Product: Checking or savings account

XXXX XXXX Reference File # XXXX XXXX XXXX TRANSFERS OWNERSHIP OF {$2.00} MILLION DOLLARS TO TWO SELF-APPOINTED TRUSTEES FROM A BOGUS HOME-MADE RESIGNATION XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX a subsidiary of Bank of America accepted a " home-made '' resignation from a 90+ year client, whom was the original grantor/trustee of two trust accounts held at XXXX XXXX . The alleged resignation was hand printed on a blank sheet of paper and was not witnessed or notarized. This resignation allowed the transfer of " ownership '' of the total sum of a " Family Trust '' account and a " Separate Trust '' account into the names of two self-appointed " trustees ''. With numerous changes being made on these accounts, XXXX XXXX never questioned the " home-made '' nature of the resignation or requested a copy of the original " trust document '' which should have been used to manage the trust account. The trust document clearly dictates the guidance from the grantor/trustee of the trust.
Although XXXX XXXX accepted the " resignation '' and acted upon it in XX/XX/XXXX, the 90+ year old client continued to utilize her separate trust account by writing checks and using a credit card against a CMA account until XX/XX/XXXX. The resignation was not brought to the other family members attention until XX/XX/XXXX when XXXX XXXX requested to the " trustees '' that a formal XXXX XXXX document " The Cash Management Account ( CMA ) additional Check and/or Visa Authorization and Agreement '' form needed to be signed in order to allow continued use of the credit card and check writing authority. This raised questions among other family members as to the " ownership '' of the trust accounts. This makes you wonder where were XXXX XXXX  's formal and internal policies that it took YEARS to realize who was the " authorized party '' on these accounts. The " separate trust '' account has since been amended, and today the XXXX year old client holds clear ownership of her " separate trust '' account.
HOWEVER, XXXX XXXX  AND THE SELF-APPOINTED " TRUSTEES '' ARE STANDING FIRM AND NOT ALLOWING THE XXXX YEAR OLDs NAME TO BE PLACED BACK ON AS TRUSTEE OF " HER '' FAMILY TRUST ACCOUNT.
A lawyer was hired to represent the XXXX year old in XX/XX/XXXX to review the legality of the " resignation '' and interpret the trust document. A letter was sent to XXXX XXXX bringing several concerns to their attention. A reply was received from XXXX XXXX which stated, " Due to privacy restrictions, it is our policy to only correspond with the owner or " authorized parties '' of accounts held at XXXX XXXX. Since you are not the owner or " authorized party '', we can not correspond directly with you regarding this matter. '' A phone call was made by a family member and there was an exchange of communication and XXXX XXXX then decided to communicate directly through the lawyer. Numerous letters and many phone calls have been made to XXXX XXXX of which the response has been inadequately slow or no response at all. One reply which took weeks to receive, stated " XXXX XXXX was looking into the matter ''. Or more recently the XXXX year old was asked to sign a particular agreement and provide a letter rescinding the " resignation '', only to hear weeks later that further documentation was required. Why when first asked in correspondence, was XXXX XXXX not forthcoming with all their requirements? Why were these same restrictions and formal policies not followed when the resignation was accepted in XX/XX/XXXX? It seems they are making rules up as issues are brought to their attention only to drag this situation out as long as possible, or to cover up administrative mistakes that have been made on their behalf.
A representative of XXXX XXXX stated they were not in the practice to require or interpret trust documents. Although in their formal " Trustee Certification Form '' " XXXX XXXX reserves the right to request a complete copy of the trust agreement ''. A copy of the original trust document was not ever requested. A family member mailed a copy in XX/XX/XXXX. Would n't it be prudent of XXXX XXXX when a change in ownership or trustee ( s ) in an account is requested, that the legal trust document be the guidance used to ensure the proper direction is being followed as is dictated in the trust?? If XXXX XXXX does not interpret trusts, and this is how they have administered this account, it makes you wonder how are they able to continue to administer trust accounts?? Hopefully policy and administrative changes are being developed and put into place for all future trust accounts and account holders.
The two self-appointed " trustees '' have also received numerous phone calls and letters asking to resign as trustees and to place the XXXX+ year old back on as " trustee '' of her " Family Trust '' account. They both are standing firm as if this Trust fund is their entitlement. The interesting fact is that only one of the names of the two " trustees '' is mentioned in the trust document as a " trustee ''. They have taken it upon themselves to appoint who they wanted and not honor the trust document. Their integrity and trust certainly is brought into question. And most astonishingly of all - the XXXX+ year old is their mother! Is this HONOR?? Is this TRUST??
This has been going on for an excessive amount of time. The XXXX  year old is not asking for something that is not hers. She has invested her entire life savings and trust with XXXX XXXX. As a matter of fact, she holds the " oldest active IRA account '' which was opened inXX/XX/XXXX. Is this the type of loyalty and quality of care that is provided in a Client/Relationship that XXXX XXXX is proud of? I understand XXXX XXXX 's mission is to " put the interest of their clients first ''. This is not being shown to this loyal client.
What is being demanded is that the account be placed back into the hands of the proper owner. And that the trust account be handled according to the dictates of the trust document.
This information is being sent in a last attempt to reach out to a government agency since every attempt in dealing directly with XXXX XXXX has gone on deaf ears. It is with hope this correspondence is shared and there can be a quick resolution to end this matter.