Bank of America 'called grieving widow 48 times a day to remind her of husband's debt'

[stockholmer]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033465/Bank-America-called-grieving-widow-48-times-day-remind-husbands-debt.html#ixzz1X0oJY8rT

Bank of America bombarded a grieving widow with calls up to 48 times a day to remind her that her recently deceased husband had missed a mortgage payment, it is claimed. Deborah Crabtree, from Honolulu, Hawaii, is suing the bank after she said she was called by debt collectors as often as every 15 minutes including during the wake for her husband.

According to papers filed in Hawaii, Mrs Crabtree told the bank that she would pay the debt as soon as she received her husband's life insurance pay out, but the bank continued to threaten to foreclose on her home. The bank told the widow that it was unable to stop the calls until the debt was paid as they were computer generated.

Mrs Crabtree claimed that the calls began the day after her husband died of cancer. She told the bank that she only had $5,000 cash to hand, which was needed for food and to bury her husband, but debt collectors told her that she must use it to pay them

Mrs Crabtree said she and her family spent her husband's wake repeatedly hanging up the phone on calls from the bank. The bank demanded evidence that her husband was dead, but after this was sent the bank allegedly said it had been lost. It is also claimed that the bank started to ask to speak to Mrs Crabtree's husband, even though she repeatedly told them he was dead.

snip

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chris Whalen: Bank Of America Should Declare Bankruptcy

Bank of America has over $100 billion in mortgage liabilities, says Chris Whalen Co-founder of Institutional Risk Analytics.

On a web broadcast published on KingWorldNews,http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2011/9/2_Chris_Whalen.html he advocates "the classical American way of dealing with this problem"-- complete and total restructuring through Chapter 11. Before its too late.

He says, "The only sane way of fixing this and I mean fix it so that Bank of America comes out of the process restructured, ready to support growth, support leverage, is a classic chapter 11..."

His point: Countrywide's bond trusts are worthless, were never properly constructed, and don't protect investors at all. Bank of America is on the hook for all of that, and while its subsidiaries are well capitalized, the parent company is bust. The only thing to do to fix this problem is to unmake $100s of billions worth of bond contracts.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chris-whalen-says-bank-of-america-should-declare-bankruptcy-2011-9#ixzz1XI5xUp4y

[slackmaster]

1. That would be a clear violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

And presumably Hawaii state law.

Sounds like B of A doesn't have its head and its ass wired together, which does not surprise me based on many years of experience dealing with them as a customer and as a vendor.

[kestrel91316]

5. IIRC, original creditors can call whenever and as often as they want.

It's only collection agencies that have to follow FDCPA rules.

[slackmaster]

17. That may be true, and I certainly would have turned my phone off during my spouse's wake.

:argh:

[McCamy Taylor]

51. Why should she have to turn off her phone? Maybe she was expecting a family call.

Let's please not blame the victim every single time.

[rhett o rick]

60. Not very sympathic are you? It's her fault for not turning off her phone. Shame on her. Are you

really a Democrat??

[slackmaster]

104. It takes a real stretch to read lack of empathy or sympathy into my post

I simply said what I would have done in the same situation. I'm sure we all agree the calls were inappropriate and caused needless suffering.

Are you really a Democrat??

Are you really a human being? Your response could easily have been generated by a computer program.

[rhett o rick]

142. Not at all. You went right for "it's the victim's fault". And this is typical of your posts.

You seem to hate DU. Not sure why you stick around. Unless to sow hate and discontent.

[slackmaster]

145. Do you mean "Not at all" to the question as to your status as a human being?

:shrug:

You went right for "it's the victim's fault"

That's just fucking stupid. I've said no such thing.

You seem to hate DU.

No, I just laugh at a lot of the idiotic posts on DU, like yours.

[rhett o rick]

146. I find your need to call people "fucking stupid" and posts "idiotic" sad. Good luck to you

with whatever your problem is. You will be my first on ignore.

[slackmaster]

147. I haven't made any ad hominem attacks on anyone. You're the one who tried to make this personal.

You will be my first on ignore.

Good. Then you won't have any reason to waste my time with your nonsense any more.

[The Doctor.]

90. No, they fall under the act as well.

I'm not perfect though, it's possible there's a clause I don't know about.

Here's something I do know though; Hawaii has a much shorter statute than anywhere other than the District of Columbia. There's some incentive for collectors to violate stuff there.

[mwooldri]

120. Highly likely B of A would also be bound by FDCPA.

Three reasons why:

a) the people calling on behalf of B of A are more than likely going to be "vendors" for the creditor. This is because Bank of America is not just one company - the creditor may be "Bank of America Mortgages" (as an example) but servicing be done by "Bank of America Services" - both companies owned by Bank of America, but because "Bank of America Services" is not the creditor, it clearly falls into place as a "debt collector".

b) Some states, California being one of these, have extra debt collection laws, and are tougher on collectors than federal law, and will apply these laws to the creditors as well as the debt collectors.

c) There is legal precedent: several courts have ruled that a "collector of debt" is a "debt collector" - even if the collector of the debt is the original "creditor"

[treestar]

148. True. Though there might be a few restrictions on

original creditors too.

[Aaria]

95. Heres B of A's Customer service number 1-800421-2110 give it a call and ask "what were you think'n"

[vets74]

106. Yes, indeed. That's the way to do it.

I called. Polite discussion and we're customers. I asked if my widow would get this treatment ?

[melm00se]

99. technically the FDCPA

covers 3rd party debt collectors.

It specifically excludes a creditor's direct employees:

The term does not
include— any officer or employee of a creditor while, in
the name of the creditor, collecting debts for such
creditor

source: § 803. Definitions, paragraph 6

although most banks adhere to the FDCPA, they are not legally obligated to do so.

Having run a collections department for many years, I personally find this extremely crass.

During my tenure I inserted into our policy guide that if there was a death of a debtor on the account that all contacts went into abeyance for a period of 30 days and woe betide any employee who violated that policy.

