quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
So instead, perhaps putting the total amount in a trust
That they both have access to.

But not accessable to law suits, and such.

This is a different element of the problem, but a trust may be a good idea. Especially if they have trusted friends or relatives that act as trustees. I am NOT a trust expert, but I’m pretty sure they could put it in a trust to protect it, even if they had to serve as the trustees. And the trust could pay out a certain amount monthly, and possibly more if medical or caregiver needs dictated.

There are fiduciary services that manage finances for those not able to. e.g. elderly, mentally handicapped, or even minors. Idk if it is done typically with a trust or not. And it is a paid service, which is a factor. Being fiduciaries, there is some protection against churning the account for commissions or other shenanigans of a manager who is not a fiduciary.

A trust could be set up with one or more of their heirs as trustee, though possibly not an heir if it is a special needs trust. Setting up a trust will cost a couple thousand roughly. If the trust is the right answer it is worth the money to have a good lawyer prepare it.

Locking down their credit would be an important step.

Having been through decades of issues with my cognitively challenged sister, we've learned a lot. If the person is not capable of managing their finances, it is imperative to strictly limit their access. Do not let them have any kind of smart phone access to their accounts. Scammers will cozy up pretending to be their friend, and then offer to help them with some banking issue (e.g. checking their balance or verifying their social security check deposited). Before long the new friend is transferring money out to themselves.

Also restrict computer access to their finances if they are susceptible to getting scammed. They will inevitably get the email and phone call scams. Have a trusted person set up strong passwords on their computer for financial websites, and perhaps a vpn or other firewall on their network.

If there is a trustworthy heir, make them POA and have them monitor or even manage the money. Monitoring their accounts nearly daily could be necessary if they are likely to be scammed - you wouldn't believe how clever and subtle some thieves can be.

Thank you folks

Someone above mentioned safe deposit boxes.
We just closed our box at Chase as we’re moving. Our “private banker” told us as we were closing out the box that Chase is not going to rent safe deposit boxes any more. If you have one you’re OK, but no new accounts.
I assume demand has fallen dramatically as people keep documents in a home safe, store them online, etc. And if you used one for precious metals, for example, it wouldn’t hold that much. On death of owner the bank locks it up until the legal heir turns up with a death certificate, is my recollection.

Mind you this was 24 years ago now, and I think bank and financial institutions have improved security greatly:
I was at ground zero immediately after 9/11 as part of a military response team. As one might imagine the area immediately surrounding the site was a mess, and a lot of transactions required cash.
I used a small ATM at a bodega to withdraw money.
Several weeks later I come home and find that account drained. The situation was explained to the bank and they took good care of us, and in most cases the banks will ( at least my small community based bank did not sure about the big international chains)

I carry an ATM card but rarely use it. I only do so at bank branches or a couple of other very trusted locations ( places where I know the owner personally)
Best answer is to deposit a large sum in one account to sit.
Do in person withdrawals the old fashioned way at a bank branch.
Another way to limit risk is to transfer a small amount monthly into a separate account that is the only one linked to the atm card ( the atm card on your person is the risky part here) so if a theft happens it is a small amount.
The above scenario can even be set up automatically- with let’s say a thousand bucks a month transferred from account A to account be on the 1st of every month.

While anyone can experience identity theft or have a card hacked, in most cases as mentioned, there will be some situation or information divulged that triggers it

I own a title company and have had this requested of me several times, there are vaild and many in valid reasons to do this. If this is a real situation feel free to reach out to me, if this is a what if, then just plan on not doing it.

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
So instead, perhaps putting the total amount in a trust
That they both have access to.

But not accessable to law suits, and such.

This is a different element of the problem, but a trust may be a good idea. Especially if they have trusted friends or relatives that act as trustees. I am NOT a trust expert, but I’m pretty sure they could put it in a trust to protect it, even if they had to serve as the trustees. And the trust could pay out a certain amount monthly, and possibly more if medical or caregiver needs dictated.

Our credit union accounts (checking, savings, etc.) are embedded in our family trust. The credit union offers Zelle services, which I discovered are NOT available to trust accounts. Other banks or credit unions may differ.

I think others have already imparted that this is a bad idea, but also what buyer is going to want those obligations hanging out there for years and years? I start to get itchy if a check hasn't been cashed in a few days, forget trying to remember 10 years later that there are still outstanding checks.

I also feel like there's a lot of risk, what happens if something happens to the buyer a year down the road? Checks aren't good if the bank account gets closed or drawn down, and doing it the way you propose just means that they are relying on someone else's "hackable bank account" which they have even less control over than their own.

quote:

Originally posted by Timdogg6:
I own a title company and have had this requested of me several times, there are vaild and many in valid reasons to do this. If this is a real situation feel free to reach out to me, if this is a what if, then just plan on not doing it.

Could you give us some examples of valid reasons for doing this?

I’ve been in banking 30 years and very, very few cases are funds “lost”. It almost always comes back to a client sent money to a crook. Even after the bank asked multiple times are you sure you want to send all this money to this person you never met in west undershirtistan ?

Many many clients have been hacked and the bank eats the fraud and funds are eventually returned. But when a crook gains your confidence and you send them money despite bank employees trained to look out for this and ask questions, bank is not liable.

If for some reason these reasons are not enough get cashiers checks. Technically Good as long as bank is in business but practically 5 -7 years depending on the bank.

I don’t recommend. Put the money in an FDIC insured account across several banks if that paranoid and don’t link it to any debit cards etc.

One thing to worry about is if held on cashier checks OR account that is never accessed depending on the state, after x years funds get turned over to the state. Then you have to claim with them. But that is usually 3-5+ years of never having a Transaction on said account

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:

Many many clients have been hacked and the bank eats the fraud and funds are eventually returned.

That was not the case for my father's Fidelity checking account. I presume he was somehow phished or hacked. He was in NYC, the perp in CA. The perp phoned Fidelity, pretended to be him, and answered the secret question. Fidelity has the perp's call on tape! He had a check for the full amount in his account, around $20k, mailed to a specific person at a physical address, which was a business in CA that was owned by a company in India.

Even with all of that, Fidelity stood firm that they were not responsible because the perp had the correct credential. Neither NY nor CA law enforcement had any interest in doing anything other than taking a report.

Fidelity stonewalled until the old man died.

Yes, he was somehow tricked into giving out a password or secret answer, but is this no different than someone stealing my DL and walking into my bank and withdrawing money from my account with my DL?