A new low in rotten

[madamesilverspurs]

Many years ago, when his son was still a minor, the father took his son to the bank to establish a savings account for the boy. A fairly common practice, but in this case a bit of a milestone. The son was born with multiple disabilities, but he worked hard and often struggled to overcome many of the limitations; and he continued to make regular deposits to his savings account.

Fast forward to the present. The son, now a young man in his late 20s who lives independently, goes to visit his parents. Like many families, they have been hit hard in the tough economy, and there has been a foreclosure. His dad has some health issues, and his mother is struggling through the final stages of cancer. Wanting to do something to brighten the dreariness, he goes to the bank to withdraw a little money. The account is empty. The bank took the money during the foreclosure because the father had, all those years ago, co-signed on his disabled child's savings account.

The sign out front says "Bank of America," but I have to wonder -- which "America" approves of theft from the disabled?

-

[SickOfTheOnePct]

1. They should sue

I believe that banks can only do this after a court judgement and only if the mortgage is with the same bank.

[madamesilverspurs]

2. The mortgage was with the same bank.

But in none of the foreclosure discussions was there ever any mention of the son's account. It simply never occurred to the parents that their son's savings were in jeopardy. Wouldn't have occurred to me, either.

=

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. They still can't do it without a court judgement that specifically says they can take the money

The familly really needs to reach out to legal aid on this.

[Liberal Gramma]

6. Disgusting, but I think it's legal

Banks have the right of "offset" which means if you are in default on a loan they can take up to the amount from any assets you have at that bank. It's all in the fine print.

[Marcia Brady]

8. I work at a bank

(a small community bank) so I guess I see thins from the bank's point of view.

There is no info available to any of the bank employees that would indicate that one of the account owners was disabled. Contractually, an account owner owed the bank money. Contrucatually, the bank had a right to take it.

Not illegal. Not even unethical.

[madamesilverspurs]

11. How about immoral?

Or inhuman? How about unbridled greed? For that matter, how about cruelty just because there's profit in it?


-

[Marcia Brady]

12. Ummmmmmmm . . .

Not really. Morality doesn't have a lot to do with it. If you think it does, is it "moral" to default on a loan? Is it "greedy" to expect someone to keep a commitment they made to pay on a loan, or to pay for shit you bought? Also--if the loan is in default, there isn't a lot of profit to be had, so your "cruel" argument doesn't even enter into it.

Just the facts.

[relayerbob]

23. BS

Morality has EVERYTHING to do with this and every foreclosure. Hope the bank is still sitting on the property, losing money on it with every passing day, instead of following the morally correct thing to do and re-negotiate to a win-win scenario.

[Occulus]

26. Corporations like this one are bereft of all human qualities

and that is the reason why they should have only privileges and no actual rights.

[Volaris]

46. Agreed, and those privileges are contingent upon the Corp's. doing...

more (in aggregate) good than harm to the communities and customer bases they purport to serve. Its like credit (America's bankers should be able to understand that, right?)... We offer it to you, and if you pay us back in an appropriate manner (as in, not being a dick in your quest to make a buck) you and me (the Public) are square. If not, guess what, no more credit.

You don't get to blow up a wellhead in the Gulf of Mexico 'cause you cut corners, and then go on T.V. and make excuses. PRIVILEGE of Free Speech...REVOKED.

You don't get to complain when you intentionally fuck over your employees for the sake of a profit margin, and then argue that the PLAINTIFF'S have no right to sue you. PRIVILEGE of Due Process,...REVOKED.

You DAMN SURE don't get to crash the financial system that built the most powerful economy in the history of sentient beings, and still keep all your money. PRIVILEGE of Property Ownership ...REVOKED, bitch.

[MsPithy]

32. What happens to all the equity the family has in the house?

I don't mean this family, specifically.

What if a family has $100,000 in equity on their house and they default on a $35,000 loan? I was under the impression that the bank would go ahead and steal that $65,000 from the family.