[slackmaster]

105. It's also a waste of collectors' time and exposes the company to really bad publicity

Obviously the calls didn't result in any money being collected, and this story is going to end up costing B of A some goodwill if not a tangible loss. If the calls were the result of actual company policy, I'd be very surprised. But knowing B of A as I do, it's probably just the result of their head and their ass not being wired together.

[melm00se]

113. Collections departments

always cost the company goodwill but they also impact profitability. tHE TRICK IS TO BALANCE THE 2.

My collections department (actually the new name is "default management") generated something like 80% of the complaint letters to the CEO's office and of those almost all were upset because we "harassed" them (the accepted definition is more than 1 completed call per day per number until payment arrangements were made and/or broken...so a hang up does not meet the definition but a message left does).

the robodialer we used made for great record keeping: it recorded every time we dialed the number (either via the machine or by hand - all calls were routed through it), what station/agent made the call, whether the call was picked up, whether the call was answered by a machine (this wasn't perfect and IDing that but it was pretty good), rang out with no answer, was picked up and hung up and/or the length of the call. the only thing it didn't do was record what was said. for that we relied on the notes taken by the agent and entered into the system.

from those pieces we could construct a complete call log of when we called, who we called, how long the calls lasted and what was discussed (and were 100% admissible in court).

IIRC the number of times we were censured by the CEO's office was maybe a dozen times over 5 years (most of which generated a corrective action write up for the agent) and 3 lawsuits...all of which we won.

Collections is the black sheep of the banking family but, unfortunately, an absolute requirement for the lender to do. a $10K charge off (loss) requires quite a few accounts to pay off in full per the term of the contract to break even (and that was in a good economic climate...in today's climate that is even more difficult to do with delinquency rates as high as they are).

there are really 4 types of customers in collections (in decreasing numbers):

1) legitimate issues - long term job loss, death, divorce, illness and the like (largest group by far and away)
2) undisciplined - they can't control their finances and their time to write the check (it's amazing how many folks have the money but just forget to write the check)
3) those who are in over their head (and this can be the banking industry's fault they keep lending money when they shouldn't)
4) those who never intended to pay off the loan. (smallest group but the ones that cost the most money)

(BTW, back in the late 80's/early 90's the percentage of people in collections who get more than just a letter was <5% of the total loan portfolio and of those less that half required phone calls and less than half of that half required more than that)

I really enjoyed helping people out in the 1st 3 groups. there are plenty of options available to them if they are honest with the lender (it's really hard to admit that you have an issue...especially to a stranger) as there are plenty of in house and outside options available to help. when you solved the problem (if you could) it was a wonderful feeling.

the one I remember the best and most fondly was a little old lady who's husband died. She had no idea how much was owed (or why), how to write a check or balance her checkbook (her husband took care of all of that). It took 6 weeks to get this information and when we did, we had her come into the branch, the branch manager spent 6 hours figuring everything out (what was owed, how much money she had, how much money she had coming in etc) and teaching her to how to write checks, balance her checkbook and keep everything rolling along. She sent us flowers and 20 dozen wonderful cookies as a thank you (it turned out she had far far more money than her husband ever let on) and we never saw her pop into a a call list again.

The 4th group? they were just bad news all the way around and usually required the more extreme measures to get. usually it involved lawyers, the courts and (occasionally) law enforcement.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, stockholmer.

[Selatius]

3. They should be indicted, convicted, and imprisoned for document fraud/securities fraud.

The big banks all had a hand in constructing these mortgage-backed securities that were unstable at best but promised big returns. Then when people started losing their homes, they engaged in "robo-signing" and other forms of document fraud to expedite foreclosure proceedings.

[NBachers]

61. If a "corporate person" is imprisoned, does everyone who belongs to that corporation go to jail?

[Froward69]

4. So Glad i got away from those thieves.

I was able to refinance to a lower rate with a local credit union. BoA can kiss my shiny metal ass.

oh and another thing aside from a Mortgage and Debt in both partners names. single named Debts like Credit cards and Hospital bills die with the diseased. that is next of kin is not responsible for an deceased individuals debt... no matter how to the contrary the creditors insist. creditors hate that fact of information to be known. It does need to be told far and wide.

The hornets nest really exploded when I told weld county that fact over my Fathers debt. oh boy did it piss them off!!!

[jtown1123]

7. Yes. No one is responsible for a spouses debt that isn't jointly owned. Creditors will lie to you

and say otherwise...

Credit cards, medical bills, etc. in your spouses name only, do not have to be paid after he or she dies.

[exboyfil]

10. Yes but the estate has to make good on those

debts I think otherwise the creditors can go after those who received funds from the estate. Not sure about debts who are in only one name with assets in both names (bank accounts and property). I think I would quickly move any jointly held assets to accounts in my name only.

Life insurance proceeds flow directly to the beneficiary.

[Supersedeas]

13. Insurance proceeds pass outside of the Estate

[jtown1123]

117. Not if it's a credit card debt held in one person's name

the credit card company has no claim against the person's inheritance. Same goes for student loans w/o cosigners.

[quakerboy]

84. Although it sounds like this was mortgage

You are correct, if she was not named, she was not responsible for the debt.

But while you do not owe on any debt that does not have your name on it, If it is debt with collateral (like a car loan or a mortgage), if the debt is not paid, the bank has full right to take possession of its collateral.

In this case, the bank is contacting the person most likely to want to keep the home and take over the contract. Even if her name is not on the debt, she is probably the recipient of the estate, including the home. Making that contact seems reasonable. For the first call

Just to be clear, I am not defending BOA. They are a terrible organization who literally, no metaphor or hyperbole or fee trickery, flat stole cash from me. The ridiculousness of them harassing anyone 48 times a day, let alone during the wake, etc, is undeniable. Its downright malign. If BOA wasn't slimy enough, this is yet one more reason not to do business with them if you have any other option.

