“Does any of what you wrote really make sense. I challenge to go back and read this and truly beleive it took BB&T 8 mths to releaize an error. Even if you were to accept that premis Mr Suanders signed a contract knew he had an obligation to pay a loan and did not meet that obligation.

He basically stole from the bank the value of the vehicle and decided that was not enough and walked into the vault and stole another amount in his settlement.

The honorable Mr. Suander was contacted many times before the 8 mths and lied his way all the way through the trial. The money he won is stolen in money and I am really not sure how he sleeps at nigt.”

After the comment was posted we followed up with Mr. Holben via  email to see if he could clarify or provide further details, because what he said did not seem to be in line with any case notes we were aware of.  This was our reply via email to him:

——————————————
Tom,

You speak of this as if you have personal knowledge of the situation. Which in fact you do.

Your name is Thomas Holben, and you are not only a Independent Beach Body Coach and Distributor, but also currently hold the position of a Vice President at BB&T. The, Thomas Holben that was involved with this very case.

All of the information about the court case is in line with Mr. Saunders testimony to the best of my knowledge. I was unable to find anything to corroborate your statement: “The honorable Mr. Suander was contacted many times before the 8 mths… ”

Further,  yes I do in fact believe it. The court did, and BB&T (you) even admitted their errors at trial.

“At trial, Thomas Holben [A BB&T Lending Officer] conceded that BB&T did not book the second loan into its computer system until March 4, 2004, and that BB&T did not provide Saunders with an account number until March 8. Holben also admitted that BB&T learned of the loan and the failure to record the loan because Saunders “kept contacting BB&T,” attempting to pay down the loan.  After the loan was booked into the computer system in March, BB&T documented numerous communications from Saunders and Saunders’ attorney. BB&T’s records entirely accord with Saunders’ testimony. The bank records reveal that Saunders sought to resolve the dispute, informed BB&T of its error in failing to communicate with him earlier, and told BB&T that he had not paid earlier because BB&T had not provided him with an account number for the loan.”

It is undisputed that BB&T erred in failing to book the account, erred in not providing Saunders with an account number to pay off his loan, erred in repeatedly informing Saunders that he owed nothing, and then informed Saunders that, in spite of BB&T’s errors, he owed the complete balance on the loan PLUS late fee’s and penalties.

What does not seem plausible to me is that BB&T had records of Mr. Saunders repeated contacts to inquire about the loan, yet the only thing presented at trial to dispute his testimony was yours. You gave contradictory testimony that you had tried to contact him in February, and conveniently/inconveniently no record was made of this. Which by the way may I remind you, is still 5-6 months after the loan was signed, and one month before BB&T entered it into the computer system.  By your own admission it was 7 months after the fact before BB&T entered the loan into the computers.

Perhaps there is other information I am not aware of?

I look forward to your reply.

——————————————

After this we received a blank reply. Not knowing if this was intentional or not we contacted Mr Holben to clarify. The email stated the following:

——————————————
Tom,

If you sent something with the last email I did not receive it. As you can see below it was blank. Please resend it.

Thanks,
——————————————

The following terse reply was what we received back. [note: this was in reference to our email address: staff@bbandtsucks.com]

——————————————

No thanks    STAFF?????

——————————————

To which we replied back in kind . . . [note: this was in reference to his email address]

——————————————

Ok.  COACH?????

——————————————

This is when things really started going down hill in our opinion.
This was the the reply we received next.

——————————————

Hey asshole you have my name. Why don’t you put your lap top down get out of your coffe and piss stained bath robe and get a fucking life…

——————————————

And our reply….

——————————————

Whats with the name calling and personal insults? I notice you still have had nothing to say when I reinforced the earlier commentary on the trial. I was giving you a chance to clear up the “confusion” if their was any. Instead you start in on the personal attacks. I will assume this means I was correct then, as was the court’s decision and its upholding of said decision on numerous appeals.

——————————————

His final reply came on the 9th and is as follows:

——————————————

and i have noticed in all of your emails you have never given a name other then staff,,,,,is it ok if i call you infection…..look whatever the court decision said is not what happened and it would be to hard to explain the FACTS to you and you believe them so I would just as well leave it alone… still Saunders never paid his loan which he signed for that is the bottom line.  by the way the second loan was signed in December so I am not sure how you think December to Feb is six months…..do me a favor now and leave me alone.

——————————————

At his request we have ceased email contact, however we will address his statements in the last email that have not previously been addressed.

Mr. Holben states that: “…it would be to hard to explain the FACTS to you and you believe them so I would just as well leave it alone.”

That is all well and good Mr. Holben, but in our opinion, it was apparently also hard to explain the facts to the court or the jury. You were given that opportunity. The jury found for Mr. Saunders, and in the court notes the judge’s’ stated they saw no reason to disagree with them. Which as noted previously is a verdict that still stands after many appeals.

As to your six months question, I based that off your eight months statement: “I challenge to go back and read this and truly beleive it took BB&T 8 mths to releaize an error.” I assumed the eighth month was the month BB&T repossessed the vehicle. Which working back would have made February the 6 month.

The bottom line is you stated: “The honorable Mr. Suander was contacted many times before the 8 mths and lied his way all the way through the trial. ” Yet we could find nothing to back this up. So we gave you the opportunity to back it up, and were meet with ridicule and name calling.

