More

Bank Of America: New Bride Can't Deposit Wedding Checks Because She Didn't Take Husband's Name

Bank Of America Bride

First Posted: 01/03/12 05:13 PM ET Updated: 01/04/12 09:03 AM ET

A branch of Bank of America in Albany, New York, refused to let a new bride deposit her wedding checks because she kept her maiden name, her husband Pete Iorizzo wrote in the Albany Times-Union, where he covers news and sports.

In his story, "Pete vs. Bank of America," Iorizzo explains that most of the checks he and his wife received from wedding guests were addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. Iorizzo." Because his wife chose to not to change her surname, he endorsed the checks himself and designated them "for deposit only" so she could drop by Bank of America and deposit them in the joint account they held there.

But bank tellers refused to deposit the checks due to his wife's different last name, even though she offered to present a copy of their marriage license, Iorizzo said.

What followed was a tedious series of arguments with Bank of America management over her right to deposit the checks as a member of a married couple who chose not to follow a traditional path.

According to Iorizzo:

"Here's the thing I can't understand," I told the manager during our 10-minute phone conversation. "This must happen all the time."

After all, 10 percent of women don’t change their names – a small percentage, sure, but a figure that amounts to about 300,000 women a year.

Surely many of these women receive checks as wedding gifts. And surely many do business at Bank of America – the largest bank in the country.

"I've only seen this once in my 20 years in the business," the manager told me.

Apparently the manager was referring solely to local business, because Iorizzo faced no opposition when he drove to the Bank of America one town over, who accepted the couple's checks without argument.

It's not the first time Bank of America has run into trouble over a customer's identity.

In July 2011, the Los Angeles Times reported that the bank had failed to deliver $30,000 worth of social security payments to an elderly man in Riverside, California, because they had accidentally deposited the money in another customer's account over the previous two years.

While initially claiming the error was irreversible, the bank eventually corrected the problem after the District Attorney's office launched an investigation on the case.

In another mixup case, a man in Northampton, Massachusetts, reported receiving a notice from Bank of America demanding that he pay an outstanding mortgage of $0.00.

Though he knew he wasn't in danger of losing his home -- he had never missed a mortgage payment -- he was disappointed to find his credit score lowered and that he was unable to get in touch with the bank.

After learning about his story on the local news, Bank of America restored his credit and issued a $150 gift card.

But Bank of America has taken steps to aid its customers as well.

When the bank learned that a terminally ill woman in Sacramento, California, had not been paying her mortgage because of mounting medical bills, it decided to delay eviction proceedings until after her death.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
A branch of Bank of America in Albany, New York, refused to let a new bride deposit her wedding checks because she kept her maiden name, her husband Pete Iorizzo wrote in the Albany Times-Union, where...
A branch of Bank of America in Albany, New York, refused to let a new bride deposit her wedding checks because she kept her maiden name, her husband Pete Iorizzo wrote in the Albany Times-Union, where...
Filed by Jocelyn Richard  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 850
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (25 total)
photo
IMissAmerica
Hippies were right about corp. facism, pot, & war
08:34 AM on 01/18/2012
What's the problem? I'm sure the local credit union would have gladly accepted those checks for deposit into the newlyweds' account.
11:42 PM on 01/05/2012
Change banks, problem solved...
12:05 PM on 01/06/2012
Different bank, same problems and possibly more.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Crystal Rose Love
An attorney, YouTuber, and Cafe Belle Blogger
05:13 PM on 01/05/2012
Why does she have an account with Bank of America to begin with? The bank engages in terrible business practices and customers regularly complain about it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbishop76
Left of liberal Texan.
05:03 PM on 01/05/2012
ATM deposits don't care. I do it all the time with my partner's checks that he's signed and he's not even on the account.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:18 PM on 01/05/2012
The teller was probably outraged that the woman did not take her husband's name.....oh the horror.

In VietNam...there is a fee ( I think around 2,000 if the wife wants to take on the husband's name ) If she does not...then all the children have her last name.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:15 PM on 01/05/2012
DUMP BOA....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:12 PM on 01/05/2012
it decided to delay eviction proceedings until after her death.

