So far, the only response she has gotten is that Wells Fargo plans to hold her responsible, despite federal law that in most circumstances limits a consumer's liability for fraud losses from electronic transactions to $500.
Losing her money is taking a toll on McMullen, who works 30 to 35 hours a week at a fitness center and for a company that provides health services to businesses.
"Money is still coming in, but I don't have any kind of buffer," McMullen says. "It's not enough for a lawyer, but it's enough to ruin the start of my life on my own."
She says the issue goes beyond the money. In her letter to Stumpf, she said the bank had "impugned my reputation and integrity" by seeming to blame her for fraudulent withdrawals.
McMullen makes much the same point in conversation: "I wouldn't be complaining at this level, I wouldn't be going out of my way like this if I thought this was in any way my fault."
I can't give you Wells Fargo's side of the story because it refuses to discuss the case for privacy reasons. But spokeswoman Barbara Nate described its policies and procedures for addressing reports of ATM fraud.
If McMullen's account is correct, the bank apparently violated its procedures at least once in dealing with her. But here's an important point that goes beyond the particulars of this case: Consumer advocates say banks often try to hold customers responsible for electronic-transaction losses when the law plainly says they aren't.
And McMullen's story may be a perfect example.
Two waves of theft
McMullen says the losses began in mid-September, with a string of unauthorized withdrawals. All were at non-Wells Fargo ATMs, a red flag to McMullen, who avoids them to spare herself the extra fees.
