First Bank & Trust

On October 13, 2016, our customer submitted a payment to a credit card company for $when his account had a balance of $This balance information was available through online banking which our customer had access to and his account statement that generated on October 10thWhen this
charge was presented against his account, we returned the item and assessed the account the $fee that was disclosed to our customer at account opening.When items are returned as non-sufficient funds (NSF), many times credit card companies will present the items again for payment in the hopes of the customer having available fundsThis occurred on our customer's account on October 18, and because funds were still not available, the bank had no choice but to return the item a second time back to the credit card company that initiate the debitThe $return fee was charged a second time because of the presentmentWhen both return fees were assessed, notices were generated and mailed to him each timeThe disclosed sustained negative balance fee of $was also included on a notice once the account had been in NSF for five business days.At this time, we have contacted our customer and refunded the $in fees that were assessed in return and extended negative balance feesWe are not responsible for his late charge fee that was assessed by the credit card company fir failing to pay his bills on timeAt the customer's request, we have closed the customer's account balance of $If our customer had contacted us prior to this letter, in consideration of his relationship with us and lack of negative history, we would have refund these fees for him as a courtesy.Sincerely,First Bank & Trust, ILSCentral AveParis, IL

Review: My problem is that First Bank and Trust is holding money in an account owned by our family trust and won’t allow the Trustees to distribute it to the beneficiaries. They say the account is in “dispute” since two successor trustees want to distribute the account and one does not. The VA Uniform Trust Code says when there is a dispute among co-Trustees, a majority vote prevails. The real reason First Bank is refusing to allow the two Trustees to access the account is a corrupt relationship between an attorney, [redacted] of [redacted], and some officers of the bank. This attorney has been hired by the third Trustee to get a larger share of the account for her. He does not recognize the two co-Trustees, only his client. We've submitted sworn affidavits to the bank by all three trustees testifying to the fact that there are three co-Trustees, so the bank won't openly reject the two trustees. They actually give no reason for holding the fund other than "a dispute."

We just want the Bank to release the funds to the beneficiaries as required by the Trust. The bank will not do that and is holding the funds until we submit to the demands of the attorney [redacted].Desired Settlement: We would like to close the account at First Bank and move the funds to another Trust account in another bank.. There's no one trustworthy at First Bank. First Bank should give us a cashier's check for the full balance in the account.

Business

Response:

In response to the complaint filed with the Revdex.com by [redacted] on June 13, 2015.please be advised of the First Bank and Trust Company's position regarding this account:As Mr. [redacted] acknowledges, the three trustees are not in agreement regarding plans to distribute thefunds in the account. Upon the advice of First Bank and Trust Company legal counsel, the bank wasadvised to place an administrative hold on the funds until a court of competent jurisdiction could make adetermination directing the removal of the hold and set forth the individuals who have the proper andlegal authority to withdraw such funds. Following this counsel, First Bank and Trust did place anadministrative hold on the account which will remain until such Court direction is received.First Bank and Trust Company advised Mr, [redacted] that the Bank would provide an alternate remedy, inthat the Bank would comply with distribution requests if all three trustees could reach a written agreementregarding the handling of the account. Since no agreement regarding the handling of the account has beenreceived and the trustees remain in dispute, First Bank and Trust does not believe it is appropriate to beplaced in the decision-making role of determining which family member (trustee) to support.The allegation that a "corrupt" relationship exists between a trustee and Bank officers is an injudiciousclaim by Mr. [redacted] without foundation or merit. First Bank and Trust will continue to maintain theadministrative hold on the trust funds until an appropriate Court authority can provide a directive on theproper distribution of funds or until such time that all three [redacted] family members reach a compromise.Sincerely,[redacted]Vice President, Compliance Officer

Review: We initially came to First Bank & Trust Company in August 2012; with loan request of the utmost importance to our entire financial well being and it was the lender's responsibility as it is for very professional and this lender owed us a "duty of care" as a consumer in his decision to either grant us our loan request as we were requesting them; or to deny our loan request all together; because the financial status that defined me and my husband at this point had no room for any type of diversion/revision from what we were requesting and the place that defined us; and locating the proper financing for our requirements involved a very detailed and lengthy explanation of our history of the mass adversity that we had proven to have overcome and were ready to move forward in both our personal and business lives.But, my husband and I did not at all receive our loan request as we had requested; and have proven today to have suffered substantial damages in both our personal lives as well as our business due to the total misrepresentation by this lender; discrimination; putting his compensation and his bank's ahead of our very serious loan request and loans; and as we have yet been to court; as it is in the making; there may be a conviction of gross negligence and incompetence and more in the servicing and handling of our loans (with two many details to define here as my words are numbered) ending in such an unjustified and unethical balance of our loans due to the conduct of this lender that in December 2014; we completely refused to accept to convert such cost into a permanent mortgage; and we ended in a negotiation phase with this lender and his same conduct and tactics rendered this for us as well. And, as everyone that hears our story is simply amazed; the conduct of this lender's higher authorizes are just as amazing. This lender's regional supervisor has yet to meet with us to hear such serious complaints and as of today doesn't even know what we look like; the CEO has ever returned any calls.Desired Settlement: We really at this point do not know a resolution other than the law suits that we plan to file (as we have one already in progress) because they now allowed this to go much to far and in doing so have completely refused any contact other than their unacceptable offers; also proven to only benefit them and get them off the hook and they continue to support this lender and his actions against us. We must agree with the other consumer who also has filed a recent complaint. You cannot trust them.

Business

Response:

Due to ongoing legal proceedings, First Bank and Trust Company is unable to comment on the specifics of this complaint.