• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Wells Fargo are crooks

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is getting worse than the post office thread...





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.

In other words, you realize now that it wasn't wrong to call it theft, as long as he wasn't saying it is theft according to the strict legal definition used in court. Thank you for admitting what I've been trying to get you to admit.

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

My argument is that it's perfectly acceptable to call it theft unless you're having a discussion of the strict legal definition. My other argument is that what they did is certainly illegal, as evidenced by the fact that it was ruled to be illegal by a judge. But that's OK, don't worry about my actual arguments. Just continue to throw out wild accusations.

We should be done with this. It's very simple. According to the regular definition, this was theft. And it was illegal, or else the judge would have ruled in WF's favor.
 
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.

My apologies. You are right, that was a snipe and I should have resisted the urge to press "submit".

On the specific point of whether or not we can consider Wells Fargo's collection of overdraft fees a theft by applying a loosely interpreted definition in a conversational forum is moot, since that is exactly what we are doing.

You are saying they took, and were in possession of something that did not belong to them, which is enough to satisfy your definition of theft. I am saying that intent must follow the act because the word theft itself implies deliberately illegal behavior.

I am saying that if Wells Fargo believed they had a right to collect the fees, then it was not theft, but an error. If you want to continue to call it theft, then who am i to flagellate the deceased equine any longer?
 
My apologies. You are right, that was a snipe and I should have resisted the urge to press "submit".

I appreciate that, and offer my apologies as well.

On the specific point of whether or not we can consider Wells Fargo's collection of overdraft fees a theft by applying a loosely interpreted definition in a conversational forum is moot, since that is exactly what we are doing.

You are saying they took, and were in possession of something that did not belong to them, which is enough to satisfy your definition of theft. I am saying that intent must follow the act because the word theft itself implies deliberately illegal behavior.

I am saying that if Wells Fargo believed they had a right to collect the fees, then it was not theft, but an error. If you want to continue to call it theft, then who am i to flagellate the deceased equine any longer?

I think they obviously chose their course of action in order to gain more money at the expense of the customer. I don't think theft implies deliberately illegal behavior. I think it only implies trying to get something from someone through some kind of deception.

But I'm willing to let it go at that. As you say, no point in flagellating the deceased equine any more.
 
Yes, but simple high to low reordering is not "deceptive" or illegal, and its certainly not theft.

The judge determined it was deceptive.

I'll fall back to his ruling.

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.

Deceptive business practices... are theft. That would be why they are illegal.
 
In other words, you realize now that it wasn't wrong to call it theft, as long as he wasn't saying it is theft according to the strict legal definition used in court. Thank you for admitting what I've been trying to get you to admit.

In other words, you realize now that it was wrong to call it theft according to the strict legal definition used in court. Thank you for admitting what I've been trying to get you to admit all along... and your welcome.

In this context, Byteware was referring to the strict legal definition.






My argument is that it's perfectly acceptable to call it theft unless you're having a discussion of the strict legal definition.

Which we were, you jumped in the middle of a "strictly legal" definition argument, using the common dictionary definition.


My other argument is that what they did is certainly illegal, as evidenced by the fact that it was ruled to be illegal by a judge.

Now your presenting a legal argument, and must be clear about what your saying... WF did lots of things, but only a narrowly defined subset of their actions, well technically inactions, was deemed "illegal" by the court.

It wasn't high to low reordering, it wasn't overdraft fees, or shadow lines of credit, it was failure to properly explain these things to the customer that was deemed "illegal."


But that's OK, don't worry about my actual arguments. Just continue to throw out wild accusations.

It seems your only argument is disagreement. You keep switching between legal talk and common talk when ever it pleases you, making no distinction between the two...

We should be done with this. It's very simple. According to the regular definition, this was theft. And it was illegal, or else the judge would have ruled in WF's favor.

Thats what I mean, thats an incoherent argument, that doesn't' really mean anything.

Your mixing the judge's ridged legal interpretation with your own opinions, just because it sounds good in your head.

According to YOUR opinion of the "regular" definition this was theft. But theft is an act of doing something... "it" (theft, the action of taking something) WAS NOT ruled illegal by the judge. The fees that you claim fit the definition of theft, WAS NOT ruled illegal by the judge. The failure to disclose and explain internal banking policies, was deemed illegal and "deceptive" by the judge.

The judge didn't rule WF did something (that you consider to be theft) illegal. He ruled they failed to do something, that constituted a "deceptive practice" to be illegal.

