Wait, that's a fact? I missed that. Could you point out where you were found that?
I bet the insurance company did make it clear, or at the very least wrote it out. I'm going to bet that the paperwork that she was given didn't say "here's some checks, spend 'em like you would checks for your personal checking account! 400 grand, baby, woooooo!"
They probably never said what they were in plain English, only making the distinction in fine print so small, dense, and garbled that the average person couldn't gather that they weren't actually checks.
So she didn't bother to figure out what this account with $400,000 in it was, or how it worked. There was too much to read, so she couldn't be bothered. Ok. That's fine. She's just going to have a hard time using the money if she's not aware of what's going on because she didn't bother to try.
Wait, that's a fact? I missed that. Could you point out where you were found that?
I bet the insurance company did make it clear, or at the very least wrote it out. I'm going to bet that the paperwork that she was given didn't say "here's some checks, spend 'em like you would checks for your personal checking account! 400 grand, baby, woooooo!"
They probably never said what they were in plain English, only making the distinction in fine print so small, dense, and garbled that the average person couldn't gather that they weren't actually checks.
Would I be able to tell the difference between a bank draft and a check?
Hint: Pretend that I don't know the difference between a bank draft and a check.
Edit: Not necessarily in direct response to you, Scalfin.
Wait, that's a fact? I missed that. Could you point out where you were found that?
I bet the insurance company did make it clear, or at the very least wrote it out. I'm going to bet that the paperwork that she was given didn't say "here's some checks, spend 'em like you would checks for your personal checking account! 400 grand, baby, woooooo!"
They probably never said what they were in plain English, only making the distinction in fine print so small, dense, and garbled that the average person couldn't gather that they weren't actually checks.
So she didn't bother to figure out what this account with $400,000 in it was, or how it worked. There was too much to read, so she couldn't be bothered. Ok. That's fine. She's just going to have a hard time using the money if she's not aware of what's going on because she didn't bother to try.
They told her they'd transferred the money to a holding account for her (never bothering to mention that the money was in the account under the company's name) and that they'd sent her a check book (never bothering to mention that the book of checks didn't actually contained checks), yet you're blaming her for falling for the trick. Maybe we should blame her son for not wearing enough armor.
No offense? But that looks a lot like a normal personal check. Heck, if it's a draft that is only writable to yourself, I would expect them to not have a "pay to" field.
No offense? But that looks a lot like a normal personal check. Heck, if it's a draft that is only writable to yourself, I would expect them to not have a "pay to" field.
Yeah, I would totally have used those just the same as regular checks.
In fact, now I'm wondering whether my money market account checks are actually checks or drafts. I haven't had any trouble using them like normal checks though.
Wait, that's a fact? I missed that. Could you point out where you were found that?
I bet the insurance company did make it clear, or at the very least wrote it out. I'm going to bet that the paperwork that she was given didn't say "here's some checks, spend 'em like you would checks for your personal checking account! 400 grand, baby, woooooo!"
They probably never said what they were in plain English, only making the distinction in fine print so small, dense, and garbled that the average person couldn't gather that they weren't actually checks.
All she had to do was call her local bank and say she would like to speak to someone about her options. They would have told her all about that Roth IRA change.
Wait, that's a fact? I missed that. Could you point out where you were found that?
I bet the insurance company did make it clear, or at the very least wrote it out. I'm going to bet that the paperwork that she was given didn't say "here's some checks, spend 'em like you would checks for your personal checking account! 400 grand, baby, woooooo!"
They probably never said what they were in plain English, only making the distinction in fine print so small, dense, and garbled that the average person couldn't gather that they weren't actually checks.
All she had to do was call her local bank and say she would like to speak to someone about her options. They would have told her all about that Roth IRA change.
Yeah, this thread definitely takes hyperbole to soaring new heights. Nobody was fucked over, all that happened was that a beneficiary didn't get her money quite as easily as she thought she would, and was shocked, SHOCKED to learn that the insurance company made money off her policy.
On a scale of 1-10, this is about a 2 on the 'whoop-de-fucking-do' meter.
The best thing that can be done here is a mandatory type of student loan quiz you have to take before you accept the check. Other than that, there's really nothing a nice company would do.
