codename47 said:
I think laws trump terms of service and the law says 10 days.
Can you please post the applicable law? thank you

More bad news: now there are fraud alerts on my Experian and ChexSystem reports. I'm guessing TransUnion and Equifax are soon to follow.

By the way, there is almost never any reason to pick up the phone and you are better off sending an E-mail. The response is in writing, usually well thought out, and is easier to "use against them" than a recording. OP, you ought to send them an E-mail, asking all of your questions and then give the response over to the attorney if you pursue legal action. My hunch is, you will have your cashier's check before too long and there will be no need for an attorney. But, companies have done stupid things in the past, and presumably, they will continue to do so in the future. Just stop calling them as it does nothing to advance the ball.
I've already sent a written complaint via CMRRR to Bank of America.

I went through a very similar experience with USAA (with regard to the road blocks placed by the fraud department). Although I did not provide nearly as much detail in my thread, having read through your posts rekindles my dealings with USAA. The best advice I can give is to be prepared for a lengthy and frustrating process and to not expect your funds to be returned for many months. Do what is necessary to keep your accounts in good standing while the matter is resolved. As long as you've done nothing illegal, it should be resolved in your favor. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix. Good luck.
I read your thread; what a mess you went through. The main difference between our cases, though, is that I never had a negative balance or undertook any action that could logically be construed as risky or fraudulent.

Codename47: Can you post the applicable laws behind your post? I would like to brush up on them before I speak with a lawyer tomorrow.

Fraud alert won't hurt your credit, AFIAK.

Google for "Patriat act bank close account". There are some similar stories.

ArbolLoco said:someone sent me a VIDEO that proports to be theficus attempting to get answers from BofA's fraud department... and the fraud department deftly avoiding all attempts to actually give an answer that makes any sense.

Is 'proports' even a word? And from a (supposed) lawyer no less....

For those looking for the applicable state-by-state laws on recording phone conversations, This is a good place to start, altho I would follow up by reading the original law if I were really concerned. An interesting tack on this whole issue is the fact that a lot of legal opinion considers recording calls to be simply 'enhanced note-taking', as referred to in this article. Thus, the whole question of whether you can or can't record a call is really moot - just record it, reduce the call to handwritten notes, and you have a true and accurate record that is useful in any situation, in any jurisdiction. Even better, it's unassailable because noone can assert that your record is inaccurate without producing something better (like a recording), which would of course just support your notes.

Which only goes to support what CN47 said a long time ago: Don't tell them, just record. If they ask, either don't answer or turnOff-sayNo-turnOn.

ArbolLoco said:kenblakely said:Is 'proports' even a word? And from a (supposed) lawyer no less....I give free English lessons.

I can use the word in a few sentences if you would like, suck as...

kenblakely proports to be a valuable contributor to FWF, but truth and experience belies this assertion.

Or I could use the preferred form of the word in another sentence, 'suck as'(sic)

"ArboLoco purports to be erudite by using legal terminology incorrectly, but he is apparently unable to control his typing, so his effort is wasted."

OK, that's it for me. On to pithier topics....

ArbolLoco said:kenblakely said:Is 'proports' even a word? And from a (supposed) lawyer no less....I give free English lessons.

There now you're smarter than you were two minutes ago, thanks to me.

I give free dictionary lessons.

You'll notice that the dictionary you cite, Webster's New Millennium Dictionary from dictionary.com, is the same one fooled by the pseudo-word esquivalience. If proport is a real word, a similar definition should be found in at least one other dictionary. When a word is found in only a single dictionary, something is amiss.

FortMarcy said:You'll notice that the dictionary you cite, Webster's New Millennium Dictionary from dictionary.com, is the same one fooled by the pseudo-word esquivalience. If proport is a real word, a similar definition should be found in at least one other dictionary. When a word is found in only a single dictionary, something is amiss.

From the Oxford English Dictionary

proport, v.
2. trans. Chiefly colloq. and regional. To profess or claim to do something; = PURPORT v. 1b.

It traces the usage back to 1884:
1884 Gleaner (Kingston, Jamaica) 8 Apr. 2/3 What Earl Derby may mean by the last clause of the declaration proporting to have been made by him, we have not the faintest conception.

this does not look good at all

theficus, do you happen to know if your name or one very similar is on the OFAC list?
http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/sdnlist.txt

Not that it's relevant, but I think it's a horribly thought out & implemented tool, I'm certainly not suggesting having your name or similar on the list is reasonable cause for suspicion. But banks and other institutions are required to pay some attention to it, and many of them employ morons who may think it makes sense to use the list even further than that.