State issued check in clients name, not mine.

[srchr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I helped a person file a claim form and documents so she could receive unclaimed funds from a state treasury department. The limited power of attorney (notarized by the claimant) that I submitted to the state includes a clause that says I am authorized to deposit and disburse the funds to her when I receive the check. I put that clause in so as to insure that I got paid for my time and effort.

For a previous person I did this for, the state issued the check to me in my name only and there was no problem. This time they issued it in her name, and underneath that, in care of (C/O) my name, at my address. Today I went to 2 banks that I have accounts at and neither one will accept it for deposit because she has not signed the check. Per the banks written policies, the “C/O” and my power of attorney language are not binding on them. I could send the check to my client but do not want to risk being cheated out of my fee if she decides to not pay. She is in a distant state and may be judgment proof as well.

I am going to call the state and ask them to re-issue the check to me (in my name only) as they did before. I am betting they will tell me that they recently changed their "policy" and will now issue it in the claimant's name only.

Considering that the state accepted my power of attorney in order for the claim process to be started, are they not bound by ALL the language contained within it? If so, what arguments can I use to get them to realize this fact so that they will re-issue the check in my name? Thank you

 

[justalayman]

not sure why they would ever put it in your name. If you have a POA, then you would not need it in your name and would be able to deposit the check using the POA. Your problem is not with the state but with the banks refusal to acknowledge the POA.

How about you deposit it in your bank? If your bank won't do it, I would suggest it ain't happening.

part of the problem may be that you want to deposit it into your account. Typically that is a big red flag. Now, if you want to deposit it into her account, I'm betting there will be no problems or into a trust account in the other party's name.

as well, having a POA does not allow YOU to recieve the money. As a POA, you would recieve it in their name. The money is not yours so there is no reason it be in your name.

You do realize that by holding the check, you are on the verge of committing an illegal action, right? Both civil and criminal actions may be a possibility.

Considering that the state accepted my power of attorney in order for the claim process to be started, are they not bound by ALL the language contained within it?

they did honor the POA. They allowed you to file for this persons money on behalf of them. That doesn't mean they have to pay it to you. They paid it to the party it belongs to.

If so, what arguments can I use to get them to realize this fact so that they will re-issue the check in my name?

You are a funny guy. They would be wrong to issue the check in your name, regardless what paperwork you provide.

If you don't see how this could be a big scam, you are not seeing how things can be. What you are doing could easily be run as a scam and your attempts to learn how to deposit a check in another persons name into your account really stretches your believability.

 

[srchr]

Thanks for your input. I think. I am not trying to be a "funny guy", just trying to resolve this.

Yes I can see where someone could run a scam doing this but that's not me. Most everything in life can be abused, as I hope you know. The fact that the state two prior times DID issue the check to me is interesting don't you think? Or do they get a pass for being bureaurcrats?

Apparently I don't meet your ideal of legal enlightenment. I am not a lawyer. And no, I am not aware that I may be flirting with civil or criminal problems. Thanks so much for making sure to point that out. Hell, I just got the check on Saturday.

I hope future replies will have a less arrogant edge to them than yours had. So go ahead and ban me if that floats your boat

 

[Antigone*]

I hope future replies will have a less arrogant edge to them than yours had. So go ahead and ban me if that floats your boat

He he he it is all down hill from here. Just- in all his arrogance is totally on point.


You'll get plain vanilla from here on out, that is unless Zigner or SJ decide to come out for a midnight stroll.

 

[justalayman]

Thanks for your input. I think. I am not trying to be a "funny guy", just trying to resolve this.

Yes I can see where someone could run a scam doing this but that's not me. Most everything in life can be abused, as I hope you know. The fact that the state two prior times DID issue the check to me is interesting don't you think? Or do they get a pass for being bureaurcrats?

Apparently I don't meet your ideal of legal enlightenment. I am not a lawyer. And no, I am not aware that I may be flirting with civil or criminal problems. Thanks so much for making sure to point that out. Hell, I just got the check on Saturday.

