hiddenviper13 said:Maybe it’s time we started getting a little loud at the bank teller window. 😁
Seriously, if they give you any grief about processing a transaction, just tell them you’re pulling every cent out of your account and closing it right then and there. Let's see how quiet they get once you walk away with all that cash.
Honestly, it isn't really about the specific bank; if you close one, you'll just end up opening another where you'll have to deal with the exact same paperwork and questionnaires anyway.
It’s a bit silly that Pinky thinks having a bank employee handle all that data collection is the problem—they aren't actually the ones at fault here. I got caught up in the same thing a few years back—questions about who I live with, whether I have a girlfriend, her SSN, her phone number, all that stuff. I even jokingly asked the teller for her number once, and she just gave me this knowing smile... basically saying she knew the questions were ridiculous, but she had to follow the anti-money laundering regulations.
Daniel Alvarez13 said:So he'd just throw away money he actually owes? Brilliant logic there...
Exactly—in this country, you’re either a crook or a fool, with no middle ground. Theoretically, they should even go after his accounts in Austria since those tax authorities share data on transfers and balances—but would that actually work in practice? I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't, leaving plenty of room for scammers to mock the few honest taxpayers left who actually play by the rules.
?? I think you’ve mixed up a few things here—it sounds like you might be getting a bit misled on a couple of fronts. An employer doesn't actually have any connection to the bank, nor should they be signing contracts with them; all your husband needs to do is provide his account number for direct deposit, and that’s really it. If they both happen to use the same bank, the employer might save a couple of bucks on fees, and your husband might see his pay hit his account a few hours earlier than if they were at different institutions. It would be a first if an employer forced an employee to use a specific bank—not to mention that’s actually illegal, though it wouldn't make much sense anyway.
If the interest rate is variable, they have every right to change it—that’s why it’s called variable, after all, rather than fixed. You really have to factor that in before taking out a loan.
The dollar has strengthened, so perhaps that’s part of the reason why mortgage rates are climbing.
I think I’d call someone too, if I had lent them money and they didn't pay me back by the agreed date.
The whole story feels a bit tense—though I suppose that’s expected given how angry the author is. It’s likely they’re being hit with a warning fee, and since the messages are automated, there's not much they can do about it. Honestly, the system should be updated so it doesn't blast notifications in the middle of the night. I once had an automated alert pop up at 4:15 AM just to tell me my driver's license was ready.
A few days ago, I headed out to get my car insured through work—it’s got a 50% discount, 150 horsepower, and I’ve had it for two years now. Usually, I grab the policy first and then hit the inspection station, but since the lanes were totally empty, I figured I'd just knock out the inspection right away. So, there I am, watching the guy check over the vehicle, when suddenly I hear the clicking of heels—this young girl comes jogging toward me. I'm standing there thinking, *what on earth?* She tells me she noticed my car isn't covered yet and offers to write up a policy on the spot. I told her, "No thanks, I'm heading over to GEICO; they're cheaper," but she insisted I stop by her desk so we could talk it over. My old policy shows $883, so she asked what kind of rate I was looking for. I told her $2,000—since GEICO was quoting me a bit over $2,000 anyway—so I figured if she could do it for $2,000, we had a deal. She wrapped up the policy for me right then. A couple of weeks before this, a friend of mine insured his car; he went to the same agent he’s used for the last 15 years and ended up paying the exact same amount as last year.
I just walked out of the Supreme Court after showing them my receipt, and let me tell you, the response was infuriating. They basically told me that while the receipt proves I paid, it doesn’t prove they messed up or lost their copy. Instead, they’re operating under the assumption that I’m the one who kept all the copies at home instead of handing theirs over. In other words, they aren't taking any responsibility for their own incompetence, and according to them, I should have demanded a formal confirmation from them when I handed the receipt over in the first place. 🙂
They did send word to the IRS to clear my debt, so things should be settled in a few days, but now I’m facing a whole new headache. There are legal processing fees totaling $47 + $22 that the IRS is using to freeze my account. Obviously, I don't consider myself liable for these costs caused by someone else's negligence, and I have zero intention of paying them. Since my paycheck hits in a few days, they’ll just snatch that $68 right out of my account without a second thought. The IRS told me to file a formal complaint, but when I called the complaints department, they claimed those specific costs are the court's responsibility. When I went back to the court and relayed what the complaints department said, they actually laughed in my face! They said they aren't responsible and won't pay a dime; they told me if I want my money back, I can write a letter to the Department of Justice and ask for it myself. However, the folks at the IRS warned me that nobody has ever successfully gotten reimbursed through that process. Also, I asked the court to point me toward the proper procedure for filing a claim for damages, and everyone just gave me this condescending little laugh—as if I haven't suffered enough damage already! 🙂 To top it off, they refused to provide any guidance on how to proceed, essentially telling me to just "figure it out myself." I forgot to mention that this was handled as an infraction, so the standard enforcement laws don't apply here; we're dealing strictly with misdemeanor regulations, or so I was told. What am I supposed to do? Any advice would be greatly appreciated..
