Consumer complaint received 2025-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Improper Setoff from Legally Protected 'Tenancy by the Entireties ' Account Name of Financial Institution : Bank of America Account Number : XXXX Date of Incident : Friday, XX/XX/year> Amount in Dispute : {$820.00} Summary of Complaint : On XX/XX/year>, Bank of America performed an improper and unlawful setoff of {$82.00} from my joint checking account. These funds were seized to cover an individual debt belonging solely to my husband. Under Florida Statute 655.79, our joint marital account is legally presumed to be " Tenancy by the Entireties '' ( TBE ) and is therefore protected from the individual debts of XXXX spouse. Furthermore, a branch manager at the bank directly admitted that the withdrawal was a " system error '' because balance connect was not activated for my husbands account, so it should not have been withdrawn to begin with. Therefore, the bank should have reversed our funds and refused to return the funds. 
Details of the Incident and Attempts to Resolve : -The Improper Setoff : On the morning of XX/XX/year>, my direct-deposited paycheck was placed into our joint account. Immediately, the bank withdrew {$820.00} to cover an overdraft created by a legitimate debit for my husband 's separate, individual debt. The funds that were taken were my personal wages. 
- Initial Phone Call : I immediately called Bank of America customer service. The representative incorrectly stated that the bank had the legal right to seize the funds based on their general terms and conditions, ignoring the specific protections provided by Florida law. 
- In-Person Visit to Branch : I then went to the Bank of America branch in XXXX XXXX  XXXX FL, and spoke with the branch manager, XXXX. The conversation had XXXX critical phases : -Phase XXXX : Admission of Bank Error. The manager investigated the transaction and was very professional. He stated that it appeared to be a system error on the bank 's part. His exact words were that " the system shouldnt have removed the money since balance connect is not active. '' He acknowledged the withdrawal was improper based on the bank 's own rules. 
- Phase XXXX : Contradiction and Refusal. After making a phone call, the manager explained to me that the bank was standing by its " Right of Setoff. '' Therefore, he was unable to correct the error he had just identified and he stated that he was unable return the funds. 

Legal Basis for My Complaint : - Tenancy by the Entireties Protection : As a married couple in Florida, our joint account is presumed by law ( Florida Statute 655.79 ) to be held as Tenancy by the Entireties. This special form of ownership protects the account from being seized for the individual debts of XXXX spouse. 
- Unlawful Setoff : Because the account is legally protected, the bank 's seizure of my funds constitutes an improper and unlawful setoff. The bank 's generic terms and conditions do not contain the specific, explicit language required by law to waive this statutory protection. 
- Bank 's Admission of Fault : The bank, through its manager, has already admitted the withdrawal was a system error. Their subsequent refusal to correct a known error and their attempt to justify it with a legally inapplicable " Right of Setoff '' argument demonstrates bad faith. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 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