Posted on 07/07/2011 12:17:33 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
If you owe $8K then you now owe nothing. If you owe nothing, they give you $8K.
If you think about it, it does make sense if the concept of a tax credit is to exist at all (which is debatable). Imagine Person #1 sets up his W-4 to have too little deducted, and at the end of the year he owes $8K. But he has this tax credit, so he owes nothing, the government effectively gave him $8K to pay off his taxes due. Person #2 has his W-4 set up to even out to nothing owed or due at the end of the year. He gets this tax credit and -- what? Both have the same tax credit, but the guy who does his W-4 right gets nothing?
I thought it was a credit, not a refund - much the same as you get a ‘mileage credit’ to be used to work off of your Gross.
That's a deduction.
Sue the Hell out of Chase for making a false criminal report and everything that went along with it.
That’s easily provable fraud.
Forty bucks in a small claims filing will win you $4,000 + costs.
Something tells me there is a new car in this mans future.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And a paid off house.
Thanks. Great link.
I have never been in a jail in my life, not even locked in for show during a high school field trip. I would play the “traumatized” card to the hilt, and I probably wouldn’t be lying either. I have no idea what it’s like to be locked up with criminals for almost a week, and I don’t want to know. I do know I’d make the company that did it to me pay dearly.
Okay, I read the letter. It’s a demand letter for the fraud of conversion. Their alleged cause of action is the delay involved between the time he presented the check for payment and the time it was actually released by the police. Their injury is that he lost his car because he had no money to pay the impound fees, and he lost his job because he didn’t have a car to drive. Neither would have happened if they’d cashed his check.
Note that nowhere in the letter is there a claim of personal injury, which leads me to speculate that the arrest wasn’t for forgery. What frequently happens in similar situations is that the police are called, they run a records check on the individual involved who turns out to have a warrant of some sort, (unpaid tickets, whatever) and he’s taken into custody for that. I’m not saying that’s what happened here, but I’m offering it as one reason why he’d seek compensation for the money and property lost, but not for the personal injury suffered as the result of their negligence/incompetence.
There’s more to be known here.
Is that legal. I have seen banks do the same thing.
Time to file a lawsuit. My Lawyer dreams about this situation. It would be a gold mine. And so it should.
Oh I do. Its one of the only Constitutional ways that a person can petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And for that reason I am against tort reform.
The sheriff’s department said that Chase could have called anytime of day and the Sheriff would hace released the guy.
You are speculation about facts that aren’t supported by the article or letter. You would have fit in well with the Casey Anthony jury with that kind of reasoning.
There’s a clerk who needs to hear, “Your ass is fired.”
You have no rational explanation why they’d focus on the conversion issue and ignore the rather obvious tort case, so you’ve decided to go with cheap insults.
Okay.
Well, we’ll see what the full set of facts reveal, though I doubt you’ll be willing to acknowledge them.
The revevant facts are:
1. He had a legitimate check issued by Chase Bank.
2. A bank employee, call the police to have him arrested for presenting a fradulent check.
3. The check was real.
4. The guy spent a weekend in jail on a false charge.
5. The bank could have had him released at any time over the weekend after they realized the guy was innocent.
Everything else is clutter.
Chase would have a good race against Bank of America for the bottom of the toilet. But I’d still vote for Bank of America.
Not so sure this is the whole story. This guy was no longer a Chase account holder. He did not have an open account to deposit the check into. But he still expected the bank to hand him over $8000, even though he had a bad history with them, acted ‘shady’, and had no account. Even if he had a valid account, the bank would likely hold the check for a number of days before making the funds available, regardless of where the check originated from.
And can you be arrested in a bank lobby because someone at the bank ‘suspects’ fraud? It doesn’t sound right. Seems there would be some kind of investigation before an arrest is made.
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.