53 Bank, FIFTH THIRD BANK, fifth third bank, 5/3 bank, 53.com, Transaction Sorting Order Designed to create and Maximize fees. , Indianapolis Indiana

I understand you are upset about the fact you were charged all those overdraft fees when realistically you only overdrafted on a single transaction.

I also see that you understand your account went negative and take responsibility. Hopefully you won't let that happen again now that you realize the banks practice of manipulating and re sequencing transactions.

I am not allowed to give out websites or phone numbers here it seems but if you google "Finkelstein Thompson LLP" you can find out how to contact them to help with an "investigation" if you have been a victim of this "re-sequencing" which directly caused the ADDITIONAL fees on top of the actual legitimate overdraft(s). Well instead of "victim" it should be "Plaintiff".

Not unlike so many other rip off reports on the banks doing this..almost every one thinks this should be illegal. Whether it is or isn't..we all agree it should be so we can either sit on our laurels and do nothing..or fight a little for it.

It is alleged that some banks, are in violation of 12 U.S.C. 4303(b)(1) for their failure to disclose that the condition precedent of a pre-existing overdraft could cause the assessment of additional overdraft fees.  Instead, the banks have been lying to consumers that the condition precedent was insufficient funds.

[The true reason why you were assessed the additional overdraft fees that you did NOT cause is because you actually had a pre-existing overdraft in your account that the bank used to manipulate your account to create additional overdraft fees by a creative accounting practice].

[The bank then falsely accused you of being at fault for the additional overdrafts you didn’t cause by lying to you about having insufficient funds in your account.  In fact, without the pre-existing overdraft(s) in your account (condition precedent), it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for the bank’s creative accounting practice to have assessed additional overdraft fees against you that you did not create].

[That is why the bank engages in tactics to make you overdraft your account. For example, the bank will not immediately post your correct available balance or the bank will drop a hold on your account to only apply it later to make you believe you have more available funds in your account then you do. The bank will also split two pre-existing overdrafts created on the same date so it can create additional overdraft fees on two different posting dates instead of one].

While the author of this report is understandably upset that he or she has racked up a series of overdraft fees that are the equivalent of a couple of my car payments, the anger is misplaced. The author even admits to overdrafting the account, despite efforts at bookkeeping.

On top of that, the author takes swipes at people who point out how people are overdrafting their accounts. He or she suggests that we are bank employees, a tired fallacy that was debunked ages ago. While there are some bank employees here that freely disclosed that they worked for the bank, there are just as many of us who do not work for any bank. Personally, I do not work for any bank, have never worked for a bank and do not see any chance of working for a bank in the future.

Yet so many people cling to this logical fallacy. It is obvious that they cannot argue against the tips for avoiding overdraft fees but they stubbornly stick with the "bank employee" fallacy. Why? Is it perhaps because they do not want to admit they are wrong?

The author is so invested in this notion that he or she even makes things up. Consider this line:

"I have read some other businesses complaining about this and have read the responses from the fat pocket bankers sitting laughing about how they make money off of us"

If anyone truly reads what we write, they will see that we are telling people how to AVOID paying unneeded fees to the bank. We believe that people shouldn't be wasting their money by giving it to the bank through fees that could have been easily avoided. Do these people truly believe that the banks pay us to tell people how to avoid overdraft fees?

Setting that aside, let's look at the crux of this person's complaint. The author made around twenty debits and then made one more debit that overdrafted the account. The author admits to being at fault here.

Placing the $1,200 debit first, the prior debits all overdrafted which is indeed unfortunate, though avoidable. The author didn't even have enough in the account to cover that final debit for $1,200 and if he or she had simply looked at their check register, he or she would have known that BEFORE authorizing the debit.

Nobody is saying that twenty overdraft fees is a good thing and if the author hasn't done so already, I suggest talking to the bank and see if they can refund some of those fees. If the author is a good client who does not show a history of overdrafting, the bank may refund some fees.

Which brings us to the topic of posting order. This has been discussed many, many times on this site and the following statements cannot be refuted:

1. If one stays within their account balance, their balance will never reach a negative balance regardless of the posting order of transactions. For example, if you have $500 in available funds and $490 in various debits, you can rearrange those debits in any order and the balance will be the same.

2. According to the most recent FDIC study, the vast majority of people do not overdraft their checking accounts despite being subject to the same processing order as those who do pay overdraft fees.

It's really that simple. Only spend what is available in your account. If you don't know what your account balance is, do not make any debits until you look it up in your ledger or check register (Online banking doesn't count).

Lastly, I will respond to some of the OP's comments:

"but I knew when I made all those 20 transactions that I had funds in my account because I do my bookkeeping just like everyone else in order of when the charge was made in my ledger book."

Response: In that case, consulting your ledger would have revealed that you didn't have the money to cover your debits.

"WHO SORTS THEIR DAILY TRANSACTIONS BY LARGEST TO SMALLEST? "

Virtually every major bank and credit union that I am familiar with.