[jtown1123]

118. It was a mortgage or car, yes, they can take it back. BOA has no class.

[blueamy66]

119. How about collectors that say that a girlfriend is responsible

for a boyfriend's bill? And that the delinquency will appear on the GF's credit report....

I laughed out loud at that one.

[jtown1123]

121. Wow, never heard that one before! They'll lie through their teeth. Get a lawyer, if in doubt.

[blueamy66]

150. I'm not worried. I told them to get rid of my phone #.

It was funny. I called the "receptionist"....and waited while he tracked my phone # and sent me to the same crazy lady that has been calling me for 2 weeks. I asked if he was tracking my call....I'm not stupid.

I got their mailing address and told them that I was sending a cease and desist letter...haven't heard from them since.

:-)

[AverageJoe90]

9. Just another reason why I like unions. They're usually pretty honest. =)

[EC]

6. Gee, if they lost the death certificate

who's to say they wouldn't lose the mortgage payment? I hope she wins her suit.

[Supersedeas]

25. as if losing the death certificate could bring him back to life

[aquart]

91. Who's to say they actually held the legal mortgage documents?

I believe they have a problem with that, also.

[former9thward]

8. Why didn't she block the number? Easy to do.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. completely beside the point

She may have been busy....oh, I don't know....thinking about her dead husband, maybe doing some grieving. Come on, think about it.

[former9thward]

12. Getting called 48 times a day and she is too busy to block it?

You think about it. Apparently you didn't.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

14. you're young

Simmer on it a few years, live some life, then reconsider. Her husband of many, many years just died. You obviously don't have any understanding of that extenuating circumstance, and just how devastating it can be. But you go ahead and blame the victim and feel superior about it if that's the way you're going to be.

[Bluebear]

26. +

[pipi_k]

30. Didn't read anywhere

exactly how many years she and her husband were married.

You said "many many years". Where did that come from?

Not that it would matter that much. One could be just as devastated after only a few years, but that whole "many, many years" thing makes it sound like the widow must have been totally prostrate from grief.

Which she obviously wasn't, if she had the wherewithal to answer the cell phone and hang up on the weasels.

But let's forget about her for a moment.

What about her family. Her friends. All of whom must have KNOWN what was going on, since the article states that she and her family were constantly hanging up on the bank.

None of them had the presence of mind to block the number for her? No sibling? Niece? Nephew? Close friend? Nobody was smart enough to tell her she should turn her phone off during the funeral? Why would anyone leave a cell phone ON during a funeral anyway? Is there something more important going to happen?

That's not to say that the bank was right in what it did. But if you don't want to get calls during a wake/funeral, then you turn the damned phone off and deal with them later. Or have a friend or family member field the calls for you until you're able to handle it yourself.

Nobody is "blaming the victim". She's obviously a victim, but she could have avoided being a martyr by turning the matter over to a friend or relative for a while.


Oh, and I'm neither young, nor exempt from the tragedy of loss.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

36. I made an assumption about the length of marriage

not that it matters, as you say, but it's typical for someone who loses a spouse in their 60's to have been married for a good, long time. But it's a fair point, and I don't know how long they had been married. In answer to your question, the "many many years" came strictly from my imagination.

The rest of your post just strikes me as unbelievably cruel and indicative of a changing world.

No one said anything about her leaving a cell phone on during a funeral. It was a wake, and she kept the answering machine turned on so that guests could hear the condolence messages left by others on the machine.

So, here are some answers to your questions:

Nobody was smart enough to tell her she should turn her phone off during the funeral? N/A. Your premise is wrong, and your question is invalid.

Why would anyone leave a cell phone ON during a funeral anyway? I have no idea. Why are you asking?

And yes, both you and the other poster were most certainly blaming the victim. If you engaged in some non-blame talk about the victim before you responded to this post, I haven't chased it down. But in this case, your denial doesn't carry any real meaning when reality reveals otherwise. You're blaming her.

As to the question of age, please believe me when I tell you that this was far and away the most charitable excuse I could find for the other poster who said what he/she did. I'm sorry to hear that your thinking doesn't come from the impetuosity of youth, but from some other place. I really am.

[sabrina 1]

39. I think if you experience the death of someone that close to you

you may not want to shut off your phone as you will be receiving calls from family and friends who are just finding out. And why should she have had to miss those calls, comforting to someone who is grieving the loss of a loved one? SHE was not in the wrong here. Why are people acting as if she was?? I can tell you from personal experience on a day when you are about to say goodbye forever to someone you love so much, you are NOT in a frame of mind to be dealing with this kind of thing, and I can perfectly understand her not considering turning off her phone.

Those calls should not have been made to her. Period. She did nothing wrong.

[pipi_k]

44. How close does someone have to be

before it's OK to turn off the damned phone at the wake or funeral?

My brother, whom I cared for as if he were my own son because of the age difference, died this past February.

I knew him for 40 years.

Everyone who mattered to me was at the wake and the funeral. Those who couldn't make it were aware of the times of the wake and funeral and graciously refrained from calling during either event.


I managed to survive shutting my phone off for each event. Anyone who wanted to call me got voice mail. I'm sure they all survived as well.


Also...answering your cell phone during a wake or funeral is just downright RUDE. And yes...even for the bereaved. People took time and trouble to actually go to the wake and/or funeral to pay their respects. I would think making that effort alone would be enough to deserve some attention. Show some class and pay some attention to them, FGS.

[NBachers]

65. Why even bother conjecturing about why she did or didn't do whatever with her phone

You weren't there. You aren't her. Why quibble, trivialize, and nitpick this poor woman?????

Go ask her.

[pipi_k]

112. I'm not doing anything

others aren't doing as well.

Nobody else was there either, yet they feel justified in giving excuse after excuse as to why she couldn't just turn the damned phone off for a few hours.

I guess this is the new "normal". People not only leaving their cell phones on during solemn ceremonies, but answering them as well.

This story could just as easily have been one involving a groom getting the same kinds, and frequency, of calls at his wedding. Hello? Yeah, the bank and the reason behind the calls would be unconscionable.

