Are you the Owner of this Business? ×
BBB® Accredited Business Seal

Are you...?

If yes, click here to login.

Are you...?

BBB Accredited Business since

Bank of Stockton-Main Office

Additional Locations

Phone: (209) 929-1600 PO Box 1110, Stockton, CA 95201 http://www.bankofstockton.com


BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

Description

Bank of Stockton provides personal and business banking products and services.


BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Bank of Stockton-Main Office meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.


Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Bank of Stockton-Main Office include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 6 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

6 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 2 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 2
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 4
Total Closed Complaints 6

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Bank of Stockton-Main Office
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: May 19, 1980 Business started: 08/12/1867 in CA Business incorporated 02/13/1925 in CA
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

This business is in an industry that may require professional licensing, bonding or registration. BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

These agencies may include:

BANK (FEDERAL RESERVE)
101 Market St, San Francisco CA 94105
Phone Number: (415) 974-2767
The number is 1536.

Type of Entity

Corporation

Business Management
Mr. Mark Young, Vice President of Compliance & Audit Ms. Angela Brusa, Vice President-Marketing Mr. Michael Savelli, VP/Chief Administrative Officer
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Mark Young, Vice President of Compliance & Audit
Business Category

Banks

Alternate Business Names
Bank of Stockton-Angels Camp Bank of Stockton-Carson Oaks Bank of Stockton-Headquarters Bank of Stockton-Lodi Bank of Stockton-Main Street Bank of Stockton-Manteca Bank of Stockton-Oakdale Bank of Stockton-Pine Grove Bank of Stockton-Quail Lakes Delta Bank of Stockton-Rio Vista Bank of Stockton-Ripon Bank of Stockton-Tracy Elk Grove Commerce Bank, a Division of Bank of Stockton Modesto Commerce Bank, a Division of Bank of Stockton Turlock Commerce Bank, a Division of Bank of Stockton
Products & Services

Bank of Stockton provides full personal & business banking services.

Industry Tips
What to Do After a Data Breach

Additional Locations

X

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview


BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.
Details

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

3/23/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I used the online bill pay to pay my rent and the rent check showed up four days late. I wish to rectify this by sending out my bill payment four days earlier next time. Unfortunately I cannot do this because the Bank of Stockton is withdrawing the funds from my bank account the day the check is to be received by my landlord, whether or not the landlord has cashed the check. I asked the Bank of Stockton why this was being done in this manner, and they told me that all check payments are done in that way. I told them, no, that is not correct, because I pay my water bill directly through bill pay every month, and a check is sent out, and the funds are not taken from my account until the actual check clears. At which time I was then told that this was the decision of the third party bill pay department. So I asked for the number of the third party bill pay department. I then spent the next ten minutes on the phone with an incredibly rude person from the bill pay department, who, even though I told him the above story three separate times, failed to tell me till the very end that he could not help me cause I had been sent to the bill pay COLLECTIONS department. I then asked the rude person if he could please transfer me to a department at the third party bill pay that could help fix this problem. And instead he transferred me back to the Bank of Stockton.....aarrrgggghhhh! This is ridiculous! It's my money, and I should be able to dictate that I want my rent check to go out as a draft check, just like my water bill check does. I should be able to reach a live person that can make this happen or tell me why it cannot happen. My landlord specifically puts in their contract that they will NOT accept online payments, only draft checks.

Desired Settlement: I want the Bank of Stockton to contact the appropriate person in the company that they hired to use for their bill pay services and find out how to set it up so that my rent check goes out as a draft check so that the funds for said rent payment are not deducted until the draft check clears my bank account.

Business Response: The bank's call center has been in contact with our customer. Based on those discussions, we contacted our third party bill pay provider and communicated our concern with this customer's experience. We requested and have received confirmation that the customers  payment will be processed as a draft check, as requested by the customer. We appreciate the customer's patience in this manner and hope the situation has been satisfied to our customer's satisfaction.

Consumer Response:  
Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to my concern, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

3/9/2016 Problems with Product/Service
8/7/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I had out a load with bank of Stockton when I was younger and I have mad all payments on TIME and paid off my auto loan with them. I recently check my credit report and it still shows that I have a open account with them with zero balance. I tried calling them to ask them to close the account but they told me that it needs to go through my credit agency. I am very upset because its affecting my credit. The auto loan was for a 1997 ***** ******* which as I said I PAID off. I just need them to close down the account and have my them take it off my credit report.

Desired Settlement: I just need them to close down the account and have my them take it off my credit report.

Business Response:

The bank has reviewed the complaint #******** claiming an error on his credit report. The bank has determined customer had an auto loan with the bank that was paid in full in 2005 with no delinquencies. The bank reviewed its four credit bureaus for this customer and found the following:

                ******** – no longer reported on file

                ***** – no longer reported on file

                ******* – reports account closed/zero balance/no lates

                ********** – reports account open/zero balance/no lates

The bank contacted ********** and they have subsequently updated their records to reflect the account as closed. The bank confirmed this update to the customers record.

