Wells Fargo are crooks

[cipher6]

Seriously... we're gonna argue this?

If it was legal, then the customers would have no legal recourse.

Do you understand the difference between civil and criminal courts?

The fact that they were re-ordering the purchases in order to make the customer pay more fees was not legal in the courts eyes. That makes it illegal. And taking someone's money illegally is referred to as theft.

Ok, never be your own lawyer.

No, the judge didn't rule the way WF was processing payments, the largest first instead of by date was illegal. The judge ruled WF didn't do a good enough job of informing customers on how it processed the payments.

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

The banks were authorized to collect these fees when the customer signed up for the account and was given the contracts and terms of service. But the judge has ruled, the banks didn't do a good enough job of explaining how they process transactions... which is why he called it, "unfair and deceptive business practices."

The judge found the customers, who were part of a class action, were not properly informed of the bank's policies on processing payments and were unaware the bank would allow debit purchases to go through when their accounts were overdrawn.

 

[BigKittyLu]

I know what you are saying and I know how you feel, but I don't know a bank that doesn't do what you described.

 

[lunatic59]

So on top of illegally foreclosing a bunch of people's houses recently, wells fargo has been sued for reordering customers deposits and withdrawals, to maximize overdraft fees.

theoretical situation
-On Friday, you have 120 dollars
-On Saturday you made 5 purchases for $5 each.
-On Sunday, you remember you have to pay your cell phone bill for 120 dollars.
-You only have 90 dollars, but you know you can pay it and only take one overdraft fee.
-Monday rolls along, WF does their "batch processing" and decides its best to process the cell phone bill first, dropping you to 0 dollars. Then they put each of the 5 $5 charges through, EACH one pinging you with an overdraft fee.

JUST in CALIFORNIA, over 5-6 years, they made over 200 million dollars in fraudulent overdraft fees.

In all those financial disclosure statements and terms of service updates that account holders get sent to them by law any time any single thing changes, this common practice is explained. It has been going on for decades.

Taking your hypothetical example of the checks written on Friday, the checks, even if deposited on Friday would not reach WF to clear until Monday at the earliest. Now, assuming that the larger check written on Saturday also arrives at their clearing center on Monday, all transactions are held until the end of business before they are actually cleared. Standard custom is to pay the larger checks first.

Besides, just because the checks were written on a Friday, doesn't necessarily mean they reached WF first. For example, of the 5 $5 checks let's say two were written to the local convenience store, one to a video rental store, one to a gas station and the last one to a cheap hooker. Most likely the retail establishments wouldn't make a deposit until the end of the day, after the banks are closed, so the night deposit bag doesn't get opened until Saturday, assuming they even have Saturday hours. The hooker hands the check to her pimp who gives it to his crack dealer, who belongs to a credit union. And, let's say the banks the small checks were deposited to were NOT Wells Fargo. On the other hand, The $120 check to the phone company was deposited directly to WF, because the phone company's commercial account is with WF. In that scenario, the large check is in WF's record first thing Monday, but the other checks don't make it there until later in the day, or the following day. It this case the fees are justified.

Also keep in mind that the checks are dated, not time stamped, so unless the receiver puts a time on them when accepted, WF has no way of knowing when they were written, other than it was likely they were written according to the sequence.

They are appealing saying they were doing it in the customers best interest to assure that high dollar transactions, which are obviously the most important, go through without being declined - The thing is, the first judge told them was bull crap, and until recently they would have let every transaction go through regardless of order.

I think the judge overstepped his authority to bolster popular support for himself. I would be surprised if he weren't up for reelection soon. In any case, if the customer had overdraft protection on the account, there would be no overdraft fees. For many years, overdraft protection used to be a complimentary feature for retail accounts, as long as you maintained a minimum balance in one or all your accounts. Recently with trouble banks got themselves into, they have removed many of the complimentary features. By law they are required to notify the consumer when this is done, and if the consumer chooses to ignore the notice, then it is their problem.

I'm fairly certain every major bank does this, or things very similar, but I closed my account and told the rep it was because of this court case. I suggest anyone else with an account do the same

Good luck finding a bank that puts its customers ahead of its stockholders

 

[cipher6]

Also keep in mind that the checks are dated, not time stamped, so unless the receiver puts a time on them when accepted, WF has no way of knowing when they were written, other than it was likely they were written according to the sequence.

