Family members assete seized because husband was a beneficiary....

[mistoffolees]

Then, finally, maybe THEY need to get their butts in gear and find out what happened.

There is the answer. The parents who own the account need to find out what's going on.

I still think that OP isn't being clear - and maybe doesn't have all the facts.

As several people point out, OP said in some places that the account had been seized. However, she also said "They have since removed my husband as a beneficiary do to fear of this happening again." which wouldn't be possible if the account had already been seized. She also said "His family is a nervous wreck now thinking that they can have any of there assets frozen." and then mentioned that they had the option to remove his name from the account which sounds like it may not have happened yet.

In any event, if it has already happened, the account owners need to contact whoever seized the account to see what's going on - preferably with the help of an attorney. If it hasn't happened, they need to see a financial planner or estate attorney to set it up so that ALL the money isn't seized if they pass away.

 

[justalayman]

LdiJ;2697046]I know what forensic accounting is and I cannot see a child support agency having the expertise or manpower to do the kind of forensic accounting it would take to locate an account that someone was the beneficiary of, even if that person happened to deposit some money into it.

Not based on being a bene, no but if he was using any of the accounts as his in any way, yes. I do understand the OP claims this wasn't done but as all agree, taking action merely on the basis of the guy being a bene is highly unlikely. Dang, I don't know if they could have even found the account based only on the guy being a bene. That knowledge is not discoverable without some extreme research and unless the bank lets it out, there is no way for it to be discovered.

Even with that however, OP has been insistent that he is only listed as the beneficiary, therefore the CS agency, even if they suspected that he had deposited money into the account, had absolutely no right to freeze it...and the bank had no right to allow the freeze either.

and a bank isn't going to freeze an account without some serious justification. Since the bank seems so surprised, I would have to presume they did not receive any previous court order for an asset search where they might have disclosed the guy as a bene. Due to that, the courts have to have some legal justification for their actions. I suspect there is something going on and maybe the OP isn't aware of it. The actions that took place simply are so far out of line of happening without some connection between the guy and the accounts, nothing else makes any sense.

 

[LdiJ]

There is the answer. The parents who own the account need to find out what's going on.

I still think that OP isn't being clear - and maybe doesn't have all the facts.

As several people point out, OP said in some places that the account had been seized. However, she also said "They have since removed my husband as a beneficiary do to fear of this happening again." which wouldn't be possible if the account had already been seized. She also said "His family is a nervous wreck now thinking that they can have any of there assets frozen." and then mentioned that they had the option to remove his name from the account which sounds like it may not have happened yet.

In any event, if it has already happened, the account owners need to contact whoever seized the account to see what's going on - preferably with the help of an attorney. If it hasn't happened, they need to see a financial planner or estate attorney to set it up so that ALL the money isn't seized if they pass away.

When a bank account is levied by any agency, there is always an initial period where the account is simply frozen to allow some investigation to take place. I think its the bank who is required to do that, under banking laws, to verify identities and that the funds in the account are not funds that cannot be levied. After all, if the CSE is after money from John Smith, the bank is obligated to make sure that they are not turning over money belonging to the wrong John Smith. Or, that someone at the CSE didn't accidentally transpose two numbers of a social security number and the account frozen really belongs to Jane Doe.

It would be possible if the account had been frozen, and then unfrozen because the levy was proven not to be legally valid or was inaccurate.

 

[justalayman]

. After all, if the CSE is after money from John Smith, the bank is obligated to make sure that they are not turning over money belonging to the wrong John Smith. Or, that some

there's a question never asked or answered:

do the son and father have the same name?

 

[LdiJ]

there's a question never asked or answered:

do the son and father have the same name?

That is a very valid question.

I really have been mulling this one because I do find it disturbing on many levels. So many elderly people add their children as beneficiaries or signatories to bank accounts, without conferring ownership.

My 75 year old mother did that after my father died, because she wanted us to have access to her money, to pay her bills etc., should she become incapacitated, and for estate planning purposes.

If the CSE, or the IRS, or any other government agency can start seizing/freezing funds of elderly people just because their children are beneficiaries/signatories on their accounts, even temporarily, then our system is out of control and could do a lot of damage to a lot of elderly people.

