The transactions in a bank are always a two-way transaction procedure. The bank offers security for valuable assets by providing safe deposit boxes to the clients. The boxes are the confidential property of the client. Other transactional activities are the common loans and employer-to-employee payment platform. The transaction between the two parties has aligned terms and conditions set by the banks about the state’s law on business Act. The formal agreement in terms of payment and circumstances that may occur are put into consideration. In cases of disagreement and payments delays or uncertainties, both parties take a step towards verifications and explanations.
Its clients have flagged the bank of America over a number of unagreed terms. Warren and Maureen Nyerge were some of the few customers who had to take legal action against the bank. The foreclosure issued unto the couple was directed to their pre-owned home which the bank took. Upon payment, the legalities in a place called for a transaction showing a return of their property. The transaction has occurred, it was expected that the bank would reply with a lifted foreclosure document showing a return of the property back to the couple. As expected, protocols take along to achieve an objective. The couple waited for over a year for the bank to return their rightful property but to no response. Warren and Maureen took it up to themselves to seek legal representation to help solve the issue. The Collar County judge in Florida ruled in favor of the couple. The bank was smacked with a $2,534 legal fee.
The couple waited for the bank to respond but it didn’t. Five months later, there was no response from the bank. A solid decision to storm a branch owned by the bank to auction their property was their next move to secure what was rightfully theirs. The intimidation and surprise that was tied to the branch manager and the deputy were evident for they wrote a check to the couple to prevent them from auctioning their property. The extent of walking up to the bank resulted from so much time spent waiting for the bank to act by the law. Nicole DePuy was another known victim of the bank. The lady’s trial loan was structured and approved by the bank. Upon full payment of the loan, as agreed, her home was sold. The bank’s insensitive character faced the surety of her property’s safety. The expectations were not characterized by a failed communication protocol but a general laxity. Similarly, Ms. Laqurdia Tatum was another victim of the bank. The client’s trial loan modification was approved after which she called to ascertain that her reply was not a fraudulent activity but still wasn’t enough from the Bank. Her expectations of getting back home were not clear. Ms. Tatum saw her home auctioned and sold upon a return from visiting his son who was deployed in Afghanistan. The bank has since been avoided by many as they believe they won’t be rightfully served. The trauma attached to losing property that has accumulated a lot of funds and time is enormous. There is believed to be a good number of clients who’ve been wrongfully evicted off their property due to the inability to afford a legal representative who’ll help protect their assets.