From what I've read, there is no dispute on this, WF admits, they process the largest first. They never make the claim they process the first to arrive, or can't determine what time the checks were written. They admit they process largest first... they claim it's done as a benefit to the customer.


Which is why the judge said:

"The supposed net benefit of high-to-low resequencing is utterly speculative," he wrote. "Its bone-crushing multiplication of additional overdraft penalties, however, is categorically assured."

I think the judge overstepped his authority to bolster popular support for himself. I would be surprised if he weren't up for reelection soon. In any case, if the customer had overdraft protection on the account, there would be no overdraft fees.

I can side with the judge and what he actually ruled on this, but not what people are claiming or think his ruling was. I see no problem with ruling they didn't properly inform the customer about how they process payments. Yeah, I've read all the fine print with my bank accounts, Yes, they mention overdrafts charges and all that, but I never recall any bank spelling out how they process the transactions.

They never specifically tell you, if we show up Monday and there are 5 transactions from late Friday and over the weekend pending, we will process the largest first. THAT is why they got in trouble, for not telling customers how they process those transactions. Not for overdraft fees and not for "theft."

 

[Tom Ace]

So you are getting hot over nothing. Then resort to attacking people that dont agree with you. One word comes to mind. Troll

Tempus's tone may have been a bit harsh, but he's right. The point is not that there should be no overdraft fee. The point is that they should be given out correctly. If you only have $90, and pay a bill for $120, you should get an overdraft fee. The problem comes in when you have 5 other transactions that occurred earlier than that $120 bill that get taken out after paying that bill simply because that way they can charge you 5 overdraft fees rather than just one.

The way it should work is the transactions are taken out in the order they were made. If one day you spend $30 in 5 transactions, those should be the first to come out. Then the $120 transaction comes out after that is taken care of. You still pay one overdraft fee, but it's a lot better than paying 5 of them.

 

[Tom Ace]

Not for overdraft fees and not for "theft."

Here's the definition of theft from dictionary.com:

"the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession"

How does this not fit that definition?

They were dishonest in their practices, which is why they were ruled against. The dishonesty was an attempt to take the property of the other people. But really, even if you don't want to think of it as theft, I don't see the reason for nitpicking that anyway. "Using a method that differs from the expected one and gets them more money from their customers without explaining that method to the customers" isn't any better than "theft". I don't think if even matters whether it technically fits the definition of theft (even though it clearly does).

 

[cipher6]

Tempus's tone may have been a bit harsh, but he's right. The point is not that there should be no overdraft fee. The point is that they should be given out correctly. If you only have $90, and pay a bill for $120, you should get an overdraft fee. The problem comes in when you have 5 other transactions that occurred earlier than that $120 bill that get taken out after paying that bill simply because that way they can charge you 5 overdraft fees rather than just one.

The way it should work is the transactions are taken out in the order they were made. If one day you spend $30 in 5 transactions, those should be the first to come out. Then the $120 transaction comes out after that is taken care of. You still pay one overdraft fee, but it's a lot better than paying 5 of them.

Again, as far as the law goes, and this lawsuit in particular. The bank can process and charge fees how ever they want, AS LONG AS, they properly inform the customer, so they can avoid multiple overdraft fees if they wish.


None of you guys should attempt any lawyering on your own...

Law is about following strict definitions and guidelines, not dictating how you think things should be done.

 

[lunatic59]

I can side with the judge and what he actually ruled on this, but not what people are claiming or think his ruling was. I see no problem with ruling they didn't properly inform the customer about how they process payments. Yeah, I've read all the fine print with my bank accounts, Yes, they mention overdrafts charges and all that, but I never recall any bank spelling out how they process the transactions.

They never specifically tell you, if we show up Monday and there are 5 transactions from late Friday and over the weekend pending, we will process the largest first. THAT is why they got in trouble, for not telling customers how they process those transactions. Not for overdraft fees and not for "theft."

I suppose it may be WF's disclosure, then, because I've known about this practice for years from the bank documentation. Sorry, I can't tell you which because banks change here like I change my underwear ... at least three times every decade Seriously, keep in mind, I've never change banks, but my accounts been with American Bank, Hamilton Bank, CoreStates, First Union, Wachovia and now Wells Fargo (and I think I'm forgetting one, too) due to mergers and acquisitions. They all have processed the largest daily draft first. While I don't necessarily agree with the "logic" of customers largest drafts are the most important, hence get paid first, I also can't justify the assumption that checks must be handled in sequential order. Banks have to set a uniform policy, and most times the policy will benefit the bank, not the consumer. They are under obligation only to disclose the policy, not amend it. All I'm saying is that I knew my bank processed checks this way, and it was in accordance with the terms of my account.