If I remember correctly, I read a thread about a year ago where someone actually managed to get a refund.
The IRS is technically right here—they received an order, so they're going to collect their fees.
There's no such thing as a misdemeanor under standard enforcement laws—I don't know who you were talking to, but you probably shouldn't take legal advice from them anymore.
The core issue here is whether a vehicle remains listed under a police department's records as company property even after it's been officially decommissioned.
In my view—and this is just how I see it—the moment an invoice is issued should be the exact moment ownership transfers from the company to the buyer. If a business is facing a garnishment, we can go after their cash or seize their assets, but we shouldn't touch specific items that are no longer theirs. It’s pretty simple, really. For instance, if I’m walking through a mall and spot a 50% off sale at Best Buy, I might grab a few gadgets and pay by credit card. If Best Buy were facing bankruptcy and creditors had already triggered a seizure, they couldn't come to my house three months later to snatch those electronics—that would leave me out both the money and the goods. They could only claim the funds used for the purchase, because those devices aren't Best Buy's property anymore. With vehicles, though, there seems to be a catch regarding registration status—it has to belong to someone, right? Even when it's unregistered or decommissioned? If a company is heading toward bankruptcy and the owner knows a court order is coming, they might choose to sell a vehicle by de-registering it with the DMV (returning the plates and voiding the title) and then issuing a bill of sale. That isn't illegal—in fact, it's perfectly reasonable for a business to liquidate assets to stay afloat. The buyer shouldn't be forced to register the car immediately; they bought it as an unregistered unit, and it’s their choice when to handle the paperwork. As far as I know, there’s no law stating you *must* register a vehicle right away—you could technically keep it sitting in your garage indefinitely. The real question is whether the new owner will run into trouble ten years down the road when they finally try to register it in their name—after spending a fortune on insurance and inspections. Theoretically, they should be fine since they have a valid receipt proving ownership, but...
@Richard Lewis16: You might want to realize that I’m simply not letting you get under my skin—no matter how hard you try. Honestly, I’ve lost count of how many of your posts the moderators have had to scrub. You seem to think there's some sort of win in the fact that it takes the mods a few hours to catch you, even if everyone else saw the post by then—but if that makes you feel better, go ahead. If you were actually causing tangible harm, I’d deal with you quite differently, but right now, you’re just embarrassing yourself by constantly starting these threads on PŽK. This is the second one in fifteen days; I wouldn't be surprised if a third pops up in the next two weeks unless the mods finally step in.
@nimbletinker10: Those comments weren't directed at you, and if anyone wants to judge how confrontational I am, they can just look at my post history. On the flip side, you tend to dominate every thread—like that one about parenting where, despite not having kids yourself, you somehow accounted for 50 out of the 80 comments. Even when the mods wipe all 50, you're still right back there. Then there was that finance thread, where a few women clearly stated their views on marriage differed from yours, yet you insist on painting them in a negative light just because they don't agree with you. I asked what appliance you used since you mentioned being happy with it, and you said Miele—to which I replied that while Miele is a quality brand, I prefer something I consider a better value. I explained my reasoning: Miele costs $3.25, whereas an Electrolux offers similar features for $1333, or perhaps a Bosch 5000 series—I'd lean toward the latter.
Now this thread has turned into another place for personal attacks, lies, and twisted facts. I purposely stayed quiet on the old PŽK thread specifically to prevent this exact situation from happening. It feels like despite Ashley Evans71 mentioning at least twenty times that we shouldn't keep dragging up old topics—and I'm sure boldwalker12 has said it several more times—some users just keep doing it, and it seems they'll get away with it. So, they'll likely do the same thing again in fifteen days. :/
This is also my EOD—at least, unless the mods decide otherwise.
Why all the negativity? And why reopen a thread that the moderation team closed off ages ago—wasn't it supposed to be off-limits? Besides, you're right—I wasn't looking for advice or help, nor did I actually start this thread (it just sort of splintered off on its own). I suggested a solution to this non-existent "problem" quite a while back—basically, we just need better paychecks—but after that, the thread just became a space for people to swap tips on saving money at home, so my input is pretty much irrelevant here anyway.
Thomas Wilson32 said:Okay... fair enough. I was totally sold by the photos, but maybe those shots don't actually do the space justice...
I just hopped back onto the site to check out the photos again—it turns out I mixed up two different rooms. I was looking at the one from photo #10, whereas the other one is actually fine; I don't see any of that old-school mid-century government furniture or anything. Still, I'm not entirely sure what advice to give you—I certainly wouldn't jump into a DIY project there without getting some solid, verified input from people who have dealt with similar requests.
I’ve been lurking here for a while now because I am honestly desperate for some advice. I’ve attended four weddings in my life, but let me tell you—I am completely out of my depth when it comes to planning one.
I can’t find any decent reviews on this forum regarding the Poljud restaurant located within the Accenture complex. I'm trying to figure out if the venue used to be an old officers' quarters or maybe part of the San Diego facility... the photos look incredible. If anyone knows exactly which place I'm talking about or has actually held a wedding there, please let me know. Every bit of info helps... thanks!
Well, 🤷
If you have the chance, why not just go see the space for yourself? Maybe even swing by during a happy hour, assuming they actually host those. The venue was last renovated back when Josip Broz Tit visited—and get this—they supposedly use the same staff that served him. Don't take this the wrong way, but they might be perfectly fine people who just seem a bit unmotivated—kind of like those tired clerks you see at the DMV.
John Clark6 said:Well, actually—if you don't start the legal collection process within five years, the statute of limitations kicks in. If you *do* move forward, you usually have ten years, BUT—and this is a big but!—any single action taken toward collecting that debt essentially "resets" that clock back to another ten years. You could theoretically keep doing that indefinitely, really, because the US legal system doesn't recognize an absolute expiration date that you can't restart. So, to answer your question: yes, you absolutely can still go after them.🙂
What exactly counts as a "step toward collecting the debt"?
Bradley Scott2 said:There's also an absolute statute of limitations, which I believe is two years in this situation. If a judgment has already been handed down, I think the limit becomes 10 years from the date of the ruling. It only stays active indefinitely if the claim is recorded as a lien on the property deed.
So, if you lend a brother, a friend, or a godparent, say, $20,000, and they don't pay you back within ten years... you're basically out of luck, right?
My bank froze my account and set aside funds to cover an overdraft. Since an authorized credit line from the bank shouldn't count toward my available balance when they're calculating what can be seized, I'm stuck. What’s the move here? How do I actually file an official objection or appeal this?
Thanks in advance!
Are you absolutely certain they aren't allowed to tap into that overdraft?
Well, under the new regulations regarding the enforcement of judgments act, they can collect fines through wage garnishment. This specific law allows them to pull from any account a debtor holds—which means they can even dip into an authorized overdraft. Plus, there isn't really a provision in this law for a protected portion of your paycheck or pension—you know, that one-third buffer we usually rely on?
Does anyone know if there are places in San Francisco (or maybe the surrounding Bay Area) where you can actually rent a formal gown? I'm looking for something high-end—the kind of dress that usually retails for $500 or more.
You might want to check how long it takes for that garnishment to hit the statute of limitations—assuming it even can. I’ve heard that once the legal process is officially kicked off, the clock basically stops. I'd hate for you to run into the same mess I did back in 2019. Imagine being at the checkout in a Target in Chicago, just trying to grab some formula, bread, and groceries for dinner, only to have them tell you, "Ma'am, your card was declined." It's such a shock when you know the funds are there, but turns out an old debt from 2013 finally caught up with me—back when I was dealing with steady wages instead of a student stipend, which they can actually garnish. You end up walking home empty-handed, doesn't it?
Ryan Lee2 said:Is there an actual legal code where I can look this stuff up, or am I going to need to hire a heavy-hitting lawyer to make sense of it all?
Thanks for the assist.
My lawyer mentioned that a debtor's passing doesn't just end everything—it passes the baton to the heirs, who inherit both the assets and the liabilities if they accept the estate. Of course, they can choose to renounce the inheritance entirely to avoid those debts. If the estate's value is less than what's owed? Well, the outcome seems pretty self-explanatory, wouldn't you say?
It’s better to have too much than to run out. If we’re already scouting for the perfect venue with the best catering to ensure guests leave happy—hiring the top-tier band to keep the party going, booking a stellar photographer, buying new outfits, high-end invitations, and even fancy confetti—then why would it make sense to let stinginess over the dessert spread overshadow everything else? It seems silly to cut corners on sweets just to save $600 $333 when you're looking at an overall budget of, say, $20,000 $43.