Bank of America fee Dilemma I am an Australian citizen. Many years ago, whilst travelling on holiday to the US I signed up for a Bank of America e-banking account. It had no monthly fees and all was well. Every time I went on holiday I would deposit money into the US account and use it freely to pay merchants/businesses in the US. Recently the bank abruptly removed its e-banking account and apparently migrated its e-banking customers to a core checking account with a $12 monthly fees if the account is less than $1500 US. Are banks legally allowed to do this? In particular, no notice was provided on the upcoming monthly maintenance fee. I had not been sent any information via email or mail about the new account fees. It was only when I logged into the account and saw the fee automatically deducted from my account that I found out about it. Secondly can the bank forcibly decide to charge these fees placing the account into the red/negative.
Just to add to the other answers, as of November 2022 the Online Banking Service Agreement of Bank of America explicitly covers this (emphasis mine): D. Changes to Agreement We may add, delete or change the terms of this Agreement at any time. We will inform you of changes when legally required [...]. We may communicate changes by either mail, email or a notice on our website and will make the updated terms available on our website. You agree that by continuing to use the Services after the date that changes are posted to our website, such changes will be effective for transactions made after that date, whether or not you access the website or otherwise receive actual notice of the changes. So, at least according to BoA's Service Agreement, you are supposed to check the website daily to be aware of changes. Whether this is enforceable will depend on details and applicable consumer protection laws - however, if the notice is posted in an easily-accessible location and some time before becoming effective, it probably is. Note that this depends on jurisdiction. For example, in Germany until recently banks also were allowed to change the terms of agreements by simply notifying customers. However, in 2021 the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that explicit consent by customers is required for new terms to become effective. So German banks now require customers to click through the new terms online, or sign a paper document indicating they accept the new terms. If customers fail to do this, the bank may terminate their account according to the usual rules, but they may not change the terms unilaterally.
There is no misrepresentation by the bank as you describe it, there is negligence by the account holder to comply with the terms of the account. The bank made no representation at all regarding a balance due. If you want the bank to be at fault, they the customer would have to demand a declaration as to the existence of a balance due (choose your words carefully), and the bank would have to have falsely asserted that there is no present or future obligation. This is not going to happen. All the bank can say is that they have no present record of charges. The customer's question might be something like &quot;Do you guarantee that there will be no charges to this account as of now&quot;. Of course, the bank cannot know whether there is a forthcoming paper charge that was made at some mountain resort. If case they did make such a promise, you could disavow the debt, using your reliance on their assertion as the basis for denying the debt. There is no law requiring banks to warn people of their contractual obligations when they close an account. I've never encountered a credit card contract that includes such a clause, but I suppose some bank might include a mandatory-warning clause, in which case they could be in breach of contract.
Yes. The European Enforcement Order is an explicit procedure for uncontested claims like this. That means no German court is involved (unlike Dale M's answer suggests). The Greek Court files an EEO, and this can be enforced directly in Germany without going through German courts again. That means you can face wage garrisons, bank account freezes etcetera.
It is age discrimination, and it is legal. There is a federal prohibition against discriminating in employment provided that you are at least 40 years old. There are innumerable laws that require age discrimination w.r.t. being under 18, such as the lack of a right to vote. Contracts with minors, such as are involved with opening a bank account, are generally invalid with the exception of &quot;necessities&quot;, education and insurance in Massachusetts. No law compels a bank to &quot;accept&quot; any person (to open a saving or checking account – even more so with accepting a loan application). A bank account would be a &quot;public accommodation&quot;, which is not subject to a &quot;no age discrimination&quot; requirement at the federal or Massachusetts level.
Can a bank sue someone that starts a bank run that destroys the bank? No (assuming, of course, as is the usual case, that the person who starts the bank run is not engaged in perpetrating a defamatory falsehood). Most bank runs are, and certainly the Silicon Valley Bank bank run was, based upon wide disclosure of a true fact. In the case of SVB, the bank run was triggered by the fact that its balance sheets failed to reflect the true value of fixed nominal rate bonds that it held as assets. In the usual case, a lawsuit also isn't a very helpful option to a bank that suffers a bank run. In the case of SVB, the bank had a book value (which is often a fair measure of a bank's value since its assets are so monetized) of $34 billion which was reduced to a pittance by the run on it. Even if someone who started a run on the bank had a moderately high net worth of $3.4 million that could be collected in a money judgment, that would cover a mere 0.01% of the loss to the bank, and there would be serious issues over the causation of any loss (i.e. how much of the losses suffered bound to occur sooner or later anyway due to causes unrelated to someone who triggered a panic). Another fine point of procedure is that when a bank becomes insolvent, it is promptly taken over by the FDIC or similar regulatory agency, which installs a receiver. This makes it effectively impossible for the bank itself to sue anyone. If the bank would otherwise have had a right to sue, the receiver for the bank would have the right to sue rather than the bank itself. But, this subtly while not irrelevant, doesn't capture the core reason for the question.
Financial institutions in the US are subject to regulations that restrict what sorts of things non-licensed employees can talk about with clients and advice they can give about structuring accounts and payments in ways that might avoid triggering money laundering alarms. I think this employee was being cautious about getting into a gray area and phrased the reason they couldn't talk about it poorly. The reason they were restricted from giving you an answer could be a legality, but not necessarily because they are giving you legal advice.
No The bank is not pretending in any way that the money received from depositors is guaranteed. If they had done, then that would be deceptive marketing. The bank held itself out to be a bank and to provide the services that a bank provides. They are allowed to assume that their customers know how banking works. It is clear that you do not because both explanations you have provided are wrong.
You should really investigate the legally correct way to deal with the estate and the transfers of the assets; if not, you could have considerable legal and tax liability in the future with the bank (if they flag and investigate the transfers due to the death of the account holder and the size of the transfers) and the IRS (inheritance taxes), as well as other possible heirs who are not yet identified or notified of the death. Probate laws differ greatly according to jurisdiction, so either find a lawyer or Google for free or low cost legal help in your city/county/state in order to learn how to administer the estate in a legally sufficient way to protect everyone involved. Or go to the local county courthouse and inquire. It may not take much effort or cost much in legal fees, and it's a good investment of research and time to prevent legal and tax issues in the future.