[Laelth]

43. As I understand the law on this ...

Under your scenario, the bank could take the house through foreclosure, but they would be under an obligation to sell it. When they did, any proceeds above the debt owed would have to be given back to the defaulting homeowner. So, for example, if the house in your scenario was sold by the bank for $90,000.00, the bank could take the $35,000.00 it was owed (plus court costs, interest, attorneys' fees, and real estate agent fees), and then the bank would have to write a check to the defaulting homeowner for the remainder. Assuming $10,000.00 in interest, fees, and costs, the bank would have to write a check to the defaulting homeowner for $45,000.00 using the numbers in your scenario.

-Laelth

[mopinko]

45. if it is sold at a "sheriff's sale"

it can only be sold for the debt that is owed, so there is no equity. after that, it belongs to the bank, and i believe they would have to return monies over the debt and fees. highly unlikely, tho, in this market.

[bluesbassman]

33. Of course morality has nothing to do with it, it's not like the Corporate Banks are people. Whoops..

According to Mitt Romney, they are.

If you think that kind of banking strategy is fine, let's see your "small Community Bank" do it. I'm wagering if you really do work for a Community Bank (I don't believe you do) that engaged in those kind of practices, your firm would lose customers fast. The problem with BofA, Chase, et al., is that they have such a huge customer base that they don't give a rat's tail who hates them.

My guess is that if you do in fact work for a bank, you're a mid level manager that has drunk the kool-aid, and you believe that everything the banks do is proper and above board. It's not. I've worked for 4 major banks in my career, and I've seen first hand the devious, greedy, and reckless things they pull. You try to equate someone defaulting on a loan (without knowing why it happened), to greed? And in the next breath you claim there is no "profit" in a bank REO? You obviously have no idea how foreclosures work. The banks make out just fine on a foreclosure. Ask yourself this: If they didn't, why have they been dragging their heels in helping to keep homeowners in trouble in their house? And don't cite HARP and all the previous iterations. Those programs only help/ed a very narrow band of homeowners. The majority of "at risk" properties go to foreclosure.

[marble falls]

39. Just the facts, screw justice and what's right. If you're all right with that .....

shame on you.

[lunatica]

40. You sound just like a banker

Defaulting on a loan is not immoral when you lose your job due to cancer or because banks like yours break the law with your illegal rushing of foreclosures with assembly line signings. It is immoral to refuse to work with people who would pay their loans and make you rich in the process if they could. It is immoral of your bank to take the people's money to get bailed out for gambling with their money and losing your fucking ass shirts and then turning around and giving yourselves bonuses while ignoring the reason for the bailouts in the first place. But, of course it isn't illegal so your ass is certainly covered.

Congratulations on winning the game.

[caseymoz]

61. How about overall profit?

How about the money they demanded from taxpayers? Profit definitely does enter their overall plan for which this foreclosure and seizure were a part.

To answer your rhetorical questions, it's immoral to take out a loan planning to default; it's immoral if you are able to but refuse to pay. It's also immoral to make loans when you know the people you loan to can't pay it, which is what banks did flagrantly and incessantly last decade. It was a part o their business plan.

If justice had any say in it, Bank of America would have been dissolved for what it did, its assets seized. Bank of America, like every sociopath, slides on people's decent behavior.

So, is it cruel to seize assets after your immoral plans have collapsed? Especially assets not directly owned by the person you seize it from? Yes.

And if you think the arguments you've given justify BofA because you just coincidentally happen to work for a bank, you've been brainwashed or you've sold out. I have news for you: your arguments are feeble in the world outside of banking and lawmaking.

[freshwest]

17. I get what you say, but having dealt with all kinds of agencies, etc., doctors and lawyers have said

To me about things that were devastating to me or people I cared about:

'It's not personal. It's paperwork. In a world of strangers, who know nothing about each other, paperwork is all there is to work with. They are not trying to harm you because they don't know you. They can't justify their jobs without paperwork instructing them. Supply them with the necessary paperwork and you will win the case.'

So when I thought it was cruel, it was not. Those who are passing money back and forth can't be personal. So please don't give yourself any more pain than this already is. I've been there, okay?

