I deposited a check for {$3000.00}, taking back {$100.00} in cash for a total deposit of {$2900.00} at approximately XXXX XXXX I was told that a hold was being placed on the funds to allow the check to clear. This transaction took place at the XXXX Banking XXXX. I asked if the hold could be waived, since the account was not overdrawn and I had a history of depositing checks from the same payor, XXXX XXXX. I was told this could only be done by the Branch Manager at the XXXX XXXX Banking Center, since that was where the account was opened. 

I made several attempts to contact the Branch Manager at the XXXX XXXX Banking Center over the next XXXX business days but was told each time that she was either " with a customer '' or " unavailable '' I did manage to speak with her once, on XXXX/XXXX/2015. At that time, I was told the check had cleared and she would " see what she could do, '' after first telling me that only the Branch Manager at the XXXX Banking Center could lift the hold, and I noted the direct contradiction I was given between the XXXX branches. 

I then made several more attempts to speak with XXXX, but was again, told each time that she was unavailable, but she would return my call. I am still waiting for the call from XXXX. 

At that point, I noted in social media that XXXX XXXX had treated me dishonestly and rudely. 

I received a call from a person claiming to be manager of social media for the bank, on the evening of XXXX/XXXX/2015. She told me that the hold on the check could only be lifted by the manager of the XXXX Banking Center. I noted that the managers of both the XXXX and the XXXX XXXX locations had claimed that only the other had the authority to lift the hold, ultimately admitting to me that the Branch Manager at XXXX XXXX was the correct party to release my funds. The social media person then told me that " if I could prove the check had cleared, then the bank would release the funds. All of this took place after being told that that the bank 's policy was to hold checks from 2-5 days to clear. When I pointed out the policy was XXXX that appeared to be selectively enforced, it was then she told me she would release the funds if I could prove the check had cleared. 

I suggested then that she probably had that information right in front of her. Her response was that the funds would not be released due to the banks 's XXXX hold policy. I pointed out to her that the Uniform Commercial Code provided that once the bank had actual knowledge the check had been presented and paid, I was legally entitled to the funds, and the bank was NOT legally holding the funds. She said it did n't matter that she could probably see on the computer in front of her that the check had cleared. Her response was that I had to prove the check had cleared, and the bank would not lift the hold the bank unless I could prove the check had cleared. I told her again that I knew as well as she did that the check had cleared, since it written by XXXX XXXX, a company that was both exceedingly well financed and I knew they processed all of their checks the day they were presented through their bank. She again told me that I had to prove the check had cleared. 

In summation, I believe that both the social media manager and the branch manager of the XXXX XXXX Banking Center did in fact know the check had cleared and that I was legally entitled to the funds. The bank 's personnel engaged in evasive tactics by putting the burden of proving I was entitled to the funds, which is not what the Illinois XXXX XXXX XXXX provides and also by deliberately avoiding speaking to me. 

In addition, on at least XXXX separate occasions, personnel at the bank hung up on me after claiming that I was not being responsive so they " were terminating the call. " They lied. They lied multiple times and they ducked me like little XXXX