But if one's cell phone is more important than what one is doing at the moment, that's just really pathetic.

[druidity33]

101. your point is moot...

the bank will call from another number. That's what they did to me. I blocked 4 numbers, each time they'd call back from a different one. It wasn't until i told them i was contacting an attorney that the calls stopped.

:shrug:

[pipi_k]

126. Actually, my point is

throughout this whole discussion...that the one time a person should be free from having to deal with that sort of thing would be during wake/funeral services.

If the phone is ringing every 15 minutes...I don't care who is calling...during a solemn ceremony, turn. the. phone. off.

Or turn the ringer off.

People who matter will call back or leave voicemail.

For the rest of the calls, yes...a person needs to contact the proper authorities.

[Pab Sungenis]

131. Not every phone service offers call blocking.

For example, I'm with Vonage. They don't offer blocking. Nor do cellular services. Other companies it's a paid add-on.

[undergroundpanther]

66. Thanks

For the compassion shown by the posters who stood up for Mrs.Crabtree.
This blame the victim bullshit is for narcissistic shit heads,disgustipated indeed.
Oh and if all you want to do is bash the bereaved ,STFU.
Obviously you have no compassion for Mrs Crabtree,the banks are nothing but con men and thieves trying to get every drop they can force out of people before they're thrown away.
BoA is run by sociopath scum. Yet you wanna blame an old lady who just lost her husband.
You are really showing what you are about,you sound like a goddamn republican.

[Lorien]

92. Blaming the victim is a favored sport around here

it feels so good to those who engage in it... until they are the victims, anyway.

[SheilaT]

15. I, for one, have no idea how to block

calls from one specific number. Or even that it can be done.

I tried doing something along those lines ten or so years ago, and whatever the service was, simply could not be done in my area.

I have noticed that computer generated calls tend to hang up if they go through to my answering machine and don't leave a message.

[WI_DEM]

16. did you ever think that might be she didn't know how to block the calls

some people of a certain age don't know how to do some things that younger people take for granted. And perhaps she didn't just take the phone off the hook because she was expecting calls from people regarding her husbands passing.

[Gold Metal Flake]

23. Bless your heart. You think BofA only has one phone number to call from.

You also think BofA only has one collections department and I assume you think they don't use collection agencies which also probably have more than one phone number as well, dearheart. You are such a precious little Ingenue with your judgments of others! So sweet!

[former9thward]

28. Dearie

I can block a call in seconds. I don't care how many numbers they have. If you re getting 48 calls a day every day it doesn't take much intelligence to know that strange numbers that show up on your phone are coming from people you don't want to answer.

[xmas74]

49. Or strange numbers could be

coming from associates, from distant family members, etc. Sometimes you receive calls from those least expected, offering condolences.

There are so many that could call during a wake. The last I'd ever expect would be from a bank, unless the local branch called to offer condolences. (My local credit union sends condolences.)

[former9thward]

57. Just as a practical matter

most calls from associates or distant family members would be coming from area codes that you would be familiar with. Companies like BoA use strange area codes from what I have been told.

[sabrina 1]

63. Yes, but she should be free not to have turn her phone off

so she can get any calls from close relatives and friends. It's also possible she doesn't know how to block one number while allowing the others to get through.

But aside from all that, she should not have had to deal with it at all.

[pipi_k]

109. There are lots of things we all should be free from...

Do you leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition because you should be free from having it stolen?

Do you chop vegetables on the same cutting board as you've just used to cut raw chicken because you should be free from spreading salmonella?

Do you cross the street on a red light because you should be free from being hit by a car coming from the other direction?


There are other examples, I'm sure...

My point is...if something is happening...annoying phone calls during one's husband's funeral services...a sensible person would turn the phone off for those few hours. She obviously isn't senile if she has the sense to know how to USE a cell phone in the first place.

People who are victims of a bank looking for money they don't have at the moment get my sympathy. Those who allow themselves to be victimized further do not.

[sabrina 1]

133. Well, she's not allowing herself to be victimized by their horrendous

behavior, which apparently was not limited to the harassment she received during her husband's funeral. She is suing them and I imagine any jury will understand who was wrong in this instance. If you read some of the links posted here, as some of us tried to say, there is more to the story than we are aware of. I too was in a situation where someone very close to me was killed, and the last thing I wanted to think about was people calling, like the press eg, nor did I think to block them on that day. My family and friends did what hers did, they handled the phone. In her case, she has explained that they used different numbers so blocking one was not a solution. And they left messages on her answering machine, forcing her to have to listen to them as she tried to get to the calls from those she was expecting to hear from.

We all react differently to grief, which is why I refrain from judging what anyone going through that process especially so early on does to get through it day to day. It's easy to say what we might do. Easy to feel superior because we might have handled things better or differently. But there is no rule about how people grieve or how they 'should' react to circumstances like this.

The people who were clearly wrong here were those representing BOA. There is no doubt about that and I hope she is successful in her lawsuit.

[pipi_k]

140. I'm really glad she's suing

She's right.

And I hope she wins big...I really do. What the bank did was vile.

[sabrina 1]

143. Me too!

:-)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

135. Just to be clear, you are blaming the victim here

I used to work for Bank of America. I'm not sure why you're such an exuberant cheerleader for the corporation, but I can tell you that they're not a good corporation. I don't expect that to sway you from blaming the elderly lady and taking BofA's side, but I did want to tell you that I disagree with your stance as much as it's possible for a person to disagree with another's stance. Half of this thread looks like the diseased writing and ranting of Ayn Rand. I'm firmly siding with the victim on this one.

[pipi_k]

141. You know what makes me shake my head in pity?

When people read their own agenda into what others say or write.

I think BoA are a bunch of bloodsucking assholes. I have no love for them, having read about tons and tons of awful things they have done to ordinary Americans.

So please...take your statement that you don't know why I'm such "an exuberant cheerleader" for them elsewhere, OK?

What they did was vile.

Do you understand that? VILE.

