Hopefully there is an appeal, since this is a federal law.

WHUT.

that's pretty messed up when you think about the older people whom are poor that really depend on that social security check (granted a bounce check fee isn't too huge) but what will this lead next to?

No, no, no, no. Old and busted: separation of church and state. New hotness: separation of bank and state.

Wait, so we pay into Social Secuity, so that the money can be transferred to the elderly-who then get to have it stolen by B of A for userous Overdraft charges?

Joy.

@NightSteel:

The issue is, it _isn't_ federal law. You can't actually seize the benefits (i.e. nothing like wage garnishment), but once they're in an account, they're fair game.

@Daniel Milan: $34 (or whatever it is) could mean a week+ worth of groceries for someone.

Ordinarily I would generally be okay with a company garnishing a source of income to cover a legally incurred debt. Seems pretty straightforward.

BUT...I can't get my head around siding with the banks, given the shenanigans they pull. I think I could support this ruling if there were some Be a F@#king Person guidelines that the banks had to actually follow.

Like not arranging overages in the order that earns them the most fees (rather than chronologically or in any way that benefits the consumer), just because they can.

@youbastid: I'll join that revolution.

Oh, this is a top topic! I worked at a credit union, I've seen how some people have money left over, and others spend it up in the first day(not on essentails), to gradually overdraft their account as the month progresses. I think the CA Supreme Court is in error, but some cases the old folk know what they are doing.

On the flip side of this, what would stop an elderly person from racking up a bunch of overdraft fees and then saying their bank couldn't do anything about it because the only source of income was the social security check?

:(

Bad news.

I think that BA should just drop the account holders instead of depleting their income w/ overdraft charges.

Some day Bank of America will be just a bad memory. I can't see why anyone would want to do business with them. Every time you use one of their services or visit a branch it feels like you are being punished for not being someone a million dollars in an account. So I fixed it with going to a credit union and so far a million times better and I don't have to deal with their asanine practices.

@bloggerX: Wow, judgey mcjudgey. What is a "non essental" to you?

I received a letter from Melanie Linck, AVP/Customer Advocate, Office of the Chairman and CEO, 813-805-4860

This was in response to a complaint I filed through my state AG for BofA charging a $6 convenience fee to cash a $50 check drawn on their own bank.

Clearly Bank of America is insolvent and they have to steal from their customers and community to pay the outrageous whores who run their company. It would appear that they cannot cover their deposits and have to steal to make their executive payroll.

They need to be legally destroyed. They are what's wrong with our economy.

How do you tell which money in an account in SS money? Unless the account's only deposits are Social Security, it would be really difficult to declare which funds were off limits. If I retire with $3400 in my checking account, does that give them reign to 100 overdraft fees before they hit my SS money?

I'm also not sure how this ruling would work. Say I overdraft by $0.01, sending me (with fee) to -35.01. I then get a $200 SS check. If they couldn't take the fee out of that, I would simultaneously have a balance of $200 with a $35 overdraft fee.

while the ruling seems scummy at first, I'm not really sure how the alternative could function.

Something banks will also do to SSI or SSDI recipients [depending on the disability displayed by the account holder at his or her local branch] is backdate transactions to collect fees after the fact.

They count on the fact that many mentally and developmentally disabled customers will either question their own memories, not notice the blatant theft or be too embarrassed to complain.

And yes, I have many examples of this practice as observed through my job.

I'm talking to youUS Bank, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

Come get me, bitches.

@howie_in_az:
Careful. Playing devil's advocate on this site, using logic and looking at the other side, can get you sneered at. (By Nakedscience, for one. See 2 threads above)

Best not try to create an actual discussion of the issue, and just say "BOA SUX" and move on.

@Coles_Law: For many people, it is their only income!

money owed to anyone is debt plain and simple. california isnt that bright anyway, look at the mess they are in.

@armandbrown: I have a checking/savings, 0 balance requirement, on-line banking, and a Visa debit card with B of A. I usually have less then $100 in the account by the end of the month. I've been thru 3 or 4 Bank name changes. I would gladly switch to a bank knowing they arn't going to screw with me at every turn!

@nakedscience: Most reasonable people agree pretty well on what's considered essential and non-essential. Granted, some things might be questioned (certain business expenses, for instance), but most things can be categorized quite easily.

@howie_in_az: Nothing. But also nothing is stopping the bank from closing the elderly person's account either. That's all that needs to be done in that situation.

@armandbrown: I love this viewpoint. Yes, because they are so stingy with their customers, BoA will go out of business. Nevermind the fact that their money dates back to the slave days, and that they're coming out of this meltdown bigger and stronger than before, and that they are the largest bank in the country.