Even if somehow the OP's husband was playing games with his money and hiding it in his parent's accounts, the CSE, on its own, should not have been able to freeze those accounts without an evidentiary hearing and a judge's order...and I am talking about more than just getting a judge's permission to levy the accounts of the obligor. I am talking about specific permission to freeze the accounts of someone who is not at all obligated for the child support.

 

[stealth2]

Even if somehow the OP's son

It is not OP's son - it is her husband who has the arrears and who is named as a beneficiary. His parents - OP's In-Laws - are the ones with the frozen/seized account. And therefore, THEY need to be the ones trying to find out what's going on. Especially since OP knows what she knows and has no interest in hearing what may have happened.

 

[ErikaA11]

That is my thought exactly....Do his parents have any recourse or is it one of those things that just happened that they have to let go?

 

[stealth2]

That is my thought exactly....Do his parents have any recourse or is it one of those things that just happened that they have to let go?

Let's try this again, perhaps a bit more slowly:

They . need . to . contact . their . banker. Today. Now. Not . tomorrow. Today. This . is . something . that . THEY . must . do.

 

[LdiJ]

It is not OP's son - it is her husband who has the arrears and who is named as a beneficiary. His parents - OP's In-Laws - are the ones with the frozen/seized account. And therefore, THEY need to be the ones trying to find out what's going on. Especially since OP knows what she knows and has no interest in hearing what may have happened.

I know its not the OP's son. I mistyped. I will correct it.

 

[justalayman]

That is my thought exactly....Do his parents have any recourse or is it one of those things that just happened that they have to let go?

nobody has any idea by what right they seized the account. For all we know, if may have been completely proper and valid. If there was no legal justification, who ordered it seized under what right would need to be known before anybody could venture a guess as it being actionable or not.

 

[LdiJ]

nobody has any idea by what right they seized the account. For all we know, if may have been completely proper and valid. If there was no legal justification, who ordered it seized under what right would need to be known before anybody could venture a guess as it being actionable or not.

Again, though, if I were the parents in this case (the parents of dad) I would be moving my money to another account, maybe even at a different bank, if I had any concern of it happening again.

 

[rooms222]

PA does not have POD accounts, but "informal trust" accounts. This may be part of the problem, as apparently the account is set up Parents ITF (in trust for) Son. This may have a different legal characterization than POD (this link below that ITF accounts are "the same as POD" to the contrary)......


Pay on Death in Pennsylvania - Bankers Online

 

[mistoffolees]

PA does not have POD accounts, but "informal trust" accounts. This may be part of the problem, as apparently the account is set up Parents ITF (in trust for) Son.

But OP says that the account was in the parent's name with son named only as beneficiary. That doesn't sound like an informal trust account.

Bottom line is that the parents need to talk with the bank to find out what's happening and how to fix it.

 

[justalayman]

But OP says that the account was in the parent's name with son named only as beneficiary. That doesn't sound like an informal trust account.

Bottom line is that the parents need to talk with the bank to find out what's happening and how to fix it.

but if PA doesn't allow POD accounts, then it would likely have been an ITF account and if so, maybe that allowed the actions taken. I think the problem we have is the OP simply doesn't know all of the information needed to provide an answer.

 

[rooms222]

but if PA doesn't allow POD accounts, then it would likely have been an ITF account and if so, maybe that allowed the actions taken. I think the problem we have is the OP simply doesn't know all of the information needed to provide an answer.

I agree. Reading the link I gave along with this one provides some potential clarity of an unclear situation

This new link states that an ITF account implies a trust relationship, so the beneficiary has an immediate equitable interest in the money (thus why this interest could be seized)....

"Pay on Death" vs. "In Trust For" bank accounts : Florida Probate & Trust Litigation Blog


Here is an advise column stating that an Ohio POD is roughly equivalent to a PA totten trust account-

http://www.bankingquestions.com/checkingaccounts/q_pod.html

The immediate creation of a (revocable) trust interest seems to be the main difference.

it appears that (in other states) some people use ITF accounts for estate planning purposes(where you want the equitable interest immediately for tax and other purposes). In PA, they are used as a substitute for POD accounts. I guess in PA, one might want to use an out of state bank or buy government bonds where you can do a POD**************

I got on the trail of this because my PA-based credit union did not have a POD option, unlike my other bank....