I would have to see what Wells Fargo gave tot he consumer to explain the policy before I could pass judgment on the clarity of it, but I suspect the Judge is still pandering to the masses, unless WF didn't disclose at all. Then, yes, it's their screw up.

 

[cipher6]

Here's the definition of theft from dictionary.com:

"the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession"

How does this not fit that definition?

They were dishonest in their practices, which is why they were ruled against. The dishonesty was an attempt to take the property of the other people. But really, even if you don't want to think of it as theft, I don't see the reason for nitpicking that anyway. "Using a method that differs from the expected one and gets them more money from their customers without explaining that method to the customers" isn't any better than "theft". I don't think if even matters whether it technically fits the definition of theft (even though it clearly does).

Well, according to WF, it wasn't a "dishonest" attempt, they process that way as a "benefit" to customers.

And the dictionary definition leaves out one important piece of the LEGAL definition of theft.

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

The banks were authorized to charge overdraft fees. But the customer wasn't properly informed about how they processed transactions, so they ended up getting many surprise overdraft fees.

Thats NOT theft. A bit of a "scam?" Probably. Shady business practices? yeah. or as the judge put it, "unfair and deceptive business practices"

I don't see the reason for nitpicking that anyway.

Thats what the F'ing law is about, nitpicking the situation to see if it fits with a well defined strict definition of a law.

Do you want to face a judge who just rules how he feels or thinks things should be?

 

[cipher6]

Banks have to set a uniform policy, and most times the policy will benefit the bank, not the consumer..

Exactly, and they can set that policy any way they feel, as long as they let the customer know whats going on.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I confess I only read bits and pieces of the wall of text. I think what WF does is kind of BS. That being said it is 100% the consumers fault they get gouged. It's not like they're sitting there minding their own business and WF hits them over the head and takes their money. The consumer here is completely failing to keep track of their finances or they're writing checks knowing they don't have the funds to cover them. IN either case, it's completely the consumer's fault. I've been gouged by overdraft fees in the past. Know who's fault it was that I got gouged? It was mine. 100% mine. The bank took two days to clear my paycheck, but took less than that to clear the checks I was writing around town. It was 100% my damn fault for not paying close enough attention to my money.

 

[lunatic59]

Here's the definition of theft from dictionary.com:

"the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession"

How does this not fit that definition?

They were dishonest in their practices, which is why they were ruled against. The dishonesty was an attempt to take the property of the other people. But really, even if you don't want to think of it as theft, I don't see the reason for nitpicking that anyway.

Tom, you're playing a game of semantics. There is a big difference between what is fair and what is legal. Now I can see two scenarios where you may be able to loosely apply that general (not legal) definition of theft to WF. The definition hinges on the word "dishonest". If Wells Fargo stated specifically they pay out drafts based on daily sequence, rather than highest amount and then did the opposite, that would be dishonest. If Wells Fargo decided to deliberately not disclose that particular policy to its customers, that would be dishonest AND illegal.

Now, if WF wrote a confusing or convoluted, but accurate disclosure of its policies and its customers interpreted it improperly and generated more revenue from fees as a result, that is morally questionable, but not dishonest. Remember your definition says dishonest, not disingenuous.

"Using a method that differs from the expected one and gets them more money from their customers without explaining that method to the customers" isn't any better than "theft". I don't think if even matters whether it technically fits the definition of theft (even though it clearly does).

Applying your personal ethics and morals to a business transaction and expecting an institution to behave a certain way without a direct statement of its policies or practices is naive and ignorant. Unfortunately it is the way most consumers approach financial matters.

 

[byteware]

Seriously... we're gonna argue this?

Apparently.

Do you understand the difference between civil and criminal courts?

Yep. I never said that they were charged with anything. I said that the courts determined that it wasn't legal for them to do this.

The banks were authorized to collect these fees when the customer signed up for the account and was given the contracts and terms of service. But the judge has ruled, the banks didn't do a good enough job of explaining how they process transactions... which is why he called it, "unfair and deceptive business practices."

