Bank took $1100 out of my checking account

[debtmonster]

It offends me that you're paying state income tax. I don't like it when people do that. It hurts the economy. If you had that 7% back in your pocket, that would be 7% more you'd be spending on goods and services.

[BkinTX]

Eh, it's ok, lower middle class neighborhood. Excellent Elementary school and JR High just up the street (walking distance for the kiddos), though. That's what makes it worth it.

[debtmonster]

That's what the taxes are paying for. I didn't have any schools near by. I don't have kids, yet I am paying for everyone elses. I might as well get my free healthcare to boot. C'mon Obama! Hook me up!

[BkinTX]

We have "free" health care.

[Amy26]

I have free healthcare... I just have a 3,000 yearly deductible... hehe.

[BkinTX]

You have 3 thousand dollar health care. LOL.

[Amy26]

Yea, my company pays the premiums no matter how many family members you have and then I have a deductible...after the 3,000 they pay 100% of everything.

[BkinTX]

That's a good deal if you're sick or have medical issues. Not such a sweet deal if health care is rarely needed.

Then again, you have security knowing there's a cap on what your out of pocket can be.

I love our "free" health care but was very disappointed that I was unable to have a home birth or at least a birth center birth. That would have been out of pocket.

Although, in retrospect, with the bk and all...it probably could have gone on the credit card. :p

[Amy26]

Yea... I thought it was really great till I went to the allergist and got a 600 dollar bill and then the urgent care was like 200... they give me an HSA account but they only put like 500 dollars in it ...Its a really great company but its small so, we only get one healthcare choice. Its actually a really good plan since they pay the premiums no matter how many kids you have. Some family medical plans can be very pricey which would exceed the 3,000 a year. And I didn't really have any incurred medical costs to add to my bk ... I just started my job in May and I had no health care at all before that.

[BkinTX]

I can imagine. Ouch.

It's not perfect but I do appreciate the military health care. Just the premiums alone for health care (esp. for a large family like ours) can be tremendous.

[hereforinfo]

You must live in a nice hood to pay that. My property taxes were $1100 and I was pissed at that. I had a 1500 sq. ft. house as well.

Your taxes at $1100 were very low for Florida. You lived in a podunk, undesirable town in the middle of nowhere, in the center of the state. No one wants to live there, it sucks. A bunch of rednecks and too far from either coast. A home in a nice city where anyone would actually want to live is not cheap. And Florida's property taxes are known to be pretty high, usually around 2-3% of the home's value. Your home value was obviously very low to be paying only $1100 in taxes, but that doesn't surprise me considering its location.

[debtmonster]

Your taxes at $1100 were very low for Florida. You lived in a podunk, undesirable town in the middle of nowhere, in the center of the state. No one wants to live there, it sucks. A bunch of rednecks and too far from either coast. A home in a nice city where anyone would actually want to live is not cheap. And Florida's property taxes are known to be pretty high, usually around 2-3% of the home's value. Your home value was obviously very low to be paying only $1100 in taxes, but that doesn't surprise me considering its location.

You love my location and you know it!! My house was only $120,000.

You need to make like $80-125k to live in the city and most jobs don't pay that. So it's a double-negative to live there. Everything is expensive and no jobs to pay. NOT GOOD.

[Amy26]

You love my location and you know it!! My house was only $120,000.

You need to make like $80-125k to live in the city and most jobs don't pay that. So it's a double-negative to live there. Everything is expensive and no jobs to pay. NOT GOOD.

I think it really depends on the job sector... hell I got a new job in DC before I was even back in the country. Got hired after 2 phone interviews...

[DeadManCrawling]

Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code says the opposite. A Bank cannot take the money if there purpose was to obtain a right of setoff against the debtor.

Under cases such as In re Union Cartage Co., 38 B.R. 134, the Bank had to give the money back to the debtor,

WHY?



Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code will not allow a bank to take recently deposited money to satisfy a debt owed to them and it will let the trustee get the money back if the Bank took the money and as a result "improved there position" as to other creditors.

[/I]

You,or someone, misread this case so badly it is nearly impossible to figure out how you arrived at these conclusions.

This had to do with a gentleman (investor, NOT debtor) who deposited over $400k in a bank that later filed Chapter 11. He bought CD's, in the same value range that would cover a debt he owed at the same bank.

They converted his preferred deposit certificates to cash, when they matured, in order to repay loans the INVESTOR still had outstanding to SIBC (the bank).

The crux of this case had more to do with jurisdictional matters than anything, and as to a recent debtor (who had now made himself a creditor) and the application of setoff, but in a totally different manner than the OP's situation.

If you took this in to court as a case-law reference, you probably would not get far, since it relates to different legal questions and probably a different District.

As others have pointed out, you cannot rely on anyone's advice from these forums for your specific case. You can however, learn some better questions to ask of your attorney and get a better feel for the law in general.

Good luck in all this.

[California]

You,or someone, misread this case so badly it is nearly impossible to figure out how you arrived at these conclusions.

This had to do with a gentleman (investor, NOT debtor)

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, a debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, filed a complaint for the turnover of money against defendant creditor, a savings and trust company.

Wow, its even in the first sentence, it says DEBTOR...

The crux of this case had more to do with jurisdictional matters than anything, and as to a recent debtor (who had now made himself a creditor) and the application of setoff, but in a totally different manner than the OP's situation

.

Jurisdictional matters?

"OUTCOME: The court found that the debtor could avoid the creditor's setoff to the extent of the amount deposited into the debtor's checking account the day the collateral was turned over to the creditor."

If you took this in to court as a case-law reference, you probably would not get far, since it relates to different legal questions and probably a different District.

Ok, now I know your not a lawyer... this case is cited as one of the premier cases involving setoffs. And where did you pull "jurisdictional matters" out off?

I mean did you even read the case... here, Ill attach the summary from lexis.

"OVERVIEW: As of 90 days prior to bankruptcy, the debtor was indebted to the creditor on two loans in the total amount of $ 173,456.25, which were secured by 11 vehicles. The debtor maintained its checking account with the creditor. On Feb. 8, 1982, the debtor turned in the vehicles to the creditor, and they were sold for a net amount of $ 88,800. That same day the debtor deposited $ 12,343.77 in its checking account. Two days later the creditor set off the entire balance in the debtor's checking account, $ 33,980.17, and dishonored checks drawn on the account that day. The debtor filed a complaint for the turnover of money. The court ruled for the debtor but entered judgment only for the $ 12,343.77 deposit, explaining that the creditor actually held two claims: a secured claim for $ 88,800, which could not be subject to an insufficiency, and an unsecured claim on the balance of the loans. On the day of the deposit, the creditor knew the debtor was in financial difficulty because it had received the collateral the same day. The creditor accepted the deposit, not for the use of the debtor, but to enable the setoff; thus, the debtor could avoid the setoff in the amount of the deposit."


I dont think there is anything more to say... you have no legal training whatsoever and should not be posting on these boards,