Mistaken wire transfer/payment error

Richard Lewis16 said:I was actually talking about court costs
where on earth would you get lawyer fees from? 🤷
well, he doesn't necessarily have to have them

besides, even if he did say he had some, what then?

🙄
Just to give the author a little more clarity, the legal fees would roughly look like this:
- the initial filing fee $33
- the response to the lawsuit—which might be waived
- the opposing side's legal fees—roughly 3 billable hours x $167 + sales tax = $922
- his own lawyer's fees—it’s unlikely he’d have those, since anyone would probably just advise him to settle.
So, the total amount he’d end up paying is basically equal to the principal itself. Plus, you have interest piling up, though not a huge amount, maybe just a few hundred bucks.

What could he possibly claim to have spent??? I really don't follow the logic behind that sentence.

Paul Jackson61 said:Do you guys actually live in America? You have no idea how long a trial like that would drag on if it even started. I dealt with something similar at my old firm once, and we just wrote off the money. It wasn't worth the headache—financially or mentally. Plus, who’s to say he’d even be found guilty if the mistake was made by a third party—the company itself—transferring funds, and then some agency like the IRS or a federal regulator pulls the money back before he even knows what hit him? If a banker calls you out of the blue saying your account is frozen because of someone else's error... honestly, I can't say if I'd return the money until I'm actually standing in those shoes. Though, if you want my honest opinion right now? I wouldn't. Go ahead and sue me.

Again, this could likely be wrapped up in about three to four months, assuming we're just looking at the timeframe for an initial judgment.
If a judge sees a clear-cut case like this, they’ll likely want to move quickly just to keep their own caseload statistics looking good. They'd probably serve the defendant immediately and schedule a hearing right away.

You all seem to be ignoring the fact that this is an unjust enrichment case, even after the Grinch pointed it out. It doesn't matter who's at fault, who's nice, who's mean, or who has money and who doesn't... the main point remains: I wouldn't pay it back.
Well, go ahead and don't pay it back, but just keep in mind the massive legal fees you'll be racking up because of it.

Frank Walker7 said:🙄
Just to give the author a little more clarity, the legal fees would roughly look like this:
- the initial filing fee $33
- the response to the lawsuit—which might be waived
- the opposing side's legal fees—roughly 3 billable hours x $167 + sales tax = $922
- his own lawyer's fees—it’s unlikely he’d have those, since anyone would probably just advise him to settle.
So, the total amount he’d end up paying is basically equal to the principal itself. Plus, you have interest piling up, though not a huge amount, maybe just a few hundred bucks.

What could he possibly claim to have spent??? I really don't follow the logic behind that sentence.

Again, this could likely be wrapped up in about three to four months, assuming we're just looking at the timeframe for an initial judgment.
If a judge sees a clear-cut case like this, they’ll likely want to move quickly just to keep their own caseload statistics looking good. They'd probably serve the defendant immediately and schedule a hearing right away.

You all seem to be ignoring the fact that this is an unjust enrichment case, even after the Grinch pointed it out. It doesn't matter who's at fault, who's nice, who's mean, or who has money and who doesn't... the main point remains: I wouldn't pay it back.
Well, go ahead and don't pay it back, but just keep in mind the massive legal fees you'll be racking up because of it.

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.

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...

Thomas Ortiz3 said: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...

That's exactly my point.

It’s actually pretty funny if you think about it, because you could probably look at this two different ways regarding who is actually coming out ahead here;
- the OP, who now owes less money, effectively seeing an increase in his net worth, or
- the creditor, who is now owed less, also seeing their assets technically grow by reducing their bad debt exposure.

But since the creditor actually has the legal standing and our friend here doesn't, it feels like the one trying to collect is the one without a leg to stand on.

Frank Walker7 said:That's exactly my point.

It’s actually pretty funny if you think about it, because you could probably look at this two different ways regarding who is actually coming out ahead here;
- the OP, who now owes less money, effectively seeing an increase in his net worth, or
- the creditor, who is now owed less, also seeing their assets technically grow by reducing their bad debt exposure.

But since the creditor actually has the legal standing and our friend here doesn't, it feels like the one trying to collect is the one without a leg to stand on.