7/22/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On June 18th I contacted the Rio Vista branch of Bank of Stockton and speaking with ******. Each time I was trying to ask a particular question she would anticipate the question I was going to ask and interrupt me and start answering it. The third time she interrupted me I requested her and rather loud voice to not interrupt me to allow me to finish the question she then hung up I called back got her again attempted to ask a question and again was interrupted and again I'm not fun I called back at third time and attempted to as,,k the question and I thought she hung up on me for a third time but she had not. because I thought she had hung up on me for a third time I used a couple four letter words at my phone and then I heard a voice say I heard that I'm going to tell the bank president or something to that effect since then they have told me they are going to close my account in 30 days. This is fine with me I can bank elsewhere but I made a deposit today at 3 a.m. And it does not reflect the monies I deposit nor do I have access to the first $200 I deposit as required by federal law. I made two deposits $120 and was surprised to see available balance so I pulled 60 more dollars out of my wallet and deposited these additional funds within minutes of the first deposit both showed the same available balance on the receipts with no ledger balance and I have not have access to these funds, and since the deposit took place on a saturday there is nobody available to speak to at Bank of Stockton until Monday morning leaving me without access to my money.

Desired Settlement: Well since federal law requires the banks to allow access to the first 200 deposited via ATM immediately upon deposit I think that they should be fine for breaking this federal law. I feel this was an intentional act due to the issues discussed in the above complaint. I have contacted their fraud department and they said they have never seen anything like it before they have no idea what could cause this to happen. So the only conclusion I can come too is that it was an intentional act.

Business Response:

The bank has reviewed the complaint #******** claiming a violation of regulation cc rules regarding the availability of the first $200 of a deposit. The bank is following the rules as outlined below:

(c) Certain check deposits--(1) General rule. A depositary bank shall make funds deposited in an account by check available for withdrawal not later than the business day after the banking day on which the funds are deposited, in the case of--

            (vii) The lesser of--

(A) $200, or

(B) The aggregate amount deposited on any one banking day to all accounts of the customer by check or checks not subject to next-day availability under paragraphs (c)(1) (i) through (vi) of this section.

In addition, the bank’s Disclosure Statement provides the availability of funds in the Funds Availability Section. A review of the transactions involve reflects the bank followed the rules as prescribed in Regulation CC.

5/20/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: 1/12/2012 Violation of Sec. 207. [42 U.S.C. 407] (a) The right of any person to any future payment under this title shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this title shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.31 CFR 212.5(a) requires Bank to perform an account review within two business days and 212.5(e) Priority of account review states that Bank will may not freeze until an account review has been performed to determine the presence of Federal Protected Benefits. Under 212.3 definitions Under 212.3 Definitions a Benefit payment means a Federal benefit payment referred to in 212.2(b)- paid by direct deposit to an account with the character XX encoded in positions 54 and 55 of the Company Entry Description field of the Batch Header Record of the direct deposit. These benefits are clearly identifiable and in my statement every month the bank tells me that they are exempt like this: XXSOCSEC XXVABENE XXCIVSERV. The Order to Withhold issued by CA FTB for personal income tax is not legal. FTB knows it and they even tell the bank in the instructions. Further they have this part 2 questionnaire that shows them how to identify Federal Benefits that should never be frozen. SS Benefits have been 100 per cent exempt from garnishment since 1936. The bank says that the levy is not a garnishment order and that is because they are not looking at the underlying statute. 31 CFR 212 cannot exist without authority from a permanent federal statute. The Bank is wrapped up with the definitions but they fail to realize that Tax levies may not be used against SS Benefits. Only the IRS can actually levy SS Benefits. But they prefer not to as it is considered cruel as SS Benefits are for the aged, disabled and blind and are not for payment of old debt. There was no due process because Supremacy Clause violated

Desired Settlement: 1 . Constitution 2. Federal Statutes, treaties, and court rules3. Federal administrative agency rules4. Federal common law case law5. State Constitutions6. State statutes and court rules7. State agency8. State common law case lawI do not have the space to do this effectively but I am seeking 15 thousand dollars for all the trouble and I am a disabled Veteran with mild autism and nervous disorders and the banks attorney is not in good faith trying to resolve this.

Business Response:

The bank has responded to the customer multiple times addressing this same issue. The bank followed the law in place at the time of the levy, which was issued by a state agency. Our conclusion has been supported by our attorney and subsequently by the FDIC in letter dated April 10, 2014 to our customer. In addition, the Federal Register – Garnishments of Accounts Containing Federal Benefit Payments states the following under Definition of Garnishment Order (§ 212.3):

The Agencies received many requests for clarification on the definition of “garnishment order” and some commenters indicated that confusion regarding the definition is resulting in compliance difficulties. Consumer advocacy groups, financial institutions, and banking associations recommend that the Agencies revise the definition of “garnishment order” so that it is clear exactly what kinds of documents are considered garnishment orders. The interim final rule includes a broad definition of “garnishment,” which closely tracks the definition in the Agencies' statutes. However, the rule's requirements are triggered only by the receipt of a “garnishment order,” which was defined more narrowly in the interim final rule as “a writ, order, notice, summons, judgment, or similar written instruction issued by a court or a State child support enforcement agency. . .” (emphasis supplied). Under this wording, levies issued directly by a State agency such as a State revenue department would not be subject to the rule.

