Destitute

[LdiJ]

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.

The bolded is definitely a valid issue, but I wonder if any DA has ever been willing to prosecute a spouse for opening their spouses mail?

I found one case by googling of a spouse that is facing felony charges for hacking his wife's email after she filed for divorce, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that anyone has been charged with opening a spouse's regular mail, before they filed for divorce.

 

[Zigner]

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.

And...if I stamp that check and deposit it to my account, it's perfectly valid. If my wife stamps that same check and deposits it to my account, it is ALSO perfectly fine.

 

[mistoffolees]

And...if I stamp that check and deposit it to my account, it's perfectly valid. If my wife stamps that same check and deposits it to my account, it is ALSO perfectly fine.

Not always-as I've pointed out.

If it's just a standard check, that's fine. But if you receive a check with a conditional endorsement, you must agree to the terms.
What is a conditional endorsement?

Retirement checks often contain terms like "I verify that I am the person whose name is on the check". If the paperwork contains something like that, ex's stamping of the check would be fraudulent.

 

[mistoffolees]

The bolded is definitely a valid issue, but I wonder if any DA has ever been willing to prosecute a spouse for opening their spouses mail?

I found one case by googling of a spouse that is facing felony charges for hacking his wife's email after she filed for divorce, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that anyone has been charged with opening a spouse's regular mail, before they filed for divorce.

Since we're talking about a federal law, the state doesn't matter in this case.

It's actually pretty clear:
UPDATES IN MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW: Mail tampering | Opening or hiding the other spouse's mail

In this case, the fact that ex deposited the check is proof that she opened the mail.

 

[LdiJ]

Since we're talking about a federal law, the state doesn't matter in this case.

It's actually pretty clear:
UPDATES IN MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW: Mail tampering | Opening or hiding the other spouse's mail

In this case, the fact that ex deposited the check is proof that she opened the mail.

Quoting a portion of the article:

Of course, such an accusation is always subject to he said / she said. In other words, if prosecution occurs, a witness would have to confirm that someone else opened his/her mail or the jury is left to weigh the credibility of one spouse against the other. If it has been the parties' habit to authorize either to open the incoming mail, or one spouse had opened other mail and no complaint was ever made, this would suggest an implied permission. Where, however, the parties have split, it could be presumed that any permission, implied or explicit, has been withdrawn.

In addition, authorities have lots to do with their time. They are reluctant to get into the middle of a domestic dispute. One must assume that the infringement must be pretty severe to warrant prosecution. For example, hiding an important piece of mail is quite different from opening the electric bill.

However, that wasn't the question I asked. I asked if anyone had ever been prosecuted for opening their spouse's mail prior to filing for divorce. That is what I have been unable to find. I agree that its illegal under the law, I simply want to know if anyone has been prosecuted.

 

[tuffbrk]

The Federal Gov't take the time to file charges for mail tampering?!!! I don't think so.

I was a Social Security child. When I turned 18 yo, was a senior in HS, the checks were sent to me, in my name. My guardians opened the mail, forged my name, deposited the check in their account for 6 months.

Social Security attemtped to reclaim some of those funds 6 years later. I declined repayment as I was not the receipient of the funds. They obtained reimbursement from my guardians.

No charges for mail tampering or forgery were ever filed. And that was despite the check being deposited into a 3rd party account.

 

[Zigner]

That's an excellent point. Even if I'm wrong about the endorsements (and I don't think I am), who's going to prosecute it? This is a civil matter. The bank did nothing wrong by depositing the check. The funds were put in to the proper account. The OP needs to address the matter in his divorce.

 

[mistoffolees]

However, that wasn't the question I asked. I asked if anyone had ever been prosecuted for opening their spouse's mail prior to filing for divorce. That is what I have been unable to find. I agree that its illegal under the law, I simply want to know if anyone has been prosecuted.

It doesn't matter if anyone has been criminally prosecuted. The fact that it's illegal gives OP grounds to recover his money.

 

[Zigner]

It doesn't matter if anyone has been criminally prosecuted. The fact that it's illegal gives OP grounds to recover his money.

Recover from WHO? As I stated, the bank didn't do anything wrong. The issuing entity didn't do anything wrong. This matter will be dealt with through the divorce proceedings. Furthermore, it's (likely) not ALL his money.

 

[mistoffolees]

That's an excellent point. Even if I'm wrong about the endorsements (and I don't think I am), who's going to prosecute it? This is a civil matter. The bank did nothing wrong by depositing the check. The funds were put in to the proper account. The OP needs to address the matter in his divorce.

As I said - it doesn't matter if the government prosecutes for mail tampering. It gives OP the ability to sue ex for stealing his money because she committed a crime.

As for the endorsements, read up on the items I gave you - including the links. Under some circumstances (which are often used for retirement checks), it IS possible that ex committed fraud - and OP could sue her for that.

 

[Zigner]

As I said - it doesn't matter if the government prosecutes for mail tampering. It gives OP the ability to sue ex for stealing his money because she committed a crime.

As for the endorsements, read up on the items I gave you - including the links. Under some circumstances (which are often used for retirement checks), it IS possible that ex committed fraud - and OP could sue her for that.

I agree about the OP suing the ex...and that lawsuit is called "Divorce"

 

[mistoffolees]

I agree about the OP suing the ex...and that lawsuit is called "Divorce"

OP may also be able to sue stbx for fraudulently taking his money. And Prudential may be able to sue stbx for fraudulently cashing the check.

Again, I don't know for sure that it will happen that way, but the repeated statements that stbx did nothing wrong may not be accurate. She may have gotten herself into big trouble.

 

[Zigner]

OP may also be able to sue stbx for fraudulently taking his money. And Prudential may be able to sue stbx for fraudulently cashing the check.

Again, I don't know for sure that it will happen that way, but the repeated statements that stbx did nothing wrong may not be accurate. She may have gotten herself into big trouble.

OP didn't fraudulently take the money. The money was deposited in to the joint checking account.

 

[Ohiogal]

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

Ain't that sweet? And to think, I was thinking you were superior maybe in exceeding my knowledge in tax. But if you insist...
I will agree with you -- I am MOST superior to you in every area.

 

[mistoffolees]

OP didn't fraudulently take the money. The money was deposited in to the joint checking account.

Please go back and read about conditional enforcement and restrictive endorsement.

If the check and paperwork said that "by depositing this, you affirm that you are the person named on the check" and stbx deposited it, anyway, then she fraudulently deposited it - regardless of whether it was a separate or joint account.

Furthermore, if it wasn't conditional or restricted, she could STILL be charged with fraud if she actually signed OP's name. The link is provided above.