There are times when I really don’t like my desk – it’s kinda out in the open and the high ceilings amplify everything so I can hear just about everything that goes on in the lobby. This is a big minus when I’m on the phone, but sometimes I get to overhear “interesting” things.

On Tuesday we had a … person come in who was belligerent from the word go. He was not a customer of [ghostbank] but his wife was and he was there to deposit a check into her account and make a mortgage payment. Sounds painless enough, right?

Oh, if only.

The check he brought in was not made payable to himself or to his wife but to a business. [ghostbank] does not handle business accounts and it is standard policy to refuse all checks made payable to businesses, even DBAs (doing business as) To make things worse, the check was apparently for the rental of the customer’s beach property and the person who had wrote it out had put the name of the development instead of the house. Someone, possibly the asshat, had added the name of the beach house onto the payee line. (But not his wife’s name, which would have made a hell of a lot more sense.) This makes the item an “altered check” which is also against [ghostbank] policy.

That’s two strikes against him already.

Asshat starts raising a stink when the teller understandably refuses the check and explains why. He raises his voice, claiming that he had brought in checks like this before and has never had a problem, that his wife always brings checks like this in, etc. The teller talks to her supervisor as the man calls someone I assume is his wife to bitch about haw bad the service is at [ghostbank] The teller comes back and tells him she will be able to take the check but in the future to make sure it’s not made payable to a business. He starts shouting that the check isn’t made out to a business, it’s for a rental property that they don’t even make a profit on!


She starts processing the second check for the mortgage payment and … oh, no – the payment has changed and the check is not enough. And on top of that, when the teller goes back to her supervisor (who is trying to help other customers) to get an override that will allow her to accept the altered check, he follows her and (predictably) over-reacts when he hears the word “override” and demands to know what is going on.

At this point our resident Knight in Shining Suspenders (a.k.a. Mr. Bossman) hears the ruckus and comes out to see what is going on. The two go into Mr. Bossman’s office (right near me) and he tries to calm the asshat down. Asshat wants to know why the payment is different (it’s called an adjustable rate mortgage for a reason) and why the teller wouldn’t take the check. Mr.Bossman explains, just as the teller did, that the check was altered and is also made payable to a business. Asshat once more claims that it isn’t a business, it’s a rental property that “clearly doesn’t make any money” since most (half) of the deposit was going to the payment. (I know.) A phrase that he repeats several times is “So what you’re saying is that [ghostbank] doesn’t want this mortgage anymore?” to which Mr. Bossman once again tells him that it isn’t the mortgage, it’s the damned check.

Asshat eventually leaves so that we can all talk about how tiny his penis must be (not really, but I was thinking it) and life goes on.

Update – I’m sure everyone remembers the throw-down that occurred awhile back, when a customer tried to cancel a cashier’s check she had just given to someone. The customer who had the check written came in after the seven days required to try to cancel it again. She is told that the damaged check, which she only has a portion of, was reissued and has already been cashed. She ends up in Mr. Bossman’s office where he has to explain to her (again) that if she has a cashier’s check written to someone and gives it to that person, it is exactly like giving them a big wad of cash. In short words – you ain’t gettin’ it back. She then tells Mr. Bossman that she has filed assault charges against the man she gave the check to, perhaps hoping this will somehow change the rules. (Nope.) He tells her that the guy had already been in to see him and request a copy of our surveillance footage – of which there is quite a bit, from several angles – and that it’s a good thing she came in since, legally, we have to provide the footage to both parties. The man came by on Tuesday shortly after the asshat left to get his copy but the woman has yet to come back for hers. I’m sure it’s just a scheduling conflict, just like when she fled the scene before the cops arrived after she tore up the check.