Fraud Damages

[MathFanatic09]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? LA

In mid-October, I had fraudulent charges made to my checking account. It was deduced that my card/pin information was stolen at an ATM. I went to my bank, reported the fraud, and now I have received my money back (along with overdraft fees, etc.) However, I received the money two days after my apartment rent was due, and have incurred a $65 late fee because of it. Is there a way I can be made whole in this situation? I know I gave up my right to pursue the criminal in exchange for receiving my money back ten business day later (the bank now has the right to sue the criminal), but I only did this to mitigate my damages.

 

[AnotherMoron]

What did your LL say when you asked if s/he'd remove the late fee against your account given the circumstances?

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? LA

In mid-October, I had fraudulent charges made to my checking account. It was deduced that my card/pin information was stolen at an ATM. I went to my bank, reported the fraud, and now I have received my money back (along with overdraft fees, etc.) However, I received the money two days after my apartment rent was due, and have incurred a $65 late fee because of it. Is there a way I can be made whole in this situation? I know I gave up my right to pursue the criminal in exchange for receiving my money back ten business day later (the bank now has the right to sue the criminal), but I only did this to mitigate my damages.

Sure, you can sue the idiots who stole your money.

 

[MathFanatic09]

Sure, you can sue the idiots who stole your money.

When I discussed the claim with my bank manager, they came across as "you give up your right to sue [this is given to the bank] in exchange for our returning your money in ten business days". Is this true? Also, they said specific information of the investigation would not be disclosed to me, only whether they found who did it or not. So...would I have to investigate myself, since the information of the investigation is, as it seems, property of the bank?

 

[Antigone*]

When I discussed the claim with my bank manager, they came across as "you give up your right to sue [this is given to the bank] in exchange for our returning your money in ten business days". Is this true? Also, they said specific information of the investigation would not be disclosed to me, only whether they found who did it or not. So...would I have to investigate myself, since the information of the investigation is, as it seems, property of the bank?

That would be a resounding yes.

The effort you would put into this investigation would cost way more than the $65 bucks you are out. My point is you can sue in a civil court if you like, but is it worth it ~ most likely not.

Your bank doesn't owe you anything else, and your landlord is entitled to his money plus his late fee. It stands to reason that if you cannot find the criminal who benefitted from the use of your money, then you are responsible for the late fee to the landlord.

 

[MathFanatic09]

Thanks Antigone! This is, sadly, what I figured all along. At least it's not enough to where I actually would have to put effort into a lawsuit

 

[MathFanatic09]

One last question, if I did sue, would it be tried as a criminal case? If so, would that entitle me to private investigator fees, attorneys fess, etc.? (This is purely hypothetical, I have no intent of doing such)

 

[Antigone*]

One last question, if I did sue, would it be tried as a criminal case? If so, would that entitle me to private investigator fees, attorneys fess, etc.? (This is purely hypothetical, I have no intent of doing such)

Nope, you are no longer the victim in the theft case ~ the bank is.

Small claims...again...is it really worth it

 

[Country Living]

You did get a new card and are using a new PIN, right?

 

[MathFanatic09]

You did get a new card and are using a new PIN, right?

Indubitably so.

 

[cosine]

Nope, you are no longer the victim in the theft case ~ the bank is.

Small claims...again...is it really worth it

The OP is no longer a victim in terms of the original amount taken. However, the time consequences of not having the money over that period (something that, by law, the bank is not liable for, as long as they restored the money within the prescribe time frame) is still a loss by the OP. The OP can still sue on THAT amount (not on the amount restored by the bank).

As for whether or not it is worth it ... for $65 it clearly isn't.