top Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Suddenly, bank account was gone

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Suddenly, bank account was gone

    May 1, 2010

    Couple learns the hard way of bank’s ‘right of setoff’

    When Hope and Matt Hughes stopped for supplies at a pet store last month, they thought the trouble with their debit card was just a glitch. But it turned into a financial crisis.

    They quickly discovered that their bank, Wachovia-turned-Wells Fargo, had deducted $4,059.82 from their checking account, wiping it out.

    It was no glitch. It is called the right of setoff or offset, a long-accepted practice dating to early English common law.

    When the right of setoff is applied to bank accounts, it works like this: When consumers place money in bank accounts, they are basically agreeing to let the bank borrow the money, with a promise to repay, usually backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. If the consumer then takes out a loan with that same bank and falls behind, the bank can use the money in that account to offset the loan.

    The trouble stemmed from Hope Hughes’ $10,000 student loan, which the bank called in.

    Now, the couple, who rely on Matt Hughes’ once-a-month paycheck from Kimberly-Clark, have had to sell possessions on Craigslist, tap into his 401K and negotiate with creditors so they don’t put their house and car loans in danger. And they were charged $385 in overdraft fees for purchases that would have cleared their account the day it was cleaned out.

    “We are so far behind,” said Hope, 36. “I don’t want anybody else to go through what we’ve been through. ... I was blind-sided.”

    According to the Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Greater Atlanta, more people are finding themselves in this situation. CCCS is a nonprofit financial counseling agency.

    “Our counselors are seeing more and more examples,” said CCCS spokesman John McCosh. “When people come to us and we go through their budget and various credit accounts and bank accounts to help them get an overall picture of their finances, we give advice on how to prioritize. ... And if we see that there is any vulnerability because someone has a delinquent account at the same place where they have their cash reserves, we will point out that it’s a vulnerability.”

    In the Hugheses’ case, there seems to have been a layer of confusion, turning misunderstanding into financial crisis.

    Hope Hughes said she thought she had six months to begin paying back her loans after her May graduation from Kennesaw State University. She got a degree in marketing with three loans, two of which were government-funded and the other through Campus Partners, a private student loan program at Wachovia.

    After several rounds of calls and faxes to prove she graduated in May 2009, not December 2008, as the bank believed, and a last-ditch application for a deferment, she thought things were settled. Then in January, the bank apparently wrote off the loan, meaning it was sent to its collections department. She began receiving bills for the total amount, plus interest and fees: $11,338.60.

    By April 1, the Hugheses’ checking account showed the bank deducted $140 in overdraft fees, even though it still held $4,302. The next day, the bank registered an “account transfer, zeroing out the account, and then charged $245 more in overdraft fees.

    A few days after that, the Hugheses received a letter from Wells Fargo saying they were eligible for “a considerable settlement reduction” on the loan. The next day, yet another letter advised them the bank had exercised its right of setoff. The balance of the loan, nearly $7,300, is still due.

    Jay Lawrence, Atlanta spokesman for Wachovia, which became a Wells Fargo company in 2008, said the bank uses the right of setoff as a last resort. Lawrence didn’t want to comment about the Hughes’ case except to say the bank’s records don’t support some of the Hugheses’ accounts.

    “We don’t do this without lots of attempts to communicate with our customers and try to work things out,” Lawrence said. “When this happens, we don’t like to do this. We want our customers to succeed.”

    Banks don’t have to give notice that they’re going to dip into or clean out an account, nor are there restrictions on how much they can take out, up to the loan amount.

    David Oliver, a senior vice president in marketing and communications with the Georgia Bankers Association, said policies about right of setoff vary from bank to bank. He stresses that it is usually seen as collection of last resort.

    “A lot hinges on the level and the amount and frequency of communication between the lender and the borrower,” he said. “If you have any concern about your financial situation or your ability to repay a loan or meet a financial obligation, by all means reach out to your financial institution. The last thing the bank needs right now is additional losses on their portfolio.”

    The Hugheses took out the loan with Wachovia, they said, because they had banked there for about 10 years. They also have home and car loans there.

