It's not clear to me that it's the bank's fault. The court must've done some kind of discovery to send the bank a garnish order. So was the bank lazy and just took money from a similar named account without checking the details?
Or did the court identify the wrong defendant and issue a garnish order for the wrong person?
If the details of the story are true, there is no way for the bank to be completely innocent here and it doesn't matter whether the police or court messed up. Upon receiving a legal order for some customer, the bank should at least make sure the name, SSN, and mailing address match before zeroing out the account.
I wouldn't be surprised if they are specifically barred from doing this to avoid having defendants liquidate their assets right before the confiscate order comes through.
Which is no different than just taking the money. You can't get a loan against a frozen account, you can't use a frozen account to buy groceries or pay your mortgage, and you can't get an extension on your credit cards because your account is frozen.
Swap out "took my money" with "froze my account" in the article and 90% of the comments here would be identical.
One is an administrative hold that can be lifted by the bank. The other is an inter-bank transfer process that maybe has to go through the courts. The reason the person in this article has had such a hard time is that he has to convince more than just his bank that they screwed up because they don't have his money any more.
You're right actually. The post doesn't mention whether it was the bank or the sheriffs office that goofed on the name. He also mentions something about his credit union being more competent. That suggests it may have been the sheriff's office that mixed up the names if two separate banks had garnish orders.
It seems clear that its not a mistake of one party or the other, clearly its a mistake on both parts. The Sheriff should have checked better and the bank should have double checked.