My thoughts on how the victim could have handled the phone calls during the wake have absolutely nothing to do with the larger case. And I really don't know how anyone can seriously equate my thoughts on how she should have handled that one day with being an "exuberant cheerleader" for BoA.

Jesus. It drives me crazy. People see only what they want to see.

:eyes:

[xmas74]

75. Area codes that aren't always what you recognize

but, in a time of grief, you probably just wouldn't think about the number.

Example: a grandparent passes away and the wake is held at my aunt's house. The phone rings and she tells me to answer it. I wouldn't recognize some of the numbers calling her. If she asked another family member to answer they probably wouldn't recognize all the numbers. It's easy to get confused when multiple family members answer the phone.

In my family we also have military, some stationed overseas. The area codes wouldn't look as familiar and, as an added bonus, some military still use phone cards. Phone cards sometimes show up with strange numbers too.

Overall, in a time of grief you just don't think about the practical. They took advantage of her.

[qanda]

58. It's sometimes impossible to block a call because it will come from an unknown number

and unknown name. If there's no number to block then you just have to take your chances at answering the phone. Not saying that was the case here but just wanted to point that out.

[former9thward]

64. I understand that but no one has to answer a call.

I never answer a call from 'unknown number' and I have never had any problems as a result. If it is important they will leave a voice mail.

[Gold Metal Flake]

114. Aren't you special.

Such a telephone ninja on the internet!

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

41. it's an elderly person who may have not known how to do that

who gives a fuck if she didn't, calling her 48 times while she is grieving is sick.

[former9thward]

42. Maybe you should read the OP.

It says "family members" took the calls. So no one in the whole family knows how to block cell phone calls? Apparently you like being a victim. I choose not to be one.

[Bluebear]

45. /ignore

Ass.

[former9thward]

55. If you wish to ignore someone there is a icon that you click on.

/ignore Ass. won't work. Just a helpful suggestion.

[RetroLounge]

70. Are you always such an asshole?

:shrug:

RL

[former9thward]

79. No, are you?

[stockholmer]

94. if the asshat fits, wear it (ie READ THIS link below),you have serious compassion deficiency issues

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1893402&mesg_id=1897322

[FlaGranny]

98. That's the side of yourself

you seem to show.

[RetroLounge]

102. From reading a few of your other disgusting posts

I see you're a heartless prick too.

RL

[sabrina 1]

76. Apparently you have far more sympathy for the harassers than for

the victim.

[former9thward]

80. I believe in not being a victim.

Life is too short to do otherwise.

[sabrina 1]

82. You have demonstrated that you believe the opposite.

You are suggesting that when someone is harassed they should adjust THEIR lives to accommodate the harasser. That is being a victim. SHE owns the phone, not them. She has a right not to be harassed. She needs to do nothing to accommodate the harasser.

What you are suggesting is the same thing people suggest to women so they won't be raped: 'don't wear sexy clothes'.

What this woman can do and hopefully is doing, is sue them. They stupidly continued to harass her and have handed her a case that any jury will who hears it will be on her side. Stupid behavior on their part, but then evil people usually are stupid. I can see why BOA is in so much trouble.

[former9thward]

85. Any girlfriend of mine I have taught to use a gun and carry one.

They wear the sexiest clothes they want. Don't be a victim. But others may differ.....

BTW I have short positions in BoA stock. So I hope they go down the toilet.

[sabrina 1]

87. Then why are not applying the same standard to this widow?

Why do you want HER to act like a victim?

People have tried to point out to you why she did not react the way you think she should, but you have ignored every single person here and continued to criticize her for not doing what you think she should have done.

Check out the links at the bottom of this thread before you say anymore. She had good reasons, which most of us were willing to believe, for the way she handled the situation. Sad that you would not give her the benefit of the doubt.

[sabrina 1]

78. Blocking one number from a Bank won't stop them for calling from

another number. But that is beside the point. Why were they doing this? What kind of human being would make that many calls to someone who they have been told has just lost their husband? And YOU are upset with the widow? SHE is to blame for someone else's horrendous, ugly behavior?

Unbelievable.

[former9thward]

81. Don't make up things in my posts.

I never said any of those things and you know that. Of course if you have no argument ....

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xmas74]

48. Was the call from the same number?

Many times calls from something of that size may come from multiple phone numbers. Unless you take the time to block each and every one you'll still receive calls.

The last thing I would think about is blocking a number during a wake. I'd probably just get flustered and block the wrong number.

[0rganism]

59. not everyone knows the ins and outs of blocking and unblocking calls

and expecting a grieving widow to do so is more than a bit ridiculous even if she's one of the people who already knows how to do so. So... yeah, think again yourself.

IMHO, what the bank did via collection agencies was harassment, and they need to be sued.

Their excuse: "oooh, the calls are computer generated"

Well, I'd consider placing 48 collection calls to the same party in one day to be a nasty-ass bug. Time to reprogram the fucking computer. It's about as easy as blocking collection calls, and the person doing it doesn't even have to be a grieving widow.

[blueamy66]

115. I have a collection agency that is calling me daily.....

I just labeled the # as DON'T ANSWWER. So I don't answer.

on edit: deleted most of my post.....I'm sure someone will just tell me to "pay your bills"....

[sulphurdunn]

22. See pays for her phone.

She shouldn't have to block the number. BOA should not have been harassing her. It's doesn't take rocker science ethics to see that.

[former9thward]

29. Of course they shouldn't of harassed her.

But she could have dealt with it. You probably pay for internet. So do you sue because you get spam emails or do you use filters to reduce the problem? Or do you feel you have to open and read every email you get because you are "paying for it"?

[woo me with science]

31. Oh for pete's sake.

You just acknowledged up above that they can call from many different numbers, and your response was that she should have to block it each and every time.

So much for not being harassed.

And so much for logic AND compassion. :eyes: :puke:

[woo me with science]

32. K&R

Bloodsuckers.

[former9thward]

34. I don't complain about technology when the technology is there to deal with it.

I guess you prefer to complain and take it.

