Direct Deposit and OhMyGodYouHaveToBeKiddingMe

[Merijeek]

So....last week Monday was payday.

Last week Tuesday I quit my job.

My ex-employer was a nasty son of a bitch who always tries to pull something, so I go straight from giving my fifteen seconds notice to visiting the bank and making sure that my now-ex-employer can in absolutely no way whatsoever try to remove anything from my account. Nope, can't happen. Not only would that not be allowed, it would be illegal.

Well, that's good. Except, of course, I check my account this weekend and find a debit from my employer (showing the AC, same as direct deposits always did) equivalent to the cost of my last laptop. Which I returned, but I'll admit was in pretty rough shape. Still, it was returned.

So, I go talk to the girl at the bank, fill out a few affidavits, and by tomorrow I should have the money back in my account.

Here's the kicker. I ask her how we go about removing any sort of access to my account, and she says that since they have the account number and routing number it CAN'T BE DONE. The only, and I mean ONLY, way to do that is to close the account.

This can't be right. What this means is that if anyone gets ahold of those two numbers (numbers that are on the bottom of EVERY SINGLE CHECK YOU WRITE), they can then go ahead and empty your account.

Is that really how it works? Because of that's the case I'm not sure why they bother putting a password on my online banking account.

-Joe

[Koxinga]

Here's the kicker. I ask her how we go about removing any sort of access to my account, and she says that since they have the account number and routing number it CAN'T BE DONE. The only, and I mean ONLY, way to do that is to close the account.

This can't be right. What this means is that if anyone gets ahold of those two numbers (numbers that are on the bottom of EVERY SINGLE CHECK YOU WRITE), they can then go ahead and empty your account.

Is that really how it works? Because of that's the case I'm not sure why they bother putting a password on my online banking account.

-Joe

I was told pretty much the same thing in a somewhat similar situation, but it wasn't just a matter of them having the routing and account numbers -- it was the fact that I had authorized direct deposit to begin with. Somehow or other, it seems that authorization just cannot be revoked once given.

Maybe that's completely untrue -- in fact, I hope it is. But it *is* what I was told by my credit union at the time.

[tim-n-va]

Didn't follow all of that but there is a subtle distinction between them taking money from your account and them "correcting" a previous deposit via a stop payment type action. Is that a possible explanation?

[Merijeek]

Didn't follow all of that but there is a subtle distinction between them taking money from your account and them "correcting" a previous deposit via a stop payment type action. Is that a possible explanation?

Don't know, but it wasn't a stop-payment, it was a "Deposit X on Monday, Debit Y on Wednesday".

-Joe

[Dewey Finn]

I believe that the form you submitted to set up direct deposit also allows the company to reverse any direct deposits made in error. Here (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/03/nyregion/when-direct-deposit-shifts-into-reverse.html?scp=2&sq=direct%20deposit&st=cse) is an article from the New York Times about such a case. (Although your situation is a little different, since they weren't withdrawing money deposited in error.)

[Merijeek]

I believe that the form you submitted to set up direct deposit also allows the company to reverse any direct deposits made in error. Here (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/03/nyregion/when-direct-deposit-shifts-into-reverse.html?scp=2&sq=direct%20deposit&st=cse) is an article from the New York Times about such a case. (Although your situation is a little different, since they weren't withdrawing money deposited in error.)

Well, that part I'm not going to argue. I wasn't surprised, and like I said, I expected it which was why I went to ask the bank about it in the first place.

The part I find so unbelievable is that not only is a DD agreement two-way (and, can obviously be used for whatever they hell they feel like when they feel like), but that it can't be canceled.

That's just nuts.

-Joe

[Ruminator]

The part I find so unbelievable is that not only is a DD agreement two-way (and, can obviously be used for whatever they hell they feel like when they feel like), but that it can't be canceled.

That's just nuts.


I recommend people open multiple accounts with their bank.
One account is exclusively used for incoming money (e.g. direct deposits)
Another account is used exclusively for outgoing money (writing checks, paying bills).

That way, a criminal who compromises your checking account doesn't have access to even more $$$ of the paycheck that gets deposited.

Likewise, when you leave your job you can close the "direct deposit" account without messing up your regular checking account -- therefore, you don't have to re-configure your automatic online bill-pay, or order new paper checks, etc.

Segregate your bank accounts into incoming & outgoing.

Companies don't pay their payroll out of the same bank account that they deposit their customer payments. There is some wisdom in that.

With today's online banking web interface, you can easily move funds from the "direct deposit" account over to your regular checking account with click of a mouse.

[Smeghead]

Good idea. I'll have to remember that someday when I have money coming in again.

[DSYoungEsq]

I was told pretty much the same thing in a somewhat similar situation, but it wasn't just a matter of them having the routing and account numbers -- it was the fact that I had authorized direct deposit to begin with. Somehow or other, it seems that authorization just cannot be revoked once given.

Maybe that's completely untrue -- in fact, I hope it is. But it *is* what I was told by my credit union at the time.

This is not true. The permission can be revoked; but it's something that forces you to jump through some hoops, sadly.

[Merijeek]

Likewise, when you leave your job you can close the "direct deposit" account without messing up your regular checking account -- therefore, you don't have to re-configure your automatic online bill-pay, or order new paper checks, etc.


I know that NOW!

-Joe

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

So....last week Monday was payday.

Last week Tuesday I quit my job.

My ex-employer was a nasty son of a bitch who always tries to pull something, so I go straight from giving my fifteen seconds notice to visiting the bank and making sure that my now-ex-employer can in absolutely no way whatsoever try to remove anything from my account. Nope, can't happen. Not only would that not be allowed, it would be illegal.

Well, that's good. Except, of course, I check my account this weekend and find a debit from my employer (showing the AC, same as direct deposits always did) equivalent to the cost of my last laptop. Which I returned, but I'll admit was in pretty rough shape. Still, it was returned.

So, I go talk to the girl at the bank, fill out a few affidavits, and by tomorrow I should have the money back in my account.

Here's the kicker. I ask her how we go about removing any sort of access to my account, and she says that since they have the account number and routing number it CAN'T BE DONE. The only, and I mean ONLY, way to do that is to close the account.

This can't be right. What this means is that if anyone gets ahold of those two numbers (numbers that are on the bottom of EVERY SINGLE CHECK YOU WRITE), they can then go ahead and empty your account.

Is that really how it works? Because of that's the case I'm not sure why they bother putting a password on my online banking account.

-Joe

Escalate it to her manager. This was not a case of correcting an erroneous direct deposit; it was the unauthorized issue of an electronic debit instruction. Your direct deposit authorization only authorized your employer to make deposits of your compensation into your account. This was no such thing.

Frankly, the whole thing is pretty close to wire fraud. And if the bank manager doesn't help, tell him/her you'll bring it up with your state's AG and local law enforcement.

*But maybe if you didn't call her "the girl" at the bank, she might be more helpful.

[tim-n-va]

At the time the company made the deposit, the reasonable assumption was continued employment for the employee. When the employee quit, it is a reasonable action by the company to evaluate any advances of pay or other benefits (the computer in this case) and make the appropriate adjustments.

Obviously there is still the dispute over the value of the laptop and how much should have been recovered but the basic guiding principle seems to be in the company's favor.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

At the time the company made the deposit, the reasonable assumption was continued employment for the employee. When the employee quit, it is a reasonable action by the company to evaluate any advances of pay or other benefits (the computer in this case) and make the appropriate adjustments.