The Federal Register clearly states that the customer’s levy issued by a state agency was not covered by the law at the time the levy was received by the bank.

Consumer Response: I am rejecting this response because the bank is not in compliance and thats what the FDIC assumed to.  The FDIC wrote and told me that they were going to ask the bank to prove that they were in compliance and that will be finally the end because my bank account has no co mingled funds and all are clearly marked with XX meaning exempt.  The Bank effective 5/1/2011 was/is required to do many things.  I honestly have worked for the feds for 34 years and thought I had seen it all as I have had many situatons where I found myself saddled with Federal rules that seem so much of a pain but when 911 occured and the FAA turned the security volume up the federal policy was very difficult to implement at the local level because of some conflicting requirementgs that were not in place.  I had to write the local procedures for an anthrax attack from federal laws.  


I worked with laws much more ambiguous thatn this and I find this banks attorney to be just a big obstruction as far as getting to the truth.  His letters are void of anyting int he realm of reality and it is so hard for me to know they are lieing to me and not react.  Just this response from yesterday is the same ole thng that is not addressing my questions.  They just say the same thing.  Last time the guy wrote 7 pages of useless facts that mean nothing.  I get it but it is confusing for others.  I do not see this as ambiguous and certainly not complicated.  What I hate to see is that I reported a clear violations and the bank says not me.  T%hen who?  Me?  Almost seems like it when you read attorneys lettersl.  They are attached as Bankresponse  and bankresponse1
 
   

I will show you how the bank has a complete breakdown in compliance and the attorney that says the bank is sound in its position is not as sound as one may think.  In fact the reasons so far that the bank has relayed should be excluded as fruits of the poisonous tree.  I will explain after I point out the obvious.

My comments are in red and after I comment briefly I will illustrate in detail being brief as I can to show the reason, by whose authority and how the bank has violated the whole process and thrown the constitution out the window.  Further the fact that the bank has not granted a shred of due process and seemingly does not care to be in compliance and has not listened to me at all.  I need to be heard and I want to present in human form.  I want them to know that I have all this evidence and the fact that it has come this far is not healthy for me and I think they would at least afford me the opportunity to present grant me basic dignity and respect that is decent.  My words at times were impulsive and I am sorry but when you do something that is the same as walking in and removing your wallet without due process and seize something that is not on the seizure letter it makes you mad.  Me being a Disabled Veteran may take it to the extreme but that flag and our constitution are what defines us and we still live in a society that promotes freedom and liberty.  The banks attempt to shut me up is a slap in the face to every single American that died in defense of the U. S. Constitution. They violated the Supreme Law of the United States of America by violating their relationship to the law and my 14th amendment right to full due process of the law in regard to the relation to the law and the citizens protected by that law.  Equal protection under the law.  They willfully violated a permanent federal statute under the stratagem of 31 CFR 212.  However they do not understand that this algorithm is perfect and whether you use the rule or not it never gives you the right to violate the Federal Statute that the CFR Administers.  In other words the bank cannot use 31 CFR 212 as a reason to supersede the underlying permanent federal statute.  They have heard from me because they never answer the questions I have asked.  The FDIC did not have enough information and I appealed it and it is not a win for the bank.  The FDIC is asking the Bank to show proof and will compel them to answer the questions that they have ignored for months.  Simple questions that are laughable but the amount of time I have wasted on this is why now I will never quit. 


 

Business Reply

The bank has responded to the customer multiple times addressing this same issue. The bank followed the law in place at the time of the levy, which was issued by a state agency. Our conclusion has been supported by our attorney and subsequently by the FDIC in letter dated April 10, 2014 to our customer. In addition, the Federal Register – Garnishments of Accounts Containing Federal Benefit Payments states the following under Definition of Garnishment Order (§ 212.3): The bank has responded but never answers direct questions.  I have asked the CO and the Attorney numerous times via email because they oppress me from talking with my human voice.  The letter from FDIC was kind of like the BBB.  There are so many things that the electronic form has very little area for a complaint like this.  The FDIC just denies and when I called they said to send all the supporting documents so they will be ordered to answer my questions.  Mark Young says that the bank has had discussions about this case but they never included me.  Mark never has spoken to me and I have only spoken to the employees that were clueless to the term Federal Protected Benefits and they do not know anything about protection.  The benefits in question are unequivocally protected under their underlying statutes. 

The Agencies received many requests for clarification on the definition of “garnishment order” and some commenter's indicated that confusion regarding the definition is resulting in compliance difficulties. Consumer advocacy groups, financial institutions, and banking associations recommend that the Agencies revise the definition of “garnishment order” so that it is clear exactly what kinds of documents are considered garnishment orders. The interim final rule includes a broad definition of “garnishment,” which closely tracks the definition in the Agencies' statutes. However, the rule's requirements are triggered only by the receipt of a “garnishment order,” which was defined more narrowly in the interim final rule as “a writ, order, notice, summons, judgment, or similar written instruction issued by a court or a State child support enforcement agency. . .” (emphasis supplied). Under this wording, levies issued directly by a State agency such as a State revenue department would not be subject to the rule.      