Do people really think that companies that have poor customer service will just go out of business because they don't put the customer first? Learn capitalism 101.

It seems to me that overdraft fees are the fault of the account holder. Granted, banks do work the system to their favor, but the point still remains. If you overdraft your account, you should be required to pay before proceeding. If B of A can't get the money owed them, they should freeze the account. Keeping the bank from taking overdraft fees out of SS money (which to B of A, just looks like money in the account) just seems silly.

For that matter, why is SS money protected from being garnished for debts?

@Alexander Saites: Um, and it wasn't really part of his job, also when you don't have context, it's hard to determine. (Ie, did someone go to Nordstrom to buy business clothes, perhaps?) And I wonder what he considers "essential".

@howie_in_az: ....so, um, close their account? report them to collections?

I'm blown away at the lack of personal responsibility here. For once California got something right.

BoA isn't garnishing wages, they're collecting on debt they are legally owed.

If you're not happy with it, bank somewhere else, or here's a thought, don't freaking overdraft.

People have this mentality that they're entitled to do whatever they want with the bank and it's money, but it's exactly that, the bank's money, and I dont care if it's mom and pop credit union or the evil BoA, overdrafting (using money you dont have) incurs a penalty. Balance your checkbook and deal with it.

@NightSteel: This is a state court case so the only way up is certiorari to the US Supreme Court. I guess someone could bring a new case in federal district court and argue federal law. How about AARP? Or go directly to Congress to prohibit this? Or stop using B of A?

@MedicallyNeedy:
My only income comes from one source too. It's not SS, but it's still my only income.
Hey, BOA, you can't touch my paycheck! it's my only income!

So what's happening here is @Alexander Saites:

I agree with everything you said, most importantly that once the money is in a bank account, it's just money.

To answer your question about why SS money is protected - probably because the intention of social security is to give elderly people enough money to just get by. Allowing it to be garnished would leave people destitute. You might as well throw them in debtors' prison.

@kolacek:

So what you're saying is the tellers make a note of what disabilities their customers have, and then those banks take advantage of those disabilities to steal insignificant amounts of money from their customers?

Isn't this analagous to the fees being charged on cards used for unemployment and other benefits? It just seems like the old banking business of taking deposits and lending money to generate profits is in the buggy whip era, and everything today is nickel and dime fees which add up. Maybe the banks have gotten so screwed up that they've forgotten how to make a profit from lending.

"BoA isn't garnishing wages, they're collecting on debt they are legally owed"

If it's a debt, then the law states that SS monies cannot be seized to pay for it.

You're going to have to use another word to describe it. Debt isn't appropriate.

@Cant_stop_the_rock: You don't understand how these things work... think of debt collectors blatantly violating the law, they don't look for people they can get away with doing it to, they do it to everyone and stop on a case by case basis when they get called out for it.

@youbastid:

I agree. Old people shouldn't have the ability to bank anyway. They should just roll over and die once they stop being useful.

@Megalomania:

Duh. I'm guessing your sarcasm detector was on the fritz.

I'm pretty sure that's what CStR was pointing out. That and mocking kolacek for being a douche.

@H3ion:

No because there is no good reason to overdraft.

@LordofBacon:

Lets just call it superdebt, which is able to leap high hurdles and beat the crap out of stupidity.

Looks like someone is gearing up for next year's Worst Company in America award. It's a good start but Americans have a short memory. You should have done this about 3 months before the contests.

@henwy: ...and have their remains liquefied to feed the young. They're more useful in death than in life!

@bloggerX: Just shows credit unions are stupid as banks.

Really now how many times does this go on before they decide to remove the overdraft option. Their shooting themselves in the foot with their own fees and policys and won't even stop when federal law make it un recoverable.

Let them eat it.

@LordofBacon: Whoa, whoa, wait, hold on. You read the article? Umm, that's just not the done thing, 'round these parts my friend. We only allow baseless assumptions made out of ignorance!

@henwy:

I like "Yoink, we gotcha money whatchu gonna do about it".

Of course, superdebt is shorter...

@H3ion: It's not quite that bad-you can't avoid the unemployment card fees at all, but you can avoid this by not overdrafting.

@henwy: Tell that to some 80 year old who has moderate dementia but generally is still functional. Mistakes happen. Letting the bank get its money back for an overdraft is one thing. Tapping Social Security funds for fees that far exceed the bank's cost is something quite different.

@Alexander Saites: There are certain categories of funds that can't be tapped for debt. That's why OJ Simpson's pensions couldn't be use to satisfy his wrongful death judgment. You can agree or disagree as to whether that's right, but that's the law.

@kraftmayo: I'd like to see you take this stance when one of your parents gets alzheimers, or simply becomes forgetful.