Wachovia Bank N. A. Wachovia New, More Customer-Hostile, NSF Practice: Combining Debits & Bouncing Them As A Set (Multiple), Nationwide

I've chceked further into the issue of combining transactions into a lump sum, and it's legal only because it has not yet been made illegal.

Perhaps a class action lawsuit would be in order, as while this practice may not violate the letter of the law it certainly violates its spirit, by creating a condition whereby someone through no fault of their own (e.g., a deposit gets held up unexpectedly) could end up badly upside-down in their bank balance while at the same time the bank gets NSFs to which it should not be entitled under normal individual-transaction-based rules of accounting.

I just read what you suggested and it is appalling..but not much of a surprise. Now I normally do not like to get into political debate because it often proves futile..but I have to lay blame on both parties..which may be easier for me being a registered independent..and consider myself for the most part a libertarian.

I have to throw some blame on the Governator as well..I mean you would think a tree hugging hippy state like this elects a republican..and he allows us to tax and spend ourselves into a bottomless pit of debt...well I can assume everyone involved is partly responsible. I have coined a phrase for this state..which is "the gub'ment babysit us state"..I think that should be on our license plates..and on the welcome to the state signs on the highways...

..if things don't turn around..I think the predictions that Cali is going to fall into the ocean one day..may actually be the only solution.

As far as California's problems go, you might be interested in a news article that was published today. As you know, hyperlinks tend to be redacted from postings on this site. At the risk of sounding like Karl, paste the following paragraph into Google to find the entire article:

Regulations on small businesses in California have cost the state's economy $492 billion and 3.8 million jobs, according to a report quietly released by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office this week.

I won't even rebut or respond..all of you make excellent points..and done so quite eloquently.

But I did want to comment about California laws..as I have only been here a year..and am dumbfounded by the stupidity. Are there really people sitting around getting paid with tax dollars to make ridiculous laws that bear no logic at all?

For example..you can not mount a GPS device to the center of your windshield with the supplied suction cup bracket....but you can place the device on the center of the dash using a dash mount..which literally places the viewing screen and unit itself..in the EXACT location it would be if the suction cup was used. So some lawmaker has an issue with suction?

Another thing I notice here..nothing broken ever gets fixed..it just has a sign put on it..and apparently that is an acceptable solution. For example..everywhere you look you will see warning signs and labels that this that and the other thing causes cancer..so fine..they do this for liability..even though I don't know of any other states that do.

But the clincher was when I moved into the first apt here..there was a big sign right in front of the building stating something like this "this building contains materials that are known to cause cancer". So me being from NYC and kind of pragmatic..said to myself "well why instead of putting up a sign..were they not required to remove said cancerous materials"

Edward,

You're right. Laws are notoriously slow to respond to changes in society. Your example of the proliferation of cell phones brings issues that weren't common twenty years ago such as phones in schools and talking or texting while driving.

On the other hand, you have governments who are over zealous with their passing of laws. In my city, it is illegal to detonate a nuclear device within city limits. If you do, you will be punished with a $500 fine and possibly six months in jail. I believe there is a law in another California city which says that cars without drivers may not exceed 60 MPH.

As slow as it is, I'd rather live under the current system than one where lawmakers try to foresee every possible contingency and make a law for it.

I should have chosen my words more carefully. You're also right that if there are no laws on the books preventing something, then by default that means it's legal. But think about that for a moment Edgeman. Somethings are just naturally understood to be wrong by most 'logical' people. Is it really necessary to enact a law for every possible action, even when it seems like common sense not to do it? For example, a laptop is easier to carry around than your desktop computer. But there is currently no law on the books that I'm aware of that says you can't pack up your home desktop computer and accessories and take it with you to the library or anywhere else you go. The reason is, who in their right mind would do this?

But if a large section of the population decided they wanted to start doing this, imagine how much of a nuisance and distraction this would be for others. Of course, the library might act first and create their own policy barring desktop computers from being brought in for use. But then you might have a knuckle head to challenge the library in court, saying there's no law against it, so that means it's legal. Lawmakers would be compelled to enact such a law. Classic example: A new state law just enacted here in Texas, banning the use of Cell Phones in school zones. No need for this law in the past.....like when Cell Phones didn't even exist. Since Cell Phones have been invented, using them in school zones has been legal, until a new law was passed against it.

In my previous post, what I meant to say is, even though the Title of Jim's post is true for now, the second part of that title and first sentence of his post is misleading. Because the courts have not ruled for it, nor have they ruled against it. They haven't ruled at all.

Edward wrote:

"There has not been a court case to challenge the Unavailable Funds Fee because it's relatively new, as Jim indicated. Therefore, it's sort of misleading to say it's legal. Technically that's true but that's only because it hasn't been challenged in court yet."

Edward, I don't disagree with the spirit of your post but I'll challenge you on your interpretation. I submit that it is not misleading to say that it's legal. While you're correct to note that the UF fee has not been challenged in court yet, it is quite legal until a law is passed saying otherwise. There is no pending legal status on this fee. It's either legal or it isn't and there is no law that says this fee is illegal.

For what it's worth, I happen to think that you're one of the more articulate opponents of the bank and much more likable than some of your more vitriolic colleagues. We just disagree on syntax and in legal matters, a single word, letter or punctuation mark can what is or isn't illegal.

While it is true that in the past, the courts have usually sided with the banks, all of the past cases have been for different issues, like Re-Sequencing (posting order) or other unrelated issue. There has not been a court case to challenge the Unavailable Funds Fee because it's relatively new, as Jim indicated. Therefore, it's sort of misleading to say it's legal. Technically that's true but that's only because it hasn't been challenged in court yet. Not once. And here's why it's my opinion it will be deemed to be illegal whenever it is challenged.

If a customer swipes his card at Walmart on the 12th. This means the funds for the Walmart transaction are held before any future transactions made on the 13th and the 14th. If the Available balance is still positive after the Walmart transaction, this means the Walmart transaction did not overdraw the Available Balance, and the funds for that transaction are safely on hold, waiting for Walmart to submit it for payment.

If Walmart submits the payment the next day, or anytime within the 2-3 day window while the funds are still on hold, this means those funds were always available to cover and post this transaction. That's why they were held! But Wachovia claims there were not enough funds (Unvavailable Funds) to cover the Walmart transaction, because those funds were on hold for the transactions made after it on the 13th and 14th.

How in the world can this ripoff be legal? Well, stay tuned........

and the courts have ruled for the banks, so a lawyer isn't going to help you.

What you're dealing with is getting hit with an unavailable funds fee and an NSF fee; a process invented by Wachovia and a process tha is being spread to other banks as well.  You see, most banks now base overdrafts on what's available in your account and not the account balance which means that you can incur an overdraft and still have a positive account balance in your account.  They also process transactions highest to lowest and debits before credits - again all of it is legal and in accordance with the account agreement you have with the bank.

Online statements also do not serve as evidence of anything; the only evidence you will be able to use is a finalized account statement for your account at your cut-off.  Screen captures therefore are a waste.  Even if they lump transactions online, the final bank statement will have the lumped amount broken out.

Finally, online information is not accurate.  It does not take into consideration the checks floating out there waiting to be cashed.  Keeping an accurate register is the most important tool you have at your disposal.  Not using your debit card for anything except an ATM withdrawl is the best weapon you have against OD fees.

This is a money mismanagement issue....not something a lawyer can help with.