I'm sorry, but aren't unfair and deceptive business practices... illegal?

 

[byteware]

Well, according to WF, it wasn't a "dishonest" attempt, they process that way as a "benefit" to customers.

And the judge shot that down as well. The judge made it clear that they would have paid each debit, regardless of the order, so the "benefit" was a lie.

None of the payments would be denied regardless of how it was processed.

The banks were authorized to charge overdraft fees. But the customer wasn't properly informed about how they processed transactions, so they ended up getting many surprise overdraft fees.

The banks were authorized to charge overdraft fees. Not to invent ways to ensure their customers pay as many of them as possible.

Thats NOT theft. A bit of a "scam?" Probably. Shady business practices? yeah. or as the judge put it, "unfair and deceptive business practices"

Last I checked, a scam was theft by deception.

 

[Tom Ace]

Again, as far as the law goes, and this lawsuit in particular. The bank can process and charge fees how ever they want, AS LONG AS, they properly inform the customer, so they can avoid multiple overdraft fees if they wish.

Of course they can. Who said they couldn't? Obviously the point is they have to properly inform the customer.

None of you guys should attempt any lawyering on your own...

Law is about following strict definitions and guidelines, not dictating how you think things should be done.

Maybe you shouldn't try arguing on a message board. You're clearly not cut out for it, since you completely missed what I was saying. The banks can do whatever they want with overdraft fees, as long as they let the customers know what they're doing. The way it should be done is to process each transaction in chronological order. That's the way everyone expects it to be done. If they don't do it that way, that needs to be clear to the customer.

 

[cipher6]

I'm sorry, but aren't unfair and deceptive business practices... illegal?

Yes, but simple high to low reordering is not "deceptive" or illegal, and its certainly not theft.

You claimed:

The fact that they were re-ordering the purchases in order to make the customer pay more fees was not legal in the courts eyes.

Wrong, the fact WF didn't do enough to explain this policy to customers was not legal in the courts eyes.

And taking someone's money illegally is referred to as theft.

Wrong again. Tanking someone's money without authorization is illegal. If I steal your bank card and withdraw money, thats theft. If I tell you I'll sell you this widget for $9.99 plus some handling fees, then when you get your statement I charge $10,000 for handling fees, thats "deceptive business practice." I was authorized to charge you, but tricked you about the amount... But, if we agreed on 9.99 total, including all fees, then charged you $10,000 that would be unauthorized and theft.

Last I checked, a scam was theft by deception.

Like I said, for average Joe, yeah... but according to the law, no.




--------------------------
Tom Ace:

Of course they can. Who said they couldn't? Obviously the point is they have to properly inform the customer.

Uhh... you did!

The point is not that there should be no overdraft fee. The point is that they should be given out correctly. If you only have $90, and pay a bill for $120, you should get an overdraft fee. The problem comes in when you have 5 other transactions that occurred earlier than that $120 bill that get taken out after paying that bill simply because that way they can charge you 5 overdraft fees rather than just one.

No, thats not the "problem" according to the court, the problem was the customer wasn't properly informed about this and how it could impact their account.

The banks can do whatever they want with overdraft fees, as long as they let the customers know what they're doing.

Then you say...

The way it should be done is to process each transaction in chronological order. That's the way everyone expects it to be done.

Again, no. Prior to WF's institution of high to low reprocessing in 2001, they had a policy of low to high reprocessing. They've never gone in chronological order, so I don't know why you would think "everyone expects it to be done" a way they've never done it.

 

[Tom Ace]

Well, according to WF, it wasn't a "dishonest" attempt, they process that way as a "benefit" to customers.

And the dictionary definition leaves out one important piece of the LEGAL definition of theft.

Of course it wasn't dishonest, according to the perpetrator. It was still dishonest, though. The honest way of doing it would be to make sure everyone is informed that that's how you do it.

The banks were authorized to charge overdraft fees. But the customer wasn't properly informed about how they processed transactions, so they ended up getting many surprise overdraft fees.

Thats NOT theft. A bit of a "scam?" Probably. Shady business practices? yeah. or as the judge put it, "unfair and deceptive business practices"



Thats what the F'ing law is about, nitpicking the situation to see if it fits with a well defined strict definition of a law.

Do you want to face a judge who just rules how he feels or thinks things should be?