 

I see the wording and I understand it.  But the Bank says that the only rule at the time was 31 CFR 212 Interim Final Rule.  The bank says they do not have to protect my federal benefits because the law did not cover levies at the time.  I do not know what they are thinking but the authorities certainly did not intend to pass a bill to prevent illegal seizures and they have you guys turn around and do just what congress passed the rule to prevent.  While in the interim final stage to finalization you must use discretion especially when those notes as I said were taken out of context and are not relevant because we are not talking about old debt from c/s or alimony and that is not the same as personal tax debt.  SS Benefits can be garnished but only by a state child support agency or the federal government. 

 The levy was not legal and the new rule clearly requires the Financial Institution effective 5/1/2011 the FI must perform an account review within the first 2 days and may not freeze an account until the account is reviewed and the order should have been marked as account contains solely protected Federal Benefits and that is sufficient and the FTB would have been happy to know that the account was exempt.  See the new rule makes the bank the one that a) decides whether the document is legal and since levies are not part of the rule and the agency states that you may not levy what rule are you using?

 Allene Bellendier, a disabled 70-year-old widow, used to have her Social Security benefit deposited directly into her Sun Trust Banks Inc. account. But she closed her account last year after the bank froze it twice. Though she was able each time to get the account released with the help of a legal-aid lawyer, the process took weeks, leaving her without money for food, medicine or mortgage payments. When her food ran out, she says, she searched the house for loose change and found a few dollars in a piggy bank she was saving for Christmas presents. 

She had a heart attack and says she lost nearly $600 in penalties and fees to companies where she had bounced checks as a result of the hold. Mrs. Bellendier now has her granddaughter cash the check at Wal-Mart; Mrs. Bellendier buys money orders to pay her monthly bills.  There are horror stories a plenty from days of old but I have been trying to compel the bank to grant me information and to respond as to what they want to do.  They ignore me and do not work pro actively.  I have other complaints that the bank has not responded to at all
 
To preserve federal benefits for their intended recipients, Congress provided that the benefits cannot be seized to pay debts, as such seizures would result in the loss of subsistence funds. Each of the statutes governing the distribution of these funds specifically articulates that these funds are to be free from attachment or garnishment or other legal process.
 
Statutorily the FTB does not have the authority and on the order to withhold part 2 and the questionnaire give them clear concise instructions to perform the account review and determine the presence of exempt federal payments and how to set an amount if necessary and gives the bank the exact instructions on how to protect the benefits that are already protected.  So acting on he levy was wrong.  The bank says that it is not part of the rule but then they do not even consider that the permanent statute cannot be superseded by a CFR.  A can strengthen but never erode or lessen the permanent federal statute.  The only way you can violate the permanent statute is if it amended by legislative action.  In other words it takes congressional action. 
 
The only rule that logically would have been the appropriate citation would be 42 USC 407
 
 [42 U.S.C. 407] (a)
 The right of any person to any future payment under this title shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this title shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.(emphasis added) 
 
1. Section 459 of the Act (42 U.S.C. §659) allows Social Security benefits to be garnished to enforce child support and/or alimony obligations. 
 
 
2. Section 6334 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §6334 (c)) allows benefits to be levied to collect unpaid Federal taxes.
 
3. Section 3402 (p) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §3402(p)) allows beneficiaries to elect to have a percentage of their benefits withheld and paid to the Internal Revenue Service to satisfy their Federal income tax liability for the current year.
 
4. The DCIA allows benefits to be withheld and paid to another Federal agency to pay a non-tax debt the beneficiary owes to that agency. 
 
Clearly the bank had no right to freeze my account without undertaking an account review to determine the presence of Federal Benefits that are fully protected by federal laws.  This I have shoved down their throats almost daily but the bank just will not allow being informed by a low life customer that is undesirable according to their attorney.  I will get that in another complaint.  We have enough to iron out. 
 
Right there are the only reasons that you can take any action against SS Benefits.  That is because they are for subsistence and not for payment of debt.  Child Support and Federal Debt are the only other reasons.  There is no legal way the bank can say that they are justified because they have no law that permits levying for personal income tax.  The bank does not understand that it is the benefit that they are required to protect.  It is not about me it is about them not doing what federal laws require of them.  The fact that they do not like me because it is a tax issue is not relevant and again is a moot point anyway since they froze the account just like the good old days with absolutely not a lick of discretion to what it is they are doing.  The employee that did it was clueless as to the existence of the new rule and that is obvious because they froze the account upon receipt. 
 
31 CFR 212 is the rule you must follow to identify the protected benefits.  The terms of the rule do not include levis because levis are not permitted except when a right to garnish letter is attached.   If not the rule does apply.  But since this is SS Benefits that are 100 per cent excluded from tax debt except for federal debt.  So now we have the bank freezing an account that under 42 USC 407 no legal action whatsoever can be taken except for the five I have stated.  Mine not being part of the five. 
 