I've had to deal with a lot of issues about disabled people and money. It's tiresome and frightening, because in most cases it's just a quick skip to homelessness. The only advice I have to give is if the son has anything else of value, to look into what are 'irrevocable trusts.' Those are set up to take care of disabled people and are proof against seizure of funds in almost all cases.

They are not just for the wealthy, either. I had to set one up for over the matter of the costs of cremation, to keep it out of the accounting for their 'assets' in considering nursing home care. The person really is indigent, but that one item was hanging out there that could disqualify one for what was needed.

At the time the father co-signed, the boy was unable to legally sign for himself; may still be considered incompetent to sign for such matters. I know your family has been going through a tremendous deal and that foreclosure is huge strain. While fighting it one does not have time to inspect all past financial affairs like this one was.

When you say 'co-sign' on an account, if you don't mind my asking, how was the account named? Was it joint or in the format of 'father's name for son's name' as these are often done? This makes a difference, I think. If any social security monies are involved, they are often set up with that format. The funds must not be co-mingled or used by both without a paper check to withdraw the funds, as it will be needed to account for the money with the federal government or state court if the father was his guardian.

That status does not always end at the age of eighteen, either. Although you say the boy was living independently, which may mean he was capable of managing his financial affairs without help. Is there a state agency of any sort that is helping the young man live on his own?

They have a vested interest in protecting his assets from being seized. Because they should know about those assets. I'm only asking because these are my frames of reference, and trying to figure out what will work to help this young man.

Very sorry about all the things that have been going on for you and appreciate your posts and activism. It's hard to not feel hurt, abused and betrayed in facing these challenging and costly events that are so crucial to people in need.

to you and him.

[zeemike]

27. It is a cold world we have created here on this planet.

Where people become paperwork and a number or a consumer of things...we no longer see them as people but as the public.
And all of us are caught up in it...even the ones that know it is a wretched way to live....it is inescapable unless you go into the wilderness to live or to some backward place where their are tribes and live among them...this is the world we have created now we must live with it.

A while back we decided that greed was not such a bad thing at all and we decided to turn it lose in our society and boy did it flourish....flowered, and now has produced fruit...and we must eat it no matter how bad it taste.

And it is an amazing truth this could all be solved by eliminating one thing...money.
But that is way to far out there for anyone but the dreamers and thinkers to consider...for most people the very idea of no money scares the shit out of them....and some yet would rather not live without it.
But it can be done, and if we don't destroy our self first, it will be done because it must be if we are to advance.

[turtlerescue1]

47. Aye, and its a bitter truth!

[zeemike]

50. And welcome to DU

And to the bitter truth exposed

[Smilo]

54. It would seem you and I

have different views on what is ethical and what is not.

eth·i·cal   [eth-i-kuhl]
adjective
1.
pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
2.
being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession: It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.


This action may have been legal - but there was no way it is ethical or moral.

[firehorse]

63. corporations over people

I used to work for banks in the 90's .... couldn't stomach it. How do you do it?

[sulphurdunn]

15. Banks increasingly

write the laws that make their actions legal, even when they are clearly immoral. That's why fine print exists. That's why looting the account of a disabled man is covered in the fine print without exactly saying so.

[Marcia Brady]

16. I would disagree about that

How would anyone at the bank know that one of the account owners was disabled? What they DID know was that a joint owner on that account owe the bank money, and they were entitled to take it.

Dodd-Frank has put some truly onerous burdens on banks, especially small ones. We have had to raise fees to make up for some of the things we can no longer collect on, as a result of D-F.

[Swagman]

18. and I disagree with you-immoral and unethical as the bank did not inform the father of the

consequences of his actions by co-signing on the account.

There are rules but that doesn't make them good or right. It's a small but devastating action that happens every day and just because big business writes the rules that doesn't excuse them..they will always ensure they never lose.

My father was the CEO of a bank for 20 years. By the end of his life he concluded the banking system was corrupt and immoral.

[sulphurdunn]

20. The problem isn't Dodd-Frank.

The problem is a Shylock banking system that prefers its pound of flesh to human decency even it could profit from it.

[deutsey]

22. Yep, depersonalizing everything may help those benefiting from this sleep better at night

but at its heart it's still sick.

