Consumer complaint received 2016-09-12 00:00:00
Product: Bank account or service — Checking account
Issue: Problems caused by my funds being low — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I had a very unpleasant experience today with the Bank of America, with whom I 've been a customer for 6 years and never ( surprisingly ) had a problem before. An acquaintance of my husband, lets call him XXXX XXXX, had opened a bank account with BoA and added my husband a a secondary cardholder so that he can handle transactions, since XXXX XXXX spends most of his time out of the country. Later, XXXX XXXX became overdraft and never covered his fees since he was not in the US. Now, my husband is also a secondary cardholder on my account as well. After some time, BoA transferred {$400.00} from MY account to cover XXXX XXXX 's overdraft, even though the only common thing we have is that my husband is a cardholder on both of our accounts. This came without any notice, so imagine my surprise when my money went missing into an account I know nothing about. BoA refused to deposit the money back and claimed the right to setoff authorizes them to do so, even without overdraft protection between the XXXX accts. They also claimed that there is no primary or secondary cardholder, but all names listed on the account are equally responsible. I spent 3 hours at the bank trying to resolve the issue, and would n't hear any of my arguments. First of all, the bank misleads its customers by using the term " cardholder '' and not an " owner ''. It was never stressed to us that my husband was going to be an actual owner of either account ; I was under the impression that I only authorized him to use the card and nothing more than that. Secondly, " the right to setoff '' was definitely a new term in my vocabulary as the bank completely omitted mentioning anything of the sort. When I said I was unaware of these policies and asked for the paperwork, they said they had just ran out of the pamphlets that they supposedly give to all their customers ( how convenient ), and instead printed it out from their computer ( took them 30 minutes ). The papers did have a cardholder definition and the right to setoff meaning, very vaguely, however ( for example, it does not say that the bank will charge a positive acct to cover a negative acct 100 days after it became overdrawn ), but these things were never explained to either of us. Moreover, the brochure is dated XX/XX/XXXX, whereas I opened my acct XX/XX/XXXX. 
Third, I find the " right to setoff '' to be a very unethical practice, because it essentially makes a person responsible for a completely random person. The bank does not require my name to be on XXXX XXXX 's acct in order to make me liable, so long as my husband is a member of both. I barely even know the guy!! Moreover, BoA never let me know about XXXX XXXX 's acct, which I think they should have if they are going to hold me responsible. The best part - even if I knew about it, I would n't be able to take money out of XXXX XXXX 's acct since I dont have access, but somehow I am responsible for his overdraft!! 
I also argued with the bank that since XXXX XXXX was so grossly overdrawn, a more appropriate course of action would be for them to close the acct and send it to collections on XXXX XXXX 's SSN, as I personally essentially had absolutely NOTHING to do with his finances. The bank, of course, rejected that idea. 
I believe that BoA omits discussing major clauses with its customers in their own benefit and to the disadvantage of their customers. They implement highly unethical practices and are extremely hesitant to give their customers a refund, even when the customer is right. At the end of the day, they should return the {$400.00} back to me and hold XXXX XXXX responsible for his own finances. 

Institution involved : Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX PH : XXXX

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 explanation