Bank of America - Bank of America Mortgage Interest Overcharges

Posted on Monday, June 14th, 2010 at 5:38pm CDT by 256a0ac7

Product: Mortgage

Company: Bank of America

Location: Van Nuys, CA, US


Category: Other

In November 2009, Bank of America moved my mortgage from one BofA subsidiary to another BofA subsidiary. Since this date, Bank of America has started overcharging me interest. Bank of America acknowledges that their "software has changed" when loans were moved to the new subsidiary. And that their new software calculates interest on a daily basis. Prior to November 2009, any additional principal and/or monthly payments made before the 15th of the month, used to be treated as if they were made on the first of the month.

Thus, now if a payment is made on any day other than the first of the month, additional interest is charged upto the date the payment is made. In the past, only a late fee was to be charged, if the monthly payment was made after the 15th of the month.

Several representatives at Bank of America customer service acknowledge that an error seems to have been made. Going back at the loan history, they also agree that the method used to compute interest has changed. They also acknoledged that my loan is not a simple interest loan, but one where the interest should be computed monthly. One representative also mentioned that other customers had similar complains about overcharged interest. However, Bank of America refuses to fix the overcharges, indicating that this is how their new system works. And now their new software gives customers a breakdown of the principle and interest for each payment. In this new process, the system charges additional daily interest to each customer.

Note that I have not refinanced, or done any sort of modification to my loan. Nor have I ever been late on a payment. Just want to make folks aware that Bank of America maybe overcharging them as well. Folks need to look at their mortgage statement and calculate the principle and interest charged, and complain if they have been overcharged.


d016f473, 2010-09-17, 12:04PM CDT

Online exposes happen for a reason. When they're, or you're, in the spotlight they're, or you're, subject to the brightest lights. You may not like my exposes, which is your right. You may think it's NOT your or anyone elses business, which is your right. If I find that it is MY business, I can read about it and write about it. That's my right and my freedom.

Everyday consumers of goods and services now have the Internet to describe their experiences with businesses and those businesses employees. Government executives, administrators and all government employees, businesses, both non-profit and profit, legal and not legal, and every single one of their owners and employees, and all religious participants are ever increasingly more vulnerable to exposure, and accountability. Consumers have become bolder that their payment means total accountability for what consumers paid for. Consumers are less likely to keep to their place, do as theyre told and keep their opinions to themselves. Todays governments, businesses or religions that dismiss or ignore consumers do so at their own risk. The Internet is free at public libraries, free at many businesses and free to anyone that wants to crawl on to it from a nearby wireless connection. Consumers of these goods and services more often than not relate bad experiences over good experiences. Exercising their freedom of speech rights where legal and illegal in other countries, they not only spell out and link the offending business name and location, but also the offending employees and/or owners names and locations. They spell out in great detail, and link with supporting documentation, their complaints. I am glad to see Gone are the days where settings from Auschwitz to Abu Ghraib contaminated in isolation both superiors and subordinates. I am glad the Internet is real-time exposure forcing attention, and repercussions. I am glad The result has been an increase in holding others accountable, just saying no and exposes. Governments, schools, teachers, businesses, attorneys, judges, Realtors, home loan lenders, doctors, mechanics, hospitals, religions, etc. should be relentlessly interviewed, closely monitored, increasingly resisted, and constantly scrutinized. Online exposes and nastiness happen for a reason. Reasons like bad customer service or injustice. As the realization sinks in that the Internet is also a real time conduit of ones reputation, customer service will be deliberately forced to get only better. I have come to the recent conclusion that the Internet has made the Better Business Bureau a dinosaur. The BBB does not publish what the complaint is, and without that, the complaint is useless. Complaints made to the BBB about businesses not providing goods and services as advertised or legally required, bar associations about lawyers lying and taking clients money but not doing what they were paid to do, Realtor associations about Realtors clearly violating written ethics rules, ethics committees, commissions, etc. should not be private. Instead, all should be public. Thats another reason why there is an increase on the Internet of complaints and exposes. Too often, ranks have closed in around an offending member and protected them rather than hold them accountable. Or worse, the accused makes threats against the complaintant and witnesses, or bribes are offered by the accused and accepted by the investigator(s), prosecutors and/or judges, and editors. The Internet is the medium to not only expose the offending member, but also these cover ups by those paid to investigate, judge and punish offenders. Public records are public to protect the public. Thats why our publicly elected officials voting records are public. Thats why publicly elected officials can only have public meetings putting their opinions and conclusions easily available to everyone. Thats why all complaints, investigations and outcomes should be public. As MadMax wrote, Remember, we have a legal system, not a justice system. HOWEVER, "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." John Adams, (2nd President of the United States of America), 1776 (Thoughts on Government) FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ANONYMOUS FREE SPEECH The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads: Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment. The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door. These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox." On December 21, 2007, Superior Court Judge Terence Flynn granted EFF's motion to quash the Township's September 26th subpoena seeking the identity of the truthsquad and denied a motion by the township to authorize future subpoenas, finding that the subpoena amounted to "an unjust infringement on the blogger's First Amendment rights" and that the blogger "has a right not to be drawn into the litigation." Judge Flynn denied the motion for a protective order, finding that it was unnecessary at this time. More from Judge Flynn's ruling from the bench: "And I [...] recognize that there are First Amendment issues with regard to disputes with the past administration. And that anyone [...] has a right to make their feelings clear. And they have a right not to be intimidated by the issuance of discovery requests in order to shut them down. For that reason, in many ways, the authority cited by the intervenor is correct and accurate. And first of all the [...] blogger, if in fact its an individual person, and Im assuming absent any evidence that it is another individual person, has a right not to be drawn into the litigation and forced to reveal identity or to impede on his or her First Amendment rights simply on a suspicion, however founded or unfounded, and I dont believe that this suspicion is sufficiently founded at this point to determine that it is Mr. Moskovitz. That person should not be drawn into the litigation and forced to abide by the rules with regard to exchange of information that the parties have, as opposed to a third party. So the Court is satisfied that there is no authority under law for this particular subpoena to obtain this private information. To allow the subpoena would be undue and unjust infringement on the bloggers First Amendment rights. Theres no factual basis at this point, other than a mere suspicion for the justification. And ultimately that even if the information were obtained, it would be so remote to the actual elements of this litigation that it would not be admissible under any circumstances." First Cash v. John Doe Manalapan v. Moskovitz New Jersey Township tries to unmask anonymous online critic.

Sarah S., 2014-03-12, 12:13PM CDT

If you want help dealing with mortgage fraud please visit us at

Our face-book page is

We have helped hundreds of clients who are being defrauded by their mortgage companies.

You can also call us toll free at: 1-800-296-1477 or (904)229-8150 ask for my manager Mike Aloia or email him at [email protected] to get started on your investigation.

Post a Comment