[The Magistrate]

25. It Never Ceases To Amaze Me, Ma'am, What People Will Sign Up to Defend

[lunatica]

41. She's obviously a banker through and through

I'm sure she got her bonus when the people's money bailed her and her bank out. Of course the money was meant to go to help homeowners, but see, what her bank did was legal so it was OK. On the other hand losing your job or getting cancer or being handicapped is simply not of any interest to them as they rush through their signing foreclosure documents on an assembly line.

[randome]

49. It didn't sound like she was 'defending' anyone.

She was merely pointing out some unpleasant facts.

[The Magistrate]

53. You Must Be Pretty Used To A Breeze Rustling Your Hair By Now, Sir....

She has offered a defense, claiming the behavior is proper, and even off-set by the 'immorality' of defaulting on a loan. That it is legal, even expected, no one disputes seriously; people who do not acknowledge it as a moral wrong have, and are, a problem....

[alstephenson]

31. Awww. Poor Banks...

[jtuck004]

36. Defending "innocent" banks is a little like defending the people around child-molesters

that fuck little boys and get away with it for years because all the people around them don't get enraged enough at the wrong to do something about it.

And in both cases it is so pervasive that people can actually rationalize those behaviors to themselves as ok.

They weren't. And aren't.

Beginning with the gift of deregulation in Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act the greedy bastards at major investment houses, banks, mortgage companies - all manner of criminals - began to leverage people's very lives to borrow money to leverage more people's lives, all on a lie that the value of what they were borrowing money on would always go up. The were assisted in this endeavor by people at the highest levels of our government, some of them still actively involved in the business today, both in and out of their government position. When the fraudulent scheme blew up the people that had perpetrated the fraud were compensated, handsomely, for their trouble. At the expense of our neighbors, our country. Our brothers and sisters in the struggle, and their families.

Being free market types, they also fucked, hard, people around the globe. With glee. And no lube.

Onerous?

That failure to regulate and allowing them to hide their nefarious schemes has resulted in, today, tens of millions of people in and barely out of poverty, hungry, homeless, all dependent on some sort of government assistance to avoid dying in a ditch. Tens of millions who have no or not enough work to pay basic bills, no opportunity, and 12 million home loans underwater.

Now that's onerous.

Now this is solely my opinion, but you will forgive me if I don't give a flying fuck how onerous this seems on banks, and how it impacts their ability to screw people.

Just because you stated it, last I heard banks had people. And these so-called humans could have looked in a file. Only a liar would submit that a bank collecting on a debt couldn't see a report that said a person got their income from disability.

And if they couldn't, or wouldn't, they are nothing better than a damn machine. So maybe this bank could just fire the fucking employees and let a computer do it. Then maybe they wouldn't need to take money from a disabled person to collect fees to pay salaries.

Onerous. What arrogant shit.

respectfully...

[Rockholm]

62. In my opinion, you are wrong.

The banks a number of years ago, maybe 6 or so, had the bankruptcy laws changed. The banks, who were writing bad mortgages, KNEW what was coming. They set up the fall AND covered their butts BEFORE the bottom dropped out.
Just my opinion.

On edit: Bad spelling.

[DearAbby]

5. legally there may not be anything to be done

but in the court of PUBLIC OPINION. (Emails should be sent to this corporation. Real people have hearts, would never dream of taking funds from a disabled person.) Bad PR, this bank should replace the account. This is low,

Disgusting, I would not bank here.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. That is SO disgusting. I am appalled.

[Honeycombe8]

30. Disgusting is the word, alright. He should write a letter to his rep.

Maybe the bank can be convinced to return the $.

The family got a notice of the seizure, though. I guess they were too sick to read their mail?

[slackmaster]

7. Bank of America sucks donkey balls.

[Curmudgeoness]

9. Publicity, publicity, publicity.

This is a great human interest story, and I have a feeling that the bank would not want too much attention to this.

It is outrageous and I have no doubt that most people would feel the same way.

[Blue_In_AK]

10. Oh, that's sick.

[Dont call me Shirley]

13. BOA, anything is their prey, disgusting they are!

[1monster]

14. All the accounts I ever set up for my children, and the one set up for me by my

parents many years ago, legally reverted to the child when he/she reached their majorities, age eighteen.

