C may not be able to control who is held accountable. If the brokerage firm is going to go in the tank over this, then they may just drag Mother down their with them. Brokerage firm may just argue that they were merely the instrument in a fraud. You know, it is far too early to determine who is at fault. There are good indications, but nothing has been conclusively established. Best proceed based on the reality that the current information describes, not what one might think could be in the future. No one has control of this situation yet. Best to proceed on that basis, and no other. The time for judgment has yet to come.
Good point, Oracle, that's why I suggest to not report them at this point, but to try to push for some kind of settlement on their part. But if they do bring up the mother to not show that weakness to them.
C is not the only one who can allege fraudulent action. That is the point that I am trying to make. The mere requesting of the information raises the possibility that some entity will report. The conundrum is that without information, there is no knowledge; and with it there is risk. Once the door has been opened, control is pretty much gone. The door, here, has been opened. The brokerage has its interests to protect. Call it asset protection.
And maybe if her mother is being pushed to take consequences, then that could in some way be the kindest thing that 'C' can do, as her mother would not learn, if this just all gets pushed under the rug with some arguments and nothing else. Just like a child - you may want protect it from every fall, but if you do, you guarantee more hardship in the future, than an immediate fall and a lesson for a lifetime. But of course, that's not for any of us to say and 'C's decision alone. I don't know what I would do in her situation. It's horrible to not only being 'violated' but by having it done by people that she trusted. And even now having her mother say 'she doens't know why anyone cares about credit'. That almost is like twisting it around putting the blame on 'C' for caring about this and making her the 'bad one'. She almost has to chose between doing the 'right thing' and her family. At least it looks like she's now marrying into a great family who are looking out for her.
Varinia, and everyone else, I want to thank you again for all the advice and concern. I've wrestled with the idea of convicting my own mother, if it ever came to that, for a long time. Through the couple of years that I've tossed the issue around I've realized that my mom was never a mother in my life. Whatever might happen to her could never be as bad as everything she has put me through. It should also be no surprise to her when she is called out on her actions because I've never kept my suspicions a secret. I've always given her chances to tell me the truth even when other family members described past withdraws on the account and what they were used for. If she won't talk to her daughter maybe she'll talk to an authority figure. This process has been very empowering for me and I'm so blessed to have Ani and all of you to help us dig in. I refuse to be a victim for any longer. It's a very sad situation, but it always has been and my light at the end of the tunnel is finding truth behind all the lies I've been told. sending hugs to everyone
Good for you, C. And if the brokerage drags Mom into this, then Mom can't really blame C. I personally think Mom needs to be put away for a long, long time. She knew what she was doing was wrong. When someone doesn't know, that's one thing. But this was deliberate.
This is what I hoped to see. It is not something you can learn until you experience it. it is like a huge weight being lifted. Mom is who she is, and it is likely too late to change that. You, however, will no longer fall in her sights when a scam comes to mind. It is an incredible relief.
If I were C at this point I would ask a lawyer to send the brokerage house a letter demanding the production of the requested records and threatening suit if they are not produced within ten days. The time for negotiation is over, it is time to start swinging a big stick. I would also be filing complaints against the broker personally with the NASD and threatening the broker personally with a suit for breach of Fiduciary responsibility, fraud and whatever else I could think of. A Lawyer will charge a nominal sum for this letter, and it just may get some results. I also would bypass all other departments within the Brokerage and send the letter straight to Corporate legal. Let their own lawyers get involved in this. Get off the phones and stop asking - DEMAND, and threaten specific consequences if the demand is not complied with.
We have to decide today Okay. I tend to think like this, Fly. But we have been thinking we should let this play out and keep documenting. C and my son live about 2.5 hours away and we are driving up there today to sit down and go over things . . . w/ the intention of making the phone call back to the Operations Mgr. at the local office where the account is held (actually, the local office is where I live . . . wh/ is why we were thinking we should get a limited POA - cause I could go over to the office and just plop myself down til someone will hand me the files, answer questions, etc). But I also know that since this is NOT my area of expertise, an attorney would be more effective, I am sure. I am thinking C should still make a quick phone call today to reiterate that she wants the files IMMEDIATELY, but since they have stalled for so long (and especially since they have stalled after her LETTER of 10 May 07 - that is 5 months) - I think more calls are futile. We were planning on following that up w/ a letter outlining what we had discussed and our anticipation for receiving the files by 5 business days. I have no problem w/ contacting an attorney at all. In fact, I have one in mind who has a litigious reputation and is a friend of mine and specializes in corporate law. This guy has even sued the city over municipal projects/development issues. I would think a letter from him would say - we mean business. So now we have to decide - do we simply place a phone call today or not? C's address has changed and she needs to let them know this, too, altho she has done a change of address request w/ the PO. What do you think? Opinions, please.
They can ignore you just as well in person as they are over the phone, so plopping yourself down in their offices won't get their attention and more than calling them 100 times a day. A letter from a lawyer they know they ignore at great peril.