Do you see how your mixing your opinion and legality together creating nothing really meaningful?

Please stick to opinions about theft or legal interpretation and clarify what you mean, when you mix in your opinion it just invalidates any legal interpretation you might make (the law isn't about opinions).
 
I definitely don't agree with Wells Fargo or the mass of other banks who adopt these practices, but you really have to wonder how dumb some people are. The easiest thing to do (which I did from the get go) was to specifically state that I not be enrolled in overdraft protection ... It's that easy

You can't spend what you don't have so therefore you won't get charged those ridiculous fees.

Common sense goes a long way.
 
I definitely don't agree with Wells Fargo or the mass of other banks who adopt these practices, but you really have to wonder how dumb some people are. The easiest thing to do (which I did from the get go) was to specifically state that I not be enrolled in overdraft protection ... It's that easy

You can't spend what you don't have so therefore you won't get charged those ridiculous fees.

Common sense goes a long way.

Actually, people were automatically enrolled for the longest time.
 
HAHAHA!!!!! And people wonder why I decided to use cash only for everything. This NEVER happens to me, EVER! I don't use credit, yet I own nice things. I don't use debit, but yet I can always pay my bills in full.
Seriously, people, if everybody got rid of their dependence on credit cards and debit cards, the banks would lose their grip on our lives and be forced to either treat the few customers they still have in a better fashion, or go out of business.
Don't blame the water for the fact you got wet.
 
HAHAHA!!!!! And people wonder why I decided to use cash only for everything. This NEVER happens to me, EVER! I don't use credit, yet I own nice things. I don't use debit, but yet I can always pay my bills in full.
Seriously, people, if everybody got rid of their dependence on credit cards and debit cards, the banks would lose their grip on our lives and be forced to either treat the few customers they still have in a better fashion, or go out of business.
Don't blame the water for the fact you got wet.

Yep, blame the victim. It's the victims fault for being the victim.
 
The judge determined it was deceptive.

I'll fall back to his ruling.
The judge is a mute point in all this. Just becasue he found infavor of the defendants. Doesnt mean the judges rulings was right. Its how the judge personally interprets the law with what was presented to him in the case.

How many times have we seen a case appealed and the ruling changed back and forth in the asppeals. So the judge doesnt know who is right or wrong. Its their interpretation of the law. Why most judges will have different verdict on the same case.


Sure maybe what WF did was a lil dirty. What about the account holder in this example knowingly didnt have the funds and still overdraft his account. If the person didnt cause the overdraft then he wouldnt have endure the fees.
 
In other words, you realize now that it was wrong to call it theft according to the strict legal definition used in court. Thank you for admitting what I've been trying to get you to admit all along... and your welcome.

In this context, Byteware was referring to the strict legal definition.

I never argued whether or not what they did is theft by the strict legal definition. The problem is that's not what you started out arguing either. Your original comment, as I showed, was not in reference to someone saying it was theft according to a strict legal definition. Your original comment claiming "theft" was an incorrect word was prior to Byteware's involvement in the thread (and mine), so what he was referring to is irrelevant.

Now your presenting a legal argument, and must be clear about what your saying... WF did lots of things, but only a narrowly defined subset of their actions, well technically inactions, was deemed "illegal" by the court.

What they did was illegal, and that's why the judge ruled the way he did. If what they did wasn't illegal, they would have been off the hook.

It seems your only argument is disagreement. You keep switching between legal talk and common talk when ever it pleases you, making no distinction between the two...

No, I don't. I've been very clear. There's no reason "theft" can't apply to what they did, possibly unless you're talking about strict legal definitions. What they did was also illegal according to the judge. I'm correcting you on your original assertion that the terms "theft" and "illegal" are incorrect in referring to what the bank did.

If you'd like, I can explain it more simply for you.
 
Wheres the victim? THis so called victim knowingly overdraft his account.

Yes, and that victim should be subject to the penalty as has been communicated to them. The problem was these victims were penalized according to a standard not communicated to them. No one is saying they shouldn't be charged an overdraft fee. What we're saying is they should only be charged one overdraft fee, not 5.

By your logic, the victim of a gang rape is responsible for her plight because she consented to sex with one man (and then another 4 guys showed up and joined in without her consent).
 
What they did was illegal, and that's why the judge ruled the way he did. If what they did wasn't illegal, they would have been off the hook.

...There's no reason "theft" can't apply to what they did, possibly unless you're talking about strict legal definitions. What they did was also illegal according to the judge. I'm correcting you on your original assertion that the terms "theft" and "illegal" are incorrect in referring to what the bank did.

