I recently received a substantial insurance settlement check related to a health issue. Because I am legally married, the check was issued in both my name and my husband's name with an AND in between the names. I have been amicably separated, not legally, from my husband since 2002. He currently has a lien on his own bank account for $5000 due to some problem he incurred not involving me. My "ex" endorsed the back of the check willingly. When I went to deposit the check in my bank account, I was told that I had to open a "new" bank account with both of our names on it and once the check cleared I could close that account and transfer the funds into my own account. My question is since he has a lien somewhere in the system, will his bank be able to sense that he now has monies in a different bank and thereby attach those monies right away?

Not that quickly. Don't do it in the same bank.

Hello Shay:

In my bank, (Bank of America) you can deposit a check made out to somebody else with just their signature on the back as an endorsement, and without my name being on the check at all. If my bank will take THAT check, your bank should take the check made out to you both with his proper endorsement on the back.

I would speak with someone in management at your bank. I don't think they're telling you the truth.

excon

I only wish that were true at my bank(Commerce). I did speak with a manager. He told me that due to the amount of the check and the fact that it is made out to Mary Smith and John Smith vs Mary Smith or John Smith they would not be able to deposit it. I actually deposited a check that was addressed to someone else in this account once before too. The amount was for approximately $1000... this check is substantially more and they claim that the amount, along with him not being on the account and the way the check is drafted all point to no!:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shay5555

The amount was for approximately $1000...this check is substantially more and they claim that the amount, along with him not being on the account and the way the check is drafted all point to no!:(

---

Hello again, Shay:

I'm having a problem with your bank. If it's legal and proper for you to deposit a two party check for, say $1,000, then it's legal and proper to deposit one for, say $100,000. The amount of the check oughtn't be the determining factor. Legally (and that's what this is about), your ex released his interest in the check with his signature on the back. Your bank, Commerce, risks nothing by depositing the check and placing a hold on the funds until they clear. That is the standard way banks deal with deposits that they are not sure about.

You may try the bank on which the check is drawn on. But, I would go over your manager's head. What good is your account if you can't deposit a check?

What I would NOT do, is open a joint account like they want you to WITH your ex. If you do that, the check won't clear right away, and you risk it ALL disappearing.

excon

I have to agree that Commerce is handing you a line. If a bank is concerned about about accepting a check for deposit, they just out a hold on the funds until the check clears. Once the check clears, it's the responsibility of the issuing bank so they have no liability.

I can understand their wanting both signatures on the check, but I can't understand their requiring both people on the account.

I beg to differ with Excon! I understand why your bank may have a problem with accepting the ck for deposit to your account, let me give you an example,. say I issued a surety bond for $400,000.00 to release a lien placed on a condo by subcontractors who said they had not been paid for work performed during construction of a beach condo... I took collateral in the amount of $400,000.00 until the bond was released. The subs best recourse was to make sure that the owners could not mortgage, sell or transfer the condo until the dispute had been resolved and thus the subs filed a lien on the property to assure they get their money. The IRS, other Govt agencies, i.e. Bankruptcy court, can come to me, take my $400,000.00 collateral from under me and I would be left with a $400,000.00 bond and no collateral. Remember I am not involved in the dispute and my collateral can be taken from me and I cannot cancel the bond Much like your position, you didn't cause the lien, it's really your money, not your ex's. Now to the bank's position... say they accepted the check for deposit as usual, then you withdrew the money, then some Govt agency with a lien against your ex asked the bank for the money (remember you depsoited the check and the bank accepted it and made the funds available to you and you withdrew it). Also keep in mind that the Govt wants money from him or they would not have filed a lien, they apparently cannot get him to pay so they attach any monies with his name on it -- understand that the Govt may have some method of letting banks know to let the Govt know when someone's money (remember his name is on the check) is being deposited into an account. If the bank were to disregard the Govt's request to let the Govt know, then the bank would owe them although they no longer have your money, remember, you withdrew it. I suspect your check will be attached or taken by the entity that holds the lien against him since his name it on it and it will never clear, thus you may never have the opportunity to deposit fhose funds into a new account. That's why the bank wants you to close that account and open a new one --- they suspect the funds will be attached since they apparently have information that some agency has placed a lien on any funds that have his name on it.

