Consumer complaint received 2025-05-23 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Other banking product or service
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: BMO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
I previously experienced an improper hold by my bank ( BMO ) on an {$11000.00} deposit from my family 's legitimate estate. That hold was corrected after I cited Regulation CC. 

On XX/XX/year>, I deposited a subsequent {$87000.00} inheritance check from the same estate, via an estate attorney, originating from a known XXXXXXXX XXXX. I had verbally pre-notified my bank about this large deposit. 

My bank issued a " Notice Of Hold '' citing " Large Deposit. '' This notice indicated that {$82000.00} would be held until the 7th business day after deposit. The notice and my deposit slip implied the remaining {$5500.00} was not subject to this extended hold and should have been available the next business day. 

However, as of XX/XX/year>, and continuing, my account 's available balance was only {$7.00}, proving the initial {$5500.00} was not released. This directly violates Regulation CC ( 12 CFR 229.13 ( b ) ) regarding initial fund availability. 

On XX/XX/XXXX or XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX, my bank 's Branch Manager confirmed that the bank 's " fraud department '' placed an extended hold on the entire deposit, which is why the initial {$5500.00} was " not available the following day. '' The Branch Manager stated she had no authority to release the hold and referred me to the bank 's Fraud Department. 

On XX/XX/year>, a representative named " XXXX '' from my bank 's Fraud Department confirmed that a bank investigator, following a system flag, placed a 7-business-day hold on my entire {$87000.00} deposit. XXXX stated that when a deposit is flagged by their fraud system, the bank 's internal policy is to hold the entire amount, and this is their standard practice. He acknowledged my reference to Regulation CC but effectively indicated their internal protocol superseded Regulation CC for the initial {$5500.00} availability. XXXX asserted there is no appeals process within the bank for this type of fraud hold. He also stated the Fraud Department should not have been contacted for this type of " dollar hold. '' No written justification for the specific hold beyond " system flag '' and " investigator decision '' was offered by the Fraud Department. This followed an earlier interaction where another bank representative ( " XXXX '' ) allegedly told me the fraud department was holding my funds " because we can '' and refused to provide this justification in writing. 

My bank 's failure to make the initial {$5500.00} available is a clear violation. Furthermore, the 7-business-day hold on the remaining {$82000.00} is challenged as excessive and unreasonable under Regulation CC 229.13 ( h ), given my verbal pre-notification, the known and verifiable source of funds, the prior erroneous hold by the bank on funds from the exact same estate, and the fact that my account is not a " new account. '' This is the second instance of my bank improperly handling funds from this same legitimate estate. This pattern, coupled with a previous experience where I was subjected to an " interrogation '' style of questioning when depositing funds from this estate, suggests negligence or unfairly targeted scrutiny. The refusal to provide written justification and the conflicting information from different bank departments further highlight poor practices. 

This unlawful withholding of my funds has caused severe and immediate financial hardship for my household, including the inability of my partner ( an XXXXXXXX XXXX who relies on these household funds ) to purchase an essential work vehicle, leading to lost income, and our facing an impending eviction court date due to inability to pay rent.

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 non-monetary relief