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:

Chris Doyle4 said:Let’s just say I’m currently the victim of some seriously amateurish business from a bank teller who—honestly—I have nothing but bad things to say about.
I’ve got a garnishment sitting on my checking account for $500, but since I’m unemployed and already deep in the red, both the garnishment and my overdraft limit are basically frozen until my next deposit hits.
What happened next was anything but fair. The teller I dealt with at the window—the one who was being incredibly condescending and arrogant just because she could see my financial situation is a mess—made a massive, fatal blunder while I was trying to pay down my balance.
She incorrectly processed an amount of $1000 to my account, which technically cleared my negative balance, but then the whole thing backfired: the automated garnishment triggered and sucked out $500—and it wasn't even my fault! Right now, my available balance shows as $500, but that money isn't actually mine; it’s just a mistake sitting in my account.
Now, this same person calls me today, acting all high and mighty, telling me I need to drag myself down to the branch in 12 miles within twenty minutes to sign some paperwork that gives them permission to take back the funds they mismanaged. Okay, I get what they want, but here’s the kicker: I don't have enough cash left in the account because the garnishment wiped me out due to *their* error.
So, what’s the move here? What are my chances if I don't show up and sign this thing? Getting to the bank is a massive luxury right now—something I absolutely cannot afford given my current state.$500Can I just stall?
What can the bank actually do to me if I refuse to sign? This is clearly their screw-up, not mine. Since my American Express is linked to the account, can they shut that down if I don't sign their little document? And can they just forcibly pull money from my account?
Because if they do, I am truly screwed—if the bank pulls more money, I’ll end up $1,500 in an unauthorized overdraft...
Has anyone ever dealt with something like this? What are my actual rights when this happens entirely through "no fault of my own," especially since I had zero clue what was happening in the moment?
Thanks

Don't sweat it too much; you aren't going to hand over that $500 which you don't even have and shouldn't be expected to have.
$50 will take it, but it's not yours anyway, and that $1500 issue will be handled by the employee who botched the entry; they'll file an internal report where the staff member essentially commits to fixing the error out of their own pocket.

Believe it or not, these kinds of blunders happen all the time in the banking system, and the employees always have to answer for the surplus or the deficit—especially if we're talking about a teller deposit, which seems to be the case here.

Thomas Ortiz3 said: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...

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)😁

I don't get why you're stressing over this. The bank messed up, not you. That company collecting the judgment didn't swipe your cash—they took someone else's because the bank screwed up, not because of anything you did.

The bank should just settle it with the company or let you run an extra overdraft so you can pay them back whenever... in any case, there's zero legal basis for you to return immediately that money right now.

Arthur Mendoza5 said:Don't sweat it too much; you aren't going to hand over that $500 which you don't even have and shouldn't be expected to have.
$50 will take it, but it's not yours anyway, and that $1500 issue will be handled by the employee who botched the entry; they'll file an internal report where the staff member essentially commits to fixing the error out of their own pocket.

Believe it or not, these kinds of blunders happen all the time in the banking system, and the employees always have to answer for the surplus or the deficit—especially if we're talking about a teller deposit, which seems to be the case here.

Just one small correction: this isn't actually the bank's mistake, but rather the fault of the company that was processing the payroll for its employee. If it were a bank clerk, they'd likely just pay it back themselves, but when you're dealing with a corporation, the process is a bit more complicated. 😉

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.

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: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...

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...

Thomas Ortiz3 said: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)...

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.

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... ☕

Thomas Ortiz3 said: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... ☕

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.

Look, you really need to sit down and actually read your account agreement with the bank first. Somewhere in that fine print, they explicitly state that the bank reserves the right to correct any bookkeeping errors without needing to ask for your express permission.

That being said, if things go truly sideways, you can always file a criminal complaint for unlawful enrichment.

Honestly, I don't even know where to start—about a year or two ago, JP Morgan Chase just decided on their own to flip my standard fixed-amount recurring transfer into an authorized debits instruction. Suddenly, instead of just paying my monthly installment, they started pulling extra funds through this "authorized" setup, including account maintenance fees that were supposed to hit once a year.

It’s wild: they basically unilaterally terminated one contract, drafted a whole second one by themselves, screwed me over in the process, and kept draining my checking account without a single word of notice or consent. And get this—when I went to complain, they had the nerve to tell me they were doing it for my own good, claiming that customers were practically begging for this kind of automated debit setup to be implemented!

So, I told them straight up that I’m the one who decides what's good for me and what isn't, provided I have the legal capacity to do so, and that I am certainly not bound by the whims of their other clients since there wasn't exactly a public referendum held on this policy. Their response? They just completely blew me off.

