OP – I’m sorry that I didn’t recognize your post on the 18th – I thought the discussion concluded on the 17th. However, I also hope that this thread is not seen as a dialogue. There are many members able to informatively respond to your queries and none should feel deterred.
My own opinion is that the statement should be enough to justify the turnover order. I think you’re right. It seems to me that the retraining order is an empty exercise by the court without the ability to reach the subject asset. That said, and with the recognition that you’ve accomplished something in family court that I would not have expected, I still feel that you may have missed an opportunity, if your ex was present at today’s hearing and/or the prior hearing and she was not served with an Order to Appear.
That is a conservative and admittedly “belt and suspenders” approach, but an opportunity to elicit the account number would be within the permissible scope of a debtor exam and, as I mentioned previously, it would be virtually impossible to disclaim knowledge. You either disclose or are ordered to return and disclose. Perhaps I’m still not fully understanding the plan (that’s fine – I don’t need to) but, if you get the TO, it appears to me that you still have to get the number, unless the bank will respond to an order to turn over “any and all assets in it’s custody and control”, and I would have thought the writ sufficient for that.
I would expect the statement would be adequate. I prefer to have all the data that I can get. I don’t quite see how all the pieces come together, but you’ve made it work so far.