Obviously there is still the dispute over the value of the laptop and how much should have been recovered but the basic guiding principle seems to be in the company's favor.

I suppose you've heard us lawyers talk about reasonableness before, let me give you a protip: unilateral invasions of a former employee's bank account fall outside the ambit of "reasonableness."

[Koxinga]

At the time the company made the deposit, the reasonable assumption was continued employment for the employee. When the employee quit, it is a reasonable action by the company to evaluate any advances of pay or other benefits (the computer in this case) and make the appropriate adjustments.

Obviously there is still the dispute over the value of the laptop and how much should have been recovered but the basic guiding principle seems to be in the company's favor.

AFAIK many if not most states have rather strict payday laws in place favoring the employee. From what I've seen in a few states, an employee would have to sign over explicit permission for such "adjustments" to be made.

[billfish678]

*But maybe if you didn't call her "the girl" at the bank, she might be more helpful.

:rolleyes:

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

:rolleyes:

Thanks for your input.

[tim-n-va]

I suppose you've heard us lawyers talk about reasonableness before, let me give you a protip: unilateral invasions of a former employee's bank account fall outside the ambit of "reasonableness."

Thank you. For sake of discussion, lets assume the company overpaid with that direct deposit. What is the general process they should have taken to make the correction?

[cmkeller]

tim-n-va:

At the time the company made the deposit, the reasonable assumption was continued employment for the employee.

I don't know how it is where you have worked, but in my experience, paychecks are meant to cover the prior period, during which you already worked, and are not an advance for the next period on the expectation that you will work.

[Merijeek]

Escalate it to her manager. This was not a case of correcting an erroneous direct deposit; it was the unauthorized issue of an electronic debit instruction. Your direct deposit authorization only authorized your employer to make deposits of your compensation into your account. This was no such thing.

Frankly, the whole thing is pretty close to wire fraud. And if the bank manager doesn't help, tell him/her you'll bring it up with your state's AG and local law enforcement.

*But maybe if you didn't call her "the girl" at the bank, she might be more helpful.

I call her "Rachel" to her face. Behind her back I think of her as the girl who last week assured me that there was no way for them to actually remove anything from my account.

At the time the company made the deposit, the reasonable assumption was continued employment for the employee. When the employee quit, it is a reasonable action by the company to evaluate any advances of pay or other benefits (the computer in this case) and make the appropriate adjustments.

Obviously there is still the dispute over the value of the laptop and how much should have been recovered but the basic guiding principle seems to be in the company's favor.

There is no "advance payment". We got paid on the 1st and 15th. I got my pay on the 15th for work performed from the 1st to the 15th. There was a reason I chose the 16th to quit.

Or, on preview, what cmkellar said.

-Joe

[tim-n-va]

tim-n-va:



I don't know how it is where you have worked, but in my experience, paychecks are meant to cover the prior period, during which you already worked, and are not an advance for the next period on the expectation that you will work.

I have worked for companies where advanced vacation was allowed or loans were made against future salary. They loaned me leave with an expectation that I'd work and accumulate vacation time to pay back the loaned time. If I quit without getting there, they've overpaid me.

[billfish678]

Thanks for your input.

And thanks for your insightfullness as to the real issue here.

If some "extremely professional and intelligent woman" had assured me my money in my account was safe, then it dissappeard and she said "my bad, too bad, sooo sad", I'd be referring to her in much less polite terms than "the girl".

As to the OP, and some other posters, at least some of us here can thank you for revealing yet another way the system is set up to royally screw you over if your not careful. I'll certainly take note of it.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Thank you. For sake of discussion, lets assume the company overpaid with that direct deposit. What is the general process they should have taken to make the correction?

An erroneous direct deposit, say two numbers were transposed in the amount field, is a much different thing that the assertion of a claim against a former employee and engaging in ACH self-help to correct it.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

And thanks for your insightfullness as to the real issue here.

If some "extremely professional and intelligent woman" had assured me my money in my account was safe, then it dissappeard and she said "my bad, too bad, sooo sad", I'd be referring to her in much less polite terms than "the girl".

As to the OP, and some other posters, at least some of us here can thank you for revealing yet another way the system is set up to royally screw you over if your not careful. I'll certainly take note of it.

Whoa there, chief. Howzabout reading the several paragraphs above my asterisked remark before you get all butt-hurt.

[tim-n-va]

An erroneous direct deposit, say two numbers were transposed in the amount field, is a much different thing that the assertion of a claim against a former employee and engaging in ACH self-help to correct it.

Well that is obvious but didn't answer the question.

If a company has a policy, agreed to by the employee that the final check will have things deducted and the company didn't know the given check was the final one, then the correction would be okay wouldn't it?

The problem is we don't know the formal agreements about the laptop.

Are things buried in a company handbook that an employee acknowldeges receipt of enforceable?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

If a company has a policy, agreed to by the employee that the final check will have things deducted and the company didn't know the given check was the final one, then the correction would be okay wouldn't it?

Then they get to make adjustments to the final check before they deposit it into the account. If the employee makes an end-run around this provision, by quitting shortly after payday, then the employer has the usual recourse that anybody has against an unjustly enriched party -- a lawsuit. This is why employers typically avoid becoming their employees' creditor or obligee.

The only entity allowed offset (vis-a-vis the account) is the bank and that is granted by statute.

I'd also point out, despite your late protest of "obviousness," your original claim was that any employer had this right, which you now limit to those who have had the foresight to include a final-check adjustment clause. However, as I explain above, even such a clause as that will not allow an employer to debit an employee's third-party bank account.

[BubbaDog]

The DD doesn't bother me too much because I've always worked for a company that had more to lose than I did if they ever pulled a petty move like that.

I also learned a long time ago not to let ANY institution automatically withdraw money from my accounts. (I'll push it, you don't have to pull it)

I once refinanced my home and discovered that my previous mortgage company forgot to remove my account number from their automatic withdrawal procedures. So this huge unexpected withdrawal hit my account causing all kinds of bounced checks around town. My discussion with their representatives did little to assure me that their "system" wouldn't repeat this problem in a month.

I went to my bank and asked the "girl" to lock them out of my account. She said," No way. They are a joint partner to your account".

I said, "So you're telling me that I have to close my account and open a new one?"

She said, "If you do that and they hit your closed account we will remove the funds from your new account to cover it."

I said," So you're telling me I have to close this account, find another bank, open an account and not tell you about it?"

She did some stammering at this point. I closed my account and did just that.

My present bank account lets me schedule direct payments out of my account but is 100% push. I have to initiate the transactions.

Anybody who insists on "automatically" withdrawing funds from my account is somebody who I don't do business with.

[Merijeek]

The DD doesn't bother me too much because I've always worked for a company that had more to lose than I did if they ever pulled a petty move like that.

That's my situation, too, actually, it's just the people I used to work for are so used to walking all over various peons that they assume everyone is in the peons' league. I'm not. They're just so shortsighted that they don't understand that I can cause them a lot more hurt than one laptop's worth of pain. It's just screwing people is a habit.

Anyways, all of my stuff is "push" too. Again, why I asked the damned banker about it! I didn't want any chances.

-Joe

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

That's my situation, too, actually, it's just the people I used to work for are so used to walking all over various peons that they assume everyone is in the peons' league. I'm not. They're just so shortsighted that they don't understand that I can cause them a lot more hurt than one laptop's worth of pain. It's just screwing people is a habit.

Anyways, all of my stuff is "push" too. Again, why I asked the damned banker about it! I didn't want any chances.

-Joe

So, what are you going to say to the boys and girls down at the bank?

[tim-n-va]

What I was trying to get to was that if there was a mistake in the deposit, does the company have a right to make a correction to a direct deposit? That is, was the bank wrong for even allowing the transaction or is a correction of that sort okay?

If they can't make corrections to direct deposits unilaterally, there is no further issue.

[Merijeek]

So, what are you going to say to the boys and girls down at the bank?

Depends how things shake out, really. If I see the money back in my account tomorrow morning, I'll probably just cancel the account and get on with my life. Maybe leave a couple landmines for the ex-company.

If some other headache comes from it, it'll probably be time to gear up for a full nuclear exchange.

If you genuinely think that a call to the AG would at least get them seriously looked at, I'll do that too. I know for certain they pulled something exactly like this at least once before, and probably others that I never heard about.

-Joe

[muldoonthief]

What I was trying to get to was that if there was a mistake in the deposit, does the company have a right to make a correction to a direct deposit? That is, was the bank wrong for even allowing the transaction or is a correction of that sort okay?

If they can't make corrections to direct deposits unilaterally, there is no further issue.

Do you have a copy of the form you filled out when you signed up for direct deposit? It very likely included a clause where you specifically gave them permission to correct an erroneous deposit, by withdrawing the erroneously deposited funds without prior notice. Every one I've ever signed has had such a clause.

[SmellMyWort]

Here is what my company's direct deposit authorization form states about removing funds from an employee's account:

In the event that COMPANY deposits funds erroneously into my account, I authorize COMPANY to debit my account for an amount not to exceed the original amount of the erroneous credit.

I guess the OP's employer could argue that the last deposit was made in error because they didn't know he would quit the next day with an "outstanding debt." (Note that I think the employer's claim would be full of shit.) But in any case, it seems underhanded. If an employee quits with the possibility of debt owed, it seems the right thing to do is discuss it, not just yank funds from the guy's account.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

If you genuinely think that a call to the AG would at least get them seriously looked at, I'll do that too. I know for certain they pulled something exactly like this at least once before, and probably others that I never heard about.


Well, the AG's office certainly isn't going to call up your former employer and ask if they've been breaking the law. So, I think you should file a complaint with them.

[ftg]

... She said, "If you do that and they hit your closed account we will remove the funds from your new account to cover it." ...

This is similar to a discussion we once had with a bank employee: If you close an account and someone pulls one of these surprise withdrawals the bank reopens the account and you are on the hook for it as far as they are concerned. I.e., closing an account has little actual effect on such cons. They had a form to revoke an existing DD agreement, but again, it doesn't have as much effect as one would hope.

[Merijeek]

(Looks at GQ list...)

Come on, come on, only two more posts and my thread will have passed an SDMB thread on zombies!

We can do it!

-Joe

[Harriet the Spry]

I don't know the details on direct deposit, but you also will want to be familiar with your state's laws on deductions from paychecks for damaged equipment and any paperwork you may have signed with your former employer regarding that. It could range from possibly excusing what they did to adding a wage and hour complaint to what they did, depending on the circumstances.

For example, see here for Washington state re: Breakage, loss, damage:

http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/Wages/PayReq/PayDeduct/default.asp

[tim-n-va]

I don't know the details on direct deposit, but you also will want to be familiar with your state's laws on deductions from paychecks for damaged equipment and any paperwork you may have signed with your former employer regarding that. It could range from possibly excusing what they did to adding a wage and hour complaint to what they did, depending on the circumstances.

For example, see here for Washington state re: Breakage, loss, damage:

http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/Wages/PayReq/PayDeduct/default.asp

IANAL (obviously from my legal errors above) but it sounds to me like in some states, under some circumstances what the company did might have been legal if not admirable. Accusing them of wire fraud without more information might be a tad premature.

[ashman165]

Well that is obvious but didn't answer the question.

If a company has a policy, agreed to by the employee that the final check will have things deducted and the company didn't know the given check was the final one, then the correction would be okay wouldn't it?

The problem is we don't know the formal agreements about the laptop.

Are things buried in a company handbook that an employee acknowldeges receipt of enforceable?

So, the bank just takes it on faith that there's said agreement?

Incidentally, that you're able to sometimes take an advance in pay which you later work off, that isn't the normal course. People work with the expectation of being paid for the work after it's done. They don't get paid and then decide to go work.

Despite what formal agreements there may or may not be, the company can't arbitrarily withdraw money from his account. Period.

It's also not true, OP, that your direct deposit can't be stopped. While your bank may not allow you to cancel your authorization (which sounds stupid. It's your account; you're free to disallow whomever you want from having access), you can just freeze all electronic outgoing payments. For instance, with my own account (that I use for online stuff and which has a direct deposit into it), except for 2 occasions, my bank has to call me for me for authorization for any attempted electronic withdrawals. Well, I should say my credit union; I don't like banks too much.

Anyway, you might want to see if your bank offers something similar, as well as discussing this with the branch manager and the AG.

[ashman165]

I suppose you've heard us lawyers talk about reasonableness before, let me give you a protip: unilateral invasions of a former employee's bank account fall outside the ambit of "reasonableness."

This is total win. :cool:

So, in essence, this would be like them going to one's house, walking through the door and taking back the paycheck? Isn't there a term for that? Like burglary? Robbery? Something?

I'm not sure what the electronic alternative would be, but I'm sure you can tell us. ^_^

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

I guess the OP's employer could argue that the last deposit was made in error because they didn't know he would quit the next day with an "outstanding debt." What state are you in, OP?

In CA, at least, an employer may not deduct such things from your pay. cite (http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_Deductions.htm). It's not specifically stated on that page, but I'd guess that if you can't deduct from pay, taking it straight out of their bank account is something of a no-no, as well.

[Harriet the Spry]

IANAL (obviously from my legal errors above) but it sounds to me like in some states, under some circumstances what the company did might have been legal if not admirable. Accusing them of wire fraud without more information might be a tad premature.

Were you quoting me for a reason? The whole point of my post was that there is another set of laws unrelated to direct deposit that do relate to what the employer did, and that the OP should know the facts of his situation.

Accusing me of accusing someone of wire fraud seems completely random.

[Merijeek]

What state are you in, OP?


Mississippi, a state that is generally pretty hostile toward the employee.

-Joe

[tim-n-va]

Were you quoting me for a reason? The whole point of my post was that there is another set of laws unrelated to direct deposit that do relate to what the employer did, and that the OP should know the facts of his situation.

Accusing me of accusing someone of wire fraud seems completely random.

You are correct, sorry about that. What I intended to do, and obviously failed at, was use your information as evidence that the earlier post about wire fraud was premature. I didn't clearly make that link.

[Merijeek]

You are correct, sorry about that. What I intended to do, and obviously failed at, was use your information as evidence that the earlier post about wire fraud was premature. I didn't clearly make that link.

I think you were mixing up Harriet and Kimmy.

-Joe

[tim-n-va]

This is total win. :cool:

So, in essence, this would be like them going to one's house, walking through the door and taking back the paycheck? Isn't there a term for that? Like burglary? Robbery? Something?

I'm not sure what the electronic alternative would be, but I'm sure you can tell us. ^_^

I don't see that analogy. I see it more like stopping payment on a check which is justified in some cases.