[NBachers]

67. You just won't let it go, will you? That's it- welcome to my ignore list. You deserve it.

As I go back through my ignore list, I see that many eventually end up TS'ed. You're on the way

[Bluebear]

73. I did the same thing

What an ass!

[former9thward]

77. I have noticed that many who wish others TSed end up that way themselves.

Good luck to you!

[saras]

71. re spam - I pay people to hunt them down and stop them. Spamcop.net.

Are you suggesting that she should set Anonymous or LulzSec against BoA's computer? That's the only way to "deal with" it, and as much as I might enjoy seeing it, I wouldn't recommend it because I don't think it's a good use of their time and skills.

Everything BoA is doing in this situation is assholic, not just the 48 calls a day. None of it is appropriate, and all of it is perfectly within their power and right to not do.

[lildreamer316]

103. Shouldn't HAVE.

not shouldn't OF.

[DaveJ]

35. Robo calls cannot be blocked

They do not come from one number, they come from a variety of ever changing numbers. They know how to get around that. I believe they are trained in psychological torture.

[former9thward]

38. No one forces you to answer a call coming from a number you don't know.

And no, they don't have an endless supply of numbers. They can be blocked easily.

[DaveJ]

40. Not an endless supply? Come on.

Ok, so say there are a few dozen numbers. She should not have to continually block them. I would not doubt they hire people to call from their home phones. But whatever.

Also, she should be able to answer unknown calls without fear. That is B of A controlling her life. I enjoy being able to answer the phone without fear of who it is. Everyone should have that option.

The reality is she needs to give a written order for them to stop calling and then they must stop calling.

[Sirveri]

53. How do you block a phone number?

I've wanted to do that, but it still sends them to my voice mail where they fill up my message box with robo calls and are heck of annoying.

[former9thward]

54. My cell phone has a icon asking you whether you want to block

the call or store it in your address book. Don't know if you are talking about a landline or cell. The OP mentioned a cell phone.

[Sirveri]

72. Yeah, mine has no such feature. I can ban unknown numbers, but sometimes I need that off.

That also requires me to put my phone into some sort of strange security lock down mode so I can't add contacts until I shut it off, and then I have to turn it back on afterwards. Even after I have banned all numbers not inside my phone, they can still leave messages on my voice mail, which in this case they did, making my voice mail totally worthless.

[FlaGranny]

100. My AT&T will only allow

six numbers to be blocked. Your phone company can give you instructions. I had to buy a phone/answering machine that blocks up to 30 (or is it 50) numbers. I get multiple calls a day from a place called Portfolio Recovery. I haven't been late on any payments in many years and have excellent credit. Never have been able to find out why they call. The times I have picked up there is never anyone there. I have already blocked 15 or more numbers they call from. Even though the numbers are blocked I can still tell they come through because the phone will ring one time, then every couple of days they start calling from a new number. Harrassment for no reason and it's really annoying me. I'm seriously considering changing our phone number, but I doubt that would help.

[lpbk2713]

18. Lamest excuse I've heard lately.

People put shit IN computers. People can take shit OUT of computers.

The chasers just don't want to be bothered with finding out who to call to do it.

[Shagbark Hickory]

43. There is no end to the awful things bank of america does.

[onethatcares]

19. so if corporations are people and BoA is a corporation then they

should be able to be arrested and thrown in jail for harassment upon completion of a sworn affidavit pertaining to the facts of the case.

Maybe we could get Eric Holder to do the paperwork?:rofl:

[NICO9000]

20. One way to deal with bill collectors

Now I don't recommend this for most folks, but here's what my buddy did.

His crazy wife has spent them into oblivion, so the debt calls come hot and heavy all day; usually, they're blocked or just ignored, but one day my friend picks up the phone and some lawyers in NY are on the line, haranguing him for money he doesn't have and can't pay anyway. After going back-and-forth with these guys for awhile, my friend finally says this:

"OK, I'll pay you, but first I need somebody from your office - I don't care if it's a man or woman - to come out to California and SUCK MY DICK!!!"

The lawyers started calling him a motherfucker and what have you and my friend just laughed hysterically and then hung up. He hasn't heard from them since.

[Curmudgeoness]

27. I wouldn't recommend it either, but.....

it made me laugh out loud. If you don't have anything to lose, why not have fun!

:rofl:

[DeSwiss]

21. Bankers: ''Making pond scum look good by comparison for centuries.''

- K&R

[Ken Burch]

97. Or, as Brecht put it,

"Which is the greater crime, to rob a bank or to own one?"

(where are you when we NEED you, Pirate Jenny?)

[NAGAUEL]

33. Sounds like a harrassment lawsuit in the making!

I hope she has a good lawyer.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

37. In the old days we fought back and tied up their lines.

[Odin2005]

46. These "people" are evil psychopathic monsters, all of them.

[undergroundpanther]

69. Agreed

And they need their asses handed to them humiliated on TV for all to see ,Give them time in a REGULAR JAIL that the plebians like us would go to and put them in general population or 23 hrs a day solitary.Then when they get out all aged FORCE them. to live the rest of their lives dirt poor .Let them only have menial service jobs,working for people they'd call stupid or exploitable when they were rich, and be forced to lick the dust off the boots of the homeless they screwed over.And they must be BANNED from EVER being involved in anything financial, Have ALL assets seized and used for social programs,all the mortgages debts all forgiven. Give them the clothes they are wearing,Evict them from their houses,give them a minimum wage paycheck for one week's work,tell them to find a place to live because now they are poor, make them and all their relatives banned from ever making any kind of corporation forever.And never trust them with anything.

[Turbineguy]

47. It's why Nations Bank bought BofA

to trash a new brand.

[avaistheone1]

50. How classy!!

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[bluesbassman]

52. A.P. Giannini turns another few revolutions in his grave.

Another once great American institution being ground into the dust by greedy opportunists and confidence men.

Spelling edit - bbm

[Moosepoop]

56. This is for those bashing the poor woman for taking the calls...

First - yes, she is elderly.

