Our bank offers early access to direct deposit funds, up to two days early depending on the timing of the submission from the payer. The bank wants to add an Opt-Out option for customers who prefer not to receive direct deposits early. Could you please confirm there is not a operational or regulation reason why the bank cannot accept an Opt-Out request either verbally or in an email. We want to make the Opt-Out option easy for the customer without requiring a signed form. The bank plans to document the customers name and date of request in an account note.
May a noncustomer have direct ACH deposits made into a customer's account without that person being on the account? What are the potential problems if we find this?
When a receivership order is received, do we need to review the deposit activity to identify protected funds from a government agency?
Regarding payment of wages to employees of a bank, the bank has decided (after years of allowing direct deposit to any account at any bank) to either allow direct deposit to an account at their bank or payment by check, meaning anyone with direct deposit of their wages to another institution must decide on opening an account at the bank where we work or get paid by check (not desirable choices).
I have a few questions regarding this change. Although it is in compliance with Reg E, since we work in Florida, I was wondering if Florida Statute from chapter 532 applies, specifically 532.04 PAYMENT BY DIRECT DEPOSIT OF FUNDS
(1) reads as follows "None of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed or construed to prohibit the payor of wages or salary from causing the amount of such wages or salary to be deposited directly to the account of the payee in a financial institution by electronic or other medium if such direct deposit has been authorized in writing by the payee and if the payee has designated in writing the financial institution of her or his choice in which such deposit is to be made."
I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that the statute is stating that if an employee gets paid by direct deposit, the financial institution for that direct deposit is of the employee's choosing. I believe the bank policy for payment of its employees violates the Florida statute and I would appreciate it if someone could let me know their opinion or interpretation.
Also, one more question, if the employee had to complete a direct deposit authorization form, can the bank just cancel those instructions and change to a check or would the bank need each employee to sign another form authorizing the change or cancellation of a direct deposit order already on file?
Obviously most employees are not happy with the change but are somewhat nervous about speaking up. Dissent with this current policy is not popular with upper management. I would like to keep this inquiry discrete for obvious reasons, feel free to share, in a general way, this issue but please do not mention my name.
We are going to offer a DDA tiered rate paying 2.75% on the first $10,000 if qualifications are met (10 debit card transactions - 1 direct deposit or debit - access Internet banking once during the monthly cycle),.25% on balances over $10,000 if qualifications are met and .05% on all balances if qualifications are not met. It has a $100 to open minimum but interest will be paid on all positive balances. How do I disclose the APY? On the top tier do I use the $100 (min to open) to disclose the amt used to obtain the APY or can I use $1? On the middle tier - do I have to take into consideration the first $10,000 earned the higher rate?
What is the most current decision on a bank off setting an overdrawn account that gets Social Security deposits?
If we intend to close a checking account due to suspicious activity (SAR has been filed), how many days notice must we give the customer when they have direct deposit to the account?
We have several accounts that are set up to receive their Checking Account Statement (Paper) Annually. Are we out of compliance by not sending them a statement monthly when our disclosures state that they have 30 days from the date the statement was made available to us to notify us of any errors?
On page 13 of the handout for the new federal regulations, the 7th paragraph states "...the claim may serve as a continuing lien against future deposits that do not involve "benefit payments...". <i>Federal Register</i> Volume 76 Issue 36 page 18 paragraph 4 states "A small number of States authorize the issuance of a "continuing" garnishment order, i.e., an order requiring the garnishee to monitor, preserve and remit funds coming into the garnishees custody on an ongoing basis. The rule operates to prohibit a financial institution that is served with a continuing garnishment from complying with the order's ongoing requirements." My questions are: Do we monitor the account for 30 days as the garnishment states for deposits that are not protected funds? On page 9 of the same volume in the 8th(?) paragraph it states "The Agencies intend ... to ensure that after a garnishment order is received, the account holder continues to have the same degree of access to the protected funds that was provided prior to the receipt of the order." Does that mean that we cannot leave a hold on the account to avoid withdrawal of unprotected funds, still covering checks with protected funds? Also, would suspending the customer's debit card be against this?
I attended the 2011 webinar, "New Requirements for Identifying Exempt Funds When Processing Garnishments: Final Regulations." Do we look at each account individually? A savings account has no "protected funds" going into it, however, the funds are from a checking account that is "protected." Does this matter or do I just take the savings account and not look back?