Of course, they could "sell ad space" to recommended financial advisors and bereavement specialists for discounts during this information session and make a good buck while simultaneously informing the claimant and reaping massive PR boosts. That would probably speak better to a corporation than a measly "it's the right thing to do."
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Wait, that's a fact? I missed that. Could you point out where you were found that?
I bet the insurance company did make it clear, or at the very least wrote it out. I'm going to bet that the paperwork that she was given didn't say "here's some checks, spend 'em like you would checks for your personal checking account! 400 grand, baby, woooooo!"
They probably never said what they were in plain English, only making the distinction in fine print so small, dense, and garbled that the average person couldn't gather that they weren't actually checks.
All she had to do was call her local bank and say she would like to speak to someone about her options. They would have told her all about that Roth IRA change.
That's a different issue. The problem with that is that they only told her about the parts of the change that benefited their case while presenting it as a compete summary of the effects.
The best thing that can be done here is a mandatory type of student loan quiz you have to take before you accept the check. Other than that, there's really nothing a nice company would do.
Of course, they could "sell ad space" to recommended financial advisors and bereavement specialists for discounts during this information session and make a good buck while simultaneously informing the claimant and reaping massive PR boosts. That would probably speak better to a corporation than a measly "it's the right thing to do."
Or they could, you know, actually transfer the money to her account or tell her that they're keeping the money until she takes it, instead of telling her that they're transferring the money to her account while holding on to it and placing it in their account.
They told her they'd transferred the money to a holding account for her (never bothering to mention that the money was in the account under the company's name) and that they'd sent her a check book (never bothering to mention that the book of checks didn't actually contained checks), yet you're blaming her for falling for the trick. Maybe we should blame her son for not wearing enough armor.
I bet you they did tell her who's name it was in, and how to access the funds in the account, and what that book that looks like a checkbook contains. She just didn't read the documents that came along with the money, or she didn't understand the words, or she didn't want to try to understand the words if it were going to come at a personal cost to her. This bugs you for some reason. I've yet to ascertain what it is, but you certainly have a problem with people having to read things to understand the situation they're in.
I'll ignore your sad attempt at equating my argument* with "you dummy, why did you go and get yourself shot in a war?" It's not a very good way to argue though. Unless you're just here to make half-assed attempts to get a rise out of people by saying the goosiest things possible.
* "$400,000 sure is a lot of money; maybe I should make sure that I understand how this works."
iTunesIsEvil on
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Wait, that's a fact? I missed that. Could you point out where you were found that?
I bet the insurance company did make it clear, or at the very least wrote it out. I'm going to bet that the paperwork that she was given didn't say "here's some checks, spend 'em like you would checks for your personal checking account! 400 grand, baby, woooooo!"
They probably never said what they were in plain English, only making the distinction in fine print so small, dense, and garbled that the average person couldn't gather that they weren't actually checks.
All she had to do was call her local bank and say she would like to speak to someone about her options. They would have told her all about that Roth IRA change.
That's a different issue. The problem with that is that they only told her about the parts of the change that benefited their case while presenting it as a compete summary of the effects.
Where did you read that? This is the only bit I saw about Roth IRAs in that article:
Under a 2008 law, survivors covered by Prudential’s VA policy are allowed one year to put death benefits into a Roth IRA, allowing them to earn investment gains for the rest of their lives tax-free. Prudential never informed Lohman, she says.
‘If They Had Told Me’
“I definitely would have done that if they had told me,” Lohman says.
So yeah, if a company that had zero responsibilty to provide her with financial advice had given her solid financial advice, she would have taken it.
I don't want to beat up on a dead soldier's mom, but she really should have taken an active role with this large sum of money and not just tried to use it as a checking account over the past two years.
If I'm not mistaken, those drafts are actually checks, complete with routing number, account number, and check number.
Seems to be they're routed through a bank itself, probably where the insurance company has an account.
Article says:
The “checks” that Cindy Lohman wrote, the ones rejected by retailers, were actually drafts, or IOUs, issued by Prudential. Even though the “checks” had the name of JPMorgan Chase & Co. on them, Lohman’s funds weren’t in that bank; they were held by Prudential.
