When an account holder has more than one account and the first account review reveals that there are no protected funds and there is sufficient funds to satisfy the judgement, are we required to conduct a review on any remaining accounts? When reading section 212.5 Account Review, I am finding that we should perform an account review on all accounts.
(f) Separate account reviews. The financial institution shall perform the account review separately for each account in the name of an account holder against whom a garnishment order has been issued. In performing account reviews for multiple accounts in the name of one account holder, a financial institution shall not trace the movement of funds between accounts by attempting to associate funds from a benefit payment deposited into one account with amounts subsequently transferred to another account.
However, I am finding in the analysis of the final rule that agencies agree that it serves no useful purpose to follow the rule’s procedures in situations where a financial institution has made a determination not to take any action affecting an account as the result of the receipt of a garnishment order. The analysis also goes on to say that that if a financial institution will not be freezing or removing funds from an account in response to a garnishment order, then the financial institution should not perform an account review to determine if a protected amount should be established. Does this mean that we don’t have to do an account review on the remaining accounts if there are no protected funds and the amount satisfies the judgement in the first account? In our situation, the first account review did not have protected funds and the amount satisfied the judgement, but some of the remaining accounts do have protected funds.
If we do have to review all accounts, even if the first review satisfies the judgement, are we still required to send the notice since other accounts did have protected funds, even though no funds were garnished from those accounts?
I have a question about a writ of execution. Our bank is in the state of Pennsylvania. If we receive a writ of execution on an individual and they have a joint account may we put a hold on that account if the other person is not listed on the writ of execution?
We received an IRS levy for an individual. We have no personal account, but there is an account where the individual is the sole owner on a business account and incorporated. Does the levy effect this account? And do the new Beneficial Ownership regulations impact this at all?
This individual is really using this as a personal account and even deposits Social Security checks into it.
Reclamations from the VA and SS are arriving late - funds are gone, the joint owner (spouse) already withdrew the funds. We fill out the notice when it arrives and explain "no funds." then months later they pop back in withdrawing the funds. Have you had any success in fighting this?
I received a levy for a member who receives SSI into their savings account. Can I send the funds from their checking account or are they still considered protected?
I am writing procedures for garnishments and have a quick question, is the "Notice of Right to Garnish Federal Benefits" only for consumer accounts?
When a bank receives levies/garnishments, can the bank put the funds that are on hold into another account to wait out the number of days noted on the notice? Or do the held funds have to remain in the account that it is coming from for the number of days noted in the notice?
Do local state tax levies apply to protected funds?
Is the escheat date on funds held on a garnishment 5 years from release date from the courts?
What is the recommended retention period for Levies and Freezes processed by the financial institution?