Comments on: WTF? Update

By: MBrown

MBrown — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:17:33 +0000

Any updates? I would like to think you got something straightened out with your bank.

By: public servant

public servant — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:21:17 +0000

Well, That changes everything buddy. I want my money back please, preferably in unmarked $20 bills.

Thank you very much,
uncle sam

By: Brandon

Brandon — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:34:17 +0000

Well, he is going on the radio tomorrow.

By: Kevin Carson

Kevin Carson — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:20:07 +0000

Seems to me they’d be pretty leery of bad publicity about a thing like this–especially cleaning out your mother’s bank account. Maybe they’d be more responsive to you if they heard from some reporter doing the human interest angle.

By: Aster

Aster — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:07:46 +0000

I’m not sure what ‘legality’ means in post-Bush America.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:45:37 +0000

Well, I know they’re legally required to answer that kind of info; so if they don’t I’ll certainly law-ify them.

By: Anon73

Anon73 — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:00:59 +0000

It sounds like if you don’t take legal action they would just ignore any requests you make of them.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:00:14 +0000

I’ve asked them to send me the precise details on dates and amounts.

By: Bob Kaercher

Bob Kaercher — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:40:51 +0000

North Carolina and New York both also have legal limitations on debt collection on revolving accounts that are well under 20 years.

Roderick, someone is jerking you around here!

By: Roderick

Roderick — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:35:19 +0000

I think I may have figured out why it was listed as a tax levy, or at any rate why both I and my bank misread it as being so listed.

It was a scope error.

The document I was given yesterday listed it as “TAX LEVY/GARNISHMENT.” Both I and the bank interpreted “TAX” as the general category applying equally to both disjuncts “LEVY” and “GARNISHMENT.” But I now see that the “TAX” must have been intended as part of the first disjunct. In short, I read it as:

TAX LEVY/GARNISHMENT

when I should have read it as

TAXLEVY / GARNISHMENT

(Of course it didn’t help that when they read from the document to me before showing it to me, they just read the words “tax levy” and didn’t mention “garnishment” at all.)