[tim-n-va]

I think you were mixing up Harriet and Kimmy.

-Joe

No confusion on my part. Just poor message board skills.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

IANAL (obviously from my legal errors above) but it sounds to me like in some states, under some circumstances what the company did might have been legal if not admirable. Accusing them of wire fraud without more information might be a tad premature.

Wrong again, tim-n-va. What you seem to refuse to recognize is that it is one thing to issue a check whose amount shows (Wages - Final Deductions) versus issuing a check whose amount shows (Wages) and then, later, trying to recoup the expense by issuing an unauthorized debit order.

Suppose all this were done with paper checks. Do you think the employer could just call up the bank and say "Joe quit yesterday, send us $1500 from his account for the laptop. KTHXBAI!"? Obviously not.

Your argument, to wit, "we'll just characterize this as a correction," just isn't true. It is not a scrivener's error, it's not transposed digits. It is an after-issue attempt to collect on this claim through means that the employer is not entitled to use.

Finally, and this is only a technical point, since the above already settles the issue, under Washington State Law, the employer is only licensed to make these deductions from the final paycheck. Since the employer here pays at the end of the pay period, there is still a check for two day's work due. The employer may, before direct deposit, deduct the lesser of (i) the assessed charges for the laptop or (ii) the statutory maximum at that time.

[Dr. Drake]

So, what are you going to say to the boys and girls down at the bank?You know, somebody who uses the phrase "butt-hurt" (think about it) forfeits the right to get too upset over the use of "girl" for "woman." The use of "boy" or "girl" for an adult can be either insulting, patronizing, informal, or, in cases of a large age difference, near-neutral or even affectionate. You've made your point, and for what it's worth you're right in principle, but let it go now.

[Markxxx]

That was really sneaking of your employer.

It varies from state to state, but like in Illinois, your wages MUST be paid in full. Any deductions and such must be then paid by the employee to the employer who can sue them for damages.

Even if it involves theft. I worked in payroll in a hotel and we had one guy with a $200.00 bank. He quit and took his $200 bank then the next day called in and said he quit and would mail back the key to the box, where his bank was kept.

I got the key and went to verify the box and it was empty. Then the GM told me not to send out his last paycheck, then he went to the state and demanded his last paycheck and of course we had to pay him.

In Illinois even for theft, you can't withhold wages. As the lady from "wages and hours" explained to me, "this is why you bond your employees." She said I'd have to call the cops and file a theft report and sue him to recover it.

So I sent a letter and filed a theft report. We didn't sue him though.

There is a process in Illinois to set up a system where the employee "gives" you an amount equal to his bank or his laptop for example. Then you, as the employer have to put it in a seperate account (that bears interest) in his name and the hotel's name. Interest is to be paid out each year and upon termination you and the employee must agree to settle the deposit.

As for banks, I didn't like the idea of online banking at first, but now even when you send a check to a company, they don't cash the check, they do it all electronically. Like AT&T tears up your check and submits it electronically.

The only way you can do it is to send a money order, which if it gets lost, is very difficult to get your money back, even a postal money order. I'm going through a mess with Citibank, for over a year.

I recall a long time ago in the early 80s, I lost a check and the lady said "Well we could put a stop payment on it, but it's better to close the account, that way if it accidently gets paid out, there's no money in the account."

I was shocked, when I had my own business, I had checks go bad on me, six months after they cleared. So even if your check clears it's no guarantee.

[tim-n-va]

I'm not refusing to recognize anything. I'm just asking questions in an internet discussion isolating aspects of the original question to try to figure out how much of this is specific to the one case and how much can be generalized. That is why I asked if a company could make an adjustment to a direct deposit. Is there a difference between correcting a direct deposit and issuing stop payment on a check in terms of when you can do it? Do written agreements between the employee and the employer have any impact on the various local laws? The Washington State one mentioned written agreements.

Is this all just another "it depends on your local laws" question?

[ashman165]

I don't see that analogy. I see it more like stopping payment on a check which is justified in some cases.

For that analogy to hold water, the employer would have to have stopped the deposit before it cleared and deposited into employee's account.

This is like cashing a check. After the check is cashed, no amount of "stop checkery" will make the funds come out of my hand, go back into a check and reverse itself to the check-writer.

Just because you see it that way doesn't mean the law sees it that way. Once I've given you property, it's yours. If I want it back, there are ways to do that; theft isn't among them. Indeed, OJ was just convicted for essentially stealing back his stolen property. The proper way to get stuff back is to sue; not to steal it back.

[Carol the Impaler]

There is no "advance payment". We got paid on the 1st and 15th. I got my pay on the 15th for work performed from the 1st to the 15th. There was a reason I chose the 16th to quit.

Actually, if your former company's DD works like my company's does, you kinda did get an advance payment.

Let me 'splain.

There is processing time involved with DD payroll. Our payroll needs to be to our DD provider two and a half days before pay day. It needs to be to our payroll department two and a half days before that. I would bet that your payroll is submitted to your provider at least a business day before they deposit it into your account. So, in a best case scenario, your pay info is sent in on the 14th at the latest, with your pay for the 15th estimated. (I would be surprised if your DD payroll can be submitted to the provider and then to your bank by the provider on the same day. Plus I bet your payroll went in at 12:00AM on the 15th, obviously before you worked those hours.) Oftentimes at my company, the payperiod goes through the 15th but because of the number of processing days needed, it's due to the payroll department on the 13th or the 14th. We estimate pay for those two days, and then if employees are paid for hours they didn't work we adjust that off their next check.

Not that your company could work entirely differently, but the above scenario is the way it's worked at every company I've had DD. I'm also not saying they weren't slimey in how they handled this.

[mlees]

Actually, if your former company's DD works like my company's does, you kinda did get an advance payment.

Let me 'splain.

There is processing time involved with DD payroll. Our payroll needs to be to our DD provider two and a half days before pay day. It needs to be to our payroll department two and a half days before that. I would bet that your payroll is submitted to your provider at least a business day before they deposit it into your account. So, in a best case scenario, your pay info is sent in on the 14th at the latest, with your pay for the 15th estimated. (I would be surprised if your DD payroll can be submitted to the provider and then to your bank by the provider on the same day. Plus I bet your payroll went in at 12:00AM on the 15th, obviously before you worked those hours.) Oftentimes at my company, the payperiod goes through the 15th but because of the number of processing days needed, it's due to the payroll department on the 13th or the 14th. We estimate pay for those two days, and then if employees are paid for hours they didn't work we adjust that off their next check.

Not that your company could work entirely differently, but the above scenario is the way it's worked at every company I've had DD. I'm also not saying they weren't slimey in how they handled this.

This is not how my company pays me:

I was paid on the 19th, for the hours I worked on June 1-12.

The hours I worked on the 15th through the 26th, I will receive in the payday of the 3rd.

A full week's lag time.


I have Direct Deposit. The application form is very short, and does not include any mention of any provision on it for withdrawal/corrections.

[sailor]

I do not understand any of this. Someone can deposit as much money as they want into my account and I do not need to authorise any of it. If I give my employer my bank account details they can deposit all they want but that does not authorise them to withdraw anything. And I sure as hell would not authorise them to make withdrawals. Why would I?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Actually, if your former company's DD works like my company's does, you kinda did get an advance payment.

Let me 'splain.

