Consumer complaint received 2023-07-09 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/2023, I was out of the country and attempted to use my banking account. I was then alerted that my account balance was XXXX. I had approximately {$2100.00} in the account. I contacted Bank of America and was informed that my account was being held due to a XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX that had been received. They provided me with the firm that was involved. 

On XX/XX/2023, I contacted the firm and was informed that they did in fact submit a writ for garnishment in the amount of {$4400.00}. During the discussion with the firm, we agreed on a settlement arrangement in exchange for a dismissal of the writ. However, the firm required that I pay the initial amount to which was not possible due to the hold placed on my banking account. I then contacted BOA and was informed that they would not release my account unless they received notice from the firm. During the conversation, I requested to speak with a representative from their legal department. I was told that customers are not allow to speak with the legal department and that customer service would relay messages to that department. I informed them that I needed the initial amount the firm requested sent to them. The legal department, thru customer service, stated that they would not release my account. 

On XX/XX/2023, I contacted BOA and informed them that they were not in compliance with garnishment processing and was in violation of my rights under MD Rule 3-365. I informed them that they account is my primary source of income as I have pension funds deposited monthly. My account statements clearly have " benefits '' labeled on the deposits and according to MD Rule 3-365 and CFR 212.4, 212.5 and 212.6, they were not following my rights of due process. I also have federal student aid funds deposited which is also exempted. I again demanded to speak with someone in the legal department and the representative provided me with a phone number to call. I attempted to call the phone number provided and was not able to reach someone. 

On XX/XX/2023, I called the number provided and spoke with representative named XXXX. I explained the situation and was told that BOA would not release my account due to the garnishment hold. I continued to explain that BOA was in violation of Maryland Rule 3-365 and directed her attention to the first page of the garnishment packet which clearly states With respect to a writ of garnishment of account in a financial institution, unless a Notice of Right to Garnish Federal Benefits that conforms with 31 C.F.R 212.4 and Appendix B to 31 C.F.R. Part 2/2 is attached, financial institution are directed : 1 ) not to hold property of the judgement debtor that constitutes a protected amount 2 ) not hold property of the judgment debtor that may come into the garnishees possession following service of the writ if the account contains a protected amount After she read what I had sited, she stated they would conduct a sweep of my account for funds and then escalate the matter to the law firm that represents BOA to get the account released. I asked how long the process would take and she stated that the sweep of my account would take about 48 hours and a response from attorneys could take up to 14 days. Needless to say, I was furious as BOA should have released my account in accordance with MD Rules and the CFR. 

On XX/XX/2023, I called the BOA legal department at the number previously provided and spoke with XXXX. I once again explained my situation and demanded that the hold on my account be removed. I also explained that my pension benefits, which was deposited into the account on XX/XX/2023, in the amount of {$6900.00} was exempted per law and that the hold on my account should be lifted. He stated that BOA would not release my account due to the garnishment hold. He confirmed that another sweep of my account was conducted and that an additional {$670.00} was being held for the garnishment. This brought the total funds being held for garnishment to {$2800.00}, with my pension amount being separated but still restricted from accessing. I again, continued to explain that BOA was in violation of Maryland Rule 3-365 and directed his attention to the first page of the garnishment packet. I also explained that BOA acknowledges that my pension is exempt as it was not touch and made apart of the garnishment amount already being held. After reading the language, he acknowledged my issue and stated he would escalate the matter. 

On XX/XX/2023, I called the BOA legal department at the number previously provided and spoke with XXXX. I explained the situation as I had done in the previous calls and requested a status update on the release of my account. She stated that BOA would need to send the firm documents as to what was being held and wait for further instructions. I explained that my account should have already been released by law and that this is causing an undue hardship. I explained that I could not pay any bills, to include mortgage due to the situation. She explained that it could take up to 30 days before BOA receives a response. 

On XX/XX/2023, I called the BOA legal department at the number previously provided and spoke with XXXX. I explained the situation as I had done in the previous calls and requested a status update on the release of my account. I explained that not only was BOA in violation of Maryland Rule 3-365, they were also in violation of Code of Federal Regulations 215.5 ( c ) which states Benefit payment deposited during lookback period. If the account review shows that a benefit agency deposited a benefit payment into the account during the lookback period, then the financial institution shall follow the procedures in 212.6. Additionally, 212.6 ( a ) which states Protected amount. The financial institution shall immediately calculate and establish the protected amount for an account. The financial institution shall ensure that the account holder has full and customary access to the protected amount, which the financial institution shall not freeze in response to the garnishment order. An account holder shall have no requirement to assert any right of garnishment exemption prior to accessing the protected amount in the account., and 212.6 ( f ) which states One-time account review process. The financial institution shall perform the account review only XXXX time upon the first service of a given garnishment order. The financial institution shall not repeat the account review or take any other action related to the order if the same order is subsequently served again upon the financial institution. If the financial institution is subsequently served a new or different garnishment order against the same account holder, the financial institution shall perform a separate and new account review. I further explained that the account is a joint account and the other account holder is not a listed party on the garnishment order therefore, BOA was in violation for placing a hold on the account. Lastly, I explained that BOA was in violation of the CFR by conducting a second sweep of my account to retrieve additional funds, which should not have occurred. I explained that BOA had not touched my exempted pension deposit and is now in excess of the garnishment amount. XXXX XXXX stated that she completely understood the situation and said she would escalate the matter. She also stated that she would try to have someone from BOAs law firm contact me. 

As of XX/XX/2023, my bank account is still on hold and BOA has made no attempt to remedy the situation. I still do not have access to any of my funds and every bill I have is late.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief