How Safe is Your Safety Deposit Box?

[mickeyd]

Thanks for posting this. Just yesterday DW asked me why we no longer had a SD box. The last time that we had one was about 25 years ago when we lived in NJ and I mostly kept savings bonds in the smallest box available. I asked Dw why she thought that we needed one and she said that it would be a "safe place" for our wills, insurance policies, birth certificates, marriage licence and other important papers. I told her that none of those papers were that important that it had to be kept in a bank. I'm not sure that I convinced her.

I will forward her this YouTube and hope that she takes time to view it. Thanks again...barbarus.

[Texarkandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by barbarus ... I'm a great fan of the American Constitution. Not many policemen are. ....

Well, I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else or stereotype an entire group of people (be they policemen, or not) - but personally I too am a great fan of the US Constitution.

I'm also a great fan of seizing the profits of criminals.

I don't think the two necessarily have to be inconsistent with each other.

I expect the contents of the SDB of the lady in the OP video were not seized as suspected profits of criminal activity. What I originally set out to point out, however, is that similar administrative processes to ultimately effect the forfeiture apply.

The State bureaucracy has likely gotten so used to not-going-the-extra-mile in their application of administrative forfeiture authorities because of the increased activity of police seizing the monies & assets of criminals. Are you going to go out of your way to return profits to a drug dealer? Give them any notice, appeal rights, or extended deadlines beyond the minimum the law requires?

This doesn't say so much about the police lawfully seizing things as it does about the due diligence & common sense of those public-sector workers who are ultimately exercising the State's power to perfect the forfeiture.

[samclem]

Also, can't storing documents in an SDB also make them hard to access when you need them most? When my mom died, my dad was in the hospital and I was 17 years old. Dad told me to get everything out of the SDB (I was on the access list for the box). IIRC, Dad told me that I was not to mention Mom's death, as the bank would then restrict access to the box until things were settled (probate?). We lived in a smallish town, and the folks in the bank knew Mom, but I just kept my mouth shut, chatted with everyone, accessed the box, and took everything home so we could look at her copy of her will and go through the other stuff.

[FurBall]

When my uncle died, my cousin spent some time getting into his safe deposit box to get the will etc. My mother's lawyer suggested that instead of a safe deposit box we keep a fireproof, waterproof small safe at home to contain will, power of attorney, etc. She further suggested that we leave it unlocked to deter thieves from taking the entire box.

[Leonidas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by barbarus I'm a great fan of the American Constitution. Not many policemen are.

And you are basing the second statement on what?

[Koolau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonidas And you are basing the second statement on what?

"Asked and answered" as the defense attorney would object on "Law and Order".

[harley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texarkandy Well, I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else or stereotype an entire group of people (be they policemen, or not) - but personally I too am a great fan of the US Constitution. I'm also a great fan of seizing the profits of criminals. I don't think the two necessarily have to be inconsistent with each other.

The problem with asset forfeiture is that it started as a way to seize the profits of criminals, but has now morphed into a necessary income source for LE, resulting in a huge conflict of interest. Very similar to what the OP indicates regarding SDBs. There are enough stories of forfeiture abuse that it's pretty obvious that new rules need to be put into effect. I've got no problem with going back to the original reason the law was created. I wish we could do that with many laws that have changed beyond any recognition of their original intent.

[pedorrero]

Depends how paranoid you are ... there are good reasons to not keep some things in a box, even if you are not (currently) breaking a law. After 1933, the government seized gold in -- you guessed it -- safe deposit boxes. Folks who had the coins somewhere else enjoyed a near doubling of their money, if they weren't foolish enough to turn it in at $20/oz. And the government sometimes goes to extremes with asset forfeiture -- like when the government seized an expensive car (wife's) being driven by a man (husband) who solicited a prostitute. For this misdemeanor crime, the owner of the vehicle (innocent of any involvement) lost a $20-30K vehicle. Went all the way to Supremes who said "ok." Unusual, but not impossible. Lesson; don't keep your gold coins in your car when you's pickin' up 'hos' !!!