I smell a rat, and the rat is most likely Bank of America.

[GarroHorus]

19. Never Never EVER have your savings account at the same bank that holds the note on your house.

NEVER!

[ryan_cats]

81. Excellent advice!

That is excellent advice. It's like having your PayPal account linked to your regular checking account, don't do it. In fact, you should never have any account at the bank who has your mortgage other than the mortgage.

I worked for a bank, they were sleazy. The CEO said, during a company wide meeting, that the bank was up for sale although she couched it in terms that could be interpreted as they're not actively looking for a sale unless someone has a lot of money. It was only after the sale and the inevitable layoffs that people found out that they were actively looking to sell so the officers could make a lot of money.

[hrmjustin]

21. What evil people these people are.

I hope they sue.

[bupkus]

24. BoA =

Bunch of Assholes

[turtlerescue1]

28. Get to American With Disabilities-Legal

The State Attorney General's Office.
The nearest Democrat-elected person.
AND all the publicity possible.

Many States have a legal section for ADA, get an opinion from them.

These are worse than a Shylock seeking a pound of flesh, and it is just plain tragic.

I am so sorry, wish I could do something.

[aggiesal]

29. Banks have always been rotten . . .

I'm suing my mortgage servicer (Chase Bank). The note is owned by the FDIC,
at lease some part of it.

Here's my story.
When I was unemployed the money I had, I used to pay the mortgage so
that I wouldn't lose my house. Money that should have gone to pay the
property tax was used to pay the mortgage.

A couple of years later, Chase finds out about this and is not happy. Chase
pays the 2 year tax bill, opens an impound account, raises my mortgage
payment to cover the 2 years that I didn't pay plus the current year.

I'm able to pay my mortgage, but it does become a burden that I start to fall
behind. Never fell more then 90 days behind schedule. I was expected to pay
the higher rate for 12 months, but I end up paying for about 15 months.

Now Chase sends me notice that I have over $12K in the impound account
but since I'm behind, they will not disburse the funds.

I ask them to apply the funds to my mortgage, this should pay just about
all the months I'm behind, except some of the penalty late fees. Their
response was that since I'm behind they can't disburse the funds.

After I've paid back the property taxes, I get a phone call from the Chase
collections dept. (almost on a daily basis) asking why I stopped paying the
higher amount. Because I have documentation that states I no longer have
to pay the higher amount because I've paid back the property taxes.
Their response is too bad. Now, when I pay every month the lower amount,
they put the funds in suspense mode until they receive the full higher amount.

They won't use the overage to pay down the late months, and now they
want me to continue paying the higher amount.

THIS IS EXTORTION.

I've hired a lawyer.

[jillan]

34. That's really screwed up - but it is legal. I never thought about this and

I have a daughter that is disabled. I had to be a signer on her account because she is not able to sign for herself.

Shit. I wouldn't care, but am going thru a divorce... and who knows what he'll pull...he's a republican.

[L0oniX]

35. Is anyone surprised? It's Skank of America!

[jtuck004]

37. I know, I know, nonviolence. But I wonder why we let bankers drive to work without at least

worrying about whether they will get a big load of horseshit dumped on them from a highway overpass.

Probably wouldn't even be good for compost after having a banker in it though.

[Nye Bevan]

38. My guess is that the computer did this automatically.

This would not have happened in the 50s when the bank manager would have known the father and the son personally, and would have been familiar with their circumstances.

[Chorophyll]

42. Point taken about the impersonality of modern banking, but,

let's leave the trope about the fabulous 50s to the Republicans, shall we?

In the 50s, half of the people on this board would be afraid of opening their mouths for fear of getting hauled in front of HUAC. In the 50s we had no Voting Rights Act, no Medicare, and certainly no legal same-sex marriage. And a kid with disabilities might very well have been put into an institution.

There is injustice now, there was injustice then.