This isn't about the law or a judge. You're disagreeing with him calling it theft. By the dictionary definition of that word it is theft. We're not lawyers here having a discussion about laws. We're regular people having a discussion about a bad business practice of a company. In that context, there's nothing wrong with calling this theft, as evidenced by the regular people's definition of the word. Of course, if I'm in front of a judge, I want him to understand the legal definition, but I'm not.

 

[Tom Ace]

Like I said, for average Joe, yeah... but according to the law, no.

There we go. End of discussion. We're average Joes discussing a topic. That was the context of the claim that it is theft. If this was a message board for lawyers about laws, then you'd have a point. It's not, so your point is unnecessary.

Uhh... you did!

No, thats not the "problem" according to the court, the problem was the customer wasn't properly informed about this and how it could impact their account.

In other words "Uhh... I didn't!". As I said the problem comes in when the bank uses a different practice than is expected. Their practice is solely meant to make them more money at the customers' expense. The failure to communicate their practice clearly so as to aid them in making more money is why it was ruled against illegally.

Then you say...




Again, no. Prior to WF's institution of high to low reprocessing in 2001, they had a policy of low to high reprocessing. They've never gone in chronological order, so I don't know why you would think "everyone expects it to be done" a way they've never done it.

Well, that would be even better, but the general expectation of the public is that it works like cash. They pay 5 things with their card, and they all come out in chronological order. If I make a purchase, that amount comes out of my account; then I make another purchase and that amount comes out of my account, and so on.

Of course now you're just arguing to argue. Here are the facts:

What they did was illegal. What they did was dishonest. What they did goes against what a normal person would expect. I'm hoping we agree on all that, and so there's no need for further argument.

 

[cipher6]

This isn't about the law or a judge.

err... its a post about a class action LAW suit and a JUDGE'S specific ruling.

You may not be concerned with the law and the ruling but I am.

You're disagreeing with him calling it theft.

Dissagreeing with who? The judge? No, I agree with the judge.

Or do you mean byteware? Yes, I disagree with byteware that WF actions constitutes theft.

By the dictionary definition of that word it is theft.

But we're talking law here, laws are defined by more than the dictionary.

We're not lawyers here having a discussion about laws.

I'm not a lawyer, but I am having a discussion about laws.

We're regular people having a discussion about a bad business practice of a company.

You might be, and thanks for pointing out, your making no legal interpretations, just giving an opinion of how you think things should be.

But if this whole thread was just people's opinion of what they think theft should be, or how WF should charge overdraft fees, there would be nothing for us to argue about.

But byteware has specifically said, this was theft, because the judge ruled against WF... that began a discussion about the law and the judge's ruling, not just our opinions.

 

[lunatic59]

We're regular people having a discussion about a bad business practice of a company. In that context, there's nothing wrong with calling this theft, as evidenced by the regular people's definition of the word.

There absolutely is. There's the connotation of criminal intent. Theft is a criminal act, but in no way did the Judge say WF acted criminally. No charges were brought and even more revealing was that no penalties or fines were imposed. What the Judge said (among other inflammatory remarks ... since when is "bone-crushing" a legal term?) was that WF's disclosure wasn't clear enough and that since the customers didn't understand the policy, WF could not enforce it. It was a contractural decision, not a criminal one. Because the contract (agreement between WF and consumer) wasn't mutually understood at the time of the transaction, they must be reversed. Had the judge thought there was a deliberate act on WF's part, he could have (and should have) imposed hefty fines according to NY statute. He didn't.

Example: An amusement park has a policy in its lost and found department of waiting for the owner to claim lost property for 15 days and if not claimed it would be given to the finder. The policy is displayed only on a sign at the lost and found and in the fine print on the back of the admission ticket. Joe lost his wallet with $500 in it at the amusement park, but didn't realize it was missing until he had returned home. Over the next two weeks he back-tracked his steps until he arrived at the amusement park only to be informed that it was now 16 days since the wallet was turned in and had already been given to the finder. Joe did not read the back of his admission ticket and only saw the sign after his wallet was released to the finder. Would you accuse the amusement park of theft? Was the finder a thief? The most that could be done in this situation is to sue the amusement park, claiming it's policy wasn't disclosed properly and therefore had no right to distribute the found property.

WF believed (and still believes) they were within their rights to collect those fees in the manner in which they did and explained it adequately to consumers. If they believed they had no right to impose those fees and imposed them anyway, THAT would be theft.