31 CFR 212 GARNISHMENT OF ACCOUNTS CONTAINING FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENTS
 
AUTHORITY: 5 U.S.C. 8346; 5 U.S.C. 8470; 5 U.S.C. 1103; 31 U.S.C. 321; 31 U.S.C. 3321; 31 U.S.C. 3332; 38 U.S.C. 5301(a); 38 U.S.C. 501(a);
42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 407; 42 U.S.C. 659; 42 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1); 45 U.S.C. 231f(b); 45 U.S.C. 231m; 45 U.S.C. 352(e); 45 U.S.C. 362(1).
SOURCE: 76 FR 9955, Feb. 23, 2011, unless otherwise noted.
 
The bolded Federal Statutes are Title 42 is the Social Security Administration and they are bolded.  Title 5 and 38 are for my XXCIVSERV and XXVABENE deposits that are also 100 percent exempt from any legal process or in this case illegal process.  Sorry I know what legal process means.  Just getting so tired of this with the bank. I state and they say no need to but still they do not answer so I look over and over and keep finding more issues that have nothing to do with me but what they did with me will always be something I can see or use as a reference of a very bad example of what a bank that is regulated by the Feds does or complies with.  I see no compliance and I feel that the bank is probably in all kinds of violation of compliance.  I just cannot see how this Collection or Garnishment law has no procedures that the bank employees are required to follow.  The fact that you have the power to remove a persons access without having a clue of the fact that is illegal is very troubling to me.  The bank says many things but the bottom line is that the below statement says must for FI.  Not an option but a must. And the bank still uses this excuse that I have endeavored to  make those aware that they are wrong. I do not see or never have seen any good faith effort from this bank
 
31 CFR 212.1 Purpose 
The purpose of this part is to implement statutory provisions that protect Federal benefits from garnishment by establishing procedures that a financial institution must follow when served a garnishment order against an account holder into whose account a Federal benefit payment has been directly
deposited.  It says must and I have pointed this out countless times.
 
The bank states they have no obligation whatsoever to protect the benefits the I received by direct deposit. 
 
 212.2 Scope.This part applies to:
(a) Entities. All financial institutions, as defined in § 212.3.protected from garnishment pursuant to the following authorities:
(1) SSA benefit payments protected under 42 U.S.C. 407 and 42 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1);
(2) VA benefit payments protected under 38 U.S.C. 5301(a);
(3) RRB benefit payments protected under 45 U.S.C. 231m(a) and 45 U.S.C. 352(e); and
(4) OPM benefit payments protected under 5 U.S.C. 8346 and 5 U.S.C. 8470.
 
212.3 Defines a Benefit payment means a Federal benefit payment referred to in § 212.2(b) paid by direct deposit to an account with the character ‘‘XX’’ encoded in positions 54 and 55 of the Company Entry Description field of the Batch Header Record of the direct deposit.  These benefits are clearly identifiable and in my statement every month the bank tells me that they are exempt like this:     XXSOCSEC  XXVABENE  XXCIVSERV. 
 
January 13, 2012 the bank froze my account illegally without undertaking an account review that a Bank must perform within the first 2 business days.  That violates and impedes my right to pursue life, liberty and property in pursuit of the American dream.  It matters not if it was for 5 days or 1 second.  The bank seized my account and the Order was specific in the fact that it asks for all monies of the type listed.  They asked for royalties from rentals, IRAS, Keough, deposits from rental property etc.  SS Benefits and VA Benefits are for subsistence and are not construed to be used for paying debts. 
 
212.5 Account Review  RA: The bank must not have done an account classroom situation. 
 (a) Timing of account review. When served a garnishment order issued against a debtor, a financial institution shall perform an account review:
(1) No later than two business days following receipt of
(A) the order, and 
(B) sufficient information from the creditor that initiated the order to determine whether the debtor is an account holder, if such information is not already included in the order; or
(c) Benefit payment deposited during lookback period. If the account review shows that a benefit agency deposited a benefit payment into the account during the lookback period, then the financial institution shall follow the procedures in 212.6.
 
212.5(e) Priority of account revreview. The financial institution shall perform the account review prior to taking any other actions related to the garnishment order that may affect funds in the account. 
 
212.3 Defines a Benefit payment means a Federal benefit payment referred to in § 212.2(b) paid by direct deposit to an account with the character ‘‘XX’’ encoded in positions 54 and 55 of the Company Entry Description field of the Batch Header Record of the direct deposit.  These benefits are clearly identifiable and in my statement every month the bank tells me that they are exempt like this:     XXSOCSEC  XXVABENE  XXCIVSERV. 
 Benefit agency means the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM),
or the Railroad Retirement Board(RRB).
Protected amount means the lesser of the sum of all benefit payments posted to an account between the close of business on the beginning date of the lookback period and the open of business on the ending date of the lookback period, or the balance in an account at the open of business on the date of account review.
 
  • My account contained solely protected Federal Benefits from the bolded benefit agencies depositing benefit payments as defined in 212.3
  • That means they are all exempt and at that point the bank was supposed to Fax part 2 to the FTB and say that account contains deposits from benefit agencies defined in 31 CFR 212.3. 
Since all of my benefits are exempt the account should not have been frozen.  Why did the bank freeze? 
 