Flyingifr makes valid points; they are well worth considering. My approach would be to go through with the telephone call/meeting. See what they have to say. Give them one "official" chance to be cooperative. If there is any stonewalling or even a hint of non-cooperation, I would immediately do as Flyinifr suggests. Let the chips fall where they may.
What the heck . . . Okay. C called to give her change of address, so the firm cannot say they mailed something to wrong addy or use the fact that she has not officially changed her addy w/ them as an excuse. Ops Mgr. wanted to speak with her (no kidding) and I said - go ahead - you know how to be cool. C reiterated that she had sent a letter on 10 May 07 regarding sending her all info on account, and past history from initiation of account. OPS Mgr. said - well this is a custodial account, not a trust. C said fine - just send me whatever agreement there is. OPS Mgr said she didn't understand what C is referring to. C. said well whatever you have on the account - how it was set up - etc - just send all that to me. OPS Mgr said she would mail it today. We will see. So this is a custodial account. I think we all agree - we know that. UGMA, right? So what does the OPS Mgr. mean - no agreement, no instrument. Something had to be devised to set up the account. ????? Do we just wait and see what we get? OPS Mgr said - account was set up by G/father, then turned over to Mother. I know we are ignorant but what is going on here? Can someone please explain?
Just some interesting info . . . Have checked out brokerages violations . . . they are so big, they made NY Times, WSJ, and international news. Anti-trust being one of the biggest - $13 Million. Lots of violations at this local office, as well. Of course, this is fund in question is small potatoes. Gonna write a letter w/ follow-up of conversation today and will wait to see what happens next. Still do not understand the OPS Mgr's insistence that C not refer to this as a trust, as my understanding is that UGMA sets up a trust. I suspect we are going to get a very sanitized print out of transactions. C just IM'd me - the brokerage has called there 3 times in the last few minutes. She will check to see if VM messages. I told her - do NOT talk to them. We will write our follow up letter of conversation today. Looks like we will end up w/ an attorney on this. Something is wrong here. There is nothing more the brokerage needs to say to C - just send the documents, wh/ were requested 6 months ago. Something ain't right.
No reason for C not to listen to what the brokerage has to say. But I would make sure that the call was recorded or a very detailed memorialization be made immediately after the call is concluded. The only caveat would be for C to say nothing other than "thank you for the information" or "I will take that under advisement." She should agree to nothing other than today is Friday.
Sorry, been away and catching up on these events... There is a difference between a trust and an "UGMA" account. What the brokerage firm is trying to "say" is that they have no liability in "Mom's" actions. "Mom" was the "custodian" of the account, and ALL negligence/liability falls on her, not "them". Again, this is what they're "trying to say", it's not the "full story". This also means there is NO "Trust Agreement", the only "origianal paperwork" will be an "account form", which can be filled out over the phone, and legally does not even require the signature of the person opening the account. At best, you/C will get a copy of the original "Account Form" (a 1 pc form), and hopefully past statements. The Ops Mgr wants to "clarify" that this is NOT a legal trust with other "binding clauses". To educate yourself, you can "google" Uniform Gifts to Minors Act, and review stipulations yourself. If you need it, I can look up any regulations for the brokerage side. So, complete the call, just stating "C" requests ALL paperwork on this account, including evidence that she is the holder now, and inform them this request will be followed up in written request "for their records as well". Do NOT tell them from whom the letter will be! Sounds like the brokerage firm is nervous, very nervous. I would be if I were the Ops Mgr. Sounds like she's spoken to the Compliance Officer and Legal dept. as well. She's saying all the things I would expect her to say. Keep going, you're on the right track.
P.S. Detail in the call, and in the letter, that this is a continued request from May 2007. Failure to provide information is also a violation.
Herein lies the big "rub"! If "Mom" continued withdrawals after C turned 18, then the brokerage firm should not have allowed them, as she was no longer a legal "custodian". "C" would have been the holder of the account.
That is what I thought . . . Once I find out the date the account was opened, we will be able to tell if it should have turned over to her. If opened at birth, it pre-dated UTMA, so my understanding is that it should have turned over to her at 18. Anyone know for sure? NC, 1985. C not only recorded the call, she video-taped it, LOL. We all use Macs and our nifty little MacBook Pros will video while also recording! So we definitely have a taped conversation - with video of Courtney talking on the phone. You would be so proud of C!!! She was soooo cool!!! She credits the forum members' advice w/ helping her know how to "play her cards." We will send off the follow-up letter in the morning, in wh/ we once again reiterate that the request in writing was made on 10 May 2007. It will probably be a week b/f we can expect the packet. Can't wait to see what is it in. Promise me you won't desert us!!! We are gonna want to go over it in detail w/ you all so we can determine where to go from there. It will be very interesting if two violations have occurred which we can prove - failure to turn over the account at 18; and failure to comply with request for info. I suspect there has been a lot of churning that has gone on in the account, too. No one was watching - some easy fees for a broker who knew no one was watching. Guess I have gotten rather cynical in my old age, LOL!!! Thanks to all of you!!! FF, BW, DJ, O, HW, V . . . we have checked the boards several times today and knowing you all are out there has helped us feel more like tackling this sticky mess.
