Consumer complaint received 2026-05-27 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
This correspondence serves as a formal complaint regarding the procedural handling of a Writ of Garnishment and subsequent Request for Judgment in the case of * * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Case XXXX * *. The delays and inconsistencies encountered through this process with Bank of America Legal Operations and its legal representatives are of significant concern, threatening the successful execution of this court order. On XX/XX/year>, the initial Writ of Garnishment was properly submitted to Bank of America Legal Operations. Subsequently, I was informed that Attorney XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX would be managing the bank 's response. Attorney XXXX filed the Garnishees Answer to Writ of Garnishment with the court on XX/XX/year>, indicating that a certified copy was mailed to me on the same date. However, as of XX/XX/year>, this certified copy had still not been received. Following this, on XX/XX/year>, a copy of the Request for Judgment was mailed to Bank of America Legal Operations. On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Attorney XXXX directly, emailing the Request for Judgment and highlighting the non-receipt of the Garnishees Answer. The Garnishees Answer was then provided to me via email on XX/XX/XXXX. Further attempts to expedite the process included emailing the judge-signed Request for Judgment to both Attorney XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year>. A physical copy was also dispatched via mail to Bank of America Legal Operations on the same day. Attorney XXXX confirmed receipt and advised that the document would be forwarded to the bank, with an anticipated check delivery timeline of 7-10 business days. Despite these multiple submissions, on XX/XX/year>, a representative named XXXX at Bank of America Legal Operations informed me that the Request for Judgment had still not been received. Consequently, I was compelled to re-send the document via email to attachments @ bofa, copying Attorney XXXX and XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX acknowledged receipt of the Request for Judgment a document that had, in fact, been previously sent to her on XX/XX/XXXX. She assured me she would contact the bank, anticipating a processing period of 5-10 business days. These protracted delays and the apparent lack of internal coordination are profoundly problematic. The most critical consequence of these ongoing processing failures is the imminent risk that the garnished account may be unfrozen, thereby precluding the successful recovery of the adjudicated funds. It is imperative to note that I was advised by Attorney XXXX that a new writ would be necessary to secure any funds deposited into the account subsequent to the original writ, a position I believe to be incorrect and inconsistent with established garnishment procedures. The total amount due is {$400.00}, along with any additional funds that accrued in the account after the initial Writ of Garnishment was served on Bank of America.

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