212.6 Protected amount The financial institution shall immediately calculate and establish the protected amount for an account. The financial institution shall ensure that the account holder has full and customary access to the protected amount, which the financial institution shall not freeze in response to the garnishment order. An account holder shall have no requirement to assert any right of garnishment exemption prior to accessing the protected amount in the account.  RA:  Bank did not protect my account from illegal garnishment and it froze my account without performing an account review in the first 2 days.  Further the bank did not provide me with any access to my protected benefits as the rule states.  The benefits underlying statutes all are exempt as they always have been.
 
This means that even if a creditor or debt attorney, collection agency has a judgement against you they CAN NOT garnish your SS payments nor can they take the money from you after it has been paid to you; for example, the portion of your bank account that is attributable to your SS benefits is EXEMPT from LEVY OR ATTACHMENT 
 
The bank states that levies are not covered under the new rule.  The bank cites the new rule as the only rule available at the time.  I have a big problem with the bank violating the underlying statute. 
 
Below is the order of laws and rules by the importance or rank.  Otherwise known as the hierarchy of laws. 
 
31 CFR 212 does not exist without a permanent Federal Statute and the bank cited the CFR as the rule at the time.  In this case the only money that was available came from the 1/11/2012 direct deposit that looks like this:  XXSOCSEC
 
The banks attorney says there is nothing that says that my benefits are to be protected.  Mark Young says that the bank was not required to protect my benefits until 5/28/2013.  That was only when the parts that were in question were put in the law and it became final.
 
Statutory provisions and hierarchy of mail.
 
Constitution 
  1. Federal Statutes, treaties, and court rules
  2. Federal administrative agency rules
  3. Federal common law case law
  4. State Constitutions
  5. State statutes and court rules
  6. State agency
  7. State common law case l31 CFR 212
42 USC 407 says you may not levy.  Why did you not use the underlying statute.  If you say 31 CFR 212 is not part of the rule then what rule are you basing a defense. 
  1.  Why did the bank freeze my account without due process?
  2. Why does the bank freeze bank accounts without determining the presence of Federal Protected Benefits?
  3. Why did the bank fail to perform an account review and identify protected federal benefits as required in 212.5 
  4. Why did the bank charge an illegal fee on an account that contain XX benefits?  210(h) states that it is illegal to charge a bank fee against a garnishment executed by a state agency
  5. Why wont the Bank of Stockton provide me the simplest of requests? Part 2 of the order and the questionnaire?
  6. Why did head of Commercial Loans, Mary Elizabeth Eberhardt  intercept my phone call to Lisa Watson regarding the fax I sent
  7. Why does the bank not comply with the law?  Instructions were out months before and  a year after the bill was introduced the Bank of Stockton had not a clue of what they are or were doing?  Why?
Was the bank in compliance on 1/12/2012?  If the bank was in compliance then it should produce evidence that an account review was performed.  Please produce it.  Along with part 2. 
 
I have been fighting over this issue for 6 months and they seem miffed about it. 
 
Bank Says:  "The bank has responded to the customer multiple times addressing this same issue. The bank followed the law in place at the time of the levy, which was issued by a state agency".
 
The bank has responded with the wrong answer and not responded to the fact that federal statutes trump state agency orders.  A federal statute is a 1 and a state agency is a 6.  Unless there is a clause in the underlying statute that permits the state agency to levy SS Benefits the Bank had no business or right to freeze my account.  The FDIC states in their audit checklist that if you do not perform the account review to determine the presence of protected benefits then there is no safe harbor for illegally freezing the account.  That is why I would have done the account review and set the protected amount and covered my azzz. 
 
You must do the account review and you did not therefore you cannot be in compliance.  The failure is total and complete and the bank totally and willfully has tried to convince they are correct.  There is no excuse for such lunacy.  I know there are two that somehow have tried to obstruct this investigation.  For what?  Why would you lie in a compliance audit.  See what they also do not tell you is that the FDIC assumed that the bank was in compliance and another reason that they needed more documentation. 
 
Attached please find the attorney to attorney letter which he tells another attorney about how the bank does not want my business and my account would be closed at the end of January.  That is not a way to do business.  I was unaware until mid January until I received their attorney letter to my attorney all about me instead of the rule.  See they are mad and have retaliated ever since the letter of demand was sent by the attorney I fired for not doing what I instructed.  So I inherited this mess from a letter that one attorney tells the other to get me the hell out of their bank.  And all I did is question the practice that is illegal.  I am trying to compel a complete audit because I know they had not a clue in November of 2013 of what I was talking about and here it is 3 years from the original effective date and quite frankly I do not think they really will ever get it.  You have to have a mind for this kind of stuff and you have to follow instructions or you will fail.  If you start lying and oh this attorney is certainly pathological.  They do not like my junk yard attitude and I really do not care.  I did not go in their house and embezzle money.  My money is supposed to be protected by the bank.  The benefits are exempt XX because the authorities or agencies that authored the bill say they are. 
 
