Well, yea, who doesn't agree with those principles? I certainly do. We're not discussing that though. We are talking about whether or not it is equitable or legal for Bank of America to access a bank account which they had no right to access in order to cover a credit card balance. From the information before us, there was no right to do so under the credit card agreement. If there was, great, the OP is out. Otherwise, this is conversion; i.e., theft which gives rise to a civil cause of action. It would also rise to the level of embezzlement. In short, it is illegal. If this was legal, you would have Capital One, Chase, whoever, just dipping into peoples bank accounts, 401's, IRA's, etc., without evening reducing the default to judgment. Chaos in other words. I'm not saying that the OP should have failed to pay the debt. That is none of my business as to why they didn't. Frankly, that was never the issue. What I'm trying to espouse is that it is not okay for BOA to handle the default in such a fashion absent contractual language which, at least now, seems absent.
You know, instead of ranting and raving that they can't do this, it might be useful to look into why the bank thinks that they can do it. They obviously think that they can. It could be that the Bank has only sequestered the funds, pending legal action, based on clauses in the savings account agreement contract. Seems to me that we have insufficient information to jump to definitive conclusions. Not justifying the Bank's actions, only thinking that a whole picture is much more reliable than a partial when making sweeping generalizations.
As I hinted, the cross-collateralization clause may be buried in the savings account fine print and not addressed at all in the CC agreement. If so, they may well be on firmer ground. Not necessarily solid, but firmer. Bank obviously thinks that they are entitled to do what they have done. What are they claiming as justification? Were the funds taken, i.e., actually used to pay off the CC debt? CC debt now = 0? Was the CC some sort of a secured card? All questions needing some sort of answer.
Business CCs are a totally different animal than personal ones. Since the OP mentioned the savings account was "raided", and he had to give his persoanl guaranty, this implies the card had to be secured somewhere. But, too many "ifs" here, the OP needs to study the T&Cs of the CC account agreement, as well as for the personal bank accounts. I can't see a bank doing something like this unless they were 100% certain they could do it legally.
That's where I'm coming from. Banks are really good at covering their backsides since a visit from the regulators is a very expensive proposition.
I don't. I am simply a believer in the concept of personal responsibility and accountability. When you accept an extension of credit, you need to pay it back. But I have over 10 years of history working to help other folks, almost 8 of them right here (see my 'Join Date'). Haha! Gee, thanks!