There is processing time involved with DD payroll. Our payroll needs to be to our DD provider two and a half days before pay day. It needs to be to our payroll department two and a half days before that. I would bet that your payroll is submitted to your provider at least a business day before they deposit it into your account. So, in a best case scenario, your pay info is sent in on the 14th at the latest, with your pay for the 15th estimated. (I would be surprised if your DD payroll can be submitted to the provider and then to your bank by the provider on the same day. Plus I bet your payroll went in at 12:00AM on the 15th, obviously before you worked those hours.) Oftentimes at my company, the payperiod goes through the 15th but because of the number of processing days needed, it's due to the payroll department on the 13th or the 14th. We estimate pay for those two days, and then if employees are paid for hours they didn't work we adjust that off their next check.

Not that your company could work entirely differently, but the above scenario is the way it's worked at every company I've had DD. I'm also not saying they weren't slimey in how they handled this.

All of my employers handled this by having a delay between the end of the pay period and payday.

Period starts: Monday, Smarch 1
Period ends: Sunday, Smarch 14
Pay day: Wednesday, Smarch 24 (pays for work performed during Smarch 1-14)

Suppose I quit on Thursday, Smarch 25. Then I have a check due on Wednesday, Smarch 38, nearly two weeks later, that will be my final paycheck from my employer.

[Carol the Impaler]

Yes, ours does, too. But the OP stated he was paid thru the 15th on the 15th, and didn't get any advance payment. But in reality I bet he did.

[ashman165]

Yes, ours does, too. But the OP stated he was paid thru the 15th on the 15th, and didn't get any advance payment. But in reality I bet he did.

So your argument is that you know his pay schedule better than he himself does?

[Carol the Impaler]

No.

[SmellMyWort]

I do not understand any of this. Someone can deposit as much money as they want into my account and I do not need to authorise any of it. If I give my employer my bank account details they can deposit all they want but that does not authorise them to withdraw anything. And I sure as hell would not authorise them to make withdrawals. Why would I?

Direct Deposit is a little different than walking into the bank and making a deposit. The whole point of the OP is that the employer made an UNAUTHORIZED WD from the OP's account. The details we don't know are what the employer said or did that convinced the bank that this was an OK transaction.

[tim-n-va]

For that analogy to hold water, the employer would have to have stopped the deposit before it cleared and deposited into employee's account.

This is like cashing a check. After the check is cashed, no amount of "stop checkery" will make the funds come out of my hand, go back into a check and reverse itself to the check-writer.

Just because you see it that way doesn't mean the law sees it that way. Once I've given you property, it's yours. If I want it back, there are ways to do that; theft isn't among them. Indeed, OJ was just convicted for essentially stealing back his stolen property. The proper way to get stuff back is to sue; not to steal it back.

I certainly can't argue with that. Is stopping payment on a check the same as armed robbery as the law sees it. :rolleyes:

[DSYoungEsq]

Wow.

1) The bank is not involved here. They received a DD, and credited it. They then received notification from the employer of an error in the deposit, and adjusted accordingly. That's what they are supposed to do.

2) The employer is probably in deep do-do. I wouldn't think even Mississippi allows an employer to refuse to pay wages due for work completed over a claim that the employee owes for some item that was damaged. A quick call to the Mississippi labor commissioner, or whatever office has that job, would probably be in order.

3) Speculating on legal issues without having some legal knowledge is really a stupid idea. Even the legal eagles get it wrong, now and again. ;)

[Shodan]

This is similar to a discussion we once had with a bank employee: If you close an account and someone pulls one of these surprise withdrawals the bank reopens the account and you are on the hook for it as far as they are concerned. I.e., closing an account has little actual effect on such cons. How would the bank then go about recovering the money?

If I closed an account and the bank then re-opened it and sent out money to somebody else, I would not be particularly interested in bills the bank then sent me.

So I close the account in bank A, pull out all the money, go to the bank across the street (B) and deposit it all. Somebody tries to pull money out of my closed account at bank A. Bank A then re-opens the account and gives them $200. They then call me on the phone and tell me they gave $200 out of my account to Joe Blow.

My response is going to be "I didn't have any money in any account at your bank, and therefore you didn't give them any of my money. You may have given them $200 of your money, but that is none of my concern."

They could sue me, I suppose, but once the account is closed, we no longer have any kind of business relationship, and therefore bank A is not authorized to dispose of any of my money.

IANAL.

Regards,
Shodan

[Merijeek]

Not that your company could work entirely differently, but the above scenario is the way it's worked at every company I've had DD. I'm also not saying they weren't slimey in how they handled this.

It works as I said, it's just the guy needs to click his little submit button by the start of business on the 14th or something. Knowing that, I still worked my entire 15th.

-Joe

[ashman165]

I certainly can't argue with that. Is stopping payment on a check the same as armed robbery as the law sees it. :rolleyes:

And yet you are arguing. No, it isn't the same.

But you have a complete lack of understanding of conditions.

In a stop payment, the money hasn't yet been put into the person's account, or cashed to them. It's a provisional payment, the stoppage of which if you've already received your goods can be a crime. Indeed, knowingly buying something and then stopping the check to avoid payment is fraud, in some states, it's considered obtaining services under false pretense and is a felony.

In a direct deposit, it has been. It's fully delivered; the transaction is wholly complete. To get the money back, you must take it back. It's like cash. If I pay my waitress for my meal, in cash, and then decide I want it back; I'll pretty much have to mug her to get it back. If I write a check and cancel it later to avoid payment, I can go to jail. If I pay it on a credit card, the only way to get back the money is to claim I didn't make the payment and hope I don't get arrested and convicted for fraud. If I directly deposit the funds to the store's account, there's no way in hell I'm getting back without breaking a law.

Also, it's silly to equate an illegal taking of another person's property (theft, or even robbery) as exclusively armed robbery. There are many classifications of robbery; most of them needn't be armed. It's particularly even sillier when the armed robbery claim hasn't been brought up.

Do better.

[Nava]

I do not understand any of this. Someone can deposit as much money as they want into my account and I do not need to authorise any of it. If I give my employer my bank account details they can deposit all they want but that does not authorise them to withdraw anything. And I sure as hell would not authorise them to make withdrawals. Why would I?

I wonder how much of it is the US banking system, how much that bank's policies and how much a mistake from people who assumed the charge was kosher without verification.

After all, in Spain I almost wasn't allowed to open a bank account for my nephew and godson due to not being the kid's parent or legal guardian... that wasn't the law, it wasn't bank policy, it was just the cashier not understanding that yes, someone can open a bank account in two other people's names (the nephew and my brother; kiddie accounts from that bank require a parent or guardian to "have signature").

[rocking chair]

when the company needs to regain monies deposited incorrectly, they usually inform the employee that there was an error and that they will need xxx amount back.

employee usually is given 2 options; either they electronically withdraw the money, or employee can give the company the money via electronic, check, money order, or cash.

in all the cases that i know of, (in fact this did rear its ugly head today) the employee was notified of the error or deduction and had to approve any withdrawl.

merijeek's company should have notified merijeek and gained approval before the withdrawl.

[doreen]

I do not understand any of this. Someone can deposit as much money as they want into my account and I do not need to authorise any of it. If I give my employer my bank account details they can deposit all they want but that does not authorise them to withdraw anything. And I sure as hell would not authorise them to make withdrawals. Why would I?

