Man Sues Bank Of America For $1.78 Trillion Billion Dollars
Dalton Chiscolm has sued Bank of America and its board, and wants "1,784 billion, trillion dollars" in return for being subjected to what the judge describes as "inconsistent information from a 'Spanish womn' [sic]" as well as allegedly misrouted checks. In addition, Chiscolm wants another $200,164,000 in damages. We're not sure why that amount is separate, but who knows how a mind like Chiscolm's works?
Reuters notes that the amount he's seeking is larger than the world's 2008 gross domestic product, which is only $60 trillion, which might be partly why the judge has given Chiscolm until October 23 to explain his claims.
"Man sues BofA for '1,784 billion, trillion dollars'" [Reuters] (Thanks to Trung!)
(Photo: TheTruthAbout...)
Post a comment
Comments:
The first time he tried to sue, it was for only 1 million dollars, but everyone snickered.
This is insane.
His character witlesses, I mean witnesses, would probably be Madoff and the pants judge.
Is he on something?
@Saboth: Was it on Consumerist that someone said, "This amount of money can only be quantified in magnitudes approaching 'Dr. Evil.'"?
I'm not sure if this guy is being greedy or just plain stupid.
Maybe both.
Okay, it took me some time to figure this out, so I'll post it here for other people like me.
In normal English, he's asking for $1,784,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or $1.784 septillion, or $1.784 x 10^24.
Well, sort of normal English.
Think big!
@TCama: And according to another famous crazy lawsuit, that comes out to roughly 35,680,000,000,000,000 pairs of pants.
Or maybe it's ingeniously ironic performance art...
After all, try getting BofA to explain how they arrive at their schedule of fees and see what you end up with.
You'll either get nothing at all, or a baffling and roundabout explanation that amounts to "Just because I can."
Which is exactly what Dalton Chisolm will give the court.
I'd love to be his lawyer, paid via contingency fee of course. Even if he settles for 1% of his demand, or $1,784,000,000,000,000,000 the lawyer gets 1/3, or $594,000,000,000,000,000.
If he sues for that much because of crappy customer service and some routing number issues, how much is he going to ask for when his cable or internet goes out and he has to deal with that 'amazing' customer service experience? Don't think I'd ever want to do business with this guy.
Then again, this is BoA. I'm not sure who I should be rooting for. As far as I know Chisclom never converted my no min/no fee checking account into the ultra-super-premium highest fee checking account without my authorization.
You can sue like that without consequences? Count me in.
I'd ask for more if I had to deal with BoA on a constant basis.
@milkcake: "for infringing on my idea to sue people at random, i hereby request damages in the amount of $11,235,813,213,455.89
With a facility for numbers like that, any one want to take my counter-bet that his check register is unbalanced?
Anyone...? ANYone?
Why can't we put a cap on the awards for these kinds of frivolous lawsuits? Does this kind of stuff happen in other countries?
Monetary values don't mean a thing to grubby banks and greedy lawyers.
What is actually needed is a lawsuit that forces a policy change within the company.
You could sue for $1, legal and court fees, and force the bank to admit they are guilty of a crime that, by the book, they are guilty of, but no DA or AG would try them on, due to the fact it would cost the taxpayers millions to try them in court.
This could have a ripple effect through the other institutions, giving them a clear warning that if they maintain their current course of fee-based profiteering they are going to be in hot water as well.
@SpruceStreetPhil: It's probably not even going to be heard, in fact. The judge is giving him a chance to clarify the filing, but if he doesn't, it won't go forward.
Yes, this guy is crazy, but I would really like to meet the lawyer who filed this nonsense.
@Nighthawke: I'm not sure what you're proposing, but it sounds like you're suggesting they'd settle--and settlement doesn't create a precedent. So no ripple effect.
@floraposte: I don't think he's suggesting they settle. I'd think that if a bank was sued in order to make it admit to a crime, it would fight that pretty hard. It would almost require a jury verdict to get it to do so.
@reservoir_dog: But think of the contingency fee involved. One-third, less taxes, could still be tremendous
@reservoir_dog: You don't have to be a lawyer to file a lawsuit. For example, I filed (and handled) my own divorce from start to finish...and it was even contested (she wanted to stay married to me...insanity!). :-)
I admittedly did use spell check on documents before I printed any documents to be filed. I didn't want to waste paper, let alone anyone's time.
@Esquire99:
You have to take a third of his crazy, though, so you have to factor that in....
I'm surprised this is getting so much attention--we have a guy who regularly sues God. Crazy filings are really pretty common.
Just because you type in a crazy number, it doesn't actually *mean* anything or have any real consequences--other than alerting the world that you're a nut.
@admiral_stabbin: Don't bother people with facts sir. This site is for non facts only and useless rants.
@admiral_stabbin: Ah, thanks for the clarification. I guess I was assuming he did have some sort of counsel but that isn't stated anywhere. I would hope that nobody else would make themselves party to something like this.
Raising the Question:
Is taking whatever actions are necessary to come out ahead an acceptable way of dealing with your existing contractual obligations?
I'd like to counter-aggue this point as "it's what the banks do", but it isn't, actually; all they do is work according TO existing contracts.
Hmm . . .
Jeff Yablon
President & CEO
Answer Guy and Virtual VIP Computer Care, Business Coaching...
Why not just put down Eleventy Billion Dollars for you wager?
Aren't there cases out there involving hapless victims pouring various hot liquids onto themselves that this court should be hearing instead?
@RecordStoreToughGuy_OwesNigeriaAnApology: *ding*ding*ding*ding*ding*ding!* Toughguy got it right. And a jury trial would set precedents.
Wow just 60 trillion? I thought it might be at least a 100.