OT - Bank of America Credit

I read the fine print. Awhile back my MBNA Credit Cards (business and personal) became Bank of America. Today I opened the business CC 'change of terms' letter.

In the new 'agreement' - SECURITY INTEREST "Company and guarantor each grants FIA Card Services a security interest and contractual right of offset in and to, all deposit accounts now or hereafter maintained by Company or Guarantor (including, without limitation, joint accounts) with Bank of America or any of its affiliates....."

Meaning they can TAKE YOUR CASH (or, the cash from the accounts of anyone else who may have given you joint access (parental retirement funds? children's college funds?)).

Oh, and "If you have other loans from us or you take out other loans with us or in the future, collateral securing these loans will also secure your obligation under this Agreement"

If I am reading this correctly, this means if you have a CC with BOA and you have an auto or truck loan with a subsidiary or affiliate of BOA, and you default your CC -- they can take your trucks.

BOA, transforming unsecured debt into collateralized debt. Great magic trick.

Reply to
L
Loading thread data ...

There a some other points about credit cards you may not be aware of. Credit cards are not bound by your state's usury laws. They are bound by the laws of their home states. That's why many are based in Delaware. I think S Dakota is the other popular state.

They may change your rate based not >I read the fine print. Awhile back my MBNA Credit Cards (business and

Reply to
Steve Scott

But they can't stop you from paying off your balance in full (including "transferring" the balance to another credit card with lower rates) when they raise your rates.

And since - I believe - the lendors are obliged to inform you if they change your rate, you should have no trouble getting away from "usurious" rates (usuary being a completely subjective notion).

Reply to
John Pollard

Clicked Send a bit too soon.

You should have no trouble paying off the credit card with the "usurious" rate assuming, you did not over-extend yourself in the first place so that you are ineligible for any other interest rate ... in which case, you deserve to pay the "usurious" rate.

Reply to
John Pollard

It isn't BOA, it comes from VISA International, Master Card, American Express, Discover and their lawyers. You must repay your debit, period the end. Didn't you hear about the revision to the bankruptcy act preventing you from discharging credit card debit? They have got good lobbyists.

Reply to
Golden California Girls

And you can pay off the outstanding balance, fire the issuer and take your business to a competitor based not on whether they raise your rate but based strictly on whether you can get a better deal elsewhere, or whether you got up on the wrong side of the bed that day, or because the bank's CEO voted for a president you didn't like or because he's of the wrong race, color, religion or sexual orientation. Or for any other damn reason.

Which gives you far more rights than the lender.

Reply to
SpammersDie

Great lobbyists indeed.

My post was not meant to be a whine, but a heads up. Not necessarily to the ones using the CC either. The caveat that a business's unsecured debt (CC) might be discharged by attaching any bank account or assets, including JOINT assets, without prior notice, was new to me. And disturbing.

I can envision situations where an elderly parent has placed a son/daughter as a joint account holder for retirement funds, or where a son/daughter has been assigned by the court as trustee. If the son/daughter is a partner in a business that fails, what happens? I'm not a lawyer, but it appears to me that these terms allow the CC company access to funds belonging to other people, irregardless of any protections that might exist under corporate law.

Unsecured debt has a premium price BECAUSE it is unsecured. If, instead, the credit card company can now access all properties and assets of anyone 'linked' to an individual who has a failed business - without prior notice to the joint holder and without any restrictions - then the debt has become VERY secured, and should not only have a lower rate, but should also require a legal review!

When you place an individual as a joint holder with you on an account, you are trusting that individual to use your funds in a manner approved by you both. Now, you have to guard, not solely against the possibility that the person might prove untrustworthy, but against the possibility that the person may have unsecured debt with a subsidiary or affiliate of the financial institution where your funds are held.

Since the joint holder is not given a copy of the Change in Terms, and, since these terms do not include a requirement that the joint holder be notified, it amounts to giving Bank of America hands into the pockets of hundreds (thousands?) of unsuspecting folk WHO ARE NOT IN DEBT IN ANY WAY TO BANK OF AMERICA.

Reply to
L

Huh? Anybody acquiring debt should be responsible for paying it back - ya deadbeats! If they don't then we all pay!

Reply to
Andrew DeFaria

Thanks for the heads up. It's always good to get more information on the direction the "system" is headed.

J

____ _ | __\_\_o____/_|

Reply to
John

Andrew DeFaria wrote in news:8MCdnRqe_POXE3jYnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

I agree that one should pay all legitimate debts. However, as you know, Andrew, some people run up debt and try not to pay it (those people should be punished in some way).