I hope future replies will have a less arrogant edge to them than yours had. So go ahead and ban me if that floats your boat

just being realistic. If you see that as arrogant, then so be it and I have no powers to ban anybody. You have said nothing that I am going to get all riled up about. Your entitled to your opinion as far as I am concerned.

as to the state issuing a check in your name; I believe they are plain wrong and could be liable to the party it was supposed to be issued to should there be any problems with them getting their money. It could become a real hassle for you as well. When acting as POA for a party, the actions are still done in the other party's name. The POA allows you to act for them in the grantors name, not act in place of them in your own name. As such, the checks should be written to the party they belong to.

legal actions; you have your "clients" money. You are refusing to give it to them. You are attempting to deposit in your account.

That sounds like conversion or fraud to me. Not saying it is but it could be seen as such. You may be totally above board but as they say, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

I don't like what you are doing because the process for applying for such funds from the state is a simple procedure but if people are dumb enough to pay somebody to do it for them, then I guess I can't really blame you. If you are going to continue to do this, you might want to sit down with an attorney to be advised how to do this so you can get your fee and not have to worry about getting the shaft. The way you are going about this could blow up in your face.

 

[Zigner]

He he he it is all down hill from here. Just- in all his arrogance is totally on point.


You'll get plain vanilla from here on out, that is unless Zigner or SJ decide to come out for a midnight stroll.

It's just shy of 7:30 am...am I too late?

 

[Zigner]

I believe the OP should give the money to their client. If the OP doesn't get paid by said client, then OP can pursue other avenues to collect what is due.

That's what any legitimate business would do.

 

[Antigone*]

It's just shy of 7:30 am...am I too late?

Zig, for you it is never too late. Have at it honey, I am dying for a Fat Tuesday morning chuckle!!!

 

[Dandy Don]

Look at the state's unclaimed property website to see if there is any mention of this aspect in their rules and regulations. Your power of attorney DOES permit you to do exactly what you are proposing and if you are truly honest there will be no problems.

If you ask them to reissue the check, you should ask them to reissue it to show the names of BOTH PARTIES as payee so that both signatures will be required before cashing, and this is something that the bank can't reasonably decline. And also have the lady's mailing address and daytime phone number available to you so the bank can call to verify if they choose to do so.

If they won't reissue the check in both names, then discuss this or write a letter to the state attorney general to find out what that state law is regarding how checks should be issued--business law would support your argument and the people in the state unclaimed property office most likely are not aware of business law and might be choosing to ignore it arbitrarily, therefore not really knowing what they are talking about.

And if the lady gave you POA, she should have no problems with signing a fee agreement presented by you that states the total amount of the refund, minus your fee (exact amount of fee stated), showing the total net amount she will be receiving, and asking that she have the signature notarized.

As soon as you receive the form and the check you will then be able to cash it and send the lady her proceeds.

DANDY DON IN OKLAHOMA ([email protected])

 

[justalayman]

=Dandy Don;2185783]Look at the state's unclaimed property website to see if there is any mention of this aspect in their rules and regulations. Your power of attorney DOES permit you to do exactly what you are proposing and if you are truly honest there will be no problems.

Well, here is Michigans take on this:

Should an owner hire a fee finder or heir finder?

Answer:
We encourage owners to contact the Unclaimed Property Division directly to search for funds before signing a contract with a finder. The Unclaimed Property Division will refund only to the owner or their heirs.

Here is California's:

Heir finders or asset locators are individuals or companies that offer to reunite the apparent owner or heirs with unclaimed property for a fee.

For property reported to the State of California, owners DO NOT have to use an heir finder to file a claim.

* Owners of Unclaimed Property can conduct a property search for free on the State Controller's Office Web site.
* If an owner chooses to use an heir finder, a full disclosure contract specifying where the property is coming from must be signed between the owner and the heir finder.
* If you have concerns about an heir finder or asset locator, contact your Better Business Bureau.

An heir finder may charge a fee no greater than ten percent of the property value successfully returned.

* The fee limit should cover any and all services connected with returning property to an owner.
* Consumer protection agencies advise that legitimate businesses do not expect payment until the property is returned to the owner.
* An owner should be suspicious if an heir finder asks for money before the owner receives the property or if the fee is not based on a percentage of the value of the property to be returned to the owner.

All heir finders must notify the State Controller's Office.

* Persons or companies conducting business as an heir finder or asset locator in the State of California must notify the Unclaimed Property Division, State Controller's Office.

Gee, I wonder if OP has notified the state of California as to his occupation.

