Bank of America cheating 80-year-old woman out of her money
by sequence

When I first saw headlines about this case, I was sure there must be a whole lot to the story and that the bank would have laws and documentation on their side. Wrong!

The story of the fraud is recounted by Greg Miller, the son of Bette Miller, the woman being fleeced. He wrote the narrative for Consumerist.com, the site giving this story a lot of publicity.

Here is a summary of the main facts:

  • Bette Miller bought a $5,000 bond from Rainier Bank in April 1984. The face of the bond stated that it automaticaly reinvested every two years. It also stated that in order to cash it, you had to present the actual bond. The bond certificate was put in a safe deposit box and left there.
  • Rainier Banik was sold to Seattle Pacific Bank, which was acquired by SeaFirst Bank, which was bought by Bank of America.
  • Bette's husband died about 12 years ago. Up until that point, he handled most of the financial matters for them. The bond in question was in a safe deposit box at that time. Bette didn't need money at that time, so she didn't even look in the safe deposit box to see what was there.
  • In April 2005, Bette had a silent heart attack and was eventually moved to an assisted living facility. Her children started going through her finances and went to cash in the bond, at Bette's request.
  • Greg tried to cash the bond at the Bank of America branch in Monroe, Washington. After "researching" it for a couple of weeks, the bank said they would not cash it. Further inquiries by Greg resulted in the bank asing for Form 1099s to prove that the Millers owned the bond. Greg asked what 1099s were, and the bank said they were tax forms that the bank is responsible for producing. And Greg is supposed to give 1099s to them???
  • Bank of America then told them that they had no record of the bond, and didn't keep records older than 7 years. Since they had no record of the bond, Bette couldn't receive her money. She can't get her money because they lost their records???
  • Bank of America carried on with this line of reasoning. The bond itself wasn't enough to prove their claim. Remember above, where Greg said the face of the bond said that the bond itself was required in order to cash it. It apparently doesn't say anything else about any other "proof" required to get the bondholder's money.
  • This is where Greg makes a great illustration. The bank is essentially saying "we lost our records so YOU have to bring additional proof of your claim." Imagine if you bought a car from me and we had a contract. You throw away your copies of the contract, and when I come to collect my money, you tell me that my copy of the contract isn't enough proof and you're not paying! How far would you get with that argument?
  • Greg also points out that some of Bank of America's advertising uses the tagline, "The bank with a higher standard." Ironic?
  • At present, the bond is worth about $30,000, and the Miller family has had to hire attorneys at their own expense to fight Bank of America. The family wants the bond paid, and wants their legal fees paid because they shouldn't have had to hire attorneys to get back what was rightfully owed to them and for which they had proper documentation, as evidenced by the face of the bond itself.

    • How sad that this woman and her family did nothing wrong - they had the right documentation and they presented it as they should, yet the bank is refusing to pay them.

    Submitted by sequence (view blog) on Wed, 10/03/2007 - 17:22
    BlogHer

    © Copyright 2008 BlogHer | Terms of Service