If you'd like, I can explain it more simply for you.

Just quickly, if the ruling is overturned on appeal, are WF's actions legal and not theft all along?
 
Yes, and that victim should be subject to the penalty as has been communicated to them. The problem was these victims were penalized according to a standard not communicated to them. No one is saying they shouldn't be charged an overdraft fee. What we're saying is they should only be charged one overdraft fee, not 5.

By your logic, the victim of a gang rape is responsible for her plight because she consented to sex with one man (and then another 4 guys showed up and joined in without her consent).
How was the charges arrived to the bank? maybe the $120 cell payment was the first to arrive. Then the 5 $5 payments arived at a later time? How was it paid as again the OP with his simulation never said if the person paid by debit or check?

So its open to many different views to interpret.

The rape comparison you gave has nothing to do whats at hand. Apples to apples and stop with the oranges.

Has anyone looked up WF ToS and see if its in the ToS?
 
Wheres the victim? THis so called victim knowingly overdraft his account.

Or unknowingly. Someone could have deducted $500 from his account that he wasn't expecting...

Say Friday, your electric company mistakingly debits your account $500, instead of $200. You spend $5, 5 times on Saturday and pay your phone bill $120 on Sunday... then instead of 1 $35 charge, you've got 5 $35 charges.

So, you are now out... $175, instead of simply $35.

So, no... just because an account gets overdrawn, doesn't necessarily make it the account holder's fault. I'm certain that none of us check our accounts daily.

Edited to add:

And I think it bears stating that making a single mistake, does not give up your right the bank the right to determine how much of your money they are going to take from you. One overdraft shoudl be just that... one overdraft.

Banks are even charging TWO fees for a single overdraft...
 
I noticed that the article appears on the Huffington Post. The HP is very clearly a left wing publication with a left wing philosophy that appeals to a left wing audience.

I wonder how much of the piece is true and accurate?

Bob
 
The judge is a mute point in all this. Just becasue he found infavor of the defendants. Doesnt mean the judges rulings was right. Its how the judge personally interprets the law with what was presented to him in the case.

How many times have we seen a case appealed and the ruling changed back and forth in the asppeals. So the judge doesnt know who is right or wrong. Its their interpretation of the law. Why most judges will have different verdict on the same case.

So, you've just invalidated our entire legal system... yeah, its the judges opinion on interpretation of the laws... thats how our legal system works, judges make rulings, then you can appeal if you don't agree. So, yeah, the judges opinion does matter.


Sure maybe what WF did was a lil dirty. What about the account holder in this example knowingly didnt have the funds and still overdraft his account. If the person didnt cause the overdraft then he wouldnt have endure the fees.

The issue wasn't about overdraft fees, but about how they changed the way its drafts of the same day are processed, from low-high to high-low, for no other reason (according to internal documents and emails) to increase overdraft charges. This violates existing laws that say, if you change the way you process drafts, it has to be done in "good faith." They then intentionality made it CAA documents, long and complex to obscure this fact.

I agree with the judges ruling, (but don't agree it constitutes theft.)

When you overdraft your account, knowingly or not, one doesn't reasonably expect to get up to 10 overdraft charges. That was the issue.

Tom Ace said:
I never argued whether or not what they did is theft by the strict legal definition. The problem is that's not what you started out arguing either. Your original comment, as I showed, was not in reference to someone saying it was theft according to a strict legal definition. Your original comment claiming "theft" was an incorrect word was prior to Byteware's involvement in the thread (and mine), so what he was referring to is irrelevant.

I said theft was an incorrect word BECAUSE it doesn't fit the legal definition. Byteware then try to reason it DID fit the legal definition because the judge made them repay the money...


ME:
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.


"You do nothing for your case," BECAUSE, this situation doesn't fit the legal definition of theft.

Byteware:
Obviously a judge agreed that it was theft, and ordered them to return the money.

So, I don't think it's out of line to refer to it as theft or illegal.


Byteware was wrong, the judge DID NOT agree it was theft. Read the judges opinion if you like

http://www.bank-overdraft.com/pdf/20100810-wells-fargo-finding.pdf

This then began a discussion centered around the LEGAL definition of theft, until you came along.

And I admit, the judge DID find their failure to properly inform customers of banking policy and how that effects their overdraft charges illegal, but not theft.


Can we end this now?