Second - yes, the calls came from many different numbers.

Third - she had a reason for answering the calls.

Fourth - she had a reason for leaving the phone on during the wake.

Fifth - the whole story is much, much worse than the portion of it told in the article.

Here's a link to another story on it: http://gawker.com/5837153/bank-of-america-allegedly-called-grieving-widow-48-times-a-day

And here's the link to the actual court filing: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/04/BoA.pdf

It's very interesting reading. All the info for points 1-5 above are in the complaint. I hope she wins her lawsuit, though in my opinion she's not asking for nearly enough in damages.

[sabrina 1]

83. Thank you. Hard to believe anyone would be blaming her even

without all that extra information. But for those who are, hopefully now they will get it.

[chill_wind]

88. Thanks for that link, as well. BofA officials responsible for this should be dipped and scalded

in hot boiling oil if they did what's been described.

[stockholmer]

93. wowow, it is actually WORSE than I even expected, BoA is evil distilled

thanks for the additional info

[PA Democrat]

108. I had the same reaction.

B of A repeatedly harassed her even after she had made the mortgage payments including late fees. No amount of money could compensate for B of A's horrendous actions.

[pipi_k]

107. I'll agree with you on all points but one...

There is no reason on earth that anyone has to leave his or her phone on during a wake.

None.

That is what voicemail is for. And if someone wants to leave a cell phone on during wakes or church services or some other solemn ceremony, it's possible to turn the ringer off.


If she's elderly, then she must have some younger relatives who could have told her to shut the phone down or turn the ringer off.

She's a victim of the bank, yes. But she didn't need to help them to victimize her. Or, her friends/relatives didn't have to allow her to be victimized during the wake and funeral.

[PA Democrat]

111. Read the details included in the lawsuit. The calls went FAR beyond

the day of the funeral and wake and continued well after the bank had received all of the payments plus late fees. They still threatened to foreclose on the home unless she signed a new mortgage document, falsely claiming that she was not on the original mortgage. They repeatedly called and asked to speak to her dead husband even AFTER she had mailed them a copy of the death certificate.

If she had blocked their calls and had not tried to resolve the issue by phone, I'm sure B of A would have tried to foreclose on her home even though the payments were current.

B of A was wrong, wrong, wrong and no one should have to worry about blocking or screening repeated calls (every 15 minutes) for weeks on end.

It's incredibly sad that so many blame the victim.

[pipi_k]

123. I realize that, and that is not my point

She should not have been harassed the way she was. Absolutely. I value my privacy as much as anyone, and I'll tell you what, it would not take a real long time of similar calling activities for me to contact my state's AG. Or, if I'm too elderly or unaware of what to do, to tell a family member with sense enough to do something about it.

But anybody who can't turn the damned phone off during a wake/funeral, especially if s/he knows it's going to ring every 15 minutes does not get my sympathy.

And here's something else...the more you answer the phone, the more they're going to call. If you have someone calling and calling and calling, and you don't recognize the number, don't encourage them by answering the phone.

[PA Democrat]

125. The lawsuit is about much more than one day, but in your rush to blame the victim

you seem to forget about that.

How about instead of placing the onus on the VICTIM we put the onus on the HARASSER by forcing them to enable an override of the "automatic" system which calls every 15 minutes?

Additionally, as someone who has dealt with my state's AG office, I can assure you that it will take weeks if not months before any action is taken.

I feel sorry for you that you are incapable of having any sympathy for someone who is clearly a victim in this case.

[pipi_k]

130. And I feel sorry

that you need to invent some awful scenario by which I am "blaming the victim" for anything.

Which I clearly am not.

I am fully aware of the fact that the lawsuit is about more than just one day.

That is not my point.

Everything BoA did was wrong. Obscene. They should be punished to the fullest extent, whatever that is, for what they did.


but that doesn't mean the woman HAD to deal with their phone calls during her husband's wake. She could have turned off her phone or turned off the ringer and had a couple of hours of unsullied grieving.

She doesn't deserve extra points for victimhood by choosing not to do what any person with a normal IQ would do. And if she couldn't, then it fell to her family to do it for her.

[PA Democrat]

132. "Doesn't deserve extra points for victimhood"

"But anybody who can't turn the damned phone off during a wake/funeral, especially if s/he knows it's going to ring every 15 minutes does not get my sympathy."

Oh, no, you aren't blaming the victim at ALL. :thumbsdown:

[pipi_k]

138. What, exactly, am I "blaming the victim" for?

It wasn't her fault she didn't have the money.

It wasn't her fault the bank kept calling.

Those are facts. She was a victim of the bank.


What am I blaming her FOR?

[Moosepoop]

134. "There is no reason on earth..."

Obviously, you didn't bother to read the complaint.

[pipi_k]

139. As I replied somewhere down below...

sometimes circumstances require a change from Plan A to Plan B.

Had something happened to the phone lines or cell phone towers, etc., nobody would have been able to get through.

What then?

The entire wake is ruined? That's it, folks...everybody pack up and go home?

No. You change the program.

This program COULD HAVE BEEN changed. She, or the family, chose not to.

Even knowing that the bank was going to call many times a day.

They went ahead KNOWING the bank would be assholes. They knew the consequences and went with Plan A anyway. You know, there's being a victim of someone else, and then there's making yourself a victim.

[Vehl]

62. this is sick. nt

[lonestarnot]

68. Nasty fuckers they.

[kag]

74. Oh, how I hope...

Some judge or jury awards her about a billion dollars in punitive damages. The only number I saw in the court filing was $10,000. Is that all they're asking for? I couldn't tell. I'm not a lawyer.

[ribrepin]

86. Yeah I remember Bank of America fondly

We had a car loan through them. One time our payment arrived one day late. Their loan sharks were on the phone calling me at work the next day. Acted like I hadn't paid them for six months and he had finally tracked me down at my job. I work in an open space and I was embarrassed.


