Awarded $1Mil Because Bank "Harassed" Them for Payment

[Ben]

While I'm firmly in the "I hate solicitation calls" camp, this doesn't seem to fall into that category and I'm a bit perplexed at the judge's ruling (let alone the amount!). It seems to me, if I default on a loan payment, I've somewhat given up on my rights not to be harassed by the loan holder. If someone shines me on regarding a loan I gave them, I'm gonna call them up to remind them. If that doesn't work I'm going to start visiting them. If that doesn't work, I might show up at the restaurant where they're eating and loudly ask for my dough.

While there are aggressive collection agencies out there, and it appears B of A didn't show up to court, so they should have expected some hit, I'm not seeing how this was overdone to the point of a $1mil settlement. The kicker line is from the couple's attorney, who says that they are only going to ask B of A once for the money they're owed. Maybe the couple should have responded as quickly regarding the money they owed the bank.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/13/couple-awarded-1-million-from-unrelenting-bank-america/?intcmp=latestnews

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

They do robo call you to death . You can make a payment plan and they will keep calling. And once you tell em to go away they gotta knock,it off.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ron]

another story with no good guys

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Yea it's hard for me to root for boa. Or pnc for that matter. My current bank is good


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ben]

They do robi all you to death . You can make a payment plan and they will keep calling. And once you tell em to go away they gotta knock,it off.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't disagree, and if the couple had in fact started paying and the calls continued, I could see a monetary judgement (still not $1mil though). That didn't seem to be the case here, so it seems a more appropriate response would have been, "Hey bank, knock it off! Hey couple, pay what you owe (or at least some of it)!"

[lupinus]

I agree you loose a good portion of your leave me the fluff alone rights when you default or miss payments.

However, there's a line and plenty of collections folks cross it.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I wonder if they ever succeeded with the loan mod.
I wish I coulda taped the calls I got. They were it seemed to be harassing . If you consider answering the same questions everyday and sometimes more than once each day.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[lupinus]

I'd say it crossed a line when collections dude berated my mother for prioritizing food and her medications over paying the collections folks.

I don't think he got the connection when it was not so kindly explained her being alive kind of helped their chances of ever being paid.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

And continuing to call up to the day you sign a loan mod that is being arranged through the bank that's calling is a pain. I just blocked em and told em I was gonna


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[never_retreat]

Some fine print might be missing. If the people be in bankruptcy or in court negotiations the calls legally have to stop.

[MechAg94]

I was wondering if they ever actually answered the phone on the calls.  I have had some robo-call stuff call me daily but as soon as I answered and told them I didn't want any, they stopped.  Sounds like the settings for the system to call again are a bit too often. 

Does anyone think BofA will end up paying this?  I wonder why they didn't show up?

No love lost for BofA here either.

[K Frame]

A lot of information missing in that story.

[MillCreek]

Noting that it was a default judgment because BoA did not appear, default judgments can be overturned upon appeal.

[RoadKingLarry]

I'm guessing some info is missing from the story. I'd almost bet on some violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act on the part of BoA.

[Firethorn]

I'm guessing some info is missing from the story. I'd almost bet on some violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act on the part of BoA.

Or at least alleged, which was taken as truth because without BoA appearing to defend itself the judge cold only go on the couple's evidence\testimony.

In any case, it's not that they aren't a valid target for phone calls and such asking for payment, it's that there are indeed legal limitations in the law as to the extent.  If BoA ignored them, they could submit a phone lot listing all the collection calls after they asked for them to stop, or started some process where the calls were supposed to stop, and at something like $2k* per, 500 calls later you're at $1M in legally mandated liability.

*State penalties for violating the DNC list range from $500 to $25k.  I'm using it as a yardstick for the penalty per illegal call against BoA.

[230RN]

You suppose they could turn over the $1 mil debt from BoA to a collection agency?

<nyuck-nyuck-nyuck>

[Firethorn]

You suppose they could turn over the $1 mil debt from BoA to a collection agency?

<nyuck-nyuck-nyuck>

Nah, hire the sheriff and a moving company to repossess $1M worth of property from them. 

It's happened before.

[230RN]

^ Yeah, but then they won't get the unending collection harassment.

You know, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, call for call.

Justice. 

[KD5NRH]

I'm guessing some info is missing from the story. I'd almost bet on some violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act on the part of BoA.

And/or a judge who saw an opportunity to make an example.  BoA, among others, gets away with a lot, so the only way to have a real deterrent effect is to make it hurt enough when they do get caught that weighing the risk will start to favor not taking the chance.

For example, if you can steal $10 and only expect to get caught 1% of the time, a $100 fine is outright encouragement.  Might as well prepay a couple while you're at the courthouse and save a trip later.  A $1,000 fine just makes it a break even proposition, so it depends on whether you think you can beat the odds in the long run.  A $100,000 fine is a pretty effective deterrent.