June 2, 2009

"Closing the Benefits Loophole"

The Wall Street Journal has posted an article about a group of legislators who are pushing for the Treasury Department to close a banking "loophole." This loophole allows for creditors to automatically garnish funds, such as Social Security or disability payments, from debtors' bank accounts.

Federal law says creditors can't take Social Security, disability, veterans' and children's survivor benefits to pay a debt. But the federal law doesn't say how money deposited directly into bank accounts is to be protected -- a gap that has given banks the ability to seize such funds.

Ellen E. Schults, author of the article, says that banks freeze customers' accounts when they receive notice from creditors to do so, and then charge fees for freezing the account and then overdraft fees. People often don't know that their benefit money isn't supposed to be seized.

The article mentions one particular case, an older,disabled couple from Macon, Georgia whose only income was from Social Security. A debt collector had their account frozen. They didn't know their Social Security money wasn't supposed to be garnished until they saw a TV show about it. They then contacted a Georgia law group who sued the bank to get the couple's money back.

A Bank of America spokeswoman declined to comment on the case, saying the court had placed a confidentiality order on it, adding: "Banks are required by law to honor garnishment orders or risk being held in contempt. We freeze accounts because the law says we must when we receive an order to do so."

The proposed bill would prohibit banks from freezing accounts with direct deposits from funds that are supposed to be exempt from garnishment. If that money is mixed with money that is allowed to be taken, the bank would use a formula to "exclude the protected amounts." This would protect banks from lawsuits from debt collectors and consumers.

If you have had problems with protected direct deposit funds being garnished by debt collectors, feel free to contact us.

You can also sign up for our free email newsletter sent out every Thursday morning - we cover topics such as the one in this post. We would love to include you! Just fill out the form below:

Contact Information
First Name *
Last Name *
Email *
Street Address 1
Street Address 2
City *
State *
Zip Code
February 24, 2008

Bankruptcy Reform Law - A Political Cost To Hurting Consumers?

Credit Slips is a wonderful blog written by professors about consumer issues. The most recent post is by Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor. The title is The New Politics of Bankruptcy.

We recommend you read this article as it discusses the beginnings of a backlash against those in Congress who voted for the change in the bankruptcy law that has harmed so many consumers across the country. Here is a brief excerpt:

Recently Albert Winn, a long-time Congressman from Maryland, was challenged in the primary for his seat. His opponent, Donna Edwards, campaigned on several issues, but among the most prominent was her opponent's vote for the 2005 bankruptcy legislation. He had ignored the needs of his constituents, she argued, and favored the financial interests whose executives (not coincidentally) gave his campaign financial support. Ms. Edwards defeated that incumbent in a landslide (60%-32%).

Read the rest of this article and be sure and let your elected officials what you think about them not taking into account the needs of consumers. The big banks may have the money, but we still can be felt by voting and expressing our opinions....

You can also sign up for our free email newsletter sent out every Thursday morning - we cover topics such as the one in this post. We would love to include you! Just fill out the form below:

Contact Information
First Name *
Last Name *
Email *
Street Address 1
Street Address 2
City *
State *
Zip Code
January 13, 2008

Congress Considers Prohibiting Certain Types of Mandatory Arbitration

We have discussed in some detail the problems with mandatory arbitration for Alabama consumers. Paul Bland of Public Justice alerted us to an article in the L.A. Times that we had missed dealing with movement in Congress to protect consumers from having to deal with mandatory arbitration.

Here are some excerpts of this well written and balanced article:

Critics of the provisions say they deny consumers and employees a basic American principle: the right to go to court.
"People from all walks of life -- employees, investors, homeowners, those enrolled in HMOs, credit card holders and other consumers -- often find themselves strong-armed into mandatory arbitration agreements," said Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), who is sponsoring one of the measures aimed at making arbitration voluntary rather than mandatory.

Continue reading "Congress Considers Prohibiting Certain Types of Mandatory Arbitration" »

January 5, 2008

Consumer Friendly Bills in Congress in 2007? Actually, Yes!

Perhaps our favorite blog, the Consumerist, has a very nice listing of the consumer friendly bills that were at least considered by Congress last year (still feels funny saying 2007 was "last year" but....). Please check this out and encourage your representatives and senators to keep you and these bills in mind as they get back to work.

You can also sign up for our free email newsletter sent out every Thursday morning - we cover topics such as the one in this post. We would love to include you! Just fill out the form below:

Contact Information
First Name *
Last Name *
Email *
Street Address 1
Street Address 2
City *
State *
Zip Code