Because if I don't, my employer won't set up the direct deposit. And depending on which job it was, that could cause me a variety of problems. In one job, I could only have my paycheck mailed if I remembered to fill out a card in advance, they wouldn't release it to anyone else, and if it wasn't picked up within about 3 days after payday, it was sent back to payroll. I made certain my vacation never included a payday after one horrible experience. In my current job, I wouldn't have those issues, but I might be out of my office for days at a time near payday, and it can take forever to for the payroll people to catch up with transfers.

[kaylasdad99]

This thread is getting me scared. I'm seriously thinking of giving my employer an instruction to enter my home every two weeks and slide my pay, in cash, under my mattress.

[Carol the Impaler]

My god, man, don't let them know where you live! You need to hire and interloper to deliver your pay to you!

[Merijeek]

This thread is getting me scared. I'm seriously thinking of giving my employer an instruction to enter my home every two weeks and slide my pay, in cash, under my mattress.

Just follow Ruminator's advice. It's what I plan to do to keep this from happening again.

-Joe

[MannyL]

she says that since they have the account number and routing number it CAN'T BE DONE. The only, and I mean ONLY, way to do that is to close the account.

This can't be right. What this means is that if anyone gets ahold of those two numbers (numbers that are on the bottom of EVERY SINGLE CHECK YOU WRITE), they can then go ahead and empty your account.

Is that really how it works? Because of that's the case I'm not sure why they bother putting a password on my online banking account.

-Joe

Yep Joe if someone has your routing and account number they can make their own checks up. (Staples sells the stock) and put your numbers on them. It's an old scam.

[sailor]

Because if I don't, my employer won't set up the direct deposit. And depending on which job it was, that could cause me a variety of problems. There is just no way in hell I am authorising my employer or anybody else to withdraw money from my account. No way in hell. And I cannot understand that anyone would find this acceptable. I cannot imagine that this would fly in Spain. No way.

And there is no way I would ever authorise direct payments from my account in America without my prior authorization as I have no recourse. I write checks or do electroonic transfers but no one is dipping into my account. In Spain I have my utilities automatically debited but I understand I am protected and can have the debit reversed. Suppose the phone or electric company decides this month they charge me several thousand euros. I call the bank and tell them to reverse it and that's it. Then I can go and argue with the utility company (who are assholes who have the upper hand).

The banking system in America really seems like a bit behind the times. Consumers could use some protection.

Any employer in Spain (all of Europe probably) who asked access to an employees bank account would be facing very unpleasant consequences.

[Ruminator]

Yep Joe if someone has your routing and account number they can make their own checks up. (Staples sells the stock) and put your numbers on them. It's an old scam.

The paper checks will not get paid. They will get returned with "account closed" stamped on them.

Merijeek is not talking about paper checks -- it's the direct-deposit and its side effects.

It's the reverse electronic funds transfer that seems to defy the "account is closed" rule. BubbaDog also mentions this.

Frankly, I'm also baffled as to what exactly "closing" an account actually does if it can't stop an electronic funds withdrawal. That makes no sense to me. I wish we had a real bank person on SDMB explain it to us.

I closed some checking accounts in Florida 10 years ago. For all I know, those "closed" accounts are racking up "withdrawals" from my previous mortgage and utility companies?!?! If I drive back to Florida and I happen to get stopped by the police for speeding, I suppose their computer will say there's a warrant for my arrest because I "owe" my old bank thousands of dollars? That's interesting.

[tim-n-va]

I went to my bank's website to review funds availability. Funds from checks deposited and for electronic transfer are available for withdrawl anywhere from immediately to four business days depending on multiple factors. At least one case, electronic transfers aren't considered to be in some sort of status that can be reversed for some period of time. To say they are immediately completed in a manner different from checks is not correct in all cases.

I'm not saying the original case is simply clerical error but in the case of clerical/admin errors on a direct deposit, are there any conditions where the direct deposit can be reversed unilaterally from the originator? If so, what are they?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

I went to my bank's website to review funds availability. Funds from checks deposited and for electronic transfer are available for withdrawl anywhere from immediately to four business days depending on multiple factors. At least one case, electronic transfers aren't considered to be in some sort of status that can be reversed for some period of time. To say they are immediately completed in a manner different from checks is not correct in all cases.

I'm not saying the original case is simply clerical error but in the case of clerical/admin errors on a direct deposit, are there any conditions where the direct deposit can be reversed unilaterally from the originator? If so, what are they?

Real deal clerical errors appear to be correctable, if done within the time limits set up by the various regulatory authorities (up to five days). This Connecticut Office of Legislative Research report (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/olr/htm/2000-r-0745.htm) responds to a legislator's request for more information on behalf of a constituent.

[MannyL]

The paper checks will not get paid. They will get returned with "account closed" stamped on them.

Merijeek is not talking about paper checks -- it's the direct-deposit and its side effects.


The OP did also say "What this means is that if anyone gets ahold of those two numbers (numbers that are on the bottom of EVERY SINGLE CHECK YOU WRITE), they can then go ahead and empty your account"

And yes if the account is open someone can wipe out your checking account with the information provided on each check you give out.

[Ruminator]

The OP did also say "What this means is that if anyone gets ahold of those two numbers (numbers that are on the bottom of EVERY SINGLE CHECK YOU WRITE), they can then go ahead and empty your account"

You are correct.

When he said "empty your account", I thought he was talking about checks written against the 1st closed account would empty out the 2nd account that was still open. I basically got Merijeek and BubbaDog examples mixed up.

[Aspidistra]

The OP did also say "What this means is that if anyone gets ahold of those two numbers (numbers that are on the bottom of EVERY SINGLE CHECK YOU WRITE), they can then go ahead and empty your account"

And yes if the account is open someone can wipe out your checking account with the information provided on each check you give out.

yeah, but using the "print your own checks" method they also have to indetectibly forge your signature (otherwise the bank is on the hook, not you, if they let it through - right?)

Otherwise I expect this would happen a lot more often than it does.

[Zoe]

Dr. DrakeYou know, somebody who uses the phrase "butt-hurt" (think about it) forfeits the right to get too upset over the use of "girl" for "woman." The use of "boy" or "girl" for an adult can be either insulting, patronizing, informal, or, in cases of a large age difference, near-neutral or even affectionate. You've made your point, and for what it's worth you're right in principle, but let it go now.

When "girl" is used in a patronizing way, it is still insulting. Informal uses of "girl" in a business transaction are inappropriate and therefore, in this situation, insulting to the ears of those men and women who have put in a lot of time trying to have adult women recognized as adult women.. The only time that I hear it used in a near-neutral or affectionate way if when someone who has known me for fifty years or more uses it or when a handful of other gentle friends uses it to refer to a gathering of the likeminded.

The young woman at the bank may have been correct with the information that she gave originally and someone else may have made a mistake. Or perhaps she was wrong or should have double checked if she was uncertain. It won't be the last mistake that she makes in her career. Imagine what an insulting and insecure world this would be if everyone were reduced in title each time she or he made a mistake. We would address each other as boy, girl, squirt, quack, and a few other putdowns that we can do without.

Why do you think that Kimmy needs anyone other than a mod to determine when to let go of a subject and when to explore it further? Why does using a phrase that you disapprove of eliminate her opportunity to discuss a very rational and reasonable suggestion in response to the OP?

White males may not put much stock in such a little thing as being addressed as an adult, but many men of color over the age of fifty know exactly what I am talking about.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Why do you think that Kimmy needs anyone other than a mod to determine when to let go of a subject and when to explore it further? Why does using a phrase that you disapprove of eliminate her opportunity to discuss a very rational and reasonable suggestion in response to the OP?

His opportunity, but otherwise, I am in complete agreement.

[Koxinga]

adult women recognized as adult women..

"womyn"?

In any case, yes, everybody should be able to zero in on the smallest misstep and use it to vault onto their personal OT hobbyhorses here in Great Debates.

Oh, wait . . .

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

"womyn"?

In any case, yes, everybody should be able to zero in on the smallest misstep and use it to vault onto their personal OT hobbyhorses here in Great Debates.

Oh, wait . . .

Hmm....seems to me that I've been the one who has provided factual, on-topic research and analysis and you've just been making some off-topic quote-unquote "point" about what you'll allow us to talk about.

[Koxinga]

You're so great. Can I have your baby?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

You're so great. Can I have your baby?

No.

[Rumor_Watkins]

I don't see that analogy. I see it more like stopping payment on a check which is justified in some cases.

While money is fungible, the transactions and contracts that fix payment rights and obligations are not.

Absent anything more you cannot do this:

Person A: I'm going to buy your lawnmower. Here's $200 bucks.
Person B: ok. Accepts $200 bucks.

the next evening...

Person A: dog gonnit, I forgot that Person B owed me 50 bucks!
Person A then goes over to Person B's house and takes 50 bucks from his front doorstep (why does person B have this money laying out there, we won't know)

a week later after person A is prosecuted for theft (lets ignore charges of tresspass and burglary), this would not be a good defense:

Person A: but he owed me the money!


the two transactions (paying for his lawnmower, and repaying a debt) while they involve the same commodity are legally distinct, and, absent more, can't just be fudged into the same transaction on someone's say-so

[sailor]

I was told that if you refer to the cashier as "girl" the bank has the right to donate all the money in your account to a charity of their choice and they don't even have to tell you. It is in the small print of your contract.

[tim-n-va]

I hope the situation with the OP gets resolved. Beyond a general wish for things to go well for fellow human beings, I really don't care about that case. Perhaps I should have started a parallel thread asking the more general questions.

Can you do this:

Person A: I'm going to buy your lawnmower. Here is a check for $200.
Person B: Okay. (Accepts the check).

While pushing the mower home, Person A is stopped by the police who are investigating lawnmower theft. The lawnmower is taken by the police as evidence.

Can Person A stop payment on the check? Not asking any of the irrelevent strawmen as to whether they can go take the check back by theft, force, breaking and entering, etc.

Which leads us back to the relevent two parts of this question from my perspective.
1) Can a company make a unilateral correction to a erroneous direct deposit?
2) Is recovering damages to a loaned laptop a valid reason to consider the deposit erroneous?

If I understand the comments in this thread, the answer to 1 is Yes with restrictions, especially in timing and the answer to 2 is no unless there are some special written agreements that don't otherwise violate local law.

[Dr. Drake]

When "girl" is used in a patronizing way, it is still insulting.I agree with this, and most of your post.

Why do you think that Kimmy needs anyone other than a mod to determine when to let go of a subject and when to explore it further? Why does using a phrase that you disapprove of eliminate her opportunity to discuss a very rational and reasonable suggestion in response to the OP?I was not determining, I was suggesting. I'm sorry if the tone came across as imperious. I'd never "eliminate her opportunity" to discuss it. I was referring to her language in the specific post I quoted, the deliberate use of "the boys and girls down at the bank," not the banking content.

Someone used "girl" to mean "woman" out of ignorance, not malice; in a sexist society, sexist use of language is not always consciously noticed. Kimmy_Gibler attempted to fight that ignorance by showing why that was not acceptable. Great.

It was only because (a) she went on about it after she had made that point, to no effect, as we are doing now, and (b) she used the phrase "butt-hurt," which is a stronger substitute for "gay." Think of the way you'd have to customize that phrase for women (c—hurt or v—hurt) and tell me that wouldn't be offensive. I now pause to wait for the chorus of gay men chiming in to say "Hey! I think it's funny and I use it all the time."

If you want to pit me over this, I'll participate in that thread. Otherwise, I'd much rather hear about the direct deposit saga.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

I agree with this, and most of your post.

I was not determining, I was suggesting. I'm sorry if the tone came across as imperious. I'd never "eliminate her opportunity" to discuss it. I was referring to her language in the specific post I quoted, the deliberate use of "the boys and girls down at the bank," not the banking content.

Someone used "girl" to mean "woman" out of ignorance, not malice; in a sexist society, sexist use of language is not always consciously noticed. Kimmy_Gibler attempted to fight that ignorance by showing why that was not acceptable. Great.

It was only because (a) she went on about it after she had made that point, to no effect, as we are doing now, and (b) she used the phrase "butt-hurt," which is a stronger substitute for "gay." Think of the way you'd have to customize that phrase for women (c—hurt or v—hurt) and tell me that wouldn't be offensive. I now pause to wait for the chorus of gay men chiming in to say "Hey! I think it's funny and I use it all the time."

If you want to pit me over this, I'll participate in that thread. Otherwise, I'd much rather hear about the direct deposit saga.

(a) I am not a lady.

(b) For reasons that I have discussed elsewhere, I am impervious to all charges of homophobia, therefore, let me chime in with "Hey! I think it's funny and I use it all the time."

(c) If you like, I can throw "vajayjay hurt" into the mix, if you think that will bring about a fairer and more just world.

[SmellMyWort]

When "girl" is used in a patronizing way, it is still insulting.

OP did not use "girl" in a patronizing way.

Informal uses of "girl" in a business transaction are inappropriate and therefore, in this situation, insulting to the ears of those men and women who have put in a lot of time trying to have adult women recognized as adult women..

OP did not call or refer to the teller as "the girl" during a business transaction. (Where the hell did you come up with that?)

The only time that I hear it used in a near-neutral or affectionate way if when someone who has known me for fifty years or more uses it or when a handful of other gentle friends uses it to refer to a gathering of the likeminded.

I hear it used by women all the time. It's a double standard I can live with but I can see how the OP might slip while typing out a post. Lesson learned. That said, Kimmy's given some great advice here, but the initial comment...

*But maybe if you didn't call her "the girl" at the bank, she might be more helpful.

...could have been worded better, as not to accuse him of actually referring to the teller as "girl" while at the bank.

[ftg]

How would the bank then go about recovering the money?

If I closed an account and the bank then re-opened it and sent out money to somebody else, I would not be particularly interested in bills the bank then sent me.

So I close the account in bank A, pull out all the money, go to the bank across the street (B) and deposit it all. Somebody tries to pull money out of my closed account at bank A. Bank A then re-opens the account and gives them $200. They then call me on the phone and tell me they gave $200 out of my account to Joe Blow.

My response is going to be "I didn't have any money in any account at your bank, and therefore you didn't give them any of my money. You may have given them $200 of your money, but that is none of my concern."

They could sue me, I suppose, but once the account is closed, we no longer have any kind of business relationship, and therefore bank A is not authorized to dispose of any of my money.

One common problem that banks have is people close an account and then start writing checks (on paper or electronically) on the old account. They forget, were not told by the other account owner or maybe are just crooks. So the bank reopens the account. A lot of checks bounce for NSF, fees are added, etc. The bank has no idea if this is you or just someone random jerk. It is your job to work with the bank to prove who did what and try to clear up the mess as much as possible. If a small amount they'll just ding your credit record (and good luck opening a new account after that), if a large amount lawyers might become involved.

[Merijeek]

Update:

Just checked my account this morning and the money is in there. By the end of the day I will need to act one way or another.

Is there a way to remove the ability for them to access my account without closing it? From everything we've seen in this thread, won't it just get reopened if they try it again?

The OP did also say "What this means is that if anyone gets ahold of those two numbers (numbers that are on the bottom of EVERY SINGLE CHECK YOU WRITE), they can then go ahead and empty your account"

Sorry, a couple different streams of thought going at once there. Basically, the girl at the bank told me that "once they have your account number and routing number they can take money out". My point was that any check anyone writes has those numbers on it. Therefore, anyone in the world, once they have glanced at your check, can then take any money they feel like from your account electronically - because those magic numbers are on every check.

-Joe

[Merijeek]

Someone used "girl" to mean "woman" out of ignorance, not malice; in a sexist society, sexist use of language is not always consciously noticed. Kimmy_Gibler attempted to fight that ignorance by showing why that was not acceptable. Great.

...and this shows why I'll never make it as a politician. One little faux pas and a nice, helpful little thread is in danger of going down to shit.

I called her "girl" because she was easily ten years younger than me, which would put her probably in her early twenties. Yes, I suppose "young woman" would have been a more polite way to put it, but I didn't do it that way and therefore it's all my fault.

How about we all agree to accept that I'm some guy who worked for a shitty company and can occasionally be accidentally sexist?

-Joe

(FTR, if it had been a male, I would have said "guy", which to me was always equivalent to "girl")

[billfish678]

How about we all agree to accept that I'm some guy who worked for a shitty company and can occasionally be accidentally sexist?




Which reminds me. If this was respectable company/boss and they had some point about the laptop and its condition, I'd probably not get bent out of shape and try to work out a financial compromise.

However, since they were/are royal jerks, if I were you I'd do everthing within my power to get them in a shitload of legal and financial trouble if possible from pulling this stunt. That karma train doesnt move unless somebody is pushing it.

[NicePete]

You need to contact your state's wage and hour regulator. They will know if any labor laws have been violated and if so, will prosecute your former employer.

Didn't see the second page. On review: What DSYoungEsq said.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Update:

Just checked my account this morning and the money is in there. By the end of the day I will need to act one way or another.

Is there a way to remove the ability for them to access my account without closing it? From everything we've seen in this thread, won't it just get reopened if they try it again?

In addition to the bank (and the AG!), you should also contact the payroll processor, since it sounds like it is a separate organization from your employer. Tell them your employer has abused the account information and the correction procedures and that you are terminating your employer's authority to access the account.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

You need to contact your state's wage and hour regulator. They will know if any labor laws have been violated and if so, will prosecute your former employer.

Fun fact: Mississippi doesn't have one (something about "preferring to remain a pre-industrial hinterland"), you have to go to the federal Department of Labor.

[handsomeharry]

*But maybe if you didn't call her "the girl" at the bank, she might be more helpful.

I doubt that anybody that would be so offended at some harmless idiom can be very helpful in a professional situation.

[Shodan]

One common problem that banks have is people close an account and then start writing checks (on paper or electronically) on the old account. They forget, were not told by the other account owner or maybe are just crooks. So the bank reopens the account. A lot of checks bounce for NSF, fees are added, etc. The bank has no idea if this is you or just someone random jerk. It is your job to work with the bank to prove who did what and try to clear up the mess as much as possible. If a small amount they'll just ding your credit record (and good luck opening a new account after that), if a large amount lawyers might become involved.
ISTM that there is a significant difference between me writing a check against a closed account, and someone else trying to get money out of a closed account.

If I write a check, I am giving consent to having money withdrawn from my account. If I do so knowing there is no money in the account, then I can see giving implied consent to have the account re-opened,

But not for anyone else. If I close an account, I am saying more or less clearly that I do not wish to use that account to pay any debts. Nobody else gets to overrule that decision, even if it is a legitimate debt. Because that puts the bank in the position of deciding which of my debts are legitimate and which are not.

There should be no such thing as irrevocable consent. This is like laws about marital rape. It used to be the case that women did not have the right to refuse sex from their husbands.

This is even worse - it is like saying women cannot refuse sex from their husbands even after a divorce.

Regards,
Shodan

[ftg]

ISTM that there is a significant difference between me writing a check against a closed account, and someone else trying to get money out of a closed account.

The bank is not psychic. It doesn't know if you tried to use the account again or if it is someone else. Their default behavior is to assume it is you. Hence the onus in many such matters is on you to show that you didn't authorize the withdrawal on either an open or closed account.

Take a common example: You wrote a check to someone, forgot about it. You close the account. A couple months go by and the check is cashed. The bank doesn't know or care if this is an old/new/forged check. Your account is back on and they start hitting you with NSF charges. You have to go in and clear things up.

[Ruminator]

Take a common example: You wrote a check to someone, forgot about it. You close the account. A couple months go by and the check is cashed. The bank doesn't know or care if this is an old/new/forged check. Your account is back on and they start hitting you with NSF charges. You have to go in and clear things up.

But then it seems like people would never have get checks returned with a stamp saying "account is closed." This has happened to me several times.

People all over the USA have moved from state to state and closing down old bank accounts to tie up loose ends. It sounds like those loose ends are never tied up. Therefore all those people living in different states are unknowingly racking up NSF charges on the "closed" accounts?

[Nava]

Again, that sort of thing would never mean the reopening of an account, in Spain (and afaik in any of the other countries where I've had bank accounts except for maybe the USA).

If someone tries to withdraw funds from a closed account, they are informed that the account is closed. It doesn't matter if it's the owner, his widow(er) or some sort of company. A closed account is, well, closed.

What do they do in the US, not just reopen the account but put you instantly in the red and charge you for being in the red? It doesn't make any sense at all, even for the US banking system. After all, if that person isn't even a customer of the bank any more (which could easily be the case), why would they put themselves through the pain of trying to collect those fees, rather than say "account closed"?

[Shodan]

The bank is not psychic. It doesn't know if you tried to use the account again or if it is someone else. I would hope the bank could tell the difference between a check, which has my signature on it and the date, and other information that could show when I authorized the withdrawal, and an automatic withdrawal, requested by someone with no more to show for it than the form that I have already repudiated.
Take a common example: You wrote a check to someone, forgot about it. You close the account. A couple months go by and the check is cashed. The bank doesn't know or care if this is an old/new/forged check. Your account is back on and they start hitting you with NSF charges. You have to go in and clear things up.
And when I did, in the case of the unauthorized automatic withdrawal specified in the OP, I would ask to see the signed and dated instrument that authorized the withdrawal. If the bank then showed me the original authorization of the automatic withdrawal, I would then produce the copies of the forms I signed closing the account and cancelling my authorization of further withdrawals. I would also show them the cancelled check showing that all my money had been withdrawn.

Ergo, the money the bank disbursed could not have been mine. Accordingly, the bank is SOL.

Nobody opens bank accounts and starts handing my money out without my permission. I would snap my fingers under the nose of the bank official and walk out. They can whistle for their money, or go after the person they gave it to and get it back from them.

My credit score can stand the ding, so they have no power over me.

Regards,
Shodan