What legal action can Paypal take against me if I don't pay them and I have a negative balance?
Paypal can take exactly the same legal actions against you as any creditor could -- take you to court for wilful nonpayment of debt, sell your debt to a collections agency, or anything else a business would do with a deadbeat customer. But this is a legal question, and as such off topic here.
Others have covered the usual vehicles for getting money out of a property. There's another category of home loan called a hard money loan. It would take a lot of inquiries to find a hard money loan given your needs, but chances are its doable. The terms can be onerous, and hard money lenders don't mess around when it comes to foreclosing after a few missed payments. It's an off-the-radar industry and the private lenders and specialized trustees operate together with strike-force precision. Trustees normally should be trust-able by borrower and lender, but in the case I describe below, one man owned the small company that lent, and the small company that acted as trustee. Borrower beware. Yet, if your credit score and income are dismal, but your home equity is great, hard money is the only way to borrow against your home. In making hard money loans, lenders don't consider your credit score or income, just how much equity is in the property. I daresay they hope you'll default. They don't always hang onto the loans. If you look like a payer instead of someone they can foreclose on, they might sell the loan to someone who wants a stable monthly income. You don't know a thing about that person.  A Cautionary Tale: *Check out HankandHelen.blogspot.com for a currently-unfolding saga, in which an elderly couple's grandson convinced them to let him take title to their house, borrow against it, invest the proceeds, and share the profits. It didn't work that way. He went through hard-money lenders. He borrowed $360,000 and then $65,000. Those were mysteriously paid off (total mystery at this point), and he borrowed $47,000.  About a year later, he lost the house by defaulting the $47,000 loan. He was only about $2000 behind in payments when the trustee issued a notice of default, followed by a notice of sale. The trustee put the place up for auction, which didn't require a court order: that's the way it is in California and many western states, and a few others. The hard money lender bought the loan at auction for $83,000, and a home worth about $800,000 no longer belonged to the grandson.  A fundraiser brought in about $120,000 and the couple bought a mobile home in a mobile home park. The acre of land and swimming pool they used to own will be for sale soon, or possibly demolished for a mansion to be built. (House in the area go for about $2.5M when improved with very large, new houses.)* I poke around PropertyShark.com when I see a house bought cheaply at a foreclosure auction. Quite often the (former) borrower had inherited the house, treated it like a piggy bank, defaulted, and boom--no more house. It never makes sense to put a house at risk for a small amount like $5000. If you can't pay those credit card bills, the lenders can hound you and maybe get a court order to extract something from your checking account every month, but they can't take your belongings. When you sign a deed of trust or mortgage, you're giving a third party the right to kick you out of your home and take possession of it. You don't have any say in the matter. You might go to court, and say whatever you feel like saying, but if you owe many payments and can't pay them immediately, you're very likely to be out of luck. Someone mentioned paying off credit card balances with the highest interest rates first. That's done by throwing whatever cash you have at them while paying the minimum on the lower-rate balances. That's financially sound, but there's a technique that turns out to be more motivating for some, which is attacking the lowest balance first. It leads to the quickest reduction in the number payments you're required to make every month, and quickly lets you add the money you were applying to the smallest balance to the payment you make on the next-smallest balance. (Close each card as you pay it off if you don't want to accumulate debt again.) P.S. I don't know what your home's feed is, so I didn't address that. If it's some kind of rental income, every lender I have encountered credits 75% of the current monthly rent toward your gross income. They assume there will be vacancies and other costs. "First off, I originally brought up Wells Fargo to show that big banks may not want to open the floodgates for lower level employees and management to have free reign to profit off customers in less than responsible ways. I didn't mean or want to get into a debate about past govt. oversight of Wells Fargo's practices. [But to your point:](https://www.housingwire.com/articles/39782-cordray-answers-charges-that-cfpb-didnt-take-lead-on-wells-fargo-scandal)  &gt;He explained that the bureau first received a whistleblower tip in July 2013. The exposé by the LA Times wasn’t published until December. &gt; &gt;Cordray did add that the LA Times coverage was a “splendid piece of investigative reporting” and that investigative reporting often aides government investigations. &gt; &gt;After that first whistleblower tip, Cordray explained that the Wells Fargo case over time grew into something bigger. &gt; &gt;As the CFPB watched Wells Fargo through 2014 and 2015 in supervisory activity, it became clear the situation was serious enough to migrate into an enforcement action, he said.  I'm not sure what you're talking about here:  &gt;And what are you talking about freedom to ""compete"" against the big guys? What are you even talking about and how is that freedom threatened?  I'm saying they *will* have freedom to compete in ways that may have negative impact on clients who have chosen to move their investments from bigger banks to smaller ones.  As for the list of ""positives"" you gave surrounding this bill, [there are also negatives:](http://fortune.com/2017/06/07/financial-choice-act/)  &gt;Congress this week is considering the Choice Act, which would roll back regulations enacted after the 2007 financial crisis, particularly those designed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Yet, the legislation goes even further and limits consumer access to information that could help them make better choices. &gt; &gt;One of the hallmarks of conservative regulatory philosophy is that educated and empowered consumers are preferable to government bureaucrats, regulations, and prohibitions. Yet, the conservatives in the House of Representatives appears ready to pass the CHOICE Act this week and in the process legally prohibit publishing data the government collects on consumer complaints on financial services. This is a mistake and would cost consumers and businesses. It would also go against the universal values of fair markets and informed consumers.  