My husband put his name on his dad's bank account after him mom passed and now his dad has passed. The bank was notified not to take any automatic payments from the account and they did this. His dad's pension and social security were reimbursed from the account which now has a negative balance. Is my husband responsible for this.

If the account was joint then yes.

If you have it in writing that there was a stop on automatic payments you shouldn't be charged overdraft fees. But he is responsible for the account.

Reimbursing SS and his pension are not 'automatic payments' just because they came in automatically.
The probate court and the bank have the duty of paying creditors, despite who else's name is on the account and what their orders are.

[see AK lawyer - seems I'm wrong]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

Reimbursing SS and his pension are not 'automatic payments' just because they came in automatically.
The probate court and the bank have the duty of paying creditors, despite who else's name is on the account and what their orders are.

---

I suppose we should first ask what state this is.

But, in general, no. The bank should not be paying alleged creditors without authority from the account owner, now the OP's husband.

And the probate court doesn't make payments to creditors either. It may authorize a personal representative to do so, assuming the account is a part of a probate estate (which seems unlikely in this case).

The husband should have immediately, upon his father's death, closed the account; banks don't seem to be able to handle control of automatic payment authorizations very well. Because he failed to do so, I believe he is responsible, although the bank may share responsibility for failure to honor the stop placed on automatic withdrawals.

I think what happened here is the Pension and SS payments were automatically deposited but for a period AFTER the father's death. When his death was reported, the people issuing those payments realized they overpaid so issued a reimbursing debit to the account. So these were not authorized payments, but reversals of credits to the account.

Yes, the son should have closed the account. But he's still responsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

... So these were not authorized payments, but reversals of credits to the account. ...

---

Yes. Thanks. An important distinction. Sort of like stopping payment on a check.