Before a check could clear, Prudential would have to send money to JPMorgan, bank spokesman John Murray says.
It also says:
As time went on, she says, she tried to use one of the “checks” to buy a bed, and the salesman rejected it. That happened again this year, she says, when she went to a Target store to purchase a camera on Armed Forces Day, May 15.
So after the first time it was rejected she apparently didn't bother to figure out why.
Nice. I think the larger issue is they're made to look exactly like checks. I wonder if she has a leg to stand in in a civil suit just based on that. Most bank drafts look more like money orders and less like checks. However they should've cleared just like checks too. The only reason they should ever bounce is if the account had absolutely no money in it, if I'm understanding it right. They're basically 'guaranteed' by the bank.
I mean, her fault and all, but really, the company and bank are being really really fucking cheesy about it.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I have a credit card that looks just like a credit card except it's not visa, mastercard, or american express. It essentially just exists so I can pay it. I think that's precedent enough.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
They told her they'd transferred the money to a holding account for her (never bothering to mention that the money was in the account under the company's name) and that they'd sent her a check book (never bothering to mention that the book of checks didn't actually contained checks), yet you're blaming her for falling for the trick. Maybe we should blame her son for not wearing enough armor.
I bet you they did tell her who's name it was in, and how to access the funds in the account, and what that book that looks like a checkbook contains. She just didn't read the documents that came along with the money, or she didn't understand the words, or she didn't want to try to understand the words if it were going to come at a personal cost to her. This bugs you for some reason. I've yet to ascertain what it is, but you certainly have a problem with people having to read things to understand the situation they're in.
I'll ignore your sad attempt at equating my argument* with "you dummy, why did you go and get yourself shot in a war?" It's not a very good way to argue though. Unless you're just here to make half-assed attempts to get a rise out of people by saying the goosiest things possible.
* "$400,000 sure is a lot of money; maybe I should make sure that I understand how this works."
And you don't think that they could have easily presented it in a way that she could have understood? They obviously presented the info in the way they thought would generate the least probability of her understanding it while maintaining plausible deniability.
The best thing that can be done here is a mandatory type of student loan quiz you have to take before you accept the check. Other than that, there's really nothing a nice company would do.
Of course, they could "sell ad space" to recommended financial advisors and bereavement specialists for discounts during this information session and make a good buck while simultaneously informing the claimant and reaping massive PR boosts. That would probably speak better to a corporation than a measly "it's the right thing to do."
Or they could, you know, actually transfer the money to her account or tell her that they're keeping the money until she takes it, instead of telling her that they're transferring the money to her account while holding on to it and placing it in their account.
wouldn't giving her an instructive online course on the details of the disbursement be the same thing as telling her, except in robot form and she doesn't have to answer the phone during dinner
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The best thing that can be done here is a mandatory type of student loan quiz you have to take before you accept the check. Other than that, there's really nothing a nice company would do.
Of course, they could "sell ad space" to recommended financial advisors and bereavement specialists for discounts during this information session and make a good buck while simultaneously informing the claimant and reaping massive PR boosts. That would probably speak better to a corporation than a measly "it's the right thing to do."
Or they could, you know, actually transfer the money to her account or tell her that they're keeping the money until she takes it, instead of telling her that they're transferring the money to her account while holding on to it and placing it in their account.
wouldn't giving her an instructive online course on the details of the disbursement be the same thing as telling her, except in robot form and she doesn't have to answer the phone during dinner
Or they could have just put that info in the plain text part of the letter instead of saying one thing in the plain text and another thing in the legalese. This is like a scientist saying that he cured cancer in the abstract of his paper when he actually gave mice a cold.
The best thing that can be done here is a mandatory type of student loan quiz you have to take before you accept the check. Other than that, there's really nothing a nice company would do.
Of course, they could "sell ad space" to recommended financial advisors and bereavement specialists for discounts during this information session and make a good buck while simultaneously informing the claimant and reaping massive PR boosts. That would probably speak better to a corporation than a measly "it's the right thing to do."