    Such one-stop banking, or “relationship banking” has increased over the past 30 years and is something consumers should consider fully, says Kathleen Day of the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonpartisan research and policy agency. Often, consumers can get better service and lower interest rates this way.

    The downside is, banks can exercise the right to setoff, Day said. “They come first in line to take it out. It’s something people should be aware of.”

    Hope Hughes, who volunteers with Girls on the Run, a nonprofit program for girls in third through eighth grade that teaches healthy living, has been searching for work since graduation. She had her eye on getting a master’s degree in fitness and nutrition.

    But that dream has been deferred.

    “They may have had a right legally,” Hope Hughes said. “Ethically, should they have done it? No. Should they have wiped out my entire bank account? Absolutely not.”

    Quick facts about the bank’s Right of setoff

    ● Generally, federally chartered banks can’t use offset to collect on credit card balances — unsecured or open-ended revolving accounts. But typically, smaller banks and credit unions can.

    ● Federal legal decisions in the past few years have restricted access to Social Security funds from the right of setoff.

    ● To learn about your bank’s policies and setoff guidelines, read the loan and account documents it provides.


    Filed Chapter 7 July 2010
    Attended 341 September 2010
    Discharged November 2010 Closed November 2010

    #2
    I asked this question before but didn't get an answer.

    If you file within 90 days of a setoff when you are considered insolvent I think you can have it reversed.

    Anyone know?

    Comment


      #3
      Regarding the OP's post about the article, the right to set off, this certainly should be reviewed at length and possibly reform the right to set off certain laws. For example, not to wipe out the ENTIRE checking account balance. Perhaps set a cap of a certain percentage to offset for a number of months to satisfy a debt. Families need funds to survive. I was in a similiar situation with my ex who evaded the IRS causing a levy to wipe out the entire checking balance without notice and that was about 7 years ago. Nightmarish!

      If there is no end in sight for reforming the right to set off laws, then families need to start building up emergency funds of cash stashed away away from their checking and saving accounts. Not to stash and hide funds when filing for BK though
      Chapter 13 filer since Feb. 2018 under a 60 months payment plan
      Please think positive and do not give up!

      Comment


        #4
        My Two Cents

        I tried to research this, but I heard on "Clark Howard" that the banks that have NOT taken TARP money have become kinder and less apt to raise your interest rates, than the megabanks that took this bribe. I'll try to post his article if I find it. 'Hub
        If I knew it all, would I be here?? Hang in there = Retained attorney 8-06, Filed 12-28-07, Discharge 8-13-08, Finally CLOSED 11-3-09, 3-31-10 AP Dismissed, Informed by incompetent lawyer of CLOSED status, October 14, 2010.

        Comment


          #5
          I didn't find that one but this is a good one

          It's all about greed folks. It is obvious these bankers would sell their souls and evict their own Mothers. Govmint is NOT the answer.

          Hooray for banks that refused bailouts!
          A group of banks that turned down TARP funds have outperformed banks that received gobs of support. It just goes to show that not all banks needed a rescue.
          By Paul R. La Monica, CNNMoney.com editor at large
          Last Updated: September 11, 2009: 9:12 PM ET

          NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- It's nearly one year after the big crash, and the financial system is still functioning.

          Most banks didn't go out of business or get taken over. Your ATM still spits out cash, and Wall Street seems to be returning to some sense of normalcy.

          That's obviously good news. And what's even more encouraging is that the age of big bank bailouts is hopefully coming to a close.

          Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Thursday in an appearance before the Congressional Oversight Panel that it is time to "begin winding down some of the extraordinary support we put in place for the financial system."

          Extraordinary support is an understatement. AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) has become a ward of the state. Taxpayers now own a third of Citigroup (C, Fortune 500). And Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) has received $45 billion in funding from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

          But as we all look back on the events of the past year, it's important to remember that not all banks and financial firms got blinded by greed and stung by reckless behavior.

