Banks responsibility for large withdrawls

[4relvr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

This is a follow up on my previous thread titled "Elder financial abuse".

When my MIL gave her son and his wife $120,000 to purchase a home, she had gone to BofA (her bank) with the son and wife. The bank handed over a cashiers check for $120,000 made out to her son and his wife. They didn't deposit it into any of her accounts first where she could then give them a cashiers made out to them. They simply made the cashiers check out to her son and his wife. I found this a little odd.

I know that banks, by law, are supposed to report anything suspicious regarding the finances of elderly people. Couldn't this be considered suspicious, or at least draw a red flag in the bank? She was 85 years old at that time and the money came from an equity line of credit attached to her home. She now pays almost $800.00 per month to pay off that line of credit.

I know if I was the bank manager I would definitely look into it or at least take my MIL aside and ask her some questions about the money she is giving them like how are you being paid back, or are they paying you back, or does the rest of your siblings know about this?

How or is the bank somewhat responsible for this event? Is there a case against them, or am I being too prudent in my analysis?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

This is a follow up on my previous thread titled "Elder financial abuse".

When my MIL gave her son and his wife $120,000 to purchase a home, she had gone to BofA (her bank) with the son and wife. The bank handed over a cashiers check for $120,000 made out to her son and his wife. They didn't deposit it into any of her accounts first where she could then give them a cashiers made out to them. They simply made the cashiers check out to her son and his wife. I found this a little odd.

I know that banks, by law, are supposed to report anything suspicious regarding the finances of elderly people. Couldn't this be considered suspicious, or at least draw a red flag in the bank? She was 85 years old at that time and the money came from an equity line of credit attached to her home. She now pays almost $800.00 per month to pay off that line of credit.

I know if I was the bank manager I would definitely look into it or at least take my MIL aside and ask her some questions about the money she is giving them like how are you being paid back, or are they paying you back, or does the rest of your siblings know about this?

How or is the bank somewhat responsible for this event? Is there a case against them, or am I being too prudent in my analysis?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

The bank has done nothing wrong. You have no case against the bank.

 

[anteater]

As with your other thread....

How do you know what was or was not said at the bank?

And what does your mother-in-law have to say about the transaction?

Unless someone with detailed knowledge of how the case law has developed under the CA Elder Abuse Law wanders by, I don't think that anybody is going to be able to tell you whether there is a cause of action or not.

As suggested in your other thread, your wife would be well-advised to consult with a CA attorney with experience in elder law.

 

[4relvr]

The bank has done nothing wrong. You have no case against the bank.

This is what the California law says:
"SB 1018 states that “suspected financial abuse” occurs when a bank employee observes behavior or transactions that would lead a person with similar training to form a reasonable belief that an elder is the victim of financial elder abuse."

If the behavior of the client is out of the ordinary, couldn't this be considered suspicious, especially considering the large amount of the check?

 

[HomeGuru]

I thought only redneck banks are responsible for large withdrawls.

 

[Antigone*]

This is what the California law says:
"SB 1018 states that “suspected financial abuse” occurs when a bank employee observes behavior or transactions that would lead a person with similar training to form a reasonable belief that an elder is the victim of financial elder abuse."

If the behavior of the client is out of the ordinary, couldn't this be considered suspicious, especially considering the large amount of the check?

Who is to say that anyone was behaving suspiciously. You are grasping at straws.

I'm done with you. Tigi - out

 

[4relvr]

Who is to say that anyone was behaving suspiciously. You are grasping at straws.

I'm done with you. Tigi - out

Not saying that any one person was acting suspicious, but that the transaction in itself was suspicious.

If I walked into my bank and had them make out a cashiers check for $120,000 to 2 young people sitting next to me, unless I did it frequently, you don't think that is a little suspicious or should draw someone's attention in management? Don't know who you bank with, but I know my bank would take a second look at it.

So I guess that my wife is responsible for half of $185,000 (if her brother & his wife don't suck any more money out of her before my wife can get POA in the mean time) debt when her mother passes away, even though her brother is responsible for getting or receiving 99.9% of it, and she can do little or nothing about it?

Sounds good, right, legal, fair, and the American way to me!

 

[anteater]

Not saying that any one person was acting suspicious, but that the transaction in itself was suspicious.

If I walked into my bank and had them make out a cashiers check for $120,000 to 2 young people sitting next to me, unless I did it frequently, you don't think that is a little suspicious or should draw someone's attention in management? Don't know who you bank with, but I know my bank would take a second look at it.

So I guess that my wife is responsible for half of $185,000 (if her brother & his wife don't suck any more money out of her before my wife can get POA in the mean time) debt when her mother passes away, even though her brother is responsible for getting or receiving 99.9% of it, and she can do little or nothing about it?

Sounds good, right, legal, fair, and the American way to me!

I note that you ignored the questions about how you know what did or did not occur at the bank and what mother-in-law has to say about the transaction. Therefore one must conclude that the translation is:

Trying to find grounds for establishing mother-in-law's incompetence or evidence that brother-in-law exercised undue influence or that mother-in-law intended this to be a loan is not going well. We're desperately searching for someone to be the fall guy.

Look at this realistically. Say you bring suit against the bank. Are you expecting to discover a "memo to the file" that states:

"Mrs. XXX came in today with her son and daughter-in-law. Mrs. XXX seemed confused about why she was here and her son answered most questions. Still, we cut a check to the son and daughter-in-law."



Once again, as explained in your other thread, your wife is not responsible for her mother's debt.

While it may not actually be the case, you really should train yourself to maintain that your wife's concern is for the financial well-being of her mother rather than how much your wife stands to inherit or not inherit, as the case may be.

 

[justalayman]

for gosh sakes, it was her SON and daughter in law with her. Don't ya think the bank was aware of to whom they were writing the check? Now, if they were complete strangers and mom looked worried and especially if the guy was twisting her arm or poking her in the ribs every time the bank asked a question or asked her to sign something, then it would look suspicious.


and why do you see a problem with the check being written to the son and DIL?

Even if they deposited into MIL's account first, all they would do is withdraw it from her account and the BANK would write a check from them (the bank) (i.e. cashier's check) to the son and dil? what is the difference you believe would cause the method used to be a problem?