Had a credit card company take 2k out of my savings to pay on a past due balance. Credit card and bank where savings was is the same...I guess thats legal??
No, it won't. Anymore than a 1k retainer for a simple conversion Complaint is too much. You should be able to recover some form of compensation at least in terms of your costs. It really shouldn't cost you anything if the matter is as simple as you've conveyed.
what kind of attorney should I be seeking to handle this for me? Forgive my ignorance...is that something a company like yours handles?
Hold on one second. Is this a credit union? If so, you need to find out if the credit card agreement allows for cross-collaterization. If so, they can take the funds out of your savings with them without a judgment. This is one of the problems with credit unions. Accounts are usually cross-collateralized.
Kind of what I was wondering or if this was some type of secured funds with the savings account attached to it. To answer the OP's question however, any counsel should be able to handle the matter. It would be a simple Complaint grounded in conversion; i.e., civil theft. I suppose it may also be considered embezzlement but, that is more criminal in nature and I've never seen that plead in a civil action. Again, the above is presuming that this is the run of the mill credit card. I've really never seen this actually happen but, it seems plausible that it may. Finally, no we do not offer this type of work even for in state clients. When we (actually only my partner at this time) litigate, it is explicitly under the WVCCPA and in the extremely rare occurence we file an out-of-state clients Complaint here, the FCRA/FDCPA.
No its not a credit union. Its B of A it was a business credit card, and they took the 2k out of my personal savings. Actually the card was issued by FIA which I guess IS B of A
FIA was "MBNA", and was the arm that handled accounts not in the mainstream. Be careful that this was not a business account guaranteed by personal assets. Read your original account agreement before doing anything else.
business account with a personal guaranty, my credit, ssn, etc...is that different from personal "assets"? Just curious
No there is no difference, only terminology (your gauranty is your personal assets). Since you have a "personal" guarantee, I am positive there was a collateralization with any (personal) account you had with FIA/BoA. You are basically "cosigning" for yourself in a situation like this, with the "other you" being your business. Again, read the original account agreement, I'm sure it's buried in there somewhere where they have the right to access your personal accounts pledged against the business account. It sucks, but they can do it. You have to be careful what you pledge as a guaranty.
Even when there is no personal guarantee I have seen CC companies clean out accounts. When my sister filed for BK 15 years ago the bank wiped out her savings and checking against her CC balance at the same bank. Her lazy attorney did nothing about it and even had her reaffirm some debts that should have been discharged. Are these people going to sue? Well no. They are broke remember? And all they would be doing is getting it back from the first creditor and giving it to a second.
The problem isn't with the credit union. The problem is with the credit union member not paying his debts on time/as agreed. Credit unions are great. Mine has provided me with many loans over the years (mostly auto) that were well below the going rates at banks, and I've never paid a thin dime in "fees" to them. I don't see a problem with saving money.
Wow . . . Fortunately, your opinion isn't the legal standard in U.S. jurisprudence. So, being "unable" to repay a debt is a crime? That is the same thing as a bank cleaning out an account even with no viable equitable or legal right?That is just vigilantism. If the OP owes this, defaulted, and has assets, BOA has recourse. However, just dipping into an account isn't one of the forms of legal redress.
I wasn't referring to the legal standard, nor was I saying it was a criminal offense. I was saying that, in my opinion, the "borrower" stealing from the "lender" is no different than lender "stealing" from the borrower. Funny - you apparently advocate and support that the "borrower" should be protected from the "lender" taking his money, but you obviously have no issue with the "borrower" taking money from the "lender" and NOT paying it back in the first place. I love it - too laughable! If the borrower agreed to this (e.g., verbiage contained in the contract he signed with the lender), then, yes, it is.
The borrower did not have the "intent" to take anything when they borrowed the money. That is why its called a "loan." Here, Bank of America knew the risk of default, acted on it, saw default, and took money from a place the legally couldn't. There is a large difference.
The borrower and lender had a legally binding contract. The lender fulfilled his contractual obligations by providing the monies to the borrower. The borrower did NOT fulfill his contractual obligation by failing to repay the loan in accordance with the terms of the legally binding contract. Sorry, but I'm a supporter of a concept called "personal responsibility and accountability". As such, I don't have much sympathy for people who accept loans, fail to repay them "as agreed", and then whine about the lender garnishing wages or bank accounts. Then again, that's just the way I roll: Honesty, integrity, and knowing that a man's word should be worth something. If you owe somebody something because you borrowed it, pay it back. Period.
