Fifth Third Bank, 5/3 biggest rip off in the banking industry Cincinnati Ohio

I just want to say that all allogations against 5/3 Bank are absolutely true. I worked for the bank in 2003 for a few months, but their policies made me sick so I left. It is not only your average joe that gets ripped off. I worked in their merchant support dept (madisonville, oh). This is the processing service that stores, restaurants etc. use to process credit card and debit card transactions. The sales people tell the merchant one thing and of course they find out differently down the road.

Everything from outrageous fees to not following through on froud reports. Bottom line, they are a business and they act as such. They are in the business to make every penny that they can from whoever they can. In most cases the CSRs are not at fault here. I can only recall one occasion out of dozens where my manager actually approved a refund on an incorrect charge.

Between you me and the lamppost, I probably cost the bank money where they normally would have profited from mistakes by slipping credits through the cracks a little bit at a time. These credits were justified, but for whatever reason management would not approve them.

I'm trying to understand one salient point.

How is this the bank's fault? As near as I can tell from your story:

1. The bank was unaware of your bankruptcy (heck, neither was their attorney!)
2. The bank refunded you the first set of fees (though I think they're wrong in not returning the other $80).
3. The party who took your money is going to refund you.

However, I would pursue them for the additional $80 because the garnishment order was false. Once you receive the check back from the other party, I would show them a copy of the check you received and ask the other party for a letter apologizing for the error in removing the funds from the account. I would also consider having the other party pay you for the $80 additional taken from your account based on their error if the bank will not.

I think you have a good chance of being made whole from an error the other party (not the bank) made. The bank is right in one respect - the other party presented documentation from the court entitling someone to your money and by law, they have to comply with the order from the court - even of that ruling was faulty. It would be up to you to present evidence to the contrary. You did that and the bank refunded you the first set of fees.

You may also have a case against the other party because I would believe their attorney should reasonably have known you declared BK (I'll assume for the moment BK7) at the time the case was presented to the court. You might want to check with your attorney in this regard because there might be monetary damages due to you - at the very least, the $80 lost. That small amount would be pocket change for the attorney who screwed up and if he could pay $80 to avoid any litigation that might harm his ability to practice law, $80 he will pay.

Best of luck to you.

I'm trying to understand one salient point.

How is this the bank's fault? As near as I can tell from your story:

1. The bank was unaware of your bankruptcy (heck, neither was their attorney!)
2. The bank refunded you the first set of fees (though I think they're wrong in not returning the other $80).
3. The party who took your money is going to refund you.

However, I would pursue them for the additional $80 because the garnishment order was false. Once you receive the check back from the other party, I would show them a copy of the check you received and ask the other party for a letter apologizing for the error in removing the funds from the account. I would also consider having the other party pay you for the $80 additional taken from your account based on their error if the bank will not.

I think you have a good chance of being made whole from an error the other party (not the bank) made. The bank is right in one respect - the other party presented documentation from the court entitling someone to your money and by law, they have to comply with the order from the court - even of that ruling was faulty. It would be up to you to present evidence to the contrary. You did that and the bank refunded you the first set of fees.

You may also have a case against the other party because I would believe their attorney should reasonably have known you declared BK (I'll assume for the moment BK7) at the time the case was presented to the court. You might want to check with your attorney in this regard because there might be monetary damages due to you - at the very least, the $80 lost. That small amount would be pocket change for the attorney who screwed up and if he could pay $80 to avoid any litigation that might harm his ability to practice law, $80 he will pay.

Best of luck to you.

I'm trying to understand one salient point.

How is this the bank's fault? As near as I can tell from your story:

1. The bank was unaware of your bankruptcy (heck, neither was their attorney!)
2. The bank refunded you the first set of fees (though I think they're wrong in not returning the other $80).
3. The party who took your money is going to refund you.

However, I would pursue them for the additional $80 because the garnishment order was false. Once you receive the check back from the other party, I would show them a copy of the check you received and ask the other party for a letter apologizing for the error in removing the funds from the account. I would also consider having the other party pay you for the $80 additional taken from your account based on their error if the bank will not.

I think you have a good chance of being made whole from an error the other party (not the bank) made. The bank is right in one respect - the other party presented documentation from the court entitling someone to your money and by law, they have to comply with the order from the court - even of that ruling was faulty. It would be up to you to present evidence to the contrary. You did that and the bank refunded you the first set of fees.

You may also have a case against the other party because I would believe their attorney should reasonably have known you declared BK (I'll assume for the moment BK7) at the time the case was presented to the court. You might want to check with your attorney in this regard because there might be monetary damages due to you - at the very least, the $80 lost. That small amount would be pocket change for the attorney who screwed up and if he could pay $80 to avoid any litigation that might harm his ability to practice law, $80 he will pay.

Best of luck to you.