BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. TANGELA EKHOFF
What's This Case About?
Let’s get one thing straight: Bank of America is suing a woman in Tulsa for $8,345.22 — not because she robbed a branch, not because she forged a check, but because she didn’t pay her credit card bill. And get this — the bank is charging her 28.24% interest. That’s not a typo. You could borrow money from a loan shark in a back-alley dice game and maybe, maybe, get a better rate.
Meet Tangelia Ekhoff — just a regular person living at 564 E 48th St N in Tulsa, Oklahoma, trying to survive in a world where avocado toast costs $16 and rent eats your soul. At some point, like most of us, she opened a Bank of America Visa Signature credit card. Probably thought, “Hey, I’ll use this for emergencies,” or “I need new tires and the dog ate my wallet.” We’ve all been there. The card had a credit limit of $6,800 — not a fortune, but enough to keep the lights on, the fridge stocked, and maybe even cover a surprise vet bill. But somewhere between July and August of 2024, things went sideways. The statement shows a balance of $8,370.22 — already over the credit limit — and not a single payment made in months. The last payment? December 6, 2024. After that? Radio silence. No checks in the mail. No online transfers. Just a growing debt that the bank finally gave up on and “charged off” on August 31, 2024 — which is banker-speak for “we’ve stopped pretending you’re going to pay us back.”
Now, before you start side-eyeing Tangelia, let’s talk about what this statement actually shows. She wasn’t racking up new charges — no shopping sprees, no tropical vacations. The statement from July 5 to August 4, 2024? Zero purchases. Zero fees. Just one thing: $198.29 in interest. That’s right — in a single billing cycle, the bank added nearly $200 in interest to a balance that was already out of control. And that APR? 28.24%. Variable, baby. And if she’d been late on a payment? Oh, it could’ve jumped to 29.99%. Because nothing says “we care about our customers” like charging them nearly 30% interest on debt they can’t afford.
The kicker? That little warning box on the statement: “If you make only the Total Minimum Payment each period, you will pay more in interest and it will take you longer to pay off your balance.” Then they do the math: if she paid only the minimum, it would take 20 years to pay off $8,370.22 — and she’d end up shelling out over $21,000 in total. Let that sink in. She’d pay more than double the original debt just in interest. And the bank? They put that right there on the bill. In bold. Like it’s a helpful tip. “Hey, by the way, if you’re poor, this will destroy you — but have a nice day!”
So now, in January 2026, Bank of America — a financial giant with assets in the trillions — has hired a law firm, Nelson and Kennard, LLP (based in Colorado, because of course they outsource debt collection), to sue Tangelia for $8,345.22. Why not the full $8,370.22? Maybe they knocked off a few bucks for “settlement purposes.” Or maybe it’s a clerical error. Either way, they want their money — plus court costs, sheriff’s fees, process server fees, and “such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.” Translation: we want everything we can get, and then some.
Legally, this is a “breach of contract” case — which sounds dramatic, but it really just means: you signed up for a credit card, agreed to pay it back, and didn’t. That’s it. No fraud. No theft. Just a broken promise to pay. And while that’s technically a legal wrong, it’s also… life. People lose jobs. Get sick. Have kids. Face emergencies. And in America, where 60% of adults live paycheck to paycheck, a single missed payment can spiral into a debt avalanche — especially when the interest rate is higher than your credit score.
Now, is $8,345.22 a lot? For Bank of America, it’s a rounding error. For Tangelia Ekhoff, it could be life-altering. That’s a car. A year of rent. A semester of college. Or, in court terms, a judgment that could lead to wage garnishment, frozen bank accounts, and a credit score in the basement for years. And for what? A debt that ballooned because the bank kept charging interest on interest on interest — like a financial hydra that grows two heads for every one you chop off.
Here’s the real tea: Bank of America didn’t try to work with her. No mention of hardship programs. No offer to lower payments. No call from a compassionate human saying, “Hey, we see you’re struggling — let’s figure this out.” Nope. They waited until the debt was charged off, then lawyered up and filed a lawsuit. And they’re doing it in Tulsa County District Court — a place where people show up in sweatpants to fight over broken fences and dog bites. Now it’s hosting a one-sided battle between a woman and one of the largest banks in the world.
Are we rooting for Tangelia? Honestly? We’re rooting for common sense. We’re rooting for a system where people aren’t financially euthanized for falling behind on a credit card during a medical crisis or a layoff. We’re rooting for banks to stop pretending they’re victims when they design credit products to trap people in cycles of debt. And we’re rooting for someone — anyone — to stand up in that courtroom and say, “Wait, y’all charged her $200 in interest in one month? On a card she wasn’t even using? And now you’re suing her? Really?”
But let’s be real: this case will probably end with a default judgment. Tangelia might not show up. Might not have a lawyer. Might not even know she’s being sued. And Bank of America will win. They’ll get their $8,345.22, plus fees, and add it to the pile of millions they collect every year from people just like her.
So the next time you get a glossy credit card offer in the mail with “0% intro APR!” and “no annual fee!”, remember Tangelia Ekhoff. Remember that the fine print hides a trapdoor. And remember that in America, owing money to a bank isn’t just a financial problem — sometimes, it’s a court date.
We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But even we know this: when a bank charges 28% interest and then sues someone for falling behind, the real breach of contract isn’t on the credit agreement. It’s on the idea that this system is fair.
Case Overview
-
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
business
Rep: Nelson and Kennard, LLP
- TANGELA EKHOFF individual
| # | Cause of Action | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | breach of contract | failed to make required monthly payments |