On the other hand, the credit card companies also make it difficult to resist their too good to be true offers. Then the question becomes whether the CC company (despite the noticess in small print) have not (at least in spirit) violated the full disclosure laws.

I once fell for an offer of "free" credit, not realizing that my monthly payments first went to the loan, and only thereafter to any previously outstanding balance. I was able to quickly correct the situation with minimal consequences, but others that may have been as stupid as I admittedly was may not have the resources. You may call people who act like I did as just too gullible, but the way the credit card companies act is to take advantage of that, and in my opinion that should be punished too.

Reply to
Han

I think you misunderstand a "joint account." There is a very specific type of account, usually JTWRS, Joint Tenants With Right of Survivorship. It is the normal kind of account a husband a wife set up. The bank treats this account as if either person can do anything with the account.

Other kinds of accounts, business accounts, corporate accounts, trustee accounts, IRA accounts, Uniform Gifts to Minors are not Joint accounts.

Reply to
Golden California Girls

Hello SpammersDie,

hm. not convinced about how sound that strategy is. the above aren't rights, but just tricks. Switching house does erase your liability: you still have to pay down your debt and stop overstretching yourself.

When your creditworthiness goes south, so do your chances to get better deals elsewhere.

Reply to
joe

It's possible.

The wording was not specific to JTRWS. To quote

"Company and Guarantor each grants FIA Card Services a security interest and contractual right of offset in and to, all deposit accounts now or hereafter maintained by Company or Guarantor (including, without limitation, joint accounts) with Bank of America or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries. Company and Guarantor each agrees and authorizes us, to charge, withdraw or set off all sums owed on the Account upon an event of default occurring against any such Accounts, without prior notice or demand. If you have other loans from us or you take out other loans with us or in the future, collateral securing these loans will also secure your obligation under this Agreement, excluding loans secured by either your primary residence, .......or as otherwise prohibited by applicable law. Company and Guarantor each authorizes FIA Card Services to enter into a master control agreement with our affiliates and subsidiaries authorizing, upon the occurrence and continuance of any default under this Agreement, the disposition of funds IN ANY SUCH DEPOSIT ACCOUNT to satisfy all liabilities incurred hereunder, WITHOUT YOUR FURTHER CONSENT.

Reply to
L

Unlike you I don't treat adults like babies. "Difficult to resist" is no excuse IMHO.

If so then the CC company should be prosecuted and the responsibility for initiating that prosecution lies squarely on those duped. And the penalty for not doing so should be that you have to pay the money owed. IOW if you f'ed up then you pay the price (AKA buyer beware). In either case the innocent people who did not enter into the transaction, be it legit or not, should not be punished.

Not my problem! It is not my problem that others are stupid or lacking resources (and what do you mean by resources anyway?). IOW I should not be penalized in such cases.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine - Ayn Rand

Then start a campaign or activist group to punish them if you feel that strongly. However the current state is to punish everybody else and surely that is not right!

Reply to
Andrew DeFaria

Should you and other CC holders be penalized when CC companies actively solicit those with poor credit? That is what happens all to often.

FWIW, I d>> I once fell for an offer of "free" credit, not realizing that my

Reply to
Steve Scott

When two parties enter into an agreement by means of a contract (as is the case here) those parties and no other parties should be responsible

- don't you agree?

Not being "likely to be able to pay their debts" is no excuse! People need to be responsible for their own actions! And we need to stop making excuses for people who refused to own up to their own obligations. Unless it can be shown that a) the CC company violated a law, in which case the CC company should bear the responsibility or b) the consumer was mentally unfit (i.e. mentally challenged (AKA a retard)) the debt should be honored and not thrust upon other innocent people.

IOW If you can't repay your debts then don't borrow money - ya idiot!

Reply to
Andrew DeFaria

You have a point. In personal injury law it's called "maintaining an attractive nusiance." This is in conflict with the other strategm: "never let a sucker keep his money." As with all concepts, there's a balancing test.

I agree that neither you nor I should be responsible for the debts of others. Whatever is necessary should be undertaken to satisfy the debt. For example, a kidney or a cornea has market value.

Reply to
HeyBub

Reply to
Steve Scott

As a matter of fact I do.

Agreed. I'm pleased to see you agree with me that the companies, not their cardholders, should suffer when they actively solicit individuals whose past credit histories show them to be a poor risk and those individuals default on the payments.

Reply to
Steve Scott

Not necessarily so. If not a and not b then guess who gets the responsibility? The stupid, non mentally challenged consumer, which I suspect is the case 90% of the time.

Reply to
Andrew DeFaria

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.