What you are about to read has actually happened.
It seems suspiciously illegal and unethical.
The background is as follows:
1. Subject had approximately $6,000.00 in credit card debt to a major
national credict card issuer. Debt was incurred when subject lived in
Maryland.
2. Subject later moved to Florida - subject did provide change of address,
and has since received credit card bills at residence in Florida and made payments from
address in Florida.
3. Subject had continued paying at least the minimum payment due.
4. Sporadically, subject had paid more than the minimum payment due.
5. All payments were made by check by the dates due. All checks were cashed by the Credit Card issuer.
6. On >date< , subject noticed all funds had been removed from
subject's private checking accounts - both personal account(s) and joint
account(s) with children, which subject held at a major Credit Union.
7. Upon inquiry, the Credit Union informed subject that the Credit Card
issuer had presented a "judgement" allowing the seizure. The Credit Union then removed the funds from Subject's accounts.
8. At no time did subject receive any "payment in full due" notice.
9. At no time did subject receive any notice of impending litigation.
10. At no time did subject receive any summons or complaint.
11. At no time did subject receive any notice of judgement awarded.
12. The funds were simply removed from the accounts, not "frozen".
13. At no time did subject receive any notice nor explanation of this
activity from subject's Credit Union.
Basically, the subject didn't know any of this was occurring until, suddenly, there
were no funds in subject's account(s).
Assuming all the above is true - does the subject have valid cause to initiate
legal action against either the Credit Card issuer, or the Credit Union, or both ?
It seems suspiciously illegal and unethical.
The background is as follows:
1. Subject had approximately $6,000.00 in credit card debt to a major
national credict card issuer. Debt was incurred when subject lived in
Maryland.
2. Subject later moved to Florida - subject did provide change of address,
and has since received credit card bills at residence in Florida and made payments from
address in Florida.
3. Subject had continued paying at least the minimum payment due.
4. Sporadically, subject had paid more than the minimum payment due.
5. All payments were made by check by the dates due. All checks were cashed by the Credit Card issuer.
6. On >date< , subject noticed all funds had been removed from
subject's private checking accounts - both personal account(s) and joint
account(s) with children, which subject held at a major Credit Union.
7. Upon inquiry, the Credit Union informed subject that the Credit Card
issuer had presented a "judgement" allowing the seizure. The Credit Union then removed the funds from Subject's accounts.
8. At no time did subject receive any "payment in full due" notice.
9. At no time did subject receive any notice of impending litigation.
10. At no time did subject receive any summons or complaint.
11. At no time did subject receive any notice of judgement awarded.
12. The funds were simply removed from the accounts, not "frozen".
13. At no time did subject receive any notice nor explanation of this
activity from subject's Credit Union.
Basically, the subject didn't know any of this was occurring until, suddenly, there
were no funds in subject's account(s).
Assuming all the above is true - does the subject have valid cause to initiate
legal action against either the Credit Card issuer, or the Credit Union, or both ?
