I have a question re: bank accounts. Help!

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

A customer has a checking account with a ODLOC-(Overdraft Line of Credit) attached to it which has a balance of $100.00. She is the sole owner of the account.

These are her goals:
1. She <font color="red"> wants to keep her existing checking account and ODLOC in tact</font>.
2. She <font color="red">wants her husband to avoid having to go through probate if she dies</font>.

To accomplish those two goals, she decides she will put her husband on her account as beneficiary, but not co-owner of the account.

The bank representatives have given her several conflicting instructions. Here are the conflicting instructions:

A. She must pay off the ODLOC balance to show zero balance, then she can add her husband as beneficiary of the existing checking and ODLOC account.

B. She must close her checking and ODLOC and then open a whole new account before her husband is named as beneficiary.

C. She must close her existing ODLOC, then she can add her husband as beneficiary to the existing checking account and reapply for a new ODLOC of the account.

D. She doesn’t have to do anything to avoid probate but add her husband’s name as beneficiary. They are legally married.

Which of the choices above is correct and BEST accomplishes her goals? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[nosferatuscoffin]

This is a toughie, but being a disciple of Clark Howard, I think the correct answer is A.

Do not quote me on that, though.

[Rhino]

E. None of that will avoid probate unless there is a will.

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

[ QUOTE ]
nosferatuscoffin said:
This is a toughie, but being a disciple of Clark Howard, I think the correct answer is A.

Do not quote me on that, though.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think so too, Nos. Two other bank representatives said that too. I also called an independent representative and they in turn contacted their supervisor who also said to pay off the balance of the ODLOC and then the husband's name can go on there as a beneficiary.

Rhino... I checked into setting up a trust. Couldn't do it for less than $800. All the lawyers I talked to said "A" would get the customer the same results. Problem is, some bank reps agreed, some did not. When we tried to put it into the computer, the bank wouldn't accept the husband unless the there was a zero balance. That's all that was required.

So the next day, the balance was paid in cash, but it was the NEW bank rep that didn't even want to TRY doing it that way. She was very young and seemed like she hadn't been around long.

[Rink]

ask for the manager of the bank if the bank rep cant figgure out what to do.

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
ask for the manager of the bank if the bank rep cant figgure out what to do.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'm going to do that tomorrow. I just can't figure out why I'm getting so many different stories for the same account.

I know that some of those answers are correct only if the husband goes on as "co-owner". Such is not the case, though. He's named "beneficiary".

Actually, I would feel alot better to have a lawyer do it. Rhino is right about bypassing all the mess and confusion. I'm tired of the runaround. But I sure don't see why it's got to be so difficult. Seems like all these banks employ interns who are just learning the ropes.

[nosferatuscoffin]

Miss Gone,

If you worried about this trust, I would recommend writing to the bank's Pr dept. and see what they have to say.

The main reason you are getting differnt answers from different banks is because said bank(s) want to attach charges to that account as well as getting their hooks into the account for years to come, via those charges.

Remember, banks are in the business to make money off of your money.

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

Yeah... I'm going to do that because they need to get all their employees on the same page.

OK... thanks guys. Looks like my work is cut out for me!

[Rink]

Well when i get the run around from any business or bank or whatnot, I just cut thru the bull and go straight to the top, as thpse at the top has to know whats going on, and know what the bank runs on, their rules and regs etc. Or said person would not be At the top to begin with, as I'm sure they dont employ the lowest common denominator in areas such as that.

heh always worked for me.