Tom,
You speak of this as if you have personal knowledge of the situation. Which in fact you do.
our name is Thomas Holben, and you are not only a Independent Beach Body Coach and Distributor, but also currently hold the position of a Vice President at BB&T. The, Thomas Holben that was involved with this very case.
All of the information about the court case is in line with Mr. Saunders testimony to the best of my knowledge. I was unable to find anything to corroborate your statement: "The honorable Mr. Suander was contacted many times before the 8 mths... "
Further,  yes I do in fact believe it. The court did, and BB&T (you) even admitted their errors at trial.
"At trial, Thomas Holben [A BB&T Lending Officer] conceded that BB&T did not book the second loan into its computer system until March 4, 2004, and that BB&T did not provide Saunders with an account number until March 8.  Holben also admitted that BB&T learned of the loan and the failure to record the loan because Saunders “kept contacting BB&T,” attempting to pay down the loan.  After the loan was booked into the computer system in March, BB&T documented numerous communications from Saunders and Saunders' attorney. BB&T's records entirely accord with Saunders' testimony.   The bank records reveal that Saunders sought to resolve the dispute, informed BB&T of its error in failing to communicate with him earlier, and told BB&T that he had not paid earlier because BB&T had not provided him with an account number for the loan."
It is undisputed that BB&T erred in failing to book the account, erred in not providing Saunders with an account number to pay off his loan, erred in repeatedly informing Saunders that he owed nothing, and then informed Saunders that, in spite of BB&T's errors, he owed the complete balance on the loan PLUS late fee's and penalties.
What does not seem plausible to me is that BB&T had records of Mr. Saunders repeated contacts to inquire about the loan, yet the only thing presented at trial to dispute his testimony was yours. You gave contradictory testimony that you had tried to contact him in February, and conveniently/inconveniently no record was made of this. Which by the way may I remind you, is still 5-6 months after the loan was signed, and one month before BB&T entered it into the computer system.  By your own admission it was 7 months after the fact before BB&T entered the loan into the computers.
Perhaps there is other information I am not aware of?
I look forward to your reply

The prerecorded message says this is due to issues with their phone provider.

We will let you know if we find out anymore information.

We think it speaks for itself. . .

==================================================

You poor pathetic little person that probably was once fired from BB&T
and now have become bitter over the 9th largest Bank in the U.S. ,
whom of which could care less about a $40K or lower former employee.

Do you honestly believe that these insignificant court cases you
report on actually effect BB&T?! Let me enlighten your world – it’s
just a waste of time for the bitter, bored people like yourself and is
entertaining for the 300,000 +/- employees of the Bank. So go on,
have fun reporting these “significant” life altering cases – that in
all reality – do not effect BB&T Corporation.

If this is your only worth in the world – go for it. It’s a free
country, right?! I’m glad to know that BB&T does not hire or keep on
staff people of your caliber.

Enjoy.
=====================================================

Holly Rhines
Age: 25
Position: Real Estate Associate with BB&T
Tenure: 3 years and 3 months
Education: University of North Carolina at Wilmington
BA-Foreign Language , Spanish , 2002 — 2006

Activities and Societies: Alpha Phi, March of Dimes, JDRF, United Way

A former corporate investigator for BB&T filed suit Thursday against North Carolina’s third-largest bank, saying the company fired her in June for refusing to participate in the coverup of a $20 million loan fraud.

Amy Stroupe, a sheriff’s detective before she was hired by BB&T in 2005, said the loans were made as part of a failed real estate development in western North Carolina.

The development, the Village of Penland, collapsed in May with investors owing banks an estimated $120 million.

The banks involved in the development said they were duped, but Stroupe claims BB&T participated in the fraud by lending money for lots that were clearly overvalued. She said more than 120 BB&T loans used the same appraiser and lawyer and a picture of what appeared to be the same mountain lot.

She alleges that she was fired, in part, for contacting the Federal Bureau of Investigation and insisting that all details be turned over to them. Stroupe said she knew her investigation had upset some supervisors but that she was still shocked by their reaction.

“I was floored,” she said. “I guess I thought if I was doing something wrong I would have received a written warning or something.”

BB&T spokeswoman A.C. McGraw said the bank has not seen the suit, which was filed in Cleveland County Superior Court, and could not comment on it. The BB&T office involved in the complaint is in Cleveland County.

Stroupe’s complaint is the second lawsuit filed in the past month claiming banks were involved in fraudulent loans involving the Mitchell County development.

Another suit filed against the developers earlier this year was amended in November to add BB&T, First Charter of Charlotte, Carolina First of Greenville, S.C., and United Community Banks of Georgia as defendants. That suit, filed by individual investors, was filed in Wake Superior Court.

BB&T has denied the allegations in that suit. “We are confident that over the course of the proceedings we will be vindicated,” McGraw said.

Stroupe’s complaint addresses only BB&T, saying she was wrongfully terminated and suffered emotional distress. She accuses the company of defamation, saying the firing will make it difficult for her to return to a successful career in law enforcement.

In building her argument for those charges, she alleges that BB&T was guilty of criminal acts such as obstructing justice, making false statements to law enforcement agents and deceptive trade practices. The suit, handled by James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich of Tampa, Fla., names only the bank as a defendant.

Smelling a rat

Stroupe’s involvement in the case began in February. That is when a BB&T employee at a branch office in Shelby got a call from an employee of the Peerless Development Group asking that money be transferred from the developer’s account to individual lot holders at Penland.

Peerless was the developer for a proposed community of exclusive homes and businesses that developers were promoting.

“The employee asked if the developer wanted to make a full payment on the individual accounts or just sort of catch them up,” Stroupe said in an interview. “The Peerless employee said to just catch them up so as not to raise any suspicion. The first employee thought that was sort of weird … and a second employee decided he should review some of the files.”

The first 10 files related to the Village of Penland were virtually identical, the suit said. All were handled by Bryan Drum, the BB&T Shelby branch manager, who had transferred from a nearby location about a month earlier. At that point, the second employee reviewed more than 120 files related to Penland. Many of those files were also virtually identical.

– Link to Original Article –