Destitute

[Zigner]

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.

UNLESS she had permission, which could have been implied.

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.

Yes, IF. But that's not what I've been saying - I've been CLEAR that my posts were in regard to the (incorrect) blanket statement that a check cannot be deposited if the intended recipient didn't sign it.

 

[mistoffolees]

UNLESS she had permission, which could have been implied.

It is clear from OP's post that stbx did not have permission.

Yes, IF. But that's not what I've been saying - I've been CLEAR that my posts were in regard to the (incorrect) blanket statement that a check cannot be deposited if the intended recipient didn't sign it.

Go back through the thread. Someone (might have been you but I'm not going to check) said that it was OK to deposit a check in a joint account. I pointed out that this is not always the case and there are lots of circumstances where it might NOT be OK. You then said that I was absolutely wrong and that it was always OK to deposit a check in a joint account. It's only after about the 4th or 5th time that I pointed out some exceptions that you finally admitted that it's not ALWAYS OK to deposit a check into a joint account without the other person's signature.

You're clearly backpedaling.

 

[Zigner]

It is clear from OP's post that stbx did not have permission.

Past history would also come in to play.

Go back through the thread. Someone (might have been you but I'm not going to check) said that it was OK to deposit a check in a joint account. I pointed out that this is not always the case and there are lots of circumstances where it might NOT be OK. You then said that I was absolutely wrong and that it was always OK to deposit a check in a joint account. It's only after about the 4th or 5th time that I pointed out some exceptions that you finally admitted that it's not ALWAYS OK to deposit a check into a joint account without the other person's signature.

You're clearly backpedaling.

You said:

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.

That is false. The discussion evolved after that.

 

[mistoffolees]

You said:

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.

That is false. The discussion evolved after that.

Please explain why that is false? It's absolutely true - as I've been telling you repeatedly (and providing links). It is not always true that a check can be deposited without a signature. If there is a restrictive endorsement or conditional endorsement, then it is entirely possible for it to require a signature.

 

[Zigner]

Please explain why that is false? It's absolutely true - as I've been telling you repeatedly (and providing links). It is not always true that a check can be deposited without a signature. If there is a restrictive endorsement or conditional endorsement, then it is entirely possible for it to require a signature.

But if it's deposited in to the person's account with NO signature (and properly handled by the bank) or if it's got an endorsement stamp, then it CAN be deposited.

 

[mistoffolees]

But if it's deposited in to the person's account with NO signature (and properly handled by the bank) or if it's got an endorsement stamp, then it CAN be deposited.

I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Have you read ANYTHING I've written?

If there's a restrictive endorsement or a conditional endorsement, your statement can be false. It is entirely possible to write a check in such a way that it can NOT be legally deposited without the signature of the person who the check is written to.

 

[Zigner]

I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Have you read ANYTHING I've written?

If there's a restrictive endorsement or a conditional endorsement, your statement can be false. It is entirely possible to write a check in such a way that it can NOT be legally deposited without the signature of the person who the check is written to.

But, there are also ways for the BANK to deal with that, allowing the deposit to be made.

ETA: My biggest sticking point is that you keep going back to "signature."

 

[mistoffolees]

But, there are also ways for the BANK to deal with that, allowing the deposit to be made.

But even if the bank messes up and allows the deposit to be made, the person who makes the deposit may be committing fraud - which means that OP and/or Prudential have the potential to recover the money - which is what OP's question was all about.

 

[Zigner]

But even if the bank messes up and allows the deposit to be made, the person who makes the deposit may be committing fraud - which means that OP and/or Prudential have the potential to recover the money - which is what OP's question was all about.

The OP had the benefit of the money - it was put in his account. The bank did nothing wrong and Prudential will have no further incentive to pursue this.

OP's recourse is through a civil action. - divorce.

 

[mistoffolees]

The OP had the benefit of the money - it was put in his account. The bank did nothing wrong and Prudential will have no further incentive to pursue this.

OP didn't have the benefit of the money - stbx took it out before he had the chance to do anything with it.

Furthermore, if she committed fraud, he can STILL go after her.

Remember - this is supposed to be about answering OP's questions. And he asked if there's anything he can do to recover the money. Depending on how the retirement check was issued, there might be - no matter how many times you deny it.

 

[LdiJ]

OP didn't have the benefit of the money - stbx took it out before he had the chance to do anything with it.

Misto, have you heard of the term "constructive receipt"? That term applies when money goes into a bank account in the name of the rightful recipient. He DID have access to the money. His wife may have spent it before he had a chance to do so, but he did have access.

 

[mistoffolees]

Misto, have you heard of the term "constructive receipt"? That term applies when money goes into a bank account in the name of the rightful recipient. He DID have access to the money. His wife may have spent it before he had a chance to do so, but he did have access.

Please read the references I gave.

I realize that you know everything about everything, but when someone provides references on a subject (which you seem totally incapable of doing), you ought to at least attempt to read them. Or get someone to read them to you.

 

[LdiJ]

Please read the references I gave.

I realize that you know everything about everything, but when someone provides references on a subject (which you seem totally incapable of doing), you ought to at least attempt to read them. Or get someone to read them to you.

I did read your references, they don't seem applicable to me, to this particular scenario.

 

[mistoffolees]

I did read your references, they don't seem applicable to me, to this particular scenario.

Of course not. Your sister-in-law's third cousin's mailman's brother didn't tell you what to say.

 

[umt70s]

Misto, have you heard of the term "constructive receipt"? That term applies when money goes into a bank account in the name of the rightful recipient. He DID have access to the money. His wife may have spent it before he had a chance to do so, but he did have access.

I have my personal checking account and had a joint account.

The wife knowingly chose to deposit my full retirement check with my name on it in the joint account so she could embezzle All the money for herself.

I was denied access to that money by the fact she never told me it was there and for the short period until she withdrew thousands by cash advances to herself.