But [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/business/dealbook/house-financial-regulations-dodd-frank.html) is what I find most concerning:  &gt;The bill would also eliminate the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule, which requires brokers to act in the best interest of their clients when providing investment advice about retirement. The first parts of the rule are scheduled to go into effect on Friday. The rule was completed last spring under Mr. Obama after years of development.  My point, before you started arguing something different, was that larger banks often *need* the oversight conducted by their customers and the government in order to help them nip bad practices in the bud before it becomes a much larger issue. This may not be as much of an issue for smaller banks, but in the end, they all deal in the same industry and present the same danger to their customers if things go bad and employees don't take their intrinsic fiduciary responsibility seriously." "I'm not downvoting you because I can relate, in a way, to your post and I think this is a good topic to have on this site.  We had a question a couple weeks ago where someone, like you, took some friend's money to trade with but didn't know how to give the money back or calculate the net-return.  It is not smart to take and invest other people's money when you have zero industry experience and when you do not understand the legal requirements of handling someone else's money. Within the first 12 months of my brokerage account I had returned something like 150%, I doubled my money plus a bit.  The next year was something like -20%; if I remember correctly the next year was worse, then up again for year four.  Year 1 I thought I was a genius and had figured this whole thing out, year 2 put me in my place and year 3 kicked me while I was down. You have 6 months of pretty solid returns, good for you.  I don't think that means it's time to set up shop.  Really, I think you need to sit down and think long and hard about the implications, legal and otherwise, of holding other people's money.  Running a fund is significantly different than trading your own money.   Retail investors don't, typically, have a good memory.  Great, you made me 17% last year, and 25% the year before but right now I'm down 10%, so give me my money back because I would have been better off in an savings account this year.    This is why index funds are in vogue right now.  Lots of people have had money in active funds that have trailed or matched the ""safe and passive"" index funds, so they're angry.  Retail folks get jittery the instant they lose money, no matter how much.  You need to be ready to contend with ""What have you done for me lately?"" the instant something turns negative, no matter how positive your returns have been. At your stage in the game you should get a job and continue putting your own money in to your own system and be ready to lose some of it.  I doubt there is anyone outside your immediate family who will hand a random 18 year-old kid any significant amount of money to trade their system based on 6 months of success; certainly not more than you have in there currently." "There are three possibilities.  This is a scam, as others have pointed out, it works by you sending money, then them stopping the original transfer, meaning you sent them your money and not theirs. They make money cause a stop payment only costs $50 (or around there) but you sent $1,000. So they profit $950. You lose $1,000 and maybe some processing fees. This is money hiding, or money laundering. They send you $1,000 in drug money, you send them $1,000 in ""clean"" money. You don't lose any money. But they gain a clear paper trail. With large sums of money (in the U.S. anything over $5k) you have to prove a paper trail. They just did. You gifted it to them. On your end, it looks like you just profited from illegal activity, which in the worst case ends in confiscation of ALL your assets and jail time. It might not come to that, but it could.  This was an honest mistake, by an idiot. It is possible to wire a complete stranger money. If you make a mistake on the wire transfer forms, and the account number exists, it will go through.  Now what makes the sender an idiot is not the mistake. We all do that. It's the fact that banks have a built in system for handling these mistakes. Simply put, you can make a stop payment. It's around $50 (varies by bank and sometimes amount transferred), it's easy to do, and almost automatic. If you tell a bank rep that you made a mistake they will likely have you fill out a paper, and in many cases will ""just take care of it"". If ""the idiot"" didn't want to tell the bank of the mistake, or didn't ask for help, or didn't want to pay the fee. Then maybe they would contact the receiving party. But that's pretty dumb. Resolution The resolution in all cases is the same. Visit your local branch, or send in writing, an explanation: ""I found $1,000 in my bank account that I didn't put there, and got this email (see attached print out). Please advise."" They will ""freeze"" the $1,000 (or maybe the account but I have never seen that) while they investigate.  You won't be able to spend it, they might even remove it pending the investigation. They will contact the bank that issued the transfer and attempt to sort things out. You shouldn't be charged anything. You also won't get to keep the money. Eventually the bank will send you a letter stating what happened with the investigation.  And the money will vanish from your account.  Specific questions I wanted to state the information above even though it doesn't address your concerns directly because it is important. To address your specific questions: Question 1) Surely bank account numbers have a checksum, which make it relatively difficult for a typo to result in a payment going to the wrong person? Nope, that's up to each bank. Usually the account numbers are not sequential, but there is no ""checksum"" either. Just like credit cards, there are rules, but once you know those rules you can generate fake ones all day long. In some cases, account numbers 5487-8954-7854 and 5487-8945-7854 are both valid. It happens.  