No, I don't. I've been very clear. There's no reason "theft" can't apply to what they did

Yes, there is a reason it can't apply, a reason you even acknowledged a few posts back.

Tom:
it wasn't wrong to call it theft, as long as he wasn't saying it is theft according to the strict legal definition used in court.

And Byteware one more time:
Obviously a judge agreed that it was theft

Byteware isn't only making a claim about WF actions fitting the legal definition of theft, he's also claiming the judge himself ruled it was theft, which he didn't, read the opinion.


The word "theft" appears in that opinion 0 times.

And just a little more recapping so hopefully we can end this silly dispute...

Me:
Just because you sued and a judge said pay back the money doesn't mean it was theft. There is a strict legal definition of theft

Byteware:
The judge found that to be illegal, i.e. theft. Therefore they are ordered to make restitution to their customers, a.k.a. victims.


I'm correcting you on your original assertion that the terms "theft" and "illegal" are incorrect in referring to what the bank did.

Yes, it was "illegal," I admit that... no it was not theft according to the law.

Yes, and that victim should be subject to the penalty as has been communicated to them. The problem was these victims were penalized according to a standard not communicated to them.

Wrong again, it was communicated to the customer, but according to the judge, not in an adequate way.

The CAA, entered into evidence:
The Bank may post Items presented against the Account in any
order the Bank chooses, unless the laws governing your Account
either requires or prohibits a particular order. For example, the
Bank may, if it chooses, post Items in the order of the highest
dollar amount to the lowest dollar amount. The Bank may change
the order of posting Items to the Account at any time without
notice. If more than one Item is presented to the Bank for payment
on a day the Bank determines there are sufficient funds to pay one
or more but not all of the Items, the number of Items paid and the
overdraft and returned Item fees assessed may be affected by the
order that the Bank chooses to pay those Items . . . . For example,
if the Bank pays Items in the order of highest-to-lowest dollar
amount, the total number of overdraft and returned Item fees you
are charged may be larger than if the bank were to pay the Items
in the order of lowest-to-highest dollar amount.


No one is saying they shouldn't be charged an overdraft fee. What we're saying is they should only be charged one overdraft fee, not 5.

Yes, that is correct.
 
How was the charges arrived to the bank? maybe the $120 cell payment was the first to arrive. Then the 5 $5 payments arived at a later time? How was it paid as again the OP with his simulation never said if the person paid by debit or check?

So its open to many different views to interpret.

All those questions are answered in the judges findings

http://www.bank-overdraft.com/pdf/20100810-wells-fargo-finding.pdf



Has anyone looked up WF ToS and see if its in the ToS?

Yes, it is. read the findings.
 
it wouldn't be the first time this kind of thing has happened... banks, can't live with em, can't live without em
So true and why I have an account with a credit union. in over the 13 years dealing with them. I have never had a problem with them and was always friendly to help you.
 
So true and why I have an account with a credit union. in over the 13 years dealing with them. I have never had a problem with them and was always friendly to help you.

Local community bank here. Always fixed anything fast, and never had a complaint. Though I've never been overdrawn with these guys, so don't know how they would handle that.
 
So true and why I have an account with a credit union. in over the 13 years dealing with them. I have never had a problem with them and was always friendly to help you.

a lot of CUs here went to the dark side.. lending to mini developers and workers in construction
My local is several million Euro in debt, no dividends this year

Still, I'd still save with them over any bank
 
Just quickly, if the ruling is overturned on appeal, are WF's actions legal and not theft all along?

I would say that wouldn't have an effect on whether it can be considered theft, since I'm not using the ruling to justify calling it theft. It might change the idea that it's illegal, but even then, it might not.
 
How was the charges arrived to the bank? maybe the $120 cell payment was the first to arrive. Then the 5 $5 payments arived at a later time? How was it paid as again the OP with his simulation never said if the person paid by debit or check?

So its open to many different views to interpret.

No, it's not. The point is that the 5 6-dollar transactions occurred first, and therefore were submitted to the bank first. Obviously, if the 120-dollar one was submitted to the bank first, it would make sense to process it first. In this case, they even admit that they don't do it in the order in which they receive them.

The rape comparison you gave has nothing to do whats at hand. Apples to apples and stop with the oranges.

Yes, it does. It uses the same logic you're using. You're saying that when a person overdraws their account, they can't complain when they get 5 overdraft fees instead of the one it should be. You're saying they're not a victim. The gang-rape victim, by that logic, is not a victim either if she gave her consent to the first rapist, but not the other 4.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom