PSA: Woman drains ex’s retirement account

[Midpack]

Title is self-explanatory, but here's the punch line if you don't want to read the (short) article linked.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with a district court's ruling that the plan was not at fault because it doesn't have to insure against wrongful actions by third parties, according to PlanSponsor.com. The court found that the plan isn't under any obligation to pay the benefits twice "because of William Foster's failure to comply with his obligations to ensure the plan had his correct address," according to the report.

Foster neglected to notify his former employer, where he hadn't worked for the previous six years, of his change of address. And now he's out 42 grand.

Woman drains ex’s retirement account « Bankrate, Inc.

 

[azphx1972]

Wow, very sad for the guy. Can his ex be held liable for mail fraud or identity theft perhaps?

 

[Texas Proud]

Wow.... I think it was a bad decision on the court's part...

Let's say someone stole the letter and did the same thing.... would they have decided it differently


I think the wife should be prosecuted for stealing and fraud.... and the husband should sue, but she probably does not have any money....

 

[Bestwifeever]

Poor guy. Yes, he should go after her.
Maybe he had also forgotten to update his account re beneficiaries or joint ownership as well as changing his address; maybe the divorce gave her joint custody of the account which swayed the judge's decision to not hold the account management liable.

 

[haha]

Title is self-explanatory, but here's the punch line if you don't want to read the (short) article linked.

Woman drains ex’s retirement account « Bankrate, Inc.

A cautionary tale, and I have revised the final sentence of the article to give a more generally useful result: Anyone is capable of this type of oversight. Let's learn from this poor guy's mistake, and stay single and guard our financial identifiers.

Ha
​

 

[Dreamer]

Don't understand how people that do these things can live with themselves. She is a thief and should be treated as one. She should go to jail and be made to pay him back, no matter how long it takes.

 

[MichaelB]

There is probably more to this story than what we have seen. It's not clear if they were still married when the funds were withdrawn. The ETFA limits financial institutions responsibility for unauthorized withdrawals to 60 days and this was apparently not identified for a much longer period of time.

 

[donheff]

The Court said is that the financial firm isn't responsible. After all, the letter went to the address the guy put on it. It would seem the same would apply to funds siphoned away by a burglar who stole the letter from a coffee table, although I doubt the same result would have obtained in that case.

One thing the article didn't address is whether the woman got away with it. It still sounds like theft and the guy should have some ability to press charges as well as to pursue civil remedies.

 

[Nords]

Don't understand how people that do these things can live with themselves. She is a thief and should be treated as one. She should go to jail and be made to pay him back, no matter how long it takes.

Happens all the time in the military when couples break up and the servicemember doesn't update their mailing address... or their beneficiaries.

 

[NW-Bound]

Another reason to set up online account transactions automatic downloading with software such as Quicken.

And by the way, while looking at the transactions such as dividend payouts, might as well see how your investments have been doing.

Looky, looky... It does not mean one has to trade.

 

[Texas Proud]

Poor guy. Yes, he should go after her.
Maybe he had also forgotten to update his account re beneficiaries or joint ownership as well as changing his address; maybe the divorce gave her joint custody of the account which swayed the judge's decision to not hold the account management liable.

From what I know (and of course it can be wrong), the court can not give joint 'custody' of the account... they can order the account split into two accounts with each owning one of the two.... but not joint...

 

[Bestwifeever]

From what I know (and of course it can be wrong), the court can not give joint 'custody' of the account... they can order the account split into two accounts with each owning one of the two.... but not joint...

It was a little joke, like re kids--just meant the divorce settlement might have given her some right to some of it that he had not yet filed the paperwork for. She is a slimeball no matter what, though.

I know someone now thrice divorced with 1/4 "custody" of his 401k. Slow learner--he needed to take the haha class in never getting married again.

 

[NW-Bound]

From what I know (and of course it can be wrong), the court can not give joint 'custody' of the account... they can order the account split into two accounts with each owning one of the two.... but not joint...

+1

As this is a retirement account, it is not possible for the ex-wife to take money out, unless she impersonated the poor guy, and that was a highly unlawful act. He of course could and should have sued her, but you cannot squeeze blood off a turnip. She most likely has spent it all. So, he sued the account custodian, in hope of recovering something.

