Responding to what 'bonelady' said - (about 9 posts up - Posted by bonelady (My Page) on Wed, Aug 2, 06 at 15:36) Something similar happened to me quite awhile back. I did a balance trf on a card. Got first statement and paid minimum due (it was like $120.00 min due at the time). Then I made a 2nd pymt of $120.00 very close (either before or after the "due date"), expecting the 2nd pymt to "HIT" (be processed) in the NEXT billing cycle. (Taking into consideration mail delivery & processing time) I think I mailed it the day before or day OF due date. My next statement arrived, and I had a minimum pymt due of about $118.00 or $116.00 - something like that. I called them up to inquire. Well...They rec'd the pymt AFTER the due date. However, that 2nd pymt applied to the previous month! Here's why: Let's say the "Minimum Payment Due Date" is the 17th of the month. Pymt is mailed on 1st of month (PRIOR to the 17th) and gets processed/paid on the 8th. (I'm being 'generous' here on time) Now, send a second pymt - lets say mailed on the 16th or 17th or 18th - because you KNOW it needs to travel thru the mail, arrive, be processed, etc. SO, you EXPECT it to arrive AFTER the "Due Date" - (17th). And indeed it DOES arrive and is processed after the due date. So, You're paid for the next month...RIGHT? NO PROBLEM! EXCEPT!!! Hello? Your 2nd payment arrived and was processed on the 23rd. Your new "BILLING CYCLE" STARTS on the 24th! That 2nd payment applied to the previous billing period. They don't "tell you" that there's this one week "GAP" between pymt due date and beginning of next billing cycle! So, now you have to make yet ANOTHER minimum pymt that month! I used to do the extra pymts once in awhile years ago. It was (if I'm not mistaken), if my due date was the 17th, my next billing cycle would start on the 18th. Not that way anymore! I was shocked when this happened to me awhile back...But HEY!...At least I made an extra pymt and was still able to pay the minimum due next statement. PLUS, I learned something I was not aware of then, but I am NOW! Helps for better planning...

I'm also a big advocate for credit cards. There is probably less paperwork involved, since everything is done electronically and practically instantly. And I doubt that the shopowner has to wait to get paid. And less money goes missing. When I worked retail, there was usually a discrepancy between what is actually in the till at the end of the day, and what should be in the till. And no, I wasn't skimming. Human error happens. And yes, the shopowner does have to pay a fee for credit/debit card purchases, which is then passed on to the customer (even the cash customer). But guess what ... using cash isn't free either. Imagine how much money is spent to replace destroyed, worn out, or lost bills and coins. And how much money is spent on trying to come up with new anti-counterfeit techniques. All paid for by the government, which is then passed on to the public through taxes. So by using cash you are costing me money! :) I wouldn't be surprised if during my lifetime, cash is fazed out almost completely. And in the next few years, I'm sure the signature on credit cards will be obsolete. It's pretty much useless now.

"Suppose a bill was approx 428.00. If you made no more charges, payed mim. amout it would take 3 years to pay this off and you would pay 544.00 in interest!! That is scary. Like I said, please read your statements very carefully especially this month and the new rules went into effect today, but there are loopholes also." This is actually BETTER THAN the way it used to be. The minimum amount due each month has INCREASED, which LOWERS the amount of time it will take to pay off the total balance; and it also LOWERS the total amount that you will have paid by the time it's totally paid off. Another change that is an improvement is when you have balances that are subject to different finance charge rates... Here's how the old system worked --- Let's say you have a card with a $468 balance at 22% interest. The card issuer runs a promotion where you can transfer a balance from a different card, and pay only 1.99% interest on that transferred balance. So, you transfer $500 from another card. You make a payment of $125. That payment will be applied towards the $500 balance at the lower interest rate, so the bank will charge you the maximum interest on the $468, because there wasn't any payment made against it. Each month when you make your payment, the payment will be applied towards whatever remains from that transferred $500. It's only AFTER the $500 is paid off that any of your monthly payment will be applied towards that original $468. And all that time, you'll be hit with a high monthly finance charge. Under the new system, if you have balances at different interest rates, any payment you make will be applied first towards the balance with the higher interest rate. This will ultimately save you $$$ in finance charges. Another thing that has changed is Over Limit Fees. Used to be that if you had, say, a $10,000 credit limit and a $9,000 balance owing, you could still charge more than $1,000 and the bank would accept the transaction, and then they'd turn around and tack on a $35 (or more) fee for going over your credit limit. Now, they won't charge that fee, BUT THEY WON'T ACCEPT ANY TRANSACTION THAT WOULD PUT YOUR BALANCE OVER YOUR LIMIT -- UNLESS YOU AGREE, IN WRITING, TO ALLOW OVER LIMIT FEES FOR ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL TRANSACTIONS. As Mary C said, "People should have been reading their bills from the get-go!"

I'm settling my mom's estate now. Obviously, in the original post here, there should have been no charges, since the account was 0 when the woman died, but the executor DOES have the responsibility of notifying anyone who has a financial interest. And it's pretty obvious that the credit card company needs to take a serious look at their practices and make a few revisions. But debts don't die with the person. Every will I've ever read includes the statement that the executor/executrix is charged with the responsibility of paying off all debts as quickly as possible, so it's perfectly reasonable for any creditor to ask for--and expect--to be paid what they are entitled to. Maybe I'm out of step here--but I've been calling everyone I can think of to find out if my mom OWED them any money when she died, and as soon as I find an unpaid bill, they get a check immediately. It's only been about 4 months, but it looks as if I've tracked down all the bills she owes--I don't see how it could take much longer, if the executor is on the ball. And at my accountant's urging I'll be disbursing to my brother and sisters this weekend. But don't get me started on jury duty--now THAT questionaire, I filled out with her new address (XXX Cemetary). I posted about that a few weeks ago. I did get a lovely letter back from the assignment judge, though--he's someone my family has known for over 50 years, and it was nice to touch base with him, even if it was over mom's inability to report to serve.