 

[Tom Ace]

err... its a post about a class action LAW suit and a JUDGE'S specific ruling.

You may not be concerned with the law and the ruling but I am.

Dissagreeing with who? The judge? No, I agree with the judge.

Or do you mean byteware? Yes, I disagree with byteware that WF actions constitutes theft.

Here is your first post in this thread. You didn't address it to anyone in particular, but neither Byteware nor I had yet posted.

"I agree its a crappy service, designed just to hit people with more penalties. But you do nothing for your case when you refer to it as "theft" and "illegal." Its neither, just a crappy service, that, according to a judge, they didn't do a good enough job of informing their customers how crappy it was."

It is without a doubt illegal, considering that's what the judge ruled. It's also theft according to the regular dictionary definition.

But we're talking law here, laws are defined by more than the dictionary.

I'm not a lawyer, but I am having a discussion about laws.

You might be, and thanks for pointing out, your making no legal interpretations, just giving an opinion of how you think things should be.

But if this whole thread was just people's opinion of what they think theft should be, or how WF should charge overdraft fees, there would be nothing for us to argue about.

But byteware has specifically said, this was theft, because the judge ruled against WF... that began a discussion about the law and the judge's ruling, not just our opinions.

The comment calling it theft was not made in the context of a discussion about laws. It was in a discussion about the business practices of a company. The word "theory" has two slightly different meanings: one is the regular, everyday use, and the other is the scientific use. I can use it just to mean the everyday meaning without using it incorrectly. The same goes for theft. The use of it here fits the dictionary definition, even if it doesn't fit the definition used in a law textbook.

If you want to have an in-depth discussion of laws, go right ahead, but that wasn't the point of this thread, and so calling this theft is not incorrect.

 

[Tom Ace]

There absolutely is.

No, there isn't. However, you guys are welcome to argue your incorrect idea to your hearts content. The fact is what WF did fits the dictionary definition of "theft", and so it's perfectly acceptable to use that word to describe it.

 

[lunatic59]

No, there isn't. However, you guys are welcome to argue your incorrect idea to your hearts content. The fact is what WF did fits the dictionary definition of "theft", and so it's perfectly acceptable to use that word to describe it.

So let's recap ... when Wells Fargo loosely interprets something to their benefit, it's morally reprehensible and obviously wrong, but when you do it, it's perfectly acceptable.

Right. Got it.

"This public service announcement brought to you by the Black Pot and Black Kettle Foundation, Llc."

 

[cipher6]

This is getting worse than the post office thread...

Here is your first post in this thread. You didn't address it to anyone in particular, but neither Byteware nor I had yet posted.

"I agree its a crappy service, designed just to hit people with more penalties. But you do nothing for your case when you refer to it as "theft" and "illegal." Its neither, just a crappy service, that, according to a judge, they didn't do a good enough job of informing their customers how crappy it was."

Yes, I stated an opinion that; calling it theft is beyond the legal interpretation and ruling, and therefore hurts your case when your talking about the bad things WF has done.

Someone could have responded along the lines of; "I know the judge didn't rule it theft, and it doesn't meet the legal definition of theft, but come on, we all know what their doing here... "

That would have been a statement of opinion, not a legal interpretation, and I would have agreed with that opinion. If I think theft should be interpreted as you have stolen my time with this thread, that would be my opinion, I could make common everyday definitions fit and thats that.

But Byteware and others specifically tried to present a (flawed) logical argument, that since the judge ruled that WF return the money, there for there actions were considered theft.

The rest has been me trying to explain why that is incorrect.

Then you jump in with an opinion on what theft should be, without clarifying.

It is without a doubt illegal, considering that's what the judge ruled. It's also theft according to the regular dictionary definition.

Now your mixing law and your own opinion, and really have no coherent argument at all.

 

[Tom Ace]

So let's recap ... when Wells Fargo loosely interprets something to their benefit, it's morally reprehensible and obviously wrong, but when you do it, it's perfectly acceptable.

Right. Got it.

"This public service announcement brought to you by the Black Pot and Black Kettle Foundation, Llc."

So, let's recap. You have no argument, so you're stooping to this nonsense.

Where did you get this crap about "WF loosely interpreting stuff"? That's out of the blue. But I guess it sounded like a good argument to you.

If this is the best I can expect, maybe you should just stop trying.