[Nye Bevan]

56. Is it OK with you if I praise the things that were good about the 50s?

Someone could get a well paying union job right out of high school, could stay at the same company for his working life without fear of predatory Bain-style takeovers, could afford to buy a decent house, take vacations, and get a good pension and health care for life after retirement. The gap between the rich and the poor was much smaller, strong unions were ubiquitous, jobs were not off-shored, there were no subprime loans where the interest rate suddenly rose to ridiculous levels; as I said, you probably knew personally the bank officer who made you the loan and he would know your family circumstances. There were no bankster bailouts, no TARP, no Wall Street CEOs getting $20 million bonuses regardless of the profitability of their companies.

Yes, the 50s had their bad side, especially for minorities and women, but they certainly had their good points.

[Chorophyll]

58. Sure, go ahead.

I take your point. The 50s were indeed a boom-time for the white male. I'm not being snarky: if white men are doing well, their families do well too. And I think a lot of the progress we DID make as a nation in the ensuing years grew out of that well-being. People who are well-fed and well-educated have the leisure to look around, see what's wrong, and lift others up too. But it sure wasn't entirely pretty. As a woman, I would not like to go back there.

[snooper2]

68. fuck the 50's

Most of the people that want to go back to the 40's and 50's are old racists--luckily they are dying off now...

Society is much better now than it was then, for everyone. You don't think banks took advantage of people in the 50's? How about coal mines?

[Nye Bevan]

72. I guess you're not a big fan of unions.

[snooper2]

75. unions are fine, just not a big fan of nostalgistic bullshit

[Nye Bevan]

77. Well. God help anyone who whistles "Mr Sandman" within your earshot (nt)

[snooper2]

78. ah, sandman is cool LOL

&feature=related

[Javaman]

44. the corporations are the new monarchy.

they take all they see and are master of all they survey.

we are serfs, but they call us consumers.

we are no longer citizens.

[bayareaboy]

48. I live in the Bay Area ...

and am old enough to know BofA early history. it was a lot different from the today. It serviced Italian fishermen and small business owners in North Beach to be really receptive to the people it served.

Now it's home is in the South and it has no resemblance to anything that has a heart.

go with a credit union.

[Laelth]

52. That BoA no longer exists, as you rightly note.

BoA was bought out, in its entirety, by a North Carolina bank (I forget the name), but the North Carolina bank decided that "Bank of America" was a sexier name, so they allowed existing Bank of America branches to keep their name while changing the name of all their previously-owned banks to Bank of America. Thus, it appeared that BoA had bought out the NC bank. In reality, the NC bank bought out BoA.

The NC bank had a rather bad reputation, iirc. They whitewashed themselves by adopting the BoA name, but the same people who earned the bad reputation kept complete control of the new BoA.

-Laelth

[steve2470]

55. I think it was NationsBank, which had been NCNB nt

[slackmaster]

65. That is correct. I once had a credit card issued by NCNB. It became a Bank of America Visa card.

Bank of America decided to divest itself of that portfolio (US Airways affinity cards) several years ago, and sold it to Barclay's which sold it to Juniper Bank.

My ex-wife also had a Visa card originally issued by NCNB. It was in her name only, but somewhere along the line someone, I suspect Bank of America, added my name as a co-borrower on their computer records without telling anyone.

Very long story short - We divorced in 2000. We discovered that my name was on the account in 2009 and tried to get it removed. BofA refused, although it admitted in writing that it can't produce a copy of the credit agreement for the account. My ex got behind on her payments last year and filed Chapter 13 this year.

It took me eight months of fighting and about $5,000 in legal fees to get the derogatory information from that fiasco removed from my credit history files.

[Alcibiades]

59. It was NationsBank

And, yes, they kept the name, though it would be better to think of BoA as part of NationsBank than the other way around.

NationsBank has had a hand in every single structual malfeasance in the financial industry for the last 40 years, a track record it has kept as the merged entity.

[slackmaster]

64. I've never been a fan of BofA, but its personality changed dramatically with the Nationsbank merger

That happened in 1997.

[TomClash]

51. The moral of the story is . . .

. . . the money is always theirs. No matter what.

[Alcibiades]

57. Well, there's your problem right there

Banking at BoA. Join a credit union.

Too late for this kid, but an object lesson for everyone else.

[JackHughes]

60. Maybe Americans should declare a "jubilee"

Our government has been too corrupted by BIG MONEY to take the necessary steps for obvious Keynesian solutions. The only way to strike back at banksters -- and to create our own economic stimulus -- may be for Americans to simply quit paying off their credit card debts, mortgages, student loans, etc.

Radical times call for radical solutions.

[Son of Gob]

66. Is there a link for this?

or is this someone you know?

[B2G]

67. WTH do people think happens when you default on a loan?

That the debt just magically disappears as the lender shrugs 'Oh well'?

[maggiesfarmer]

74. sadly, a lot of people do think that.

I've been around twice when someone I worked with had a car repossessed. In both cases, despite admitting they hadn't made a payment in months, the reaction was "I can't believe they repo'd my car."

while feeling sorry for their predicament, I couldn't help but wonder "what did you believe would happen when you stopped paying?"

in this case though, I feel sorry for the kid and the whole "sins of the father business"

[madamesilverspurs]

76. Where the hell was that even remotely suggested in my post?

The story is about a disabled kid who had no part in the mortgage having his only asset stolen by the bank JUST BECAUSE THEY COULD. There is no spin you can put on that to make it not suck.

-

[Jake2413]

69. Why am I not surprised

What I am surprised at is why anyone would do business with these big crooks, sorry banks.

[B2G]

70. If you financed through a credit union and then defaulted

what exactly do you think would happen?

[Jake2413]

73. Credit unions aren't in the business of writing sub-prime loans

and then waiting for people to default. Nor are they robo signing foreclosures. I bank with a small local bank and never get hidden fees for banking or using debit cards, get a great rate on my credit cards and personal service when I need it. That all I'm saying. So if you want to deal with that stuff then support the big guys.

[B2G]

79. Banks cannot take the funds without a judgement being issued

Credit unions can, they don't need a judgement.

I too would like to see a link for this situation.

[Turbineguy]

71. The basic rule is

They can do anything you can't stop them from doing. If you approach it that way, you have a basis for doing business. Ignore their TV commercials. They are not your friends.

[KamaAina]

80. A. P. Giannini must be spinning in his grave

Amadeo Peter Giannini was an Italian immigrant who founded Banca D'Italia D'America in San Francisco around the turn of the 20th century. It was a small bank that served the burgeoning Italian immigrant community there.

It remained a small bank until the early morning hours of April 18, 1906. An earthquake estimated at 8.3 on the Richter scale struck San Francisco. Most of what didn't crumble in the quake itself burned in the subsequent fire. Included in the casualties were most of the large banks, such as Wells Fargo, which, at one point, was operating out of its director's home.

But Banca D'Italia D'America was spared. That put it in prime position to capitalize on the billions of dollars that flowed into the rebuilding city. Giannini changed the bank's name to the familiar Bank of America. Over the coming decades, it would grow to be a giant in California banking.

Then came the era of deregulation, with the Southern states leading (?) the way. Charlotte, NC emerged as a regional banking center, led by an outfit that, after several mergers and name changes, was called "Nationsbank".

But Nationsbank had even bigger ambitions. Amazingly, the upstart started merger (takeover) negotiations with B of A, the country's largest! The combined bank retained the name "Bank of America", but was based in Charlotte, and for all practical purposes, remained Nationsbank. (One can only imagine the consternation among executives being forced to relocate from San Francisco or its cozy suburbs to North Carolina!)

It is this bank, not Giannini's, that perpetrated this horror upon your family, and on so many millions of others. Remember that.

[Son of Gob]

82. I'm confused

Did this actually happen or is this a parable of sorts?

[madamesilverspurs]

84. It happened.

[Son of Gob]

85. To whom?

[madamesilverspurs]

86. It happened

to a family now in bereavemnet. I will say nothing here that would identify them and/or subject them to harrassment of any kind.

-

[lsewpershad]

83. Bank of hell

Karma karma karma....but how long do we have to wait?????

[MightyOkie]

87. I Hate Bank of America

That is all. Please continue with your regularly scheduled posting.