Or they could, you know, actually transfer the money to her account or tell her that they're keeping the money until she takes it, instead of telling her that they're transferring the money to her account while holding on to it and placing it in their account.
wouldn't giving her an instructive online course on the details of the disbursement be the same thing as telling her, except in robot form and she doesn't have to answer the phone during dinner
Or they could have just put that info in the plain text part of the letter instead of saying one thing in the plain text and another thing in the legalese. This is like a scientist saying that he cured cancer in the abstract of his paper when he actually gave mice a cold.
huh. What are we arguing about?
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The best thing that can be done here is a mandatory type of student loan quiz you have to take before you accept the check. Other than that, there's really nothing a nice company would do.
Of course, they could "sell ad space" to recommended financial advisors and bereavement specialists for discounts during this information session and make a good buck while simultaneously informing the claimant and reaping massive PR boosts. That would probably speak better to a corporation than a measly "it's the right thing to do."
Or they could, you know, actually transfer the money to her account or tell her that they're keeping the money until she takes it, instead of telling her that they're transferring the money to her account while holding on to it and placing it in their account.
wouldn't giving her an instructive online course on the details of the disbursement be the same thing as telling her, except in robot form and she doesn't have to answer the phone during dinner
Or they could have just put that info in the plain text part of the letter instead of saying one thing in the plain text and another thing in the legalese. This is like a scientist saying that he cured cancer in the abstract of his paper when he actually gave mice a cold.
huh. What are we arguing about?
That some old lady with a checkbook full of bank drafts wrote a money order to give to a mad scientist creating the next super-cold cancer virus. Duh.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The best thing that can be done here is a mandatory type of student loan quiz you have to take before you accept the check. Other than that, there's really nothing a nice company would do.
Of course, they could "sell ad space" to recommended financial advisors and bereavement specialists for discounts during this information session and make a good buck while simultaneously informing the claimant and reaping massive PR boosts. That would probably speak better to a corporation than a measly "it's the right thing to do."
Or they could, you know, actually transfer the money to her account or tell her that they're keeping the money until she takes it, instead of telling her that they're transferring the money to her account while holding on to it and placing it in their account.
wouldn't giving her an instructive online course on the details of the disbursement be the same thing as telling her, except in robot form and she doesn't have to answer the phone during dinner
Or they could have just put that info in the plain text part of the letter instead of saying one thing in the plain text and another thing in the legalese. This is like a scientist saying that he cured cancer in the abstract of his paper when he actually gave mice a cold.
huh. What are we arguing about?
That some old lady with a checkbook full of bank drafts wrote a money order to give to a mad scientist creating the next super-cold cancer virus. Duh.
The company used a misleading plain text introduction to the fine print to mislead her about the contents of the deal. The abstract is the plain text introduction to a science paper. Basically, they lied about the contents of the deal in the hopes that she'd trust them and not try to parse what she was actually doing. Another similar case would be an email saying it contained a text document from a client when it really contained a virus. Yes, you should check for viruses before downloading attachments, but that doesn't let the hacker off the hook.
Yes, paying a competitive interest rate is exactly like a virus wrecking your computer. Rage.
You sill haven't shown that the interest rate was competitive at the time. All you've shown is that she received an interest rate during a period of high interest rates that was competitive with interest rates during a low rate period.
Also, saying you're transferring it when you're actually putting it in your own bank account. And giving out drafts that you claim to be checks.
The company used a misleading plain text introduction to the fine print to mislead her about the contents of the deal. The abstract is the plain text introduction to a science paper. Basically, they lied about the contents of the deal in the hopes that she'd trust them and not try to parse what she was actually doing.
Nice. I think the larger issue is they're made to look exactly like checks. I wonder if she has a leg to stand in in a civil suit just based on that. Most bank drafts look more like money orders and less like checks. However they should've cleared just like checks too. The only reason they should ever bounce is if the account had absolutely no money in it, if I'm understanding it right. They're basically 'guaranteed' by the bank.
I mean, her fault and all, but really, the company and bank are being really really fucking cheesy about it.
Did they not clear?
The article made it sound like the stores didn't accept the checks in the first place.
as a side note, the fact that 1% is good for a freakin CD really sucks
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I am outraged at the fact that my bank is paying 1% interest on my savings account while charging 5% interest on mortgages! How can people stand by and let the banks gouge their customers like that?