I ended up reporting them to the Federal Reserve after they sent out an inquiry, but after months of waiting, the Fed finally bothered to reply, and guess what? Nothing happened. Zero.

Eventually, they finally reversed that unauthorized debit instruction and set up a brand new standard recurring transfer under a new reference number—which, mind you, I never signed (since they already scrapped the old one, right?)

And now, here we are, they're still pulling money from my account using this new instruction that I never authorized. Even in my original loan contract, there isn't a single mention that I was obligated to set up a recurring transfer; everything was done purely out of my own goodwill in the beginning.

In the end, of course, they managed to wiggle their way out of it, leaving us all to just sit around and cry about it.

The bank does whatever the hell they want, and you're just left standing there. They’ve got 500 lawyers on payroll, so why even bother fighting a losing battle?

Joseph Watson3 It’s funny how things work out sometimes, isn't it? I was just thinking about this earlier while grabbing my morning coffee, and it really reminded me of how much easier life gets when you just let things flow naturally.
So, apparently the enforcement officer actually has the legal grounds to seize funds from Company A, even though they don't have any direct connection to them whatsoever. That is certainly one interesting way to interpret the law!

The creditor actually has a solid legal basis to go after the funds in the debtor's account, provided we aren't talking about any of those specific assets that are legally protected from seizure. I was just sitting here thinking about how much of a difference those government benefits—like the child allowance and disability support—can really make for families trying to get by. It’s one of those things that provides such a necessary bit of breathing room when you're managing everything life throws at you.There really isn't anything stopping them from collecting every single cent sitting in that account.

Chris Nelson26 said:I don't get why you're stressing over this. The bank messed up, not you. That company collecting the judgment didn't swipe your cash—they took someone else's because the bank screwed up, not because of anything you did.

The bank should just settle it with the company or let you run an extra overdraft so you can pay them back whenever... in any case, there's zero legal basis for you to return immediately that money right now.

I just went ahead and read through everything once more to make sure I didn't miss a single detail.
At the end of the day, JP Morgan Chase isn't really concerned about whose money it is; they didn't actually do anything wrong here since they simply received a payment order and processed it exactly how the sender instructed. It was the person who issued the order who made the mistake, and the system protects them by allowing them to file a claim through the appropriate legal channels to recover those funds due to unjust enrichment. I remember dealing with a similar mix-up at my old office back in Chicago, and it really just comes down to following the paper trail. Let's not go over this all over again!

I was just sitting here thinking about how much everything changes, and it really makes you appreciate the little things in life! odmah I’m having a little trouble following your logic on what counts as legal advice here. Are you saying I shouldn't pay right now because there's no immediate obligation, but then once the court ruling actually comes through, I'll just end up paying the full amount plus all those extra legal fees that basically double the debt? Like I mentioned earlier, it feels like a bit of a wash, so I'm just trying to wrap my head around your reasoning.

Joseph Watson3 It’s funny how things work out sometimes, but I was just thinking about what was said earlier.
If that money actually belongs to Company A, then I guess there isn't much point in paying it back to them, right? It’s funny how these things work out sometimes!

Generally speaking, money can only legally belong to one single owner at any given time. If Company A is the rightful owner, then the creditor had absolutely no legal standing to seize those funds, which means they really ought to return them. On the other hand, if the original poster is the actual owner, then everything is perfectly fine and there’s no way for them to get that money back from Company A. It just seems like you and Frank Walker7 are stuck in this strange middle ground where the money belongs to Company A in one sense, yet somehow simultaneously belongs to the OP in another!

I honestly hope you guys aren't just talking nonsense, because I'd hate to see us all getting caught up in something that doesn't actually hold water.

I just noticed that Thomas Ortiz3 gave such a great explanation regarding the actual difference between owning cash and holding a claim on it.
At the end of the day, it feels like we’re just spinning our wheels in circles, going back and forth over a law that is perfectly clear and arguments that honestly couldn't be more straightforward. I honestly don't see any reason to give them anything back; life is too short to worry about people like that, so I’d rather just move on and focus on my own thing.

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.

Are you suggesting they’re actually joint and several liable to the company that made the payment?
If that's the case, could you please walk me through how the right of recourse would work among joint debtors once one of them settles the debt with Company X?

THE CREDITOR HAS A FINAL, LEGALLY BINDING LEVY ORDER FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT!!!!!!! HELLO !!!!!

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...