Date Received: 2022-06-02
Issue: Problem when making payments
Subissue: Problem during payment process
Consumer Complaint: My credit card bill was paid on time but paid twice in the amount of {$1100.00} x 2. My bank reversed the duplicate payment, because the credit card company refused to refund the overpayment. Now, the credit card company has issued a {$35.00} charge as a Returned Payment Fee. I did not expect to have to fight to get my money back, and I certainly didnt expect to be charged for it. My bank is also looking into the matter, but there has been no resolution to date.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: OH
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-06-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-06-02
Issue: Managing an account
Subissue: Banking errors
Consumer Complaint: The police told me to dispute charges because of an problem with XXXX XXXX I didn't they didn't follow through and took my money now I'm in debt and can't pay my bills because of there mishandling of the money and paperwork
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: OH
Zip: 431XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-06-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-06-02
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
Subissue: Seized or attempted to seize your property
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX was served ( via United States Postal Service ) an illegal and voided order for garnishment by an attorney XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX, SD. This paperwork included proof of XXXX XXXX illegally garnishing XXXX federally protected income in her XXXX, Montana US Bank account. This illegitimate order was issued by a judge ( the order has no signature ) in XXXX XXXX, by a judge who continues to attempt to preside over a civil proceeding in which he completely lacks statutory subject matter jurisdiction, so the case is dismissed and voided. The order was served upon a XXXX XXXX branch. This illegal entry of order by XXXX XXXX and garnishment by attorney XXXX XXXX on XXXX exclusive protected income in her bank account violated federal and Montana statutory law. Unless otherwise stated herein, your account and this Agreement will be governed by federal law and, unless superseded by federal law, by the law of the state in which your account is located. XXXX US Bank account has been located in Montana since XXXX evidenced by the mailing address, property location for her home mortgage, and all deposits being in her Montana branch and by Montana sources. US Bank violated 25-13-608 M.C.A ; 25-13-614 M.C.A. Montana Code Annotated specifically states that XXXX is entitled to 19 types of exempt income or property, including : 4. Medical and/or XXXX benefits 5. XXXX benefits 6. Social Security and XXXX benefits 7. Unemployment benefits 8. Unmatured life insurance contracts 9. XXXX benefits 10. XXXX benefits, also called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ( TANF ) 11. Workers compensation 12. Professionally prescribed health aids The garnishments included 100 % of XXXX only income paid by the State of Montana for purposes as listed above. Further, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX garnishing 100 % of XXXX weekly income is prohibited under Section 303 ( b ) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. XXXX ( b ) ( 2 ) and further stated as ( c ) Execution or enforcement of garnishment order or process prohibited. No court of the United States or any State, and no State ( or officer or agency thereof ), may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section. The funds garnished from US Bank constitute 100 % of XXXX weekly income and the taking is in violation of SDCL 21-18-52. No more than 20 % of a persons weekly disposable income may be garnished per SDCL 21-18-51. Moreover, XXXX does not reside within the county where US Bank was served [ XXXX ] and as it was not served upon the State of Montana or corporate headquarters of US Bank, so such service is defective. This illegal service in XXXX XXXX violated the current banking garnishments for foreign accounts and enforcing judgements across state lines, upheld across the United States since the early 1900s. A warrant of attachment served upon a branch bank does not reach the assets held for, or accounts maintained by, the defendant in other branches or in the home office. Cronan v. Schilling, 100 N.Y.S.2d 474 ( Sup. Ct. N.Y.Co. XXXX ). The 2nd Circuit Court holding that the separate entity rule precludes a court from ordering a garnishee bank operating branches in New York to restrain assets of judgment debtors held in foreign branches of the bank. Motorola Credit Corp. v. Standard Chartered Bank, 771 F.3d 160, ( 2d Cir. XXXX ) SOUTH DAKOTA COURTS LACK JURISDICTION OVER XXXX Courts are constituted by authority, and they can not go beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal. Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 26 U. S. 340 ; Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8. Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348 ( XXXX ) The burden of proof was therefore upon the plaintiffs to show by what authority the South Dakota court could legally enter a personal judgment against the statutory subject matter jurisdiction authorized by the South Dakota legislative branch, which states the plaintiff must be a resident of South Dakota at the time of filing - SDCL 25-4-30. XXXX XXXX acknowledged that the Plaintiff [ XXXX XXXX XXXX ] was a resident of Montana pursuant to SDCL 41-1-1.2. Instead XXXX XXXX stated he could be a resident of XXXX. It doesn't matter. This finding of the Court did not meet the mandatory forty-five day requirement and steps to establish residency as this Court established in Rush v. Rush, XXXX S.D. 56, 12-15, 866 N.W.2d 556, 561-62. When assessing a persons acts and declarations regarding residency, [ m ] ore weight or importance will be given to a persons acts than to his declarations, and when they are inconsistent, the acts will control. It is said in this connection that actions speak louder than words, but that the words are to be heard for what they are worth. Veseth v. Veseth, 147 Mont. 169, 173, 410 P.2d 930, 932 ( XXXX ) ( quoting 28 C.J.S. Domicile 18, p. 45 ). XXXX actions during the years at issue speak volumes. Id. at XXXX. Greenwood v. Montana Department of Revenue, DA 19-0615 ; XXXX MT 149. Both federal and South Dakota law is extensively established DIV18-41 must be dismissed ; with every order voided- even prior to entry by the court. The Court must dismiss any case over which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ( h ) ( 3 ). Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to act such that without subject matter jurisdiction any resulting judgment or order is void. Cable v. Union Cty. Bd. Of Cty. Comm'rs, XXXX S.D. 59, 20, 769 N.W.2d 817, 825. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred solely by constitutional or statutory provisions. Lake Hendricks Improvement Ass'n v. Brookings Cty . Planning & Zoning Comm'n, XXXX S.D. 48, 15, 882 N.W.2d 307, 312. Furthermore, subject matter jurisdiction can neither be conferred on a court, nor denied to a court by the acts of the parties or the procedures they employ. Cable, XXXX S.D. 59, 20, 769 N.W.2d at 825. Lippold v. Meade County. Bd. of Commerce, XXXX S.D. 7 When the circuit court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter in litigation, the Supreme Court does not acquire jurisdiction by appeal to it from a judgment of the circuit court. In XXXX XXXX 's Addition, 85 SD 196, 201, 179 NW2d 268, 270 ( SD XXXX ). Schrank v. Pennington County Board of Commissioners XXXX SD 108, 43 ; 584 N.W.2d 680, 682 Federal law clearly states that res judicata does not apply when a court lacks jurisdiction. The elements of Federal claim preclusion are : ( 1 ) there must have been a final judgment on the merits ; ( 2 ) the decision was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction ; ( 3 ) the prior action must have involved the same parties or their privies ; and ( 4 ) the prior action must have involved the same claim. According, however, to Rule 41 ( b ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following are not claim preclusive and are not considered an adjudication " on the merits '' : 1 ) a lack of jurisdiction 2 ) improper venue South Dakota states that res judicata is only applicable when a case is decided on the merits. A case can not be decided on the merits where jurisdiction is absent. As such, we are bound by the dictates of XXXX XXXX, both by reason of the exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, as well as by principles of comity, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The following four tests must be met to sustain collateral estoppel : ( 1 ) The issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the one presented in the action in question ; ( 2 ) There was a final judgment on the merits ; ( 3 ) The party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and ( 4 ) The party against whom the plea is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior adjudication. Grand State Property , Inc. v. Woods, Fuller, et al., XXXX SD 139, 12, 556 N.W.2d 84, 87 ( quoting Black Hills Novelty Co. , Inc. v. South Dakota Commission on Gaming , 520 *295N.W.2d 70, 73 ( S.DXXXX ) ( other internal citations omitted ) ) ; see Grand Laboratories, Inc. v. United States , 882 F.Supp. 906, 909 ( D.S.D.XXXX ) ( applying collateral estoppel under South Dakota law ). SDDS, Inc. v. State, 15 ; 569 NW2d 289, XXXX SD 114 Therefore, any judge who intentionally and willfully enters a decision in direct contradiction of both established federal and South Dakota statute and law is proceeding in clear violation of law and subjects the judge to personal suit. " officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law. Owens V. City of Independence, 448 U.S. .1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 ; Hafer V. Melo, 502 U.S. 21. As such, XXXX XXXX is civilly liable for his intentional refusal to uphold state and federal law, including paying XXXX damages incurred.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: MT