Hello again Shay:

And, I disagree with the bondude. He's saying that your bank is trying to trick you into depositing your check so that they can steal it and give it to some unnamed agency.

Nope. I just don't buy it.

excon

A bank account by your ex is not needed. You both can use the check to buy ira's in your name and the money is free and clear when the check clears. My wife's bank has tried for years to get me on her account and my answer is always no. I sign the back of the tax returns and its hers. Same with insurance settlements , open a few ira's in your name with the money. Lien or no they can only hold money on accounts in his name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again Shay:

And, I disagree with the bondude. He’s saying that your bank is trying to trap you into depositing your check so that they can steal it and give it to some unnamed agency.

Nope. I just don’t buy it.

excon

---

First, I'd like to thank you all for all the advice.
Second,I'd also like you to know, Mr. BondMan that the lien is not a government lien nor an IRS lien, it's a lien from a landlord (management company) that my ex didn't pay rent to due to some type of a housing/repair dispute. Don't know if that makes any difference at all.
Third, between yesterday and today I discovered an old credit union account that I had totally forgotten about. The account has me as primary with my "ex" as secondary. The account is closed with a zero balance. I called them and they told me I can re-open the account, just come to the branch with MY ID and that I can deposit the check with no problem. Do you think this is a viable option?
PS: I definitely plan to take this further with Commerce as well. I believe they're handing me a bunch of bull!

I also disagree with Bondman here. The scenario he paints makes a lot of assumptions that are not stated by you. First, nowhere do you state who has imposed the lien, he's making the assumption it's the government but we don't know that. Second, you stated the check is an insurance settlement related to a health issue. The valid assumption here is that it is not your husband's health but either yours or your sons. So the money is really not his.

The bank has absolutely NO responsibility to collect debts for anyone, govt or private entity. They have no need to know about the lien on the husband or why the amount needs to be deposited in a separate account. All they need to know is that the husband endorsed the check over to the wife. They do need to protect themselves to make sure the check properly clears before they allow access to the money, but that is all.

Hello again, Shay:

Are you a gambler? If you deposit the check, it's going to sit there for 10 days till it clears. If it's discovered during that time, by the lien holder, kiss it goodbye.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shay5555

My question is since he has a lien somewhere in the system, will his bank be able to sense that he now has monies in a different bank and thereby attach those monies right away?

---

Hello again, Shay:

Yes, I have more. The truth is, nobody answered your question.

I don't know THE particular procedure judgment creditors use to collect. I don't even know if there IS a particular procedure. In my view, it depends entirely on how aggressive the creditor wants to be. Could there be software that alerts the creditor when funds appear? I certainly think there could be. I know, that if MY living depended on collecting judgments, I would have that software.

There are other ways to skin this cat. If pushing your bank doesn't work, try opening a personal account at another bank with THAT check. It may be that Commerce Bank has a policy NOT to take checks like yours. I don't know why but, as both Scott and I suggested, it is NOT banking law.

If that doesn't work, go back to the issuing bank, and open your account there. Or, offer the check back to them, with HIS endorsement, in exchange for another one with just your name on it. Or even better, ask them to issue a cashiers check in your name only. His endorsement also relieves the issuing bank of responsibility.

If that doesn't work, go back to the insurance company who wrote the check. Offer them the same thing. Actually, this might be your first stop.

