Posted on 01/24/2020 4:53:00 AM PST by grey_whiskers
A Detroit man is suing a Michigan bank for refusing to cash a settlement check awarded to him in a racial discrimination lawsuit, according to a report.
Sauntore Thomas, 44, claims TCF Bank employees refused to cash or deposit his settlement check on Tuesday at a branch in Livonia, leading cops to respond and a fraud investigation to be launched, the Detroit Free Press reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Looks to me that he is just setting up his next payday with the bank settling his discrimination suit out of court.
That check is over the $10,000 threshold...and is subject to scrutiny on that alone.
This is one of my pet peeves. It is a scam, if Walmart can run a check through a scanner and get their funds transferred immediately so can a bank. Back in the day they had to wait for the mail, now clearing, approval, and transfer is instant.
I just recently went through this with opening a new account at a different bank with a check from myself to myself. She told me the funds were not going to be available for 3 days. I told her BS, then I will go somewhere else. She told me to hold and went and ran the check. Done and cleared 2 minutes later and they had the funds in my account and available.
It is an ancient “control” practice scam that needs to be corrected, don’t put up with it. It was originally to protect the person who wrote the check to make sure it was not a stolen fraudulent check. Handwriting, signature verification etc. And this used to take time because of the mail, now they run it through a scanner and the software detects any anomalies immediately and approves it immediately.
That’s not how it works anymore, at least not at JP Morgan Chase. There is an algorithm out there somewhere, which uses data from the check and probably other data it has stored that it relates to the data on the check and makes a decision that the teller has no part in, cannot overrule, probably has no clue how it works, and therefore cannot explain.
I have gotten full access for substantial checks in excess of $10,000.00 drawn at a different bank “immediately”, meaning the next business day. There is no legitimate reason for a 10 day hold, and wasn’t even in the 1980s unless you are dealing with a foreign check, and even then, 10 days was about the outside limit. Your bank was cheating you.
I do. :)
Sometimes, when liberals try to go down rabbit trails in forums, I remind them that I’m not there for the “full half hour argument”.
He received three checks from his settlement that totaled around $100,000. This happened in my hometown and I read about it yesterday.
He could keep this going for years, suing banks for larger and larger payouts and presto! He’s a bajillionaire!
“This is one of my pet peeves. It is a scam,”
It’s likely profit. They probably hold those funds in an interest-bearing account, kept at a high balance by all the additive ‘check holds’.
I refinanced my home in the ‘00s and deposited the check from Safeco (a title guaranty company).
It was over their limit of $25,000 so they put a 10 business day hold on it. From Safeco. To a 10+ year client of the bank.
It took a bit but they released $5,000 immediately and the rest was released within a few days.
Having seen the fraud that goes on in banking I certainly understood why they put a hold on it, even though they released it before the full 10 days was complete.
Was certainly jarring considering the circumstances.
Absolutely. Here is an example of why it is BS, especially if you have a business account where you constantly need cash flow.
Couple times I had decided to change banks for my business. Once, I wrote a check for half of an account to start the new account at another bank. Because it was a sizable amount they claimed they had to hold all but 20% for 7 days. But they were immediately able to get the funds in their bank and removed from the first bank within minutes.
But now this amount was in limbo and no longer usable as cash flow for myself from EITHER account for 7 days. Not having this cash flow to work with ended up costing me money, and there was no reason for it at all.
Another time I closed an account in one bank and payed the extra for a cashier’s check for another sizable amount. The new bank did the same, they wanted to hold all but 20% for 7 days. Wait... This was a certified CASHIERS CHECK and considered as CASH to be redeemed immediately as CASH.
They told me this AFTER we did all the paperwork and set up the account. Then they charged me $50 on the spot for immediately backing out and closing that account. It was bait and switch. They had no right to do that with a cashier’s check, and they should have told me they were going to do this up front when I handed it to them. I would have told them to shove it.
It’s a con game that is still being used from a time when they wanted to make sure there was still funds in a checking account when THAT check hit the account it was written from. From when it would take several days in the mail to get to that bank and be cleared as “funds available”. No need for that now, now they take the money out immediately and then hold it anyways without reason.
That was ten business days.
In 1986 I almost beat a bank manager who told me I had to wait 10 days for a cashier's check to clear.
“cashier’s check”
Those are the key words here... you are charged extra to make those funds in total to be available immediately as cash, you are paying for “insurance” that it is absolutely good. They can charge a fee for cashing it if they like and you agree, but that check is insured to be as good as CASH to be redeemed immediately upon demand.
Daily Double
Anyone with a sizable check and whose assets on deposit would not cover it would be asked to deposit it first.
I tried to cash a very small check at its bank of origin (not my own) in my local bank one mile from my home, and was asked for a fingerprint. I said ‘no way.’
That’s why members of certain groups act totally obnoxious and do everything that anyone would normally be fired for. People are afraid they will sue for discrimination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.