Zip: 598XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-06-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-06-02
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt is not yours
Consumer Complaint: I operate an XXXX called XXXX XXXX XXXX, a levy from the State was submitted to US Bank from the State of California. The Levy was not placed on the XXXX but one of its members. The Levy was for a matter with one of the members of the XXXX nothing to do with the XXXX. The bank levied the XXXX account erroneously. There is no mention of the XXXX on the Levy. US Bank Stated that because it was from the State it had to be correct and they have to follow the States request. No matter what proof I showed them of their wrong doing, the State was right. Also the Levy was served for the XXXX and the US Bank took funds made available on the XXXX.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 92504
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-06-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-06-01
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I have been undergoing loss mitigation and was set up on a trial plan. I was to make XXXX payments under this plan on XXXX XX/XX/2022, XXXX XX/XX/2022, and XXXX XX/XX/2022. When I attempted to make my payment for XXXX, I was told I could not make the payment, becasue the trial plan agreement had been broken, because I made the XXXX Payment on XXXX XX/XX/2022. I am being penalized for paying early.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: AZ
Zip: 85756
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-06-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-06-01
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: " I am a victim of identity theft. Due to the Corona Virus Pandemic, we are all facing which has me sitting still at home and I saw the recent news about the multiple XXXX Data breaches. I decided to look at my credit reports from the 3 major credit bureaus and found that someone had used my Identity. I have no idea how the theft took place. I also have no knowledge of any suspects. I did not receive any money, goods, or services as a result of identity theft. I contacted the Credit Bureau and told me to file an Identity Theft Report which I am doing. I appreciate your effort in getting this matter resolved. Thank you. Please let me know if you need any other information from me to block this information from my credit report. Thank you. "
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 92805
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-06-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-06-01
Issue: Problem with a purchase or transfer
Subissue: Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card
Consumer Complaint: A {$500.00} prepaid gift card was purchased from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, AZ on XX/XX/XXXX. In addition to the card value, a {$5.00} fee is also charged. Upon attempting to register the card at on their website at XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, to be utilized on line, the card showed that all funds had been utilized. I immediately checked the transaction history for the card and saw charges that were not conducted by me or my wife. We immediately contacted the card company utilizing the number on the back of the card of XXXX and started a dispute claim. We were given a claim number of XXXX. They also blocked all access to the card so that we no longer have access to the charges in dispute. We were unable to make a police report without access to the charges. We were told a representative would contact us in 3-5 days, but that a resolution could take up to 90 days. After not hearing from the company in the 3-5 day time frame, I called them again on XX/XX/XXXX. At that time I was told we were given wrong information by the first representative as they do not follow up by phone. The representative told me that all of our paperwork had been received, and that we would hear something by mail within 90 days. I received a letter on XX/XX/XXXX. The letter stated that they had made a final determination on our claim, dispute claim # XXXX. Based on their investigation they concluded no error occurred, therefore no funds would be credited and the matter is considered closed. We are reaching out to them and requesting that they reopen the case. The card does come with a U.S Bank Gift Card Cardholder Agreement ( Effective XX/XX/XXXX ). Section 6 of said agreement lists their Zero Liability policy. The Zero Liability section states " You are generally protected from unauthorized transactions. However, if you do not tell us within 60 days of he date of the first transaction you believe to be unauthorized you may not get back any money you lost after the 60 days if we can prove we could have stopped someone from taking the money had you told us on time ''. The first unauthorized purchase was made on XX/XX/XXXX. We reported the unauthorized purchase on XX/XX/XXXX. This is well under the 60 days in this policy.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: AZ
Zip: 85308
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-06-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-06-01
Issue: Improper use of your report
Subissue: Reporting company used your report improperly
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/31 I applied for a credit card with US Bank. The allowed balance was way less than applied for and the card was immediately sent to me. They are now trying to do two hard inquiries to increase the balance to a reasonable amount. The terms and conditions did NOT make it clear how the process works, and that automatic underwriting would be wildly different than a manual underwrite. I spoke to XXXX, the branch XXXX at the XXXX XXXX XXXX and she didnt care and gave me an attitude as soon as she realized I didnt apply in person.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: AZ
Zip: 85257
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-06-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-06-01
Issue: Improper use of your report
Subissue: Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/22 I received a notification from XXXX XXXX that a new hard inquiry was submitted to my XXXX Credit Report from US Bank with a phone number of XXXX. The inquiry was dated XX/XX/22. To my knowledge I do not have any new applications for credit in process, nor have I specifically authorized US Bank to do any credit inquires. I called US Bank and they said they had no record of the inquiry and no accounts on file. Since I had identify fraud two years ago ( US Bank was one of the lenders ) I contact XXXX and froze my credit. They indicated that US Bank did the inquiry per Permissible Purpose ( Section 604 15 U.S.C. 1681b ) but they have no details. Is US Bank obligation to disclose what the permissible purpose is? I did receive a settlement check and a letter from US Bank dated XX/XX/22 for as settlement I was not aware of. See FTC vs AMG XXXX. It would seem odd for them to run any inquires after checks have been issued. Please advise.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: AZ
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-06-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-06-01
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: FHA Mortgage is behind from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. When covid forbearance ended I called and wrote US bank mortgage to inquire about repayment options and to begin regular monthly payments. I recieved a letter stating I do.not qualify for any type of assistance. I responded by attaching the Treasury guidelines about COVID-19 stand alone partial claim showing loan is eligible. Beginning of XX/XX/XXXX I recieved paperwork showing total amount of Partial claim without any type of breakdown on amounts.These documents had a deadline of 14 days to accept, sign. and return. This partial claim offer included revisions modifying original note agreement 's by misrepresenting FHA backed mortgages. Additionally US Bank tried to fraudulently obtain Title owned by Treasury in order to prioritize lenders interest in property over Homeowners rights. Middle of XX/XX/XXXX I called to let them know I wasnt comfortable signing ths terms of parital claim and again would like complete financial hardship application as requested and never recieved. on XXXX received notice of default in mail and demanded entire lump sum payment. The very next day other owner XXXX called to conplain about not getting this hardship application to find out about all our loss mitigation options and should not be demanded the lump sum. Was again told it would be sent out that day. XX/XX/XXXX was the date on fiancial hardship app and got in mail 1 week later. XX/XX/XXXX US BANK filed to forclosure on our FHA loan. Did not offer any type of face to face interview and delayed financial assistance resulting in larger amount of default to homeowner. in XXXX a fha hamp modification was dons and i finally realized it was a predatory lender practices. After hurricane irma forbearance, only option given was hamp modification i was told. this was when i had no idea of loss mitigation programs or info about it. over XXXX was added on to total amount of loan. Some amounts added are over max limit allowed, and some include fees that aren't permitted period. My fixed rate mortgage interest was fraudulently increased, monthly payment increased as well making it more likely to default.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 337XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-06-15
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A