• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

signing spouses name

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Gillycat

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
Two years ago, shortly after separating, my daughter signed her husband's name on an insurance refund check (issued when he spitefully refused to keep his children on his insurance), then deposited the check into their joint checking account, to which he had access. The funds were then used to pay for groceries and rent, since he had also refused to provide any financial assistance for his children's care. Now that she is preparing to file for divorce, he is threatening to go to the police and file charges for that to dissuade her from filing for divorce or asking for court ordered support. What is her best course of action at this point?
 


latigo

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
Two years ago, shortly after separating, my daughter signed her husband's name on an insurance refund check (issued when he spitefully refused to keep his children on his insurance), then deposited the check into their joint checking account, to which he had access. The funds were then used to pay for groceries and rent, since he had also refused to provide any financial assistance for his children's care. Now that she is preparing to file for divorce, he is threatening to go to the police and file charges for that to dissuade her from filing for divorce or asking for court ordered support. What is her best course of action at this point?
Very simple. If it goes beyond an idle threat, she just claims that he verbally authorized her to sign in his stead. He may belatedly deny that he did so, but protesting now after two year and he obviously cognizant of the use of the proceeds will fall on deaf official ears. Including those of the police and a family judge charged with the responsibility of ordering child support.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Very simple. If it goes beyond an idle threat, she just claims that he verbally authorized her to sign in his stead. He may belatedly deny that he did so, but protesting now after two year and he obviously cognizant of the use of the proceeds will fall on deaf official ears. Including those of the police and a family judge charged with the responsibility of ordering child support.
I agree. Its a he said/she said situation and she should not allow that to stop her from filing for divorce and child support.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
I agree. Its a he said/she said situation and she should not allow that to stop her from filing for divorce and child support.
In case anyone else hasn't notices the edit feature is also broken...so I am replying to my own post to add that the money went into an account with his name on it where he could have easily accessed the money.
 
Very simple. If it goes beyond an idle threat, she just claims that he verbally authorized her to sign in his stead. He may belatedly deny that he did so, but protesting now after two year and he obviously cognizant of the use of the proceeds will fall on deaf official ears. Including those of the police and a family judge charged with the responsibility of ordering child support.
So you're advising the OP's daughter to lie that husband authorized her to sign the insurance refund check? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Proserpina

Senior Member
So you're advising the OP's daughter to lie that husband authorized her to sign the insurance refund check? :rolleyes:
Oh do at least try to comprehend what latigo actually said, hmm?

You're hardly the font of wisdom yourself, kiddo. Glass houses and all that.
 
Oh do at least try to comprehend what latigo actually said, hmm?

You're hardly the font of wisdom yourself, kiddo. Glass houses and all that.
Okay...suppose YOU tell me what latigo actually said. I'd be very amused to hear your interpretation. ;)

BTW...advising someone to lie or even to stretch the truth, in this forum, I would think is prohibited.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Actually, I do not believe any attorney would advise the daughter lie about signing the check. And, in this described situation, there seems to be no reason to lie.

There is an element to forgery that would be difficult if not impossible for the daughter's husband to prove.

With forgery, there must be an intent to defraud. In order to be guilty of the crime of forgery in California, the signing of the check by the daughter would have had to be for the purpose of depriving the husband of the money for the sole benefit of the daughter.

If a check is written to the husband, signed by the daughter, deposited in a joint account where the husband has equal access to the money, and the money is used to benefit their joint family, this does not meet all of the elements of forgery. There has been no intent to defraud.

Here is a link to California Penal Code Section 470-483.5:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=470-483.5
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Since the funds were deposited into a mutual account, the chances are the necessary elements of the offense would not exist.

Further, if the spouse had previously signed checks addressed to her husband with his knowledge and deposited them into their mutual account, that would also serve to mitigate any culpability.

Third, what was the value of the check? If it was less than $950 than the statue of limitations would have expired. If more than $950, then the state has three years to seek charges, but this sounds as if it is a matter best settled in divorce court and I doubt a prosecutor would touch it even if the ex reports it to the police.

Here is what must be proven by the state to convict:

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

1. The defendant signed (someone else’s name/ [or] a false name) to [a/an] <insert type of document from Pen. Code, § 470(d)>;
2. The defendant did not have authority to sign that name;
3. The defendant knew that (he/she) did not have that authority;
AND
4. When the defendant signed the document, (he/she) intended to defraud.

Someone intends to defraud if he or she intends to deceive another person either to cause a loss of (money[,]/ [or] goods[,]/ [or] services[,]/[or] something [else] of value), or to cause damage to, a legal, financial, or property right.
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top