 

[pb4uski]

What is wrong here is that the checks would have been made out to him, so the ex-wife should not have been able to cash them or deposit them to an account that did not have his name on it. Similarly, if it was done via electronic transfer, the employer/plan should not allow any transfers to an account that doesn't have his name on it.

He should pressure the DA for criminal charges against her and sue her for damages as well in civil court as well.

 

[rodi]

It's pretty common to forget to update the beneficiary info when you divorce.
My brother forgot. And when he died, his ex got 100% of his 401k.
(And she still tried to come after the rest of the "estate" which was left to his church. She's a lovely human.... NOT.)

 

[haha]

It's pretty common to forget to update the beneficiary info when you divorce.
My brother forgot. And when he died, his ex got 100% of his 401k.
(And she still tried to come after the rest of the "estate" which was left to his church. She's a lovely human.... NOT.)

When one of my brothers was dying, he remembered that his now hated ex-girlfriend was his 401k beneficiary. He asked our other brother to get him the paperwork to be faxed to change it. Since bro#2 was going to be the new beneficiary, he complied with alacrity.

Ha

 

[pb4uski]

My best friend's money grubbing gold-digger ex remarried after they divorced. Her new husband had been previously divorced and had forgot to update the beneficiary of his life insurance. His ex got the life insurance and the gold-digger got nada. I would have loved to see when she found out about that. Ah... sweet justice.

 

[rodi]

Yeah - my sister and I didn't realize.
He got everything else in order (set up living trust and had assets transfered in, etc.) but my sister (executor) missed the 401k. She did get the life insurance policy switched.

Ironically - when we were cleaning out his house - we found the divorce documents. Ex wife had gotten a bigger settlement to account for the 401k money not going to her. And she'd been bought out of their jointly purchased house.
Didn't stop her from making a play for the house when he died. Even tried to get back family heirloom jewelry. We had to block her emails and phone calls - she was quite aggressive.
Even when he was alive (but terminal) she was calling him to try to extort money from him. No well wishes and hopes for recovery... just demands of money.

 

[Alan]

Another reason to set up online account transactions automatic downloading with software such as Quicken.

And by the way, while looking at the transactions such as dividend payouts, might as well see how your investments have been doing.

Looky, looky... It does not mean one has to trade.

I give up, how about a clue as to what this has to do with this thread, or maybe I'm just completely missing something here.

 

[NW-Bound]

I did not read the article, but from the comments, believed that this guy did not take care of his account's info until several months after it was emptied. Being more "in touch" with his money perhaps would have reminded him to take care of address and beneficiary changes, etc...

Some people think that one should just put his money in a safe place like a renowned MF (pssst...) and walk away. I beg to differ.

 

[REWahoo]

That really cleared things up...

 

[pb4uski]

I give up, how about a clue as to what this has to do with this thread, or maybe I'm just completely missing something here.

I think the point was that the husband might have seen the partial withdrawals when they first occurred and intervened earlier.

 

[Alan]

I did not read the article, but from the comments, believed that this guy did not take care of his account's info until several months after it was emptied. Being more "in touch" with his money perhaps would have reminded him to take care of address and beneficiary changes, etc...

Some people think that one should just put his money in a safe place like a renowned MF (pssst...) and walk away. I beg to differ.

Got it, thanks.

Yeah, the guy never had an on-line account to look at his 401k balances, just looked at the paper statements that came in the mail. After the divorce he neglected to inform them of his new address and his ex opened a letter addressed to him giving information on a new way to access the account on-line. (switching from SS# as an id to an id of your choice).

 

[tryan]

And the insult to injury is the IRS early withdrawl penalty ... yikes!

 

[imoldernu]

The wider implications of this are frightening. Over the past many years, with multiple moves, different states, and financial firms changing hands, the possibilities for fraud, and even honest mistakes, are very easy to see.

Old stock certificates, life insurance policies, savings accounts, bonds, wills, and things like titles, deeds and other documents... all are susceptible to loss or fraud.

Even going through a complete check of the possibilities is not enough... Copying, storing and keeping safe are all part of a major project to protect ones' assets, if not for retirement, for the estate. One has only to Google "Found Money" to see how many billions of dollars have been lost or forgotten.

In my experience, courts usually rule on the "letter" of the law and not the "intent".