The banks taking notes from commenter is interesting and maybe something to discuss in a classroom but you may not levy means that.  If it is not part of the rule then you find the only rule that was available and that is not the cited one.  No account review means no credit for compliance.  The bank is liable to the account holder for any and all damages that occurred as the result of the freeze.  The bank knows of my disability and I have begged and pleaded just to be heard orally or in person but the attorney told me that it was out of the question which leaves me at a disadvantage as they bank can gang up on me and all I have is email.  I get impulsive and tell the attorney off and he gets his feelings hurt.  But see the fact is that the bank and their attorney instead of being pro active and in the spirit of the law which is to never freeze an account illegally and cause heart attacks, panic attacks and who knows I am sure this bank could drive a person to suicide by banning them from the benefits that they earned over a lifetime of working and paying taxes.  I think this bank should be ashamed of themselves. 
 
Bottom line is that they violate their policies of customer friendly service and pro active attitude in compliance when in fact if you have an issue that they do not agree with they will just lie and make more lies and state facts that are void of legal accuracy.  I was going to drop the lawyer thing until he made it worse by not communicating with me and refusing my emails.  I have had to send a few to his partner because his email refuses my emails.  So I just fax now.  So far I have not heard from him in a while.  Last time he asked me what my demands were and I told him and he ignored me. There never was any good faith and the bank has stood by its position that according to the permanent statute that they must adhere to they sure did violate the Supremacy Clause and that violates my inalienable right to pursue life liberty and property in the pursuit of the American Dream.  I am a veteran disabled as the result of an injury off the coast of South Korea in a multiple country beach surf salvage operation.  My hip got crushed by a jeep as it came off a vehicle and raised a gate and I got caught in the middle.  It rendered me unfit for military service and that was my life.  I tried my best to serve this country for 34 years and I earned these benefits and it is my duty as a citizen to ensure the Supreme Law of the United States of America is not eroded by these people that instead of pro actively correcting compliance issues they make up things that are so out of line with the statutory process and have no idea what they are doing.  The employees do not grasp what happens when you go to the store and your card is denied.  They do not know what it feels like when you have a couple thousand and your card does not work. 
 
Please do not let them continue this action of ignoring me till I go away. The bank held my Disability check for 24 hours last payday.  I inquired and the person answered the message stating my balance and when it would be available.  It always has been available at 10 our time because it is available on the 1st at 1 am eastern time.  I checked with OPM and they said that the bank is wrong.  I said well surprise.  They do whatever they want.  I told them I do not want overdraft protection and they say they cover what they want at their discretion.  What is that anyway.  If I do not have money in the bank enough to cover I do not want them to cover it.  They covered a 5 dollar item and charged me 30 bucks.  I think they just do what they do to get the fees yet they do not want to the right thing and follow the rules and laws as they are stated.  There must be a systemic problem with compliance because I tried 8 times to talk to their compliance manager and he never returned calls, emails or nothing.  Then he answers letter finally after all this time.  That is just bad business to not try to fix this at the lowest level possible. 
 
Lastly I believe that the law is clear and If you do not do the account review and you freeze an account and leave yourself open for liability then you got it coming particularly when you so blatantly ignore the law just like your customers.  I was reading the complaints that were pretty petty in the FDIC log.  Out of 21 banks sampled 17 had no complaints in 3 years.  3 had a couple and in 21st place out of 21 samplings the Bank of Stockton has 4 and three of them were not good outcomes.  I have no idea how an A plus rating is achieved but the people that work downtown at this bank do not deserve anything like that.  My local Manteca branch would easily get that but this complete failure and the lies that they use to defend themselves against the indefensible is just ... I have no words I am sorry.  I cant afford an attorney I have to do it on my own.  MEE=S stated that I had to get an attorney and I guess that is the banks requirement to.  Then she can give me the money to get one because I am not aware that I cannot take care of myself.  I will gladly go to mediation or binding arbitration if I knew the game and whether there is an appeal process.  As long as there is that I will take the whole lot of them on.  I have the laws and the knowledge and the experience of what it feels like to be ripped off with no due process and treated like dirt and lied to by every single person at the bank and why?  Because I pointed out to Jeanne Rohles that she had no right to freeze my account.  Remember it started with her saying to me "Where do you get off telling me my job?"  I admit to stating in a message to the bank that I would like to talk to somebody with a brain.  I also apologized but here is the thing.  Who would not be mad if they knew the bank did this.  It is illegal and congress passed a law to prevent this and what does the bank do 9 months after it was already effective?  They freeze my account in its entirety and do not do the account review and do not protect the benefits that they are absolutely responsible and required to do.  They do not use the 60 day look back period to determine the protected amount.  They do not add further exemption that certain states mandate.  California is just that state.   CCP 704.080 at the time would and should have added 2425 to the protected amount.  I will not expand that but will if anybody wants more information.  I think I have a handle on this and I thank you for allowing me state what I feel is the obvious.  I have hated these past months being sequestered by this attorney.  Attached please find his letter and I will let you feel the tone of intimidation and how he says the letter is for a trained lawyer.  That just insults my intelligence.  I have a grasp on this and would meat here in Manteca anytime he wants and he can even bring one person or all but I promise I would easily show those who do not understand and those who worship their lawyers opinion.  Thing to realize is we all make mistakes and in this case it is not me.  But they sure want you to think it is I.  I never had a single incident then they do this to me and when I try to resolve it they close my account and I had to beg that attorney not to close because that would further harm me financially. They have done enough and quite honestly I do not deserve this.  Nobody does.  Thanks
 
