| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| Today's Outrage |
| 2008-07-31 |
| California S&L Floats Military Bereavement Checks For Two Weeks He gave his life serving this country in the war zone of Afghanistan. But a local bank has refused to cash the government check to pay for his burial. Now his family is fighting back. Navy Corpsman Marc Retmier was the 500th Californian to die in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He had dreams of coming home to Hemet to become a doctor. But now his family says a controversy involving a bank and his bereavement check is adding an insult to their tragedy. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #10 Downey Savings has to abide by the Policy and Procedure as submitted to the OTS. It was not a choice that on that day that they could just ignore their P&P and NOT put a hold on the check pending verification of funds. Granted, a federal check has a shorter holding period but there still would have been one. The OTS should back Downey on their decision to avoid an OTS fine and follow their P&P. Gloria is going to make a case built on heartstrings and not facts. It does not seem right to cause any inconvenience to this family in any way but I do not see how it could have been avoided since Downey is a federally insured bank and must follow the OTS rules. Oh, and the credit union they did get the funds from supposedly only released a small portion of the funds and held the rest upon verification... |
| Posted by: Rockit7777 2008-07-31 21:06 |
| #9 I don't know. I am kind of upset with banks. Last one that tried some weird fees on me with a checking account I said "Isn't the purpose of a bank account that it protects YOUR money and is safer than putting it under your mattress?" Guy started screaming at me.... banks have kind of lost the thread... witness SubPrime hell.... and no shame about bail-outs but not for their customers... I have no sympathy for the current banks in the USA. They have burned all their bridges. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-07-31 18:46 |
| #8 I also agree that the bank probably did the best that it could in light of the situation. With Gloria Allred's involvement, you are almost certainly going to have the details completely blown out of proportion. Everyone is so quick to criticize the bank, but we only know half of the story. This looks like a small bank who probably know their customers well. I'm sure there is more to this than meets the eye. I bet the customers were a little over-demanding and unreasonable. |
| Posted by: AlrightALLREDy 2008-07-31 17:47 |
| #7 Phereque, Truth be told, the S&L probably would hold the value of the money in an investment for 12 to 13 days drawing accrued interest for the S&L. It's business baby, nothing personal. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-31 17:37 |
| #6 There's enough stupid in here to float a battleship. If you want to see what the actual rules are, go the Federal Reserve's site and look for "Regulation CC" -- it's easy to find. There are two things in play here: US Treasury checks can be available the next business day after deposit, BUT any bank can have a policy that allows them to hold a noncash amount over $5000 for up to nine business days. So: they could have had $10K the next business day, and the rest eight business days later, in the very worst case. Why did they need $100K immediately for a funeral? And why get an attorney involved for something that isn't illegal, or even contrary to Federal regulations? Waah, waah, give me attention for no apparent reason. |
| Posted by: Phereque the Imposter5074 2008-07-31 15:35 |
| #5 In follow-up -- 1) no one would fault a bank for wanting to make sure a check is legitimate before cashing it. 2) while I'm not mil/ex-mil, I'm comfortably certain that the military has a procedure for handling these checks, and that the letter accompanying the check would (should) have phone numbers that a banker could call for verification. 3) a sensitive, customer-oriented banker, upon hearing the bad news and seeing the check, would extend himself/herself to do the verification, and not just tell the customer to get the check verified. 4) I do wonder why a funeral home wouldn't go ahead and make arrangements knowing that they'd get paid eventually. Then again, I'm not a funeral director/ex-director. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-07-31 15:02 |
| #4 Since when is cash up front a requirement for a funeral? I'm sorry, but I don't understand how anyone could be surprised that a bank wouldn't simply cash $100,000 worth of checks on the spot. I'm sorry this family is suffering from the loss of their loved one but I think this is being blown way out of proportion. |
| Posted by: andrew 2008-07-31 14:38 |
| #3 Do we not want our banks to prevent thiefs from printing fraudulent bereavement checks and then demanding they be cashed instantly because the family is bereaved? Nice strawman, Bugs! The issue is the two week hold the bank wanted to put on the checks. Two weeks for a check to clear? Yeah, maybe if they sent it off to the Federal Reserve via mule train. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-07-31 13:24 |
| #2 Downey Savings offered to release the funds immediately upon verification of the funds. This was explained in detail to the family. Mr. Retmier's family declined the Bank's offer. If that statement is true, I don't see the problem with a bank demanding verification of funds. How hard is it for someone to print a check on their laser printer? Not very hard. Do we not want our banks to prevent thiefs from printing fraudulent bereavement checks and then demanding they be cashed instantly because the family is bereaved? Besides, if Gloria Allred is involved, shouldn't that cause ALL RED (pun intended) flags to go up that a fleece is on the way. |
| Posted by: Bugs Elmomomp6649 2008-07-31 12:33 |
| #1 they told by their bank branch manager that they would have to wait nearly two weeks Someone correct me, but the Federal Reserve requires checks to clear in 72 hours. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-31 11:51 |