"53 Bank PROCESSES THE TRANSACTIONS NOT IN ORDER OF WHEN RECEIVED LIKE THEY SHOULD DO BUT IN ORDER OF LARGEST TO SMALLEST."

Response: Does your account agreement with Fifth Third say that the bank will process transactions in the order that they are received? I'd wager that the answer is no. In fact, I'll bet $50 that your agreement says that the bank can either process from largest amount to smallest OR it says that the bank can process transactions in any order (or some similar language).

You see, it doesn't matter what you think the bank should do. It doesn't matter what I think the bank should do. What does matter is whatever you and the bank agreed to and I'd be willing to bet another $50 that the bank is in the clear.

"IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO DO THIS AND HOPEFULLY SOMEONE WILL WAKE UP AND PUT A STOP TO THIS RIP-OFF!"

Response: Why? The majority of account holders do not overdraft their account so this is not a particularly widespread problem. In order for this to be illegal, you'd have to find some legislators that care and frankly, the banks bought the important ones long ago.

allow me to try to explain where some of "us" differ in opinion and ideas over some of "you".

"Yet so many people cling to this logical fallacy. It is obvious that they cannot argue against the tips for avoiding overdraft fees but they stubbornly stick with the "bank employee" fallacy. Why? Is it perhaps because they do not want to admit they are wrong?"

"They" are wrong about what???  No one in any of the reports I read has come here to argue about..or ask financial advice. They all have admitted they over drafted. It is an assumption, correct, that replies are posted here from bank employees as the bank employees generally use the same defense..or blame the consumer. "They" have never argued about tips to avoid overdraft fees..and never came on here to dispute a legitimate overdraft fee. "They" feel they were ripped off by the ADDITIONAL fees for transactions that had the funds available at the TIME of the transaction..and that the banks practice of manipulating and re sequencing transactions have caused the additional over draft fees..when it was actually only a SINGLE transaction that was an over draft.

So any "rebut", be it from a bank employee, a bank defender, a neutral observer..or someone who just likes to kick someone when they are down..at the very least stick to the topic of the rip off report.

Example...if someone had a report stating "I don't know what happened..I only had 300 dollars in my account and I spent 400 dollars..why did the bank charge me a fee?" In that case most of the bank defenders points would be taken seriously.

Example 2..."I over drafted by 23 dollars but the bank charged me 345 dollars in fees for overdrafts on transactions that had the funds available at the time of transaction"  That is not someone asking for advice on how to prevent overdraft fees. How to prevent overdraft fees is a given. This report is SPECIFICALLY lodging a rip off that but for the banks practice of manipulating and re sequencing transactions.. should have only incurred a single overdraft fee. So..the fact that over drafting causes a fee(s) is a given..no need to explain that here...the fact that IF the consumer did not overdraft..there would have been no fee(s)..that is a given..no need to explain it here..but..the fact that the banks practice of manipulating and re sequencing transactions which directly causes the avalanche of fees from transactions that DID have the funds at the TIME of transaction...THIS is what needs explaining..nothing more..nothing less.

"According to the most recent FDIC study, the vast majority of people do not overdraft their checking accounts despite being subject to the same processing order as those who do pay overdraft fees".

WTF does this have to do with it????? It doesn't matter if this only happened to one person..or 50,000,000. Every person is their own universe. And every person has different circumstances. And anyone with an ounce of logic knows over drafting will happen for many reasons. But when someones account is wiped out..and they needed that money for something and the bank took it...it is a bad thing. Legal or not..this does happen and it should be stopped. It is a horrible policy and it happens enough (how many BILLIONS did the banks make in OD fees) that it IS a concern. This should happen to no one. If the overdraft then fine..charge the fee as per is allow 25/35 whatever..but to stack up this highest to lowest nonsense serves no "courtesy" to the average consumer..it only financially hurts us. AND..the bank is a business..it WANTS to take our money..it is NOT in the banks best interests the we keep our money..they want it..they want as much as they can fleece..and it is the very greed that is taking them down..and will continue to do so.

"IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO DO THIS AND HOPEFULLY SOMEONE WILL WAKE UP AND PUT A STOP TO THIS RIP-OFF!"

"Response: Why? The majority of account holders do not overdraft their account so this is not a particularly widespread problem. In order for this to be illegal, you'd have to find some legislators that care and frankly, the banks bought the important ones long ago".

Like I stated earlier..it does not matter if only one person had this happen..or 50 million..it should be illegal. I agree the banks bought out legislators..but this does not mean we give up..there would have been no America with that kind of attitude..and if we are going to take this country back, and get it to where we all have an equal chance to prosper..this more then ever is the time to stand up and make changes. If it means having 100 class action suits in a row against EVERY bank that does this..that to me is as good as any place to start. The banks and other corporations that are failing should be allowed to fail. Tarp is a joke. Natural selection or survival of the fittest..no more hand outs and no more rip offs..then the USA will start to turn around again.