account, it's his... ☕ if a teller screwed up and pulled money from his balance by mistake, the bank would be on the hook to make it right.
copperjackal89 said:It should be painfully obvious to you that the bank isn't going to bend over backward here. Instead, they'll go straight for the individual's name and identity, targeting a teller who is likely a perfectly decent person, perhaps even a dedicated community member facing the same struggles we all are, working hard for a paycheck that will ultimately be docked for this $667?
If playing down the severity of the situation helps soothe your conscience, fine, go ahead. But let's call this what it really is: this isn't some grand saga of "the individual versus the system," it is strictly "one person against another." Personally, I felt nothing but genuine gratitude every time someone returned my lost ID or my phone.🤷
I had a similar experience when a coworker had to pay back money they accidentally overpaid 🙄—I assume the bank has some internal way of covering those kinds of blunders 🤷 (maybe they don't), because I doubt it's their first time... and that teller (or whoever) refused to tell me the credit balance for someone I was co-signing for over the phone (which resulted in me getting warnings that I'd be on the hook) just because I didn't have "authorized access." She could have easily checked her screen and helped me out without making a scene, but she wouldn't. 😉 So, there's my take: I wouldn't give them the money back. Call me selfish, dishonest, or immoral if you want, but I can't stand their "business model." And clearly, that employee won't tell her manager that their communication with clients is terrible.☕ Oh, and regarding the ID and phone thing... I once turned in a wallet that had no cash, just documents, at a precinct in Chicago, and I almost got treated like a thief myself. 😲 I spent four hours acting like an idiot at the station trying to explain the situation, only to have them write down all my info. If I had found a wallet with cash and turned it in, and then the owner told me, "Keep the money," I'd look like a fool. No thanks. Next time I find a wallet, I'm just kicking it into a dumpster to avoid another "fun" afternoon with the police.
That’s all well and good... but the bank isn't going to step up and freeze those wrongly transferred funds until someone physically shows up to sign off on returning them. If they actually froze the account so people couldn't touch the money, then everyone would cooperate. But since they let people spend it? Where's the ethics, the integrity, or the basic training of the bank and its staff? And when that same bank starts calling employees demanding private info—like salary details or cell numbers because they aren't answering the contact number on file—where is their sense of decency? Communication has to be a two-way street, regardless of how much people might judge me for saying it. Someone has to set a standard; you can't have everyone acting this way. ☕