[Telly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by barbarus ...............More to the point. The reason this was presented as an ERF topic is that I have a feeling more than a few readers of this blog have safety deposit boxes with items the could ill afford to lose.............

Oh, but it gets worse! Read the fine print on the safe/safety deposit box agreement/contracts. You may find that the bank is NOT RESPONSIBLE for any loss of SDP contents. They have no idea what's in there, or it's value, nor do they care, it ain't their problem.

Few people are aware that the bank has no responsibility... they just assume that since it's in a vault in the bank, that the bank somehow will always make good.

These days, the SDP vault is also a different vault than the "Bank" vault.

[chinaco]

Wow! Thanks for posting it. I knew unclaimed property would go to the state... But I did not know that they were just taking owned and claimed property in accounts that are being paid and kept up.

[Texarkandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harley The problem with asset forfeiture is that it started as a way to seize the profits of criminals, but has now morphed into a necessary income source for LE, resulting in a huge conflict of interest. Very similar to what the OP indicates regarding SDBs. There are enough stories of forfeiture abuse that it's pretty obvious that new rules need to be put into effect. I've got no problem with going back to the original reason the law was created. I wish we could do that with many laws that have changed beyond any recognition of their original intent.

Might want to check the dates on some of those "stories of forfeiture abuse". New rules were put into place - in the federal arena anyway.

Ever heard of CAFRA (Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000)

[harley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texarkandy Might want to check the dates on some of those "stories of forfeiture abuse". New rules were put into place - in the federal arena anyway. Ever heard of CAFRA (Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000)

Absolutely. CAFRA was a good move forward, and moved Henry Hyde up on my list of decent politicians significantly. But most of the issues I was speaking of are recent, or even ongoing. If you want to check it out, this is a good site - http://www.fear.org/. And since we no longer have a sandbox, that's as far as I'll go on this topic, since I tend to be a bit tetchy about it.

[Texarkandy]

Well, harley, being the small govt libertarian leaning person that I am, I'm certainly not trying to be the defender of all government forfeitures.

Personally, I think in the case of abandoned/unclaimed SDB's (or any other property for that matter) I don't know what business the govt has assuming custody in the first place (absent any demonstrable evidence the property/monies represent ill-gotten gains).

But I suppose this is just one of the things that comes hand-in-hand with a big "nanny" government.

[ladelfina]

Texarkandy.. so you'd prefer that the process of spontaneous opening/inventorying/sequestering the contents of SDBs just be left up to the private bankers that own the boxes?

You'd prefer that unclaimed/inactive bank accounts just accrue to the banksters, instead of getting published via the state's AG office for possible reclamation?

In that case, watch for the rules on what constitutes 'abandonment' to become absurdly broad.
Sometimes these libertarian tendencies just border on sociopathy.

[Texarkandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladelfina Texarkandy.. so you'd prefer that the process of spontaneous opening/inventorying/sequestering the contents of SDBs just be left up to the private bankers that own the boxes? You'd prefer that unclaimed/inactive bank accounts just accrue to the banksters, instead of getting published via the state's AG office for possible reclamation? In that case, watch for the rules on what constitutes 'abandonment' to become absurdly broad. Sometimes these libertarian tendencies just border on sociopathy.

It's easy to tear down the strawman you yourself have erected on behalf of another.

[ladelfina]

Don't see how it is a straw man unless you can offer another solution as to who oversees such matters: the gov. or the bank OR...?

The bank is private, but has a public exercise. I guess banks should not have licenses and just "caveat emptor". Heck, that's how it ends up anyway...

[Texarkandy]

Things seem to work just fine in the mini-storage industry without a lot of busybody direct government intervention.

For the most part, all govt needs to do in regards to issues such as this is see that contracts are honored/enforced & the laws are followed.