It seems you are a bit off base Dandy.

If this was a valid POA, signing a check in the principals name would be a non-issue. There would be no reason to have the check written to the agent.

You are trying to get the state involved with the contract OP has with the principal. They are not going to because they do not care not do they have to. They do not have to issue the check in anybody's name other than the person it is actual owed to.

 

[Dandy Don]

Other POA's have no problems cashing checks made out to them--otherwise, why have the POA? The unclaimed property department is violating business law principles and deliberately trying to restrict payment only to owners, when if they knew business law it would be no problem for 2 people to sign a check. They just have a vendetta against heir searchers--which is truly unreasonable, because if the unclaimed property department did the work that searchers do to locate people, they would put the heir searchers out of a job. No, they won't do a search because they get to keep the money of the owners who are not found--the greedy little you-know-whats.

Since they will likely not reissue it, he has the option now of sending the lady a copy of the check to let her know he has received it and he should ask for his payment in advance, and inform her he will send her his check after he has received his fee, or if he trusts her, send her the check along with his invoice requesting payment.

 

[justalayman]

=Dandy Don;2186306]Other POA's have no problems cashing checks made out to them--otherwise, why have the POA?

made out to who? If you are speaking of a check in the principals name, a POA should have no problem cashing the check IF the POA is valid. Maybe there is something OP is not telling us.

The unclaimed property department is violating business law principles

violating business law principles? I know of nobody that has ever gone to jail for "principles". Either they are violating the law or they aren't.

and deliberately trying to restrict payment only to owners, when if they knew business law it would be no problem for 2 people to sign a check.

Then why don't you make this your journey in life. Tell all the states they are breaking the law because they will not write a check in the name of the agent rather than the POA. I think they will get a good laugh out of it.

They just have a vendetta against heir searchers--which is truly unreasonable, because if the unclaimed property department did the work that searchers do to locate people, they would put the heir searchers out of a job. No, they won't do a search because they get to keep the money of the owners who are not found--the greedy little you-know-whats.

No, they have the rules they do to prevent some scum from showing some POA that may or may not be legal and wants the check in the agents name. By sending it in the principles name, they are protecting the principle from scum sucking thieves that claim they have a POA. The checks and balances , if the guy that received the check actually has a POA, then cashing the check in the name of the principle would present no problem.

Since they will likely not reissue it, he has the option now of sending the lady a copy of the check to let her know he has received it and he should ask for his payment in advance, and inform her he will send her his check after he has received his fee, or if he trusts her, send her the check along with his invoice requesting payment.

so you are suggesting he keep this persons money unless she pay whatever fee he charges. I see a real problem with that. She owes him for his services of obtaining the money. Not to receive her money. They are two different issues. So now, the guy has her money and is preventing her from having it. See a crime in there somewhere?

 

[srchr]

Dandy Don: Thanks for your suggestions. I appreciate it. You seem to be the most lucid of all who replied. Yes, the states would much rather keep this money and they make it as difficult as possible to get it to the rightful claimants.

Zigner: Give the money to her and then use other avenues to collect if needed? Have you ever tried to collect from someone that has no money or has it hidden? Even legitimate businesses don't enjoy that. The reason I don't just trust this person is as I stated in my OP. She is in a distant state and may be judgment proof. I know this because the public records show her having prior judgments. Would you trust someone to pay you that has prior judgments in the last 2 years? Not a good bet in my book. That is why I want to be sure I am paid first. I have trusted others in the past with paying me back after they first got theirs. Guess what happened?

 

[srchr]

Justalayman:

How do you know I am a funny "guy"?

What made you think I was doing this in California, just because I am physically here?

 

[justalayman]

Justalayman:

How do you know I am a funny "guy"?

What made you think I was doing this in California, just because I am physically here?

funny guy as in your statement made me laugh. You have no right to have the check

1st, reissued due to your limited POA
2nd, because the money is not yours but the principal of the POA you have and there is absolutely no reason the check should be reissued in your name.

and why do I think you are doing this in California? becuase you listed your state as California. Now, the principal may be in another state so that states laws are involved, the fact is, since you are in California, you have to abide by Californias laws concerning this and one of those laws is that you must register with the state of California. Have you?

the fact you believe the wrong advice proffered by Don does not make him any more lucid than my 103 year old g-ma.