And as far as the "checks" go, if Target or the mattress store had taken the check and deposited it, do you know what would have happened? It would have cleared! Because that's how bank drafts work! The fact that they couldn't verify them has nothing to do with their validity.
adytum on
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
SIEGEL: I have a picture of just such a checkbook here that I've seen. And it says — it looks like a check. It's drawn on Prudential's Alliance account. It's payable through JPMorgan Chase Bank. You tried drawing a check on this account?
LOHMAN: Yes, I did later. I went to a retail store. I attempted to purchase a mattress, of all things. And I was told that they couldn't accept the check because it couldn't be verified. I was really confused because it was JPMorgan Chase. The second time that I attempted to use the check was at Target this last May, and the exact same thing happened. They could not verify that check.
Huh? She found out that there was something wrong with the checks, did nothing for a year, and then found out the same thing was wrong with the checks.
If this woman is the person that has been injured the most from this policy, it aint nothing to rage about.
I am outraged at the fact that my bank is paying 1% interest on my savings account while charging 5% interest on mortgages! How can people stand by and let the banks gouge their customers like that?
Especially when I just deposited the money I got from my life insurance settlement!
How dare my bank profit off of my dead relative?!?
SIEGEL: I have a picture of just such a checkbook here that I've seen. And it says — it looks like a check. It's drawn on Prudential's Alliance account. It's payable through JPMorgan Chase Bank. You tried drawing a check on this account?
LOHMAN: Yes, I did later. I went to a retail store. I attempted to purchase a mattress, of all things. And I was told that they couldn't accept the check because it couldn't be verified. I was really confused because it was JPMorgan Chase. The second time that I attempted to use the check was at Target this last May, and the exact same thing happened. They could not verify that check.
Huh? She found out that there was something wrong with the checks, did nothing for a year, and then found out the same thing was wrong with the checks.
She never found out something was wrong, because she never actually tried to negotiate one of the checks.
The checks were rejected by the business because they were out of the ordinary, which isn't surprising as most business are extremely cautious of receiving checks from customers- if they accept them at all.
The unsophistication of the clerks at the store has nothing to do with the validity of the checks.
I am outraged at the fact that my bank is paying 1% interest on my savings account while charging 5% interest on mortgages! How can people stand by and let the banks gouge their customers like that?
Especially when I just deposited the money I got from my life insurance settlement!
How dare my bank profit off of my dead relative?!?
Actually, the comparison would be if someone said he was wiring the money to your bank account when he was actually putting the money in his own bank account. The insurance company never said that it was retaining ownership of the money.
I am outraged at the fact that my bank is paying 1% interest on my savings account while charging 5% interest on mortgages! How can people stand by and let the banks gouge their customers like that?
Especially when I just deposited the money I got from my life insurance settlement!
How dare my bank profit off of my dead relative?!?
Actually, the comparison would be if someone said he was wiring the money to your bank account when he was actually putting the money in his own bank account. The insurance company never said that it was retaining ownership of the money.
Except that it's not like that because they never said they were putting money in the beneficiary's account as far as I can tell. It sounds like they were fairly up front about them holding the money until the beneficiary withdrew it.
Posts
You don't use a bottle with the former.
They told her they'd transferred the money to a holding account for her (never bothering to mention that the money was in the account under the company's name) and that they'd sent her a check book (never bothering to mention that the book of checks didn't actually contained checks), yet you're blaming her for falling for the trick. Maybe we should blame her son for not wearing enough armor.
http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/07/26/check_enl.jpg?t=1280327570&s=51
No offense? But that looks a lot like a normal personal check. Heck, if it's a draft that is only writable to yourself, I would expect them to not have a "pay to" field.
Yeah, I would totally have used those just the same as regular checks.
In fact, now I'm wondering whether my money market account checks are actually checks or drafts. I haven't had any trouble using them like normal checks though.
All she had to do was call her local bank and say she would like to speak to someone about her options. They would have told her all about that Roth IRA change.
$400,000 will buy a lot of financial expertise.
On a scale of 1-10, this is about a 2 on the 'whoop-de-fucking-do' meter.
