Check out some similar questions!

Yolanda405 · Jan 24, 2008, 11:09 AM

On Saturday, I was notified by a Bank alert that a legal transaction had occurred taking money out of my bank, I went into the Bank and they would not give me any information, I would have to wait she told me, she also told me I should have been notified before they took the money. On yesterday (Wednesday) a letter was shoved under my door telling me about a Judgement that had been ordered from the Court. This is really bugging me because not only do I not know who this Creditor is... they never even notified me... Can this be legal? They took every dime that I had in the bank, which has now caused my checks to bounce . What can I do?

twinkiedooter · Jan 24, 2008, 11:13 AM

You need to take that letter that was shoved under your door and go to the bank and talk with the Bank Manager. The bank must tell you just how this money was taken out of your account and by whom. Whoever you spoke to at the bank did not know what they were talking about.

JudyKayTee · Jan 24, 2008, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Yolanda405

On Saturday, I was notified by a Bank alert that a legal transaction had occurred taking money out of my bank, I went into the Bank and they would not give me any information, I would have to wait she told me, she also told me I should have been notified before they took the money. On yesterday (Wednesday) a letter was shoved under my door telling me about a Judgement that had been ordered from the Court. This is really bugging me because not only do I not know who this Creditor is.....they never even notified me...Can this be legal? They took every dime that I had in the bank, which has now caused my checks to bounce . What can I do?

You "should" have been notified when this matter was first sued; when the Judgment was filed; when the bank received the garnishment notice. But they did find you (who was the letter from?) to tell you after the fact?

No, if it is as you say it is, it is most definitely not legal.

You will have to go back to Court and attempt to get the Judgment set aside if you truly never had an account with these people AND no aspect of the debt is familiar to you - not that this is a debt that was sold or collected by a third party.

If it's a legal Judgment, yes, they can empty your bank account.

ScottGem · Jan 24, 2008, 01:46 PM

I'm assuming the notice you recevied about the judgement has information about the court that issued it. Tmmw you need to go to that court and file a motion to vacate the judgement on the grounds of improper service (since you claim you were never informed about the original suit). The court will tell you who the plaintiff is and what the suit was about.

The court will probably order a hearing. At the hearing the plaintiff will be required to show proof that you were properly notified of the suit. If you weren't then the judge will vacate the judgement and give you an order to bring to the bank to release the account. A new hearing will then be scheduled on the original suit.

I am surprsied that this came as a total surprise to you. Were you not aware that you had a debt that was defaulted on? Or do you believe this is not your debt?

twinkiedooter · Jan 25, 2008, 11:13 AM

First, the bank is responsible to show her the paperwork that allowed them to have a third person take out the money. Yolanda is entitled to have a copy of the paperwork from the bank. The bank is not just a middle man, sorry. The bank had to be specifically named in a Court order.

THEN she can go to the court having the proper case number, etc and proceed to receify this problem. Ever dawn on you that the bank could have screwed up and took the money from the wrong account as the name was similar to another depositor? Have seen this same scenerio happen twice now.

ScottGem · Jan 25, 2008, 12:30 PM

First, may I call your attention to the guidelines for using the comments feature found here:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/feedba...ure-24951.html

The bank IS just the middleman here. The bank is only operating on the order it received from the court. Yes, you are correct that the bank is required to show a copy of the order, but the only purpose for going to the bank is to get the information about what court ordered the garnishment

That information should have been on the notice that was shoved under her door. As long as she has the court info then she doesn't need to get it from the bank. The important thing is to go to the court and try and quash the order. Going to the bank serves no purpose but to delay things as long as she has the court info.

This is just another example of the inconsistent quality of your answers. You seem to think you know a lot more than you do. And that has led you to giving bad advice to some of our askers.

JudyKayTee · Jan 25, 2008, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

First, the bank is responsible to show her the paperwork that allowed them to have a third person take out the money. Yolanda is entitled to have a copy of the paperwork from the bank. The bank is not just a middle man, sorry. The bank had to be specifically named in a Court order.

THEN she can go to the court having the proper case number, etc and proceed to receify this problem. Ever dawn on you that the bank could have screwed up and took the money from the wrong account as the name was similar to another depositor? Have seen this same scenerio happen twice now.

Don't agree with you - the bank is not a middle man in that the bank is removing the money from the poster's account and also had a legal responsibility to notify her, in advance, which puts them in the active participant category.

I also don't know why she would go to the bank in the first place - no matter WHAT the problem is (insufficient service, no service, someone else's debt, any scenario) the bank can do absolutely nothing to put the money back in her account. She MUST go to the Court (and that info should be on the notice shoved under the door) to solve the problem.

She has already tried the bank and they were (apparently) unable or unwilling to tell her anything at all.

And once again you are rude beyond belief - "ever dawn on you" is entirely inappropriate.

ScottGem · Jan 25, 2008, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

Don't agree with you - the bank is not a middle man in that the bank is removing the money from the poster's account and also had a legal responsibility to notify her, in advance, which puts them in the active participant category.

That confuses me, Judy, are you saying that or quoting it?

The facts are that the bank has no legal responsibility to notify the depositer IN ADVANCE of garnishing the acount. In fact, it may be required NOT to to prevent the depositer from getting the funds out first.

But I agree with the rest of your post. The bank can take no action without a court order. The bank is required to provide a copy of the court order, though the branch may not have the copy, which may be why they were uncooperative. But the point here is that all the OP needs is the info about what court issued the ordered. As long as they have that and it should have been on the notice shoved under the door, then they need nothing more from the bank.

JudyKayTee · Jan 25, 2008, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by ScottGem

That confuses me, Judy, are you saying that or quoting it?

The facts are that the bank has no legal responsibility to notify the depositer IN ADVANCE of garnishing the acount. In fact, it may be required NOT to to prevent the depositer from getting the funds out first.

But I agree with the rest of your post. The bank can take no action without a court order. The bank is required to provide a copy of the court order, though the branch may not have the copy, which may be why they were uncooperative. But the point here is that all the OP needs is the info about what court issued the ordered. As long as they have that and it should have been on the notice shoved under the door, then they need nothing more from the bank.

I might - and probably am - stand(ing) corrected but I thought the Bank had a duty to notify a person that an account had been garnisheed or ordered frozen so that the person didn't unwittingly continue to write checks and then be surprised.

Of course once the notice is served on the bank the account is for all practical purposes frozen whether the account holder is notified or not.

I would have to look up the law to be certain but Once Upon a Time I investigated a very similar matter - the order was served, the person was not notified (by anyone, as it turned out) and the person happily deposited paychecks and wrote checks and then, bam, no money and a ton of bounced check fees. Bank had no evidence it had notified the person and for whatever reason had to reimburse all the bank fees and bounced check fees for all banks and creditors involved.

ScottGem · Jan 25, 2008, 08:00 PM

We've had a number of posts here from people who have first found out their accounts were frozen when they went to access the account. A bank may be required to notify the depositer once the freeze is placed, but not before.

But even so, the bank is still just a middleman as we both pointed out, the only thing the OP needs is the information about what court issued the garnishment and that should have been on the notice she got.