          It's tempting to demonize the entire banking world. But there are several regional and community banks that had the guts to tell the government that they didn't want any bailout money because they didn't want to be beholden to the Treasury Department. And, perhaps more importantly, they simply didn't need it.

          I've dug up, with the help of research available on TARP tracker Bailoutsleuth.com, at least 54 publicly traded banks that explicitly refused to take part in TARP. And it's worth pointing out that several of them are decent-sized.

          Hudson City Bancorp (HCBK) and People's United Financial (PBCT) are both in the S&P 500. Commerce Bancshares (CBSH), BOK Financial (BOKF) and NY Community Bancorp (NYB) are among the 50 largest banks in the country as ranked by assets, according to figures from the Federal Reserve.

          That's interesting considering many big-bank executives argued that they only took TARP funds because they were strong-armed into do it and thought not taking the cash would make them look weak and unworthy of government support. That justification sounds pretty bogus now.

          Consider this: Shares of the 54 banks that didn't want a bailout are, on average, down just 16% since last September. That's compared to a 30% drop for the KBW Bank Index and 36% plunge for the S&P Regional Bank Index.

          And why did these TARP-shunning banks hold up better than their peers? They didn't get involved in as much risky subprime lending as other banks. In fact, only three of these 54 banks reported a loss over the past four quarters.

          What's more, the banks that just said no are, on average, expected to report a 17% increase in profits this year. And the average dividend yield for the group is an impressive 3.3% -- a testament to the fact that many of these banks were not forced to slash their dividends to preserve capital.

          Now don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that TARP was a mistake and that the government should have simply let the free markets run amok. I argued a year ago that the bank bailouts were a necessary evil to save the financial sector from a complete meltdown.

          I took a lot of flack for that stance, but I still think that the government had no choice but to launch TARP and other government alphabet-soup programs in the wake of Lehman Brother's collapse.

          That doesn't mean I am happy to be putting taxpayer dollars at risk to undo the mistakes that were caused by greed and recklessness. And the handling of the bailouts by both the Bush and Obama administrations has been, to put it mildly, sloppy.

          But instead of focusing so much attention on what went wrong, the one-year anniversary of Lehman's death is also a good time to remember that many regional banks did the right thing.

          They stuck to sound lending practices and didn't wind up needing you and me to bail them out.

          And they didn't get punished for refusing to bow down to Wall Street's myopic short-term obsession with the next quarter's results. By sticking to their guns, they not only continued to make a profit and stay off the government dole, they also rewarded shareholders.

          Hopefully the banking giants will take notice.

          Talkback: Did the banking bailout work? Share your comments below. To top of page
          First Published: September 11, 2009: 12:44 PM ET


          If I knew it all, would I be here?? Hang in there = Retained attorney 8-06, Filed 12-28-07, Discharge 8-13-08, Finally CLOSED 11-3-09, 3-31-10 AP Dismissed, Informed by incompetent lawyer of CLOSED status, October 14, 2010.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by AngelinaCatHub View Post
            It's all about greed folks. It is obvious these bankers would sell their souls and evict their own Mothers. Govmint is NOT the answer.

            I totally agree...The banks who got the most appear now to be the most aggressive about going after people. Its very sad what happened to the young couple mentioned above.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by ryan View Post
              I totally agree...The banks who got the most appear now to be the most aggressive about going after people. Its very sad what happened to the young couple mentioned above.
              I see no evidence that receiving TARP funds had anything to do with the "aggressiveness" of banks. There is also no evidence in either of the articles quoted above that this is the case either. Some of the most aggressive banks, when going after defaulted creditors, received NO TARP funds, in fact.

              Bank setoff rules have been around forever - it was not the bank's fault the couple defaulted on a student loan with the bank, and the bank used the setoff rule the couple agreed to when they signed up for a checking account.

              Note that the Federally chartered large banks that did receive TARP funds are also not even allowed the right of setoff for credit card accounts.
              Last edited by WhatMoney; 05-04-2010, 03:49 PM.
              “When fascism comes to America, it’ll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross” — Sinclair Lewis

              Comment

              bottom Ad Widget

              Collapse
              Working...
              X