Destitute

[mistoffolees]

I am quite confident of my response Misto.

Of course. I forgot who wrote it.

You obviously know more than the attorneys at Prudential who are filing a criminal complaint.

 

[LdiJ]

Looking over the bank statement clearly shows she used the money for her own self interest. She paid off credit cards in her name a vehicle in her name purchased items to fix up a home she owned before the marriage. Paid bills for her children and then helped herself to cash advances of thousands of dollars to deplete the account.

I had the backyard video duplicated and ready to send off to the insurance co.

Ok...then that home she owned before marriage became a marital asset because she spent your money on it. The car is a marital asset because she spent your money on it. The credit cards were likely a marital debt so you don't have any leverage there. You were likely responsible for 50% of that debt. Within the divorce you have the opportunity to recoup much of your money.

If you tank her ability to support herself however, or tank her assets, you won't be able to collect from her, so DO NOT DO IT.

 

[LdiJ]

Of course. I forgot who wrote it.

You obviously know more than the attorneys at Prudential who are filing a criminal complaint.

OP said:

Attorneys at Prudential are opening a criminal investigation

Unless your dictionary defines investigation and complaint differently than mine does, no criminal complaint is being made at this time.

What the attorneys will find is that the check was deposited into a bank account with his name on it...and Prudential will wash their hands of the matter.

 

[mistoffolees]

Unless your dictionary defines investigation and complaint differently than mine does, no criminal complaint is being made at this time.

The Prudential attorneys obviously are concerned enough that they are opening an investigation. Why would they do that if there was no reason to believe that she did something wrong.

What the attorneys will find is that the check was deposited into a bank account with his name on it...and Prudential will wash their hands of the matter.

Yes, it's obvious that you know more than the Prudential attorneys. You could save them millions of dollars by just telling them what to do. No need to have the facts or know the law - just do what Ld says.

 

[LdiJ]

The Prudential attorneys obviously are concerned enough that they are opening an investigation. Why would they do that if there was no reason to believe that she did something wrong.



Yes, it's obvious that you know more than the Prudential attorneys. You could save them millions of dollars by just telling them what to do. No need to have the facts or know the law - just do what Ld says.

Or, when someone disagrees with you, you can simply do what Misto does and have a teenage temper tantrum, and act belittlingly.

umt70s, do come back and update us on the results of the Prudential investigation.

 

[Ohiogal]

Or, when someone disagrees with you, you can simply do what Misto does and have a teenage temper tantrum, and act belittlingly.

umt70s, do come back and update us on the results of the Prudential investigation.

Hey Ld, casting stones is not something you should be doing since everytime you are proven wrong, you turn tail and run. Did you ever find that HR poster you said existed in your office for another state's laws? Could you quote it for us again?

 

[umt70s]

Ok...then that home she owned before marriage became a marital asset because she spent your money on it. The car is a marital asset because she spent your money on it. The credit cards were likely a marital debt so you don't have any leverage there. You were likely responsible for 50% of that debt....

If you tank her ability to support herself however, or tank her assets, you won't be able to collect from her, so DO NOT DO IT.

Tanking my assets and leaving me destitute is what she did no matter how you turn this and reporting her to the insurance co. will be determined by an attorney if my ship is going down so is hers... IMHO she will be in prison either by Prudential or her employers insurance co.

 

[Zigner]

The Prudential attorneys obviously are concerned enough that they are opening an investigation. Why would they do that if there was no reason to believe that she did something wrong.

Their customer said "Somebody stole my check." Of course Prudential is going to investigate. It's not because they BELIEVE somebody did something wrong, it's because their customer advised them. Their customer is wrong. A check CAN be deposited in to the account without a signature...period.

Yes, it's obvious that you know more than the Prudential attorneys. You could save them millions of dollars by just telling them what to do. No need to have the facts or know the law - just do what Ld says.

What leads you to believe there are any attorneys involved at this point?

 

[mistoffolees]

Their customer said "Somebody stole my check." Of course Prudential is going to investigate. It's not because they BELIEVE somebody did something wrong, it's because their customer advised them. Their customer is wrong. A check CAN be deposited in to the account without a signature...period.

As I said, I am assuming that OP told Prudential the whole story. And OP didn't simply say "someone stole my check". He had to fill out a form stating the facts of the case.

Besides, as I pointed out, some retirement checks are written such a way that ONLY the person whose name is on the check can deposit it. So it's not always true that the check can be deposited without a signature.

What leads you to believe there are any attorneys involved at this point?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that OP said that Prudential's attorneys were opening an investigation?

 

[mistoffolees]

Or, when someone disagrees with you, you can simply do what Misto does and have a teenage temper tantrum, and act belittlingly.

Teenage temper tantrum? So pointing out that Prudential's attorneys probably know more about the situation than you do is a teenage temper tantrum? Then what does that make you- a two year old?

 

[Zigner]

As I said, I am assuming that OP told Prudential the whole story. And OP didn't simply say "someone stole my check". He had to fill out a form stating the facts of the case.

Besides, as I pointed out, some retirement checks are written such a way that ONLY the person whose name is on the check can deposit it. So it's not always true that the check can be deposited without a signature.

And on that you are absolutely, positively, 100% WRONG, legally speaking. A bank is able to take a STAMPED endorsement or even no endorsement, if the item is being deposited in to the recipients account. We are NOT talking about a 3rd party here. The check went straight in to the recipients account.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that OP said that Prudential's attorneys were opening an investigation?

Fair enough. OP did say that.

 

[LdiJ]

Hey Ld, casting stones is not something you should be doing since everytime you are proven wrong, you turn tail and run. Did you ever find that HR poster you said existed in your office for another state's laws? Could you quote it for us again?

I am fine with you believing that dropping the conversation is turning tail and running. If that makes you feel superior, that is fine with me.

 

[Ohiogal]

I am fine with you believing that dropping the conversation is turning tail and running. If that makes you feel superior, that is fine with me.

I haven't said this very often but, quite frankly, to you, I am superior in the area of law.

 

[LdiJ]

I haven't said this very often but, quite frankly, to you, I am superior in the area of law.

Really? I was quite certain that you were superior in every area.

 

[mistoffolees]

And on that you are absolutely, positively, 100% WRONG, legally speaking. A bank is able to take a STAMPED endorsement or even no endorsement, if the item is being deposited in to the recipients account. We are NOT talking about a 3rd party here. The check went straight in to the recipients account.

Sorry, Zig, but you're wrong. Just a couple of examples where a check can not simply be deposited into a joint account:

1. Conditional endorsement. Some insurance checks come with the condition that only the person named on the check can cash or deposit it. That makes it conditional - and if someone else deposits it, they are committing fraud.

2. Restrictive endorsement. Similar result.

3. Unauthorized Endorsement. If ex didn't have permission to sign and signed OP's name and did so anyway, that's illegal:
https://www.megadox.com/d/1709

At least one site indicates that Prudential does use restrictive endorsements on their retirement checks.

And, of course, that doesn't even address the issue of illegally opening someone else's mail.