Question 2) What are likely sources of them being able to find my phone number to call me? Phone numbers are not private. Not even close. Phone books, Google, Websites, etc etc. if you think your phone number is in any way a secret then your totally misinformed.  Account numbers are not a secret either. Especially bank account numbers. You could totally just call a bank, and say ""What is the name on account 12345?"" and they would tell you. Checks have your name and account number on them, as do MANY documents from a bank. So anything from asking the bank, to finding a copy of a check or document in the trash are valid ways to make the link.  Question 3) How were they expecting to benefit? See options 1 and 2 above. If is is really option 3, then your bank should have directed the money back. But if the person was so messed up as you say, the account may have been closed and ""written off"". When that happens a lot of weird stuff can happen. Essentially the bank is ""taking a loss"" of money and doesn't want the money back even if the account was closed with a negative balance. Usually though contract with debt collectors, they may have already been ""paid"" for that debt, and are not allowed to take the money back. These things happen, but it seems like a pretty odd set of things that need to line up for #3 to be valid. About your Length of time Usually these things resolve in less then 90 days. Usually far less. At the 90 day mark, it gets really hard to reverse a transaction. It's possible that it was a scam and so many people fell for it that the scammers just let you keep the money instead of ""highlighting"" their scam.  The fact that your using a ""net bank"" means that your can't go in person, but you should get details in writing. State the transaction number (it should be in your account records) and ask them for a ""letter of resolution"" or some form of official document stating the outcome of their investigation. I suspect that no one every really investigated the issue and the rep you spoke to never did anything then ask you to ask them to fill out a stop payment. You need a record of trying to sort this out. You don't want to up for some legal battle 10 years from now because someone found out that the money was part of a pool that was used to fund some terrorist group or some such. So get a paper trail, then go with what the bank says." Overpaying a credit card to create a large positive balance may cause a bank to red flag your account.  This is a technique used in fraud for check kiting (write or deposit a fraudulent check to overpay your credit card, then demand a refund on the balance overpaid before the check bounces.) Every bank is different: Talk to your bank first before you try this.  For a small balance ($5-20) overpayment isn't a big deal, it happens regularly... just spend down the balance.  Past that, you might be harming your credit record or risk closing the account if the bank disagrees with how you are using an overpaid balance for a larger purchase, or you risk unwanted law enforcement attention aimed at your finances. If you are trying to do this to build your creditworthiness, a secured card is better for this purpose.  Disagree with your credit limit? Deposit more in the holding account. "As the other answers stated: Yes PayPal will transfer money from your bankaccount automatically if your PayPal balance isn't sufficient. Let's add some proof to the story: (Note, I am in the EU, specifically the Netherlands, situation might be different in other parts of the world) If I login to PayPal and go to my wallet, I have a section that looks like this:  If I click on it, I am presented with a screen with details about the connection.  Note the ""Direct debit instruction"". If I click on the ""view"" link I am presented with the following text (emphasis mine): [snip some arbitrary personal details] This authorisation allows (A) PayPal to send instructions to your bank account and (B) your bank to debit your account in accordance with the instructions from PayPal. As part of your rights, you are entitled to a refund from your bank under the Terms and Conditions of your agreement with your bank. A refund must be claimed within 8 weeks starting from the date on which your account was debited. Your rights are explained in a statement that you can obtain from your bank. Below this text is a button to delete the authorization." "For customer accounts that you have with a merchant, normally a positive balance in the account is what you owe the merchant. When you have a credit on the account or a negative balance, it usually means that it is an amount that the merchant owes you. This could be because you paid too much, or perhaps it is because the merchant is giving you a refund for some reason.  However, it is always a possibility that this particular merchant is not using the terminology in the conventional way. If you aren't sure, the best thing to do is to ask the merchant directly by contacting their customer service department.  Just judging from the screenshot you posted, it looks to me like they owe you some money. I suggest you click the ""Statement"" button; it looks like that will generate some type of statement that will instruct the merchant to send you a refund. But that is only a guess. Their customer service should be able to tell you what to do." It looks like your visa being refused is entirely irrelevant. What happens in bankruptcy is that all the assets of the bankrupt entity are taken over, liquidated, and the proceeds are distributed to the creditors. You're one of the creditors, and as you've been told - the proceeds are not enough to pay all the creditors in full. This is quite common in bankruptcies. What you can do is sue in court and demand priority over other creditors, but... a. You're exactly the same as many other creditors (rest of the students), so why would you get a priority? b. Suing costs money and even if you get more, you'll pay way more for legal fees and expenses. What else can you do? If you paid with a credit card - your credit card company may be able to reverse charges. Sometimes that works, depending on how fast you move. If you paid with a check - your bank may similarly be able to stop payment on the check. This provided it hasn't been settled yet.