What ? Who are they going to evict ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Rockett
04:03 PM on 01/05/2012
Just how f*cked up is BofA? These little issues mount up and present a very poor picture of their competence on bigger issues. The only answer is Credit Unions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l monroe
I question authority.
01:57 PM on 01/05/2012
Da Doo Doo Daa, I'm a bank who's silly and that's true. What's next? The CEO claiming to be indigent and wanting his social security disability check for mental disability?
01:28 PM on 01/05/2012
So checks were made out to "Mr. and Mrs. Iorizzo", endorsed by Pete Iorizzo for deposit only into a joint account held by Pete Iorizzo and Jane Doe, and the bank wouldn't let Jane Doe deposit them even though she had ID proving her identity and her legal status as Mrs. Pete Iorizzo? That's just insane. Now, can the commenters who are taking the bank's side explain to me how Jane Doe was in any way at fault here?
Tara Hunkoff
I could have been Sheila Noyeau
11:33 PM on 01/14/2012
"Mrs. Iorizzo" doesn't exist, but "Mrs. Doe" does. It is not Doe's fault that the makers of the checks did not know her correct name, but no teller is going to risk being fired for violating BOA rules.

Once the teller referred the matter to management, any competent manager should have been satisfied that Mrs. Doe and Mrs. Iorizzo were one and the same person upon seeing her Doe photo ID and a Doe-Iorizzo marriage license.

Fire the dumb managers. Give the teller a bonus for triggering the identity verification process.
12:57 PM on 01/18/2012
This would be true if she was trying to withdraw funds from an account. Since she was depositing funds into an account, the account holder had signed the checks, and written for deposit only on said checks there was no reason to ever question this. Any competent teller wouldn't have even questioned this since Mr. Iorizzo endorsed the checks and is one of the names on the account. As the article indicated these checks were deposited in the same manner at a different location with no questions asked, seems that they found a competent teller after all. In addition this was a joint account with her name on it. She showed her ID so therefore had every right to deposit funds into the account. In your scenario "Mrs. Doe" was already a name on the joint account so she therefore had full access to this account, including making deposits endorsed by the joint account holder. Since a check made out to Mr. and Mrs. Iorizzo needs only ONE signature to endorse the check for deposit there was no reason to prevent this deposit. This had nothing to do with identity verification as she was already on the joint account and was just incompetent people being incompetent.
12:37 PM on 01/05/2012
Banks all too often try to powerplay to seem important. They tend to, like the phone companys, forget it is our money and not theirs. I wish they were as concerned when unauthorized users get money out.
11:16 AM on 01/05/2012
The Bank was correct. There is a process though. You just have to bring the marriage license and your regular ID. Then you sign the back both ways. Third party endorsements are a calculated risk. If she wasn't the check owner and simply shared a first name with the real payee, the true payee has five years to come after the bank.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gemini68
03:48 PM on 01/05/2012
She offered to show her marriage license- they refused. So she did in fact do they right thing, They did not. And she shouldn't have had to show the marriage license since it was a Deposit Only. She wasn't taking anything out of the account- she was DEPOSITING. I have sent my mother to deposit checks into my account at my bank with no problem. Because she wasn't withdrawing she was depositing.
04:00 PM on 01/05/2012
The fact that it's a deposit doesn't alleviate the risk. If I "deposit" a check payable to you into "my" account, I've just taken "your" money. Therefore your "just a deposit" statement is a naive one. That being said, I missed the marriage license part and you are therefore correct. The bank should have accepted it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
munki
Global to Local now Local to Global
10:32 AM on 01/05/2012
Interesting... I know many had no problem in CA...the same bank...
Is it regional or the branch?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lrobb
Southern Rational
10:28 AM on 01/05/2012
This is basic banking law 101. When you set up an account, the only people/entities able to access that account are those which have their name on the paperwork. If the account had been set up in both the husband's and wife's chosen names, there would be no problem with either withdrawals or deposits.

Bank 2, Husband and Wife 0.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
munki
Global to Local now Local to Global
10:33 AM on 01/05/2012
Use of also known as
01:12 PM on 01/18/2012
Basic banking law 101, when you set up a joint account both parties names are on the paperwork, therefore giving both parties full access for deposits and withdrawals.

Read the article again carefully. This account was a joint account that they had both been using prior to their marriage. Her maiden name was the name already on the account and therefore she had full legal access to this account to make both deposits and withdrawals.

By your own reasoning the bank was wrong to deny these deposits as her name was already on the account.
09:18 AM on 01/05/2012
Perhaps ATMs haven't hit Albany? Deposit the checks in one of a gazillion BoA ATMs and be done with it. I started a business 19 years ago and haven't made a business or personal deposit through a human being in at least 19 years -- at BoA. For as much of a hassle as that bank can be, they are the bloody StarBucks of retail banking. Seems they have an ATM on every corner of just about any American city I've been in, and quite a few in some Asian cities.