Sleeps, the OP went too far when she said the bank was stealing from her. The whole premise of this thread is false.
They don’t understand that.
The problem is, we do understand that, but it’s a business that is also based on providing customer service, which is poorly demonstrated here.
Well, I agree with that. The bank didn’t steal anything.
That really sucks. Every deal I’ve been involved with had the mortgage payout (including penalty) assessed for closing day. Knowing the penalty is a factor in your decision to sell. Suddenly doubling the amount on you is very unfair.
It doesn’t have anything to do with “customer service”. Of course if you borrow money and don’t pay it back, the bank will do what it (legally) can to recover their loss.
Is it bad “customer service” when the IRS goes after people who don’t pay their taxes? Or when Mega-Mart detains a shoplifter?
Ok, I knew exactly what Carol Stream would say as soon as I read the thread title. I don’t see Rand Rover just yet, but he should be along shortly to explain to us about responsibility and the bootstraps.
Which part of defaulting on an agreement do you miss? Customer service is one thing, once you are no longer a player in the customer-business agreement you don’t get to yell about poor customer service. She defaulted–this does not make her a bad person, but clearly she had money that she chose to use for other reasons than meeting her obligations to the bank.
Tell me, what sort of customer service should they have provided?
What, exactly, is wrong with personal responsibility? Why do you think that people should live beyond their means at the expense of others, sign agreements and fail to live up to those agreements and then claim unforseen circumstances? For christ sakes–sometimes you get a shitty hand–but 2 morgages, crazy credit card debt–someone was spending that money.
Had the OP come into difficulty three years ago, the credit union may well have worked with her. When 98% of your customers pay on time, it’s easy to be flexible with those who don’t. Not so easy to be flexible when the number of defaulters triples and unemployment is at 10%. Now the banks are in protection mode.
I can certainly understand the OPer’s frustration, but I don’t agree that the credit union kicked them when they were down. The credit union recovered what they could, which was probably less than what was owed them in a single month, because they believed that it was all they were going to get.
:: Pounds nail into own eyeball ::
Are you serious?
Whom I haven’t seen in a while, in fact. I like to think it’s because he’s in the midst of a Twilight Zone scenario in which he bumped his head and awoke to find himself a homeless vagrant surrounded by gated communities.
Okay, I am going to try again (glutton for punishment).
Nope, when the borrower defaults, they are not holding up their end, you are absolutely right. But little things, like a phone call letting someone know that you have just emptied their account, is good customer service. I am not saying the credit union was wrong to pull their money, I am saying they could’ve tried a little harder, especially knowing that the member is going through tough times.
You’re assuming that the agreement she signed with the credit union stated that they would take money out of her account without previous notice. I have seen no evidence of this, and neither have you. I simple notification along the lines of “we have not received a payment from you in X amount of time and therefore, pursuant to clause XX of your loan agreement, we will be withdrawing $XXX from your account on XX/XX” would have been proper customer service. It should also be pointed out that, contrary to what certain people seem to be assuming, the money that she had in deposit was her money, not the credit union’s. Unless it was specifically stated in her loan agreement that they had the right to seize any funds without prior notification, than she would have no expectation that they would do so.
And how many defaulting customers do you think would not remove their money upon receiving such a notice?
Now I do think that notification after the fact would have been reasonable customer service.
The customer service issue still matters. Even if the loan relationship is unprofitable, the checking relationship is not. Now they’ve lost the checking relationship, which was making money before. Maybe they’ve cut their losses on the loan by grabbing the checking balance, but if the OP files bankruptcy and has other creditors, the bank is going to have to give that money back anyway. And even conceding arguendo that the OP is a bad person for losing her job and falling behind on her payments, the truth is that she’ll probably repent and get back on top of things eventually; most people do. When she does, she’ll be a profitable customer for another bank, and so will many of her friends.
Why would the bank have to give back the money if they file bankruptcy? I’ve never heard of such a thing in bankruptcy situations.
I feel for the OP, I really do. It has to suck to be in this situation, but I guess I’m not sure what some people want the credit union to do. I’m sure the OP will get on her feet and be on top of things eventually. It seems really shitty to expect businesses to allow people to continue on not paying for fear that they’ll lose future business from them or their friends/family. “Let me pay you when I want to or else I will hold it against you in the future!”
For those who think the credit union is wrong: Is it only Dopers that should expect this type of leniency, or do you expect that everyone gets to continue to not pay when they can’t? Is it just banks/credit unions or all businesses? Does the electric company owe you electricity because you’ll need it? Does the gas company owe you gas? What about gasoline cards? Should they not shut off your ability to use it because you need gasoline to go to job interviews? Where does it end? How do you expect businesses to stay open and pay their employees if they don’t have income?
No snark intended, I’m honestly curious.
It’s called a preference (certain transactions, even involuntary ones, that take place near the time of the bankruptcy filing (usually 90 days)), and the trustee in bankruptcy can avoid it in certain cases. 11 U.S. Code § 547 - Preferences | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute and see, 11 U.S. Code § 553 - Setoff | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (553(b))
See, Error 404 | Emory University | Atlanta GA
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00066.htm (Paragraph I)
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/123/123.F3d.1243.96-16287.html
http://www.bankruptcy-lawyer-indiana.com/pdf/Bank_Offset.pdf (discussing post-petition setoff and the automatic stay).
Thanks for the info, Gfactor.
You’re welcome.