What I see overlooked in the most disparaging comments about those in debt is that the BANKS and creditors broke the law. The federal government specifically prohibits the garnishment of exempt funds such as Social Security and veterans benefits and it did so for very good reason. Since the banks broke the law, all 'fees' for any checks written on the account that was frozen, unbeknown to the account owner, should have been lifted completely. In fact, the banks should have been fined for breaking the law. If changes in technology make it easier and cheaper for creditors to seize bank accounts, then banks, who can tell whether an account contains exempt funds before they issue a freeze, should obey the law, notify the account owner of the situation and NOT freeze the account. Since I use Capital One, I am most distressed to hear they would act this way, but not surprised. However, they too, know the law and if they break the law deliberately, they too should be held accountable. For the responants to this article who think it is only those who have not planned for retirement, or have been overspending who are at risk for this type of treatment, then I hope that they never face the situation that many have found themselves in- a catastrophic illness, that even with what they thought was good (and had been expensive) insurance found that it was not enough to keep them from being dragged into debt or a similar situation; and I pray for your selfish sakes that it never happens to you. As this article shows, many of the people who fell victim to these actions were still paying off their debt as best they could...they had not renigged their responsibility nor broken the law as their banks and creditors had. Who really had the most honor in those situations? Certainly not the banks and creditors. Or isn't honor important anymore?