Richard Anderson 209 665 4672
 

12/6/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Failure to make monthly payments to charity as agreed. Bank was slow to acknowledge there was a problem. Much analysis on my part was necessary before they got down to business and sent me the primary documentation they had re: the problem. Their email system does not permit a normally punctuated letter. Due to that, and their foot-dragging, I have concluded that this is the best forum to air the problem. My analysis follows: The Poor Clares received their intended monthly gifts as follows: Gift month/day: Oct 1, Oct 3rd (2012) Gift month/day: Nov 2, Nov 7 5 days late Gift month/day: Dec 1, Dec 7 5 days late Gift month/day: Jan 1, Jan 4 Gift month/day: Feb 1, March 1 One month late Gift month/day: March 1, March 27 One month late Gift month/day: April 1, April 3 Gift month/day: May 1, May 10 10 days late Gift month/day: June 1, June 5 Gift month/day: July 1, July 12 10 days late Gift month/day: Aug 1, Aug 29 One month late Gift month/day: Sept 1, Oct 2 One month late Gift month/day: Oct 1, Oct 2 On 10 Oct 13 I received a note from the Poor Clares thanking me for "your most recent donations plural to us". That would have been the Sept and Oct gifts which were received and cashed on the same day, Oct 2. The Feb 1 gift was received in March, the March 1 gift was received 3 days before the end of March, the August 1 gift was received a day or two before September, the September 1 gift was received 2 days into October. Poor Clares missed intended timely payments in Feb, March, Aug, and Sept 2013. The sisters caught up a payment when they received a double payment Oct 2 (resulting in their thank you note), which no doubt surprised and confused them. The sisters must be wondering what I am doing, which causes me some embarrassment. It was never my intention to make these monthly gifts in such a helter-skelter manner. I wanted them to receive the gifts in a regular, timely, and dignified manner. Perhaps you could explain how a bank, which is expected to handle money carefully, could make so many mistakes. Thank you, Mr. ******.

Desired Settlement: Explanation for the repeated mishandling of these payments, specific assurances as to how the errors will not be repeated.

Business Response: Initial Business Response
The bank has thoroughly reviewed the supporting data concerning complaint case#********. Based on our review, we have determined that the customer has set up an automatic recurring online bill payment. The payment is a $25 payment to "Poor Clares for Jessie Soden" to be remitted on the first of each month (the payment is remitted the previous business day if the first falls on a non-business day). All payments reviewed were remitted on the appropriate day. Evidence on the back of bill payment items indicate the date the item was deposited. We do not possess knowledge of the charity's normal process for making deposits nor do we have any control over that process. However, evidence indicates the charity collects checks and deposits at a later date.

Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The response lacks enough specificity. But I gather from the brief response that the bank maintains that the tardy payments were due to the charity depositing the checks late. This is very unlikely. I have spent far too much time researching the issues to accept this offhand response. If you look at the research I did on the dates and payments, and the charity's "thank you letter," the evidence is clear that the payments were received and deposited late. Otherwise you would have to believe that the charity held checks for a month before depositing them. Highly unlikely, and not consistent with the clear pattern documented. For example, the two payments referenced in the thank you note described in the complaint were deposited on the same date. The late one and the timely one. Showing that the charity deposited donations as they were received. By the way, a bank employee mentioned bank "mistakes" in a conversation with me. That slipped out and would of course have been a reference to late payments. This response is in the nature of stonewalling.

Final Business Response
The bank utilizes a third party vendor for processing online bill-pay payments. The vendor processes all customer bill payment requests utilizing an automated process. This process includes the creation of a check that is prepared in advance of the requested date to assure the payment, which is sent through the mail, arrives to the intended recipient on the requested date. The bank has had no previous issues with this process working as intended. In relation to this complaint, the customer had established a monthly bill payment request of $25 for delivery at the end of each month. Based on our review, we are confident that all payments were processed and delivered as requested.


Customer Review(s)

The customer review(s) below are un-filtered. These positive and negative reviews are not used in the calculation of the BBB Rating. If you wish to file a complaint and request a resolution to your issue please click here. This customer review section is not BBBs complaint resolution system. Customer Reviews are the subjective opinion of the individual who posted the review and not of Better Business Bureau. A customer review is not posted on a business if a BBB complaint on the same issue(s) is also filed. BBB cannot guarantee the accuracy of any customer review and is not responsible for the content of any customer review. Public comments are not customer reviews.

Customer Reviews Summary

0 Customer Reviews on Bank of Stockton-Main Office
Positive Experience (0 reviews)
Neutral Experience (0 reviews)
Negative Experience (0 reviews)