Traci Dean, (pictured) asks San Bernardino County to restore her to the position she was in prior to bank account seizure.
By Gail Fry
San Bernardino County Sentinel
Traci Dean, owner of Expert Appliance Repair formerly located in Phelan, was shocked to discover on September 11, 2008, that all of the money she had in her business bank account was gone, a total of $2,078.34.
Dean, the mother of two small children, was financially devastated when she found herself unexpectedly and without warning with an overdrawn bank account and numerous bounced check charges.
Dean said up until that time she had been the only female owner of an appliance repair business in the county and in 2006 her small business was voted number one for the High Desert. Dean said, “I am very proud of where I was.”
Dean had no idea why the business bank account had been cleaned out; she began making phone calls to find out. Upon contacting her bank, American Security Bank, Dean was informed that a government agency, Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) had levied her account.
Upon contacting Child Support Services, Dean discovered that her former husband was behind in his child support payments for a child from an earlier relationship. According to Dean, her former husband is an employee of San Bernardino County Special District’s Department.
All employers in the State of California are required by law to report its employees and their tax withholdings to the Franchise Tax Board. The State of California uses this information to locate individuals who owe money for child support or for tax obligations and utilizes it to require additional with¬holding for the obligation.
California Department of Child Support Services Assistant Director Connie DaMant said, “The local department of child support services must alert the state department of child support services when a person is over $100 or six months behind in their payments.”
Based on DCSS’s foregoing policy, Dean’s former husband would have to have been either six months behind in his child support payments or owed over $100 in order to for a levy to have been issued. DaMant explained, “We then may issue a levy to collect past due child support. We use the information from the Financial Institution Data Match program. The bank notifies the obligor.”
Information from the Franchise Tax Board regarding the Financial Institution Data Match (FIDM) Program says that it was created from federal legislation passed in 1996. FIDM requires state child support agencies to enter into agreements with financial institutions to identify accounts of child support debtors through a match process.
Dean found that Civil Code of Procedure Section 488.455(b) states, “At the time of levy or promptly thereafter, the levying officer shall serve a copy of the writ of attachment and a notice of attachment on any third person in whose name the deposit account stands.” Dean said, “I was never served with a writ of attachment and notice of attachment.”
Dean said when she called the California Department of Child Support Services, “They wanted me to prove that my ex-husband had nothing to do with my bank account and that they required additional information.” However, Dean told the Sentinel that her former husband’s name was still on the business bank account even though they had been divorced. Dean explained that in order to remove his name from the account the account would have to have been closed.
An active fictitious business name statement filed at the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office shows Expert Appliance Repair being owned by Traci Dean.
When the Sentinel questioned DaMant about its policy with regard to business accounts, DaMant said, “If they can demonstrate that it is a business account such as showing payment of payroll, then the levy will be released. If the bank account is a business account, we will not levy.”
Dean said she provided information to California DCSS in order to prove that the account had no involvement with her former husband and that it was a business account.
Dean said she provided information such as her business filings with the State Board of Equalization, her resale permit, fictitious business name statement and her business license. Dean said, “I complied and did everything they asked me to do. Then California DCSS said they couldn’t help me because I was not part of the case and didn’t have any rights.”
On December 9, 2008, Commissioner David R. Proulx of the San Bernardino County Superior Court ordered DCSS to refund $2,078.34 to Traci Dean. Dean said that Proulx told her that “We are just here for the levy and not the other losses that were incurred.”
Subsequently, a San Bernardino County Child Support supervisor identified only as Ms. Rodriguez asked Dean to agree to a payment plan of $100 a month in order to pay back the $2,078.34. Dean said, “I refused to accept a payment plan and demanded to be paid in full.”
“About a week after I had received the judgment and no money I asked San Bernardino County Supervisor Mitzelfelt’s district director Dawn Sikes for assistance. Sikes told me that I had to get a stamped copy of the court order before she would help me,” Dean said. “Two weeks after I obtained the judgment I received the check for $2,078.34.”
Dean explained that the county’s mistake of taking $2,000 from her account devastated her and ruined her life. Dean estimates her losses at $102,000 consisting of bank charges, loss of income, car repossession, ruined credit and an outstanding phone bill. “I can’t even open a checking account now. The record of bad checks will be on for the next seven years,” said Dean.
“Over the last two years, the only type of Christmas or birthdays my kids have had were the gifts given to them by my mother. I had nowhere to turn,” Dean said. “How dare they take away Christmas and birthdays from my children for a child that wasn’t my responsibility?”
Dean explained that she could not qualify for welfare, food stamps or assistance because the county viewed the $2,078.34 as income. “I did not have a choice but to close my shop and fight. I didn’t qualify for assistance,” Dean stated.
Dean said what concerned her was that the county was not holding the actual obligor responsible. “It wasn’t un¬til it was established in court that it was not okay before they garnished his wages,” Dean said.
Dean said she gave county DCSS her former husband’s employer, the name and phone number of his county supervisor, his county identification number, his social security number, his driver’s license number, his physical address and phone number to assist them in collecting the child support he owed. “Since March of this year I have been receiving assistance and now the county is now going after him for child support for my kids,” Dean said. “I then received a letter from the county asking for a physical description, any distinguishing marks or they would cut off the health benefits for my kids and myself.”
Dean said, “If they are requiring all other employers to report to the state and withhold child support why is it okay for them to ignore it and use it against other people? If he had been on wage assignment with the county for the child support, DCSS would not have levied my bank account.”
Dean said that she filed a complaint with the San Bernardino District Attorney’s Office and been communicating with District Attorney James Hackleman regarding the violations of law done by county employees. Dean said that Hackleman told her, “They can’t go to jail for not doing their job.”
Very alarming Dean said is that since August 25, she has been receiving phone calls on her cell phone where she has caller ID from various county offices including calls from Arrowhead Regional Medical Center Records Department and the district attorney’s office where the calls have been routed through Mitzelfelt’s office line.
Dean said she noticed that she had received a call from a D. J. Ball from Arrowhead Regional Medical Center Records Department in that a voicemail message was left. However, the phone number on the caller ID was (760) 843-1799. Dean explained that the phone number is one of Mitzelfelt’s office lines and that she had received a trunk call from Hackleman where his call had been routed through Mitzelfelt’s office line.
Dean said that county staff had explained that trunk calls where calls are routed through a local number are done in order to save the county money. Dean expressed her concern that the phone line used by the district attorney’s office was not secure when it was re-routed through Mitzelfelt’s office line and that it was a form of wiretapping.
Dean expressed her belief that the actions of the county in trunking its phone calls violates United States Code Title 18, Section 2511 and could be putting witnesses and victims at risk as well as compromising criminal investigations.
“In one weeks, time I have had over 100 calls,” Dean said. “The only people that have called me from that number in the past were members of Mitzelfelt’s staff.”
