Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Thanks for the reply. You raise some concerns, but I don't see them as large risks. Perhaps it could go the other way, and the bank or B could be held liable if they prevent A or A's agent from managing the account, especially if B subsequently makes a grab for all of it. I don't think there's a big threat as far as B potentially bringing suit. B has no contract or proof of any financial arrangement between B and A. A is the origin of the assets in question, which I think may be a significant aspect if things went to court. A would be doing a legal transfer to another account, as is within his (ok it's a him! and B is a her!) right as an owner (or as A's POA would do on his behalf).
  2. LOL @ "scheming"...it's A's money, A put B's name on it. A has unfettered access to control the account. A or A's authorized agent/POA can lawfully transfer monies so ling as A is alive. A bank would have no reason to not carry out the wishes of A's authorized agent (w durable POA), unless they were notified of A's death. If A should become terminally ill or is near death but still alive, it is fully within the law for A's agent/POA to carry out A's directive. It seems pretty straight forward, and quite legal to me.
  3. A would likely meet with the POA and banker to make sure that the POA was verified and fully accepted and that any anticipated transactions wouldn't be a problem. I think Banker will do what he can (within the law) to help. He doesn't want A and A's considerable assets going elsewhere. ;/) Speaking of law, after doing some research, it appears that, in NJ, banks and their employees are not held liable for acting in good faith on a POA in these kinds of situations. As long as they don't get notified of A's death beforehand (which would nullify the POA), they are free to honor the agent's withdrawal/transfer request(s).
  4. Oh, yeah, I didn't realize you were referencing the other thread. Anyway, carry on.
  5. Person "C", as A's spouse, is in line to inherit significant assets that are held solely in person A's name.
  6. 30 years? Where did you come up with that number?
  7. No, no fraudulent aims here, just trying to find ways to work things out within the law. What I'm saying is that a POA could be a viable option if things end up where person A becomes terminally ill or has a heart attack and on life support or other such conditions that may allow for some "warning" before A dies, the POA could, during that time, legally and rightfully make requests on the principal's behalf, including liquidating a portion of the CDs and transferring the cash to a separate account as is A's right to do as an owner, while A is alive (it was his money to begin with anyway). The bank should have no reason to not carry out the instruction unless they were notified A was dead; furthermore, the POA would not try to execute this transfer of assets at the bank if he/she knew A was dead (that's illegal). Again, this POA remedy would be one way to achieve what A wants and only come into play if there should be a window of time before A dies, in which the POA could carry out the request. If he ends up recovering, and the money was still transferred largely out of B's name, then A or the POA can put the money back into the account if need be or just have to deal at that point, with telling B why A desired things to be that way. If A ends up dying in a different manner, like just suddenly on the spot, then this remedy wouldn't work. If B dies before A, well, the problem takes care of itself nicely.
  8. If A is alive or presumed alive there's no reason the bank shouldn't honor the POA's requests to move around his assets. A could even talk to his banker and make sure there would be no problem when the time comes. No balls, Ahahaha! You're right about that.
  9. Part of the complexity of this dilemma is we cannot predict things like who will die first and what actions might one or the other party take. So, maybe it's about making contingency plans for each scenario. What if person A appoints A's child durable POA, with express banking permission, and put the POA on file with the bank that holds the CDs for A & B and other personal accounts for A. Prior to A's expiring (or at least prior to his POA and bank knowing of his expiration), A's child can go to the bank as POA and redeem and move most of the money from the CDs to another account without B having direct access to it That would seem to be a decent contingency plan to cover situations where A becomes incapacitated or near death, where's there's some lead time to take such action within the law, as I understand it.
  10. Anything is possible, but A trusts A's adult child to treat B however A wishes if A dies first, because the adult child is trustworthy, even though one could speculate there may be some modicum of resentment there between A's child and B.
  11. Well, these are all just ideas for discussion, but that's one possible scenario.
  12. "Why wouldn't person A simply redeem the CDs and put the money in an account that is not jointly owned?" because person B is a cohabitant and is well aware of these assets in her name for B if A dies while they're still "together". It gives B peace of mind. B would make things more difficult for A if B became aware of assets being transferred out and B would not likely accept his desired arrangement if he should predecease her, of having A's adult child as trustee, managing the and having discretion over distributions for B. But if A can find a way to legally transfer those assets out of joint tenancy (such as what it appears you can do with Real Property, by writing up and recording a severance document or deed with the county or by conveying interest in the property then getting it conveyed back etc.), then A would possibly like to do that.
  13. I appreciate the responses here. Person A doesn't want to commit fraud in any way, but since A is the original source of the assets, maybe there is some recourse within the law. Another wrinkle is the house they are co-habitating in is owned outright, also in Joint tenancy. Person A would rather have that held tenants in common to avoid B mis-allocating the resultant assets should A die first. I was reading where a joint tenant may be able to unilaterally sever the joint tenancy, without the other tenant's consent/knowledge, by conveying his/her interest in the property to someone else (and possibly right back to him, such as in a "strawman" arrangement with the assistance of a lawyer), thereby automatically reverting the ownership to tenants in common. Is that viable as far as the house? Is there similar route to take as far as CDs/bank accounts etc? State = NJ
  • Create New...