If that doesn't work, get back to us. I know there's a way for you to get your money without risking it first.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Shay:

Yes, I have more. .....................


excon

---

great, GREAT, GREAT ADVICE and I'm going to take ALL of it. I just spoke with someone at the credit union who told me NOT to deposit this check there... even though both of our names are on the account and it would have taken care of THAT part of the equation. She said that since the account has been inactive, the re-activation of the account sends out a signal that a new account is in the loop with HIS name on it and they'll seize it immediatiely. I don't know if this is true, but if it is you would think the same would hold true if I opened a NEW account with Commerce! I am going to press Commerce on this one more time. If this doesn't work, then I am going to try another bank, possibly Bank of America or Washington Mutual or a smaller savings bank in my neighborhood. I am not going to give up this fight. I want this check deposited into an account that's in my name only! I need to care for my child AND get a divorce! Thanks to you and Scott and everyone else for all the help.

Never said the bank is trying to trick her into depositing the check, go back, see what I said, hey, it's her choice to deposit the check or not ! They are just telling her what they have to do by banking laws. They are required, I am sure, to let the IRS, etc know that a check has been deposited or risk being fined, etc. Your good ole bank might not be here long for your convenience if they violate the fed's rules !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardBondMan

Never said the bank is trying to trick her into depositing the check, go back, see what I said, hey, it's her choice to deposit the check or not ! They are just telling her what they have to do by banking laws. They are required, I am sure, to let the IRS, etc know that a check has been deposited or risk being fined, etc. Your good ole bank might not be here long for your convenience if they violate the fed's rules !

---

If the deposit is in CASH and greater than $10K, then the bank would be required to report it to the IRS. Otherwise not! There is nothing in the banking laws that require what Commerce is claiming. That's why both excon and I have a problem with what Commerce is telling her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shay5555

I just spoke with someone at the credit union who told me NOT to deposit this check there...even though both of our names are on the account and it would have taken care of THAT part of the equation. She said that since the account has been inactive, the re-activation of the account sends out a signal that a new account is in the loop with HIS name on it and they'll seize it immediatiely.

---

The CU person gave you good advice, though not quite accurate. Yes, reopening that account would show up on public records, but its not a given that whoever placed the lien would pick up on it immediately. But its not worth the risk.

Banks want your money. Banks make money by taking in deposits then loaning those deposits out. So its curious that a bank would refuse a deposit. If any other bank gives you the line that both names need to be on the new account, ask them for a citation of the law that requires that.

Scott, Excon, Bondman... THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HELP. My thought processes are not advanced enough to have thought of all the great things you told me to do.

I just got off the phone with the assistant manager at Commerce. They WILL deposit the check into my account ONLY... but my husband has to come down to the bank and sign a "letter of endorsement" that says he is authorizing me to put the money into my solo acccount... because as the assistant manager states, "according to the check, it's his money too!! He can come back to us later on and say you forged his name and took all the money!"
So hopefully that will be all that's needed. We will go to the bank together tomorrow and take care of it.
CAN YOU IMAGINE THE MIS-INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME RIGHT OUT OF THE MANAGER'S MOUTH?
If it hadn't been for you guys I very well may have lost this much needed money.

I will let you know how it all turns out. I am forever grateful to you.

I know, can you believe that? And if I hadn't reached out to you guys and gotten such sound advice, I would have probably opened a joint account with him needlessly... and who knows the sticky wicked that may have thrust me into!

ScottGem, excon and RichardBondMan:

I am just returning from the bank with my "ex". He signed a "letter of endorsement" that was notarized right there at the bank and the check was finally deposited into my account... MY account.
I cannot effectively explain to you how much your help, input and suggestions saved me a lot of heartache and problems. As stated previously, this money is due to a health issue, more specifically a medication error that caused health complications for me. And it's unfortunate because I need to be around... so that I can take care of my only child, who will be dependent upon me for life.

Without getting too mushy, I just want you to know that you really helped somebody today. And I believe that in this life THAT kind of thing comes back around.
Thank you gentlemen,
Shay

Excon,
Already in the works... :)