Employer Direct Deposited to Wrong Closed bank account

[HRZ]

Tx labor code 61.017 is pretty straightforward as to what employer must do..and employer bungled it.

When the state added direct deposit to .017 they never cleaned up language in 61.016 ...so if employer send it some wrong place /account which refuses to pay the employee..does it even count as wages. ..is electronic non negioatable covered as a non wage :
" Payment by a written instrument that is not negotiable or for which payment is refused for any reason attributable to the employer does not constitute payment of wages for the purposes of this chapter. "

I didn't dispute the moral duty to pay ..but I suggest the employer agree to OPs ability to pay schedule

 

[Chyvan]

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

my old bank account that has been closed for 7 years.

I wouldn't pay it back or set up a payment arrangement. I guarantee you that the bank wrote off the debt a long time ago.

You tell your employer to exercise their right to "correct" direct deposit errors. The bank will return the money and put the account right back to where it was 7 years ago.

 

[Zigner]

I wouldn't pay it back or set up a payment arrangement. I guarantee you that the bank wrote off the debt a long time ago.

A "write off" is an accounting term/mechanism. It doesn't change the fact that the money is owed.

You tell your employer to exercise their right to "correct" direct deposit errors. The bank will return the money and put the account right back to where it was 7 years ago.

Nope, that's not going to happen, and it's terrible advice. The money is no longer in the account, so there is not "correction" to be made. The employer's recourse is against the OP, and the OP (rightfully) acknowledges it.

 

[Zigner]

...so if employer send it some wrong place /account which refuses to pay the employee..does it even count as wages.

The question is irrelevant, as that is not the fact pattern in this thread. The funds went in to an account that is owned by the OP and the funds were used for the OP's benefit.

 

[justalayman]

Tx labor code 61.017 is pretty straightforward as to what employer must do..and employer bungled it.

When the state added direct deposit to .017 they never cleaned up language in 61.016 ...so if employer send it some wrong place /account which refuses to pay the employee..does it even count as wages. ..is electronic non negioatable covered as a non wage :
" Payment by a written instrument that is not negotiable or for which payment is refused for any reason attributable to the employer does not constitute payment of wages for the purposes of this chapter. "

I didn't dispute the moral duty to pay ..but I suggest the employer agree to OPs ability to pay schedule

But it was negotiated


Op was paid by check for wages so the deposit is removed from the wage statutes.

 

[justalayman]

I wouldn't pay it back or set up a payment arrangement. I guarantee you that the bank wrote off the debt a long time ago.

You tell your employer to exercise their right to "correct" direct deposit errors. The bank will return the money and put the account right back to where it was 7 years ago.

Writing off a debt does not invalidate the debt. Regardless the bank apparently was still aware there was an outstanding debt since they did seize the funds.

Your advice to the op to refuse to repay the money is likely to get op sued.

 

[Chyvan]

The employer's recourse is against the OP, and the OP (rightfully) acknowledges it.

If the OP doesn't want to pay or is going to take forever, then the recourse is against the bank.

If the OP is telling the truth and that account was closed for 7 years, that direct deposit didn't flow smoothly into the account. The bank would have had to manually reopen it, and NACHA rules would kick in.

The employer is in a better position to get the money back from the bank who clearly has it than relying on a promise to repay from someone that's ability to repay is iffy.

 

[ImyourTA]

The Account was closed in 2011.

 

[ImyourTA]

Are any of you that are responding attorneys?

 

[LdiJ]

I cannot even imagine a set of circumstances under which the OP does not owe the money back. He has been paid twice; once by the mistaken direct deposit, and then by a paper check making the correction. Please show me any law under which the OP is entitled to be paid twice as long as it's the employer's fault. I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

The term, undue enrichment, comes to mind.

Think about it? The employer deposited to a wrong bank account. One that no longer existed for the OP. Had that bank account never been the OP's the employer absolutely would have been liable. If would have been up to the employer to recoup the money from the bank.

The bank took advantage of that mistake and kept the money. There is a definite question as to whether or not the bank actually had the right to do so.

The employer properly replaced the money to the OP via a paper check, but now wants the money back from the OP.

Potentially, no one's hands are clean here. The employer because they made a flat out mistake, the OP's because he had an outstanding debt that had not been resolved, and the bank's because they may not have had the right to do that. (statute of limitations etc)

You are thinking about it from the employer's side and viewing it as the OP being paid twice, and that is perfectly understandable, but its just not that black and white. The employer made a flat out, and serious, mistake. OP needs to consult a locate attorney.

 

[cbg]

But the account did belong to the OP so what might have happened if it didn't is irrelevant.

While the employer made the initial mistake, if the OP owed money to the bank that's not the employer's fault. The OP is still not entitled to a double pay. What happened to the money after it was deposited is between the OP and the bank.

L, think about this for a minute. The only other person on this thread who thinks the OP doesn't have to pay is HRZ. What does that tell you?

 

[LdiJ]

But the account did belong to the OP so what might have happened if it didn't is irrelevant.

While the employer made the initial mistake, if the OP owed money to the bank that's not the employer's fault. The OP is still not entitled to a double pay. What happened to the money after it was deposited is between the OP and the bank.

L, think about this for a minute. The only other person on this thread who thinks the OP doesn't have to pay is HRZ. What does that tell you?

He isn't the only other one. Chyvan is bringing up the same points I am, but more specifically what the bank had to do to take the money.

And, its not a question of whether or not I think that the OP has to pay. Its my uncertainty just who did the most wrong here and therefore has the biggest liability. The bank very well may have taken money they were not entitled to get. The employer certainly made an egregious error. If the bank was not entitled to that money then the OP did NOT get paid twice.

I know what kind of liability comes with arranging direct deposits, because I arrange direct deposits of tax refunds on a daily basis...and just like every other organization out there we make the occasional error...its rare, but it happens. If we had made this kind of error, we would fight the bank tooth and nail to get the money back. We would consider it to be our error, our problem.

 

[cbg]

Fine, that's what you would do. It doesn't make any other solution to the problem wrong.

And I'd trust HRZ on this topic before I'd trust chyvan.

 

[HRZ]

I didn't say here is no moral duty to pay it back....but when TX added direct deposit provisions to the law in .017 they imposed mandatory steps upon the employer ...and the employer failed to follow the steps .and they deposited it in the wrong place.

I am uncertain about if a person owns a closed account or if the account was actually closed ...but OP is pretty clear that it was closed in 2011....so I'm taking him at his word . At least as posted, the employer sent it to an non existing bucket .

Under .016 if employer had used a paper instruement and it was not honored on its face it would not count as a wage, so the law says, but when they updated .017 they did not address electronic instruements in 016 ....there may or may not be interpretation in Tx on point.

WHat may have happened is OP apparently used the same bank for the new account ..and the fine print in bank contract ( which few read or understand) contains a right of offset which the bank used .....

..but the point remains the employer failed to follow the mandatory provisions of .017

 

[cbg]

The point is that your interpretations of many laws over the years has been found to be lacking and I am not inclined to take your suppositions as to how it might be interpreted as truth.