I recently put my boyfriend on my existing checking and savings account as a joint owner. He has very bad credit, in fact has creditors still trying to track him down via the telephone. I'm wondering if it would be possible and legal for one of his creditors to withdraw money he owes out of our now joint accounts without either of us giving them permission to do so?
Yep.. that could easily happen. I'd get him off of any of your accounts as soon as possible if I were you.
I seem to recall a discussion thread a while ago that even if armed with a judgement, a creditor can NOT attach funds in a joint account unless they have a judgement against ALL parties to that account. The reasons is that legally all of the money in the account belong to both of you. Therefore if they took money out of the account, they would also be taking money from you, and they are not entitled to do that. I can not locate the thread at the moment. It might have been on the old board.
J.Edgar is absolutely correct. Not even IRS can come up with a lien strong enough to allow them to grab funds from joint accounts. Simple reason is that while all of the money in the account might belong to the garnished person, it might just as easily all belong to the ungarnishable person. Or some percentage in between and there is no way to determine what those percentages may be. Such a venture could not be entertained by the garnisher even if the two of you were married to each other so that a husband and wife relationship existed. The injured party could claim that all the money was theirs and they illegaly grabbed the wrong person's money and there would be no way to prove themselves innocent. They would instantly be dead meat.
So then what you are implying is that an guaranteed way to avoid garnishment from ones checking account is to have a joint account? I think a court would be able to garnish a joint account somehow. No? Seems like all the dead beat dads running from child support would just get a friend to sign up as a joint co-signer on an account and the funds are locked. -Peace, Dave
That is correct. Not even IRS can levy against a joint account even if both parties are in default. Yes, I think a court can order that. But that would not alleviate the problem of the other party claiming they had been wronged. Then the garnishor would have to return the money and be liable for a huge damage award on top of that. This is quite true, but that does not stop the court from throwing them in jail for non payment of child support either. The courts don't worry about such things. It's either pay or suffer the consequences.
Dave, I know this is off-topic, but there are more women who do not pay support that are obligated than men. The number of single fathers grew 25 percent between 1995 and 1998, from 1.7 million to 2.1 million, while the number of single mothers remained constant at about 9.8 million. Consequently, men comprised 1 in 6 of the nation's 11.9 million single parents in 1998, up from 1 in 7 in 1995 and 1 in 10 in 1980. The 2.1 million fathers who had custody of their children were less likely to have been awarded child support than custodial mothers were and less likely to receive at least a portion of payments owed. Source: Census Bureau, Current Population Survey.
Unless a creditor, and written or verbal permission, funds without your approval are not allowed.. Rest assured, if you had this done to you , see an attorney..
I'm really sick of the term 'dead beat dads'. It's incredibly sexist. The are a large number of women out there who are also delinquent in the child support payments. In fact, I wrote a letter to the agency here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts complaining that their top 10 'deadbeats' (which they put posters on the busses and subways, etc) had NEVER had a woman on the 'dreaded list' despite the fact that one woman (a doctor who abandoned her family for some foreign lothario) was about the 4th highest in child-support arrears in the state. After the Gay Father's organizations got on their case, they finally put her on the list. Their excuse was that she was out of reach because they knew she was living in some foreign country (with no pertinent treaties) in the lap of luxury, but they couldn't touch her so it would be a waste.
Back to the topic at hand. I disagree with Bill. If the account is in the name of John or Mary, that means the money belongs to John or Mary. I think the creditors can get at the money if they have a judgement. If it is titled John and Mary, that means both own the account and the creditors would have to go to court to prove how much of the account belongs to John before than can have at it.
Tom, I am not an attorney so I cannot put up a credible argument even if I desired to do so which I do not. I think you just might have a very valid point there.
You cannot, and I repeat cannot, go after one person's delinquency if two people are on the account. Say a husband and wife both own separate businesses as sole proprietorships. All their personal assets...home, cars, bank account, stock options are in both of their names. Say the husband defaults on his business. What can his creditors do? They can put a judgement against him. They can TRY putting a lien on his personal assets, but it won't work unless the wife has a contractual obligation to the business (eg. she writes a check to one of his creditors to pay off some of his debts). When one party screws up you cannot hold both parties responsible. Garnishing a joint account when one person defaults is illegal unless they have proof that she is somehow accountable for his defaults.
I disagree again. "OR" means it belongs to one or the other. Either one can use all the money. I do not have time to look this up. Can one of the attorneys weigh in?
I agree with you tom65432, "and", "or" very little words, but I have learned they can have a big effect on how assets (vehicles, bank accounts, etc.) are held. Tuit
I agree, aren't the creditors only able to attach a joint bank account if they live in a community property state? Kellie
Joint deposit accounts are presumed to be held in joint tenancy. The presumption is that each account holder owns an equal share of the account. Only the judgment debtor's presumed share of the account can be levied. If the account belongs to the judgment debtor and his spouse the entire account is subject to the judgment. The non-debtor will have an opportunity to object. A bank will sometimes turn over an entire joint account assuming it is the responsibility of the non-debtor to object.