Of course, they could "sell ad space" to recommended financial advisors and bereavement specialists for discounts during this information session and make a good buck while simultaneously informing the claimant and reaping massive PR boosts. That would probably speak better to a corporation than a measly "it's the right thing to do."
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That's a different issue. The problem with that is that they only told her about the parts of the change that benefited their case while presenting it as a compete summary of the effects.
Or they could, you know, actually transfer the money to her account or tell her that they're keeping the money until she takes it, instead of telling her that they're transferring the money to her account while holding on to it and placing it in their account.
I'll ignore your sad attempt at equating my argument* with "you dummy, why did you go and get yourself shot in a war?" It's not a very good way to argue though. Unless you're just here to make half-assed attempts to get a rise out of people by saying the goosiest things possible.
* "$400,000 sure is a lot of money; maybe I should make sure that I understand how this works."
Where did you read that? This is the only bit I saw about Roth IRAs in that article:
So yeah, if a company that had zero responsibilty to provide her with financial advice had given her solid financial advice, she would have taken it.
I don't want to beat up on a dead soldier's mom, but she really should have taken an active role with this large sum of money and not just tried to use it as a checking account over the past two years.
Seems to be they're routed through a bank itself, probably where the insurance company has an account.
It also says: So after the first time it was rejected she apparently didn't bother to figure out why.
I mean, her fault and all, but really, the company and bank are being really really fucking cheesy about it.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And you don't think that they could have easily presented it in a way that she could have understood? They obviously presented the info in the way they thought would generate the least probability of her understanding it while maintaining plausible deniability.
wouldn't giving her an instructive online course on the details of the disbursement be the same thing as telling her, except in robot form and she doesn't have to answer the phone during dinner
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Or they could have just put that info in the plain text part of the letter instead of saying one thing in the plain text and another thing in the legalese. This is like a scientist saying that he cured cancer in the abstract of his paper when he actually gave mice a cold.
huh. What are we arguing about?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That some old lady with a checkbook full of bank drafts wrote a money order to give to a mad scientist creating the next super-cold cancer virus. Duh.
The company used a misleading plain text introduction to the fine print to mislead her about the contents of the deal. The abstract is the plain text introduction to a science paper. Basically, they lied about the contents of the deal in the hopes that she'd trust them and not try to parse what she was actually doing. Another similar case would be an email saying it contained a text document from a client when it really contained a virus. Yes, you should check for viruses before downloading attachments, but that doesn't let the hacker off the hook.
You sill haven't shown that the interest rate was competitive at the time. All you've shown is that she received an interest rate during a period of high interest rates that was competitive with interest rates during a low rate period.
Also, saying you're transferring it when you're actually putting it in your own bank account. And giving out drafts that you claim to be checks.
Which was the time this whole thing went down.
As much as I love the idea of using the word "libertarian" as a slur, this isn't what is happening at all.
Where was it lying, again?
Did they not clear?
The article made it sound like the stores didn't accept the checks in the first place.
Interview with the reporter with more details.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And as far as the "checks" go, if Target or the mattress store had taken the check and deposited it, do you know what would have happened? It would have cleared! Because that's how bank drafts work! The fact that they couldn't verify them has nothing to do with their validity.
Huh? She found out that there was something wrong with the checks, did nothing for a year, and then found out the same thing was wrong with the checks.
If this woman is the person that has been injured the most from this policy, it aint nothing to rage about.
Especially when I just deposited the money I got from my life insurance settlement!
How dare my bank profit off of my dead relative?!?
She never found out something was wrong, because she never actually tried to negotiate one of the checks.
The checks were rejected by the business because they were out of the ordinary, which isn't surprising as most business are extremely cautious of receiving checks from customers- if they accept them at all.
The unsophistication of the clerks at the store has nothing to do with the validity of the checks.
Actually, the comparison would be if someone said he was wiring the money to your bank account when he was actually putting the money in his own bank account. The insurance company never said that it was retaining ownership of the money.
Except that it's not like that because they never said they were putting money in the beneficiary's account as far as I can tell. It sounds like they were fairly up front about them holding the money until the beneficiary withdrew it.
How else could it have collected the interest? I can't give you a check and then go the bank you deposited the money in and ask for the interest.