My bank received a writ of garnishment for someone with a name similar to mine and wrongfully garnished/debited the funds out of my checking account. I asked the bank's legal dept. What identifiers i.e.. Account #'s, SS#, address, etc. Were used to link my account with the defendant on the writ of garnishment aside from a similar name. The bank's reply was that they did their research and had enough reason to believe that my account was indeed linked to the defendant. I obtained a copy of the judgement and a copy of the writ; neither of which contained any identifiers linking my checking account to the defendant, other than a similar name. Ultimately, I believe the bank acted in bad-faith and violated banking regulations by negligently garnishing my account without verifying whether it belonged to the defendant or not. Can the bank be held civilly liable for depriving me of my money? If so, what banking regulations were violated?

If the bank does not pay back those fund, yes you may sue them, since they did not have a valid garnishment for your account. I would give them in writing, a demand to replace the money in a certain time frame ( perhaps 10 days) and if not you will bring legal action against them.

Where? You may have the judgment and writ but that is very often not the only information forwarded to the bank.

What was your financial loss due to their error? Lost interest?

How long did this go on?

The bank - and I don't know where you are - have the duty to freeze your account and turn the funds over to the creditor, with or without notice to you.

You can always call the Bank Examiners or Attorney General in your State but I see an error, nothing deliberate, and it might not even be a case of negligence.

They have since returned the funds but only after I retained an attorney. Who is liable for my damages i.e.. Legal fees? Also, isn't the plaintiff's attorney liable as well? What documentation/information did he use to determine that the defendant had an account with my bank? I do not believe the defendant has an account at my bank and the writ of garnishment clearly identifies my bank as the garnishee. Would it be safe to say that both the plaintiff's attorney and my bank are at fault in this situation?

I'm in Florida.

Loss... Mortgage payment not made, legal fees, time off work.

I had to remove myself from my my families primary account.

I understand that the garnishee has no choice but to adhere to the writ, but I am not the defendant on the writ. I did my own research on the counties web sit and found numerous public records related to the defendant and that correlate with the information on the writ. i.e.. Property records, marriage records, property deeds, legal judgments.

Clearly the bank failed to verify the defendant's information and my account information.

That's not the bank's responsibility. Everyone would claim "It's not me" and hold up the process.

BUT now that you've explained the situation in detail (other than being aghast that this happened to you!), yes, the creditor and the creditor's Attorney are responsible for the error. THEY provided the info to the bank. THEY need to make you whole, i.e. pay your expenses in connection with this "error." An Attorney may very well also want to name the Bank just to cover all bases.

It would undoubtedly be cheaper, faster, easier, for you to take them to Small Claims Court - both the creditor and/or creditor's Attorney AND the bank. If this is what you choose to do, come back, let me know, and I'll pull the banking law.

Again, the bank does not have the option of verifying the information. They were told it was a judgment against you and they were ordered to seize the account (or monies from the account). That's all they need to know.

And again - wow!

This is the question, was the bank, in fact, told that the defendant in the suit was you or was the bank served with a writ for any accounts from the similar name and they fixed on your accounts as filling the bill?

If the plaintiff specifically identified you then your suit is against them. Otherwise the bank should be included.

I believe the bank has a obligation to properly ID before a garnishment is made, unless the paper work had a specific account number already listed.
There are at least 3 people with my exact name, one of them banks at the same bank ( same major chain) that I do.
So merely a name is not enough info to go "fishing" for an account. Lets say I have a debt owed me by Jamie Smith, I could send garnishment to every bank in town and most likely find a dozen or so people by that name.

Also normally the bank merely freezes the funds, giving you time to file in court to overturn the transfer before it happens, if there is errors. I will still stick with my opinion that the bank has some obligation and I would name them in the law suit also if I was suing.

I was operating on the assumption that the creditor provided ID'ing to the bank - of course, if the creditor did not and it was a blind search, the Bank is responsible. Florida requires: "Bank Garnishment
GARNISHMENT OF A JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S BANK ACCOUNT is a common means of collecting a judgment and is facilitated by the issuance and service of a Writ of Garnishment.

A Writ of Garnishment is a legal instrument that allows a bank to freeze assets (belonging to the judgment debtor) in its control. You will need to provide as much information regarding the judgment debtor’s account, at least providing the name and location of the bank."

Doesn't sound like a fishing expedition - sounds like creditor must identify the Bank, file the Writ after it does its "homework."

I hope OP comes back and lets us know.