I called them after work and read them the riot act. We had been on time every month for 4 and a half years on a six year contract.

I will never do business with them again because of their nasty loan people.

[chill_wind]

89. Somehow I doubt the courts are going to validate the "she should have blocked her calls" defense

of the relentless bastards. I hope she wins one big for everyone whose turn might be next.

[pipi_k]

122. Oh, believe me...

I hope she wins big too. She should. That was harassment, pure and simple.

My issue is with people who think she would have been inconvenienced beyond reason by turning the phone off during whatever services she attended. Really? A person can't turn the phone off for a couple of hours just to get some peace?

Granted, she shouldn't HAVE to, but why not just DO it for the matter of a couple of hours...

[chill_wind]

124. I don't understand the intense focus on that or what her state of mind was

(that she was so fearful of ignoring their calls) instead of what BofA did.

Just me :shrug:

[pipi_k]

127. What BoA did was evil

People are saying she was so overcome with grief she couldn't think of anything.

OK...widow. Overcome with grief. But surely she wasn't the only one there at the funeral. Other family members must have been present. I cannot believe that there was not one of them who had the sense enough to say, "Let's have some peace and quiet during this very sad time of mourning", and shut the phone off.

That wouldn't give that poor woman peace during all the other times she was called, but at least she wouldn't be harassed during her husband's funeral.

I'll tell you what...if anybody did that to my mom this past Feb during my brother's wake and funeral, I'd have taken her phone away. At least until the wake/funeral were over. In the meantime, I'd be contacting whatever state's AG I had to in order to stop the harassment. Because she doesn't know about such things.

I know people here are thinking that some of us are "blaming the victim". That's not the case at all. I'm blaming the people around the victim who were too stupid to do what anybody who doesn't want to be bothered would do. Shut the phone off until services are over. And contact authorities.

[druidity33]

136. did you read the freaking complaint?

The wake was at her home. She had the telephone set up in the house with speakers so that relatives could call from far away and give their condolences out loud as part of the service. The payment wasn't even late yet. Yet every 15 minutes while she's waiting for other calls there goes BOA again, not to mention the call waiting beeps while people were saying their peace.

So you see... she couldn't just turn her fucking phone off like you said she could.


jeez...

[pipi_k]

137. Give condolences as part of the service?

Bullshit.

So what does that mean? Every time the phone rings, people stop whatever they're saying or doing and listen to the condolences?


I'll say it again. If the bank started calling the day the husband died and kept ON calling, it was incredibly STUPID for anyone to set up a loudspeaker "condolence" deal as part of the service.

This isn't even an important part of the story, yet people are making what should be a minor thing into a huge deal here. Finding all sorts of excuses for why she couldn't just shut the phone off instead of allowing herself to be harassed the way she was. Accusing anyone who suggests that if plan A doesn't work out, you go to plan B of "blaming the victim".

Which is ridiculous. Nobody is doing any such thing

What the bank did was vile.

But she did NOT have to allow that day to be even worse than it was. Sometimes circumstances require people to make changes in how they do things. This was one of those circumstances. Had the cell towers been blown over in a storm or something else unavoidable happened, nobody would have died because they couldn't express "condolences as part of the service".

[druidity33]

151. wow, just wow... now you're calling her stupid.

YOU ARE BLAMING the victim. Period. This was not a hurricane blowing lines over. This was a multi-national company making someone's life miserable for a payment that wasn't late yet. Apparently you have absolutely no compassion. NO ONE should have to shut off their phone "as a solution" to that problem. Phones are an essential service, you know... and if she didn't know "plan A" wasn't going to work out, maybe it's because other things were on her mind. Done with you...

Go suck lemons somewhere else.

:eyes:

[deacon_sephiroth]

96. I can only encourage everyone to boycott them as I do

years ago, for personal reasones dealing with them (they lost my IRA and assigned my SSN to someone else, generating ID theft alerts and all manner of trouble) I refuse now and forever to do any business with them. I urge anyoen I speak to about banking to do the same.

[ck4829]

110. Vile.

[Beacool]

116. Bunch of vultures!!!!!

All these banks (I personally despise Chase with a passion) suck the blood of the consumers while Congress allows it.

They all make me sick!!!!

:mad:

[Generic Other]

129. A story told of Jesse James and a poor widow woman

It was said he robbed a bank and gave the money to a poor widow woman to pay her mortgage. When the banker came to evict her, she gave him the cash. Unbeknownst to the heartless villain, Jesse was hiding in the bushes. He reclaimed the money at gunpoint.

Even though it is doubtful this ever happened, it is easy to see why people might wish it had!

[LadyInAZ]

144. widow need to take them to court

for harassment charges... collectors are like that... once they have your # and you tell them as soon as you can... the calls repeat and repeat...

[Maat]

149. Well, I've just had a very nasty experience with another bank ..

which has a W and an F prominent in its name. My sister and I have been granted conservatorship over my mother. This bank called my cell and my sister's cell once per day, asking if my mother was there. We'd tell them, "No." We'd tell them that she had dementia, was in an institution, and wasn't aware what day it was or where she was. Then, they'd ask, "Who has her power-of-attorney?" I'd tell them that she didn't execute one. Anyway, to make a long story short, I'd explain to them that we were taking care of her affairs. I faxed them the court paperwork. They didn't find it satisfactory (I couldn't help that - the court did). Each one of them would say, "Well, I can't talk to you." I'd say, "Fine. Have a nice day." What was particularly odious was that they started calling my husband's business line, and insisting that it had something to do with Mom. Finally, I called the executive offices and told them to cease and desist the calls, until such time as new paperwork was issued. They did do this. What is crazy is that we have a lot of money in the bank and there's a lot of corporate money in the bank (companies in which we have ownership stakes). I told that to the reps in the executive offices (not a call since, to their credit). When I spoke with the rep in the executive offices, I told her that these practices were highly disturbing - the idea that they would continue to harass someone - DAILY - when she had been diagnosed with mid-stage dementia (or anyone else for that matter).