Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you answered part of our concern with your last paragraph. If the policy was cancelled she would take a loss. Would her estate be worth less if she died tomorrow? What would her heirs get from her 175K annuity investment. I believe somewhere it was said she didn't need the money so did that make it ok? Is this how the industry feels or just your opinion? Is this how business feels the wealth of those reaching the end should transferred to them? What is the life expectancy of anyone 83 years old with dementia? Should she not have full use of that money for her remaining years of limited competence for medical care? Do you realize this is a forum of many seniors and limited insurance agents? Whose side did you expect us to be on? Were you trying to move us to be outraged on the side of the agent? Do you really think many of us believe that the insurance business would abandon us poor old folks and focus their predatory practices on the young( not that all agents are predators). However their earning power is dependent on other peoples money being directed in a direction they are selling. If after all of this you are not feeling the love, we are truly sorry. We seniors are kind and loving people who just want to feel secure in our retirement and many of us are suspect of those who want to prey on that need for security.
As for liquidity, how freely would she have had access to the funds in a CD compared to the Annuity not to also mention that was taken into consider because he did no put all the available funds in the Product. Would the both the CD and the Annuity have to go through probate? As I said before I don't approve of anyone abusing a Senior but if there's a crime then prosecute and make everyone whole again.
Yes I think this will make many agents second guess working in the Senior markets. If an agent can be convicted and go to jail over something like this why take the chance? If everyone involved in the chain approved the sale and he did the best he could as far as fact finding how can a person be charged on the basis of something like they should have known something..
It's also been said now the son is the conservator. From my understanding she had her boyfriend as beneficiary due to family strife. So if that's the case isn't that going against her original wishes? Why wasn't the bank involved in this? If the beneficiary desigination was the issue and the bank CD had the same beneficiary designation why is it an issue with the transfer of funds?
I'm just saying if there's a crime what is it and at what point did it happen? What is the learning experience going forward? When working with a Senior and the agent has no clue of any dementia is there a possibility of being accused of a crime at a later time. To me it looks like that's a possibility..
As for liquidity, how freely would she have had access to the funds in a CD compared to the Annuity not to also mention that was taken into consider because he did no put all the available funds in the Product. Would the both the CD and the Annuity have to go through probate? As I said before I don't approve of anyone abusing a Senior but if there's a crime then prosecute and make everyone whole again.
Yes I think this will make many agents second guess working in the Senior markets. If an agent can be convicted and go to jail over something like this why take the chance? If everyone involved in the chain approved the sale and he did the best he could as far as fact finding how can a person be charged on the basis of something like they should have known something..
It's also been said now the son is the conservator. From my understanding she had her boyfriend as beneficiary due to family strife. So if that's the case isn't that going against her original wishes? Why wasn't the bank involved in this? If the beneficiary desigination was the issue and the bank CD had the same beneficiary designation why is it an issue with the transfer of funds?
I'm just saying if there's a crime what is it and at what point did it happen? What is the learning experience going forward? When working with a Senior and the agent has no clue of any dementia is there a possibility of being accused of a crime at a later time. To me it looks like that's a possibility..
MOD: Can this thread be closed, erased or moved to the California Board?
Last edited by Curmudgeon; 01-04-2012 at 12:01 PM..
Why did the OP throw this in with their second post? Was there another agenda in starting this thread? Perhaps political about government over reach and was there an intended direction for the thread that didn't materialize? I found this curious on first read and am still wondering the relevance of.
They lobby for commissions not to protect seniors, not much different than the NAR's lobby group. I agree it is curious and worth keeping an eye on as we do out number them. Get the seniors out to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
you answered part of our concern with your last paragraph. If the policy was cancelled she would take a loss. Would her estate be worth less if she died tomorrow? What would her heirs get from her 175K annuity investment. I believe somewhere it was said she didn't need the money so did that make it ok? Is this how the industry feels or just your opinion? Is this how business feels the wealth of those reaching the end should transferred to them? What is the life expectancy of anyone 83 years old with dementia? Should she not have full use of that money for her remaining years of limited competence for medical care? Do you realize this is a forum of many seniors and limited insurance agents? Whose side did you expect us to be on? Were you trying to move us to be outraged on the side of the agent? Do you really think many of us believe that the insurance business would abandon us poor old folks and focus their predatory practices on the young( not that all agents are predators). However their earning power is dependent on other peoples money being directed in a direction they are selling. If after all of this you are not feeling the love, we are truly sorry. We seniors are kind and loving people who just want to feel secure in our retirement and many of us are suspect of those who want to prey on that need for security.
You have said this so much better than I could have and I really appreciate your taking a strong stand for all of us. This post brought tears to my eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
Nope! He just doesn't get it. During my years as an advocate for seniors regarding health insurance issues it was always a great pleasure to be instrumental in the charging and prosecution of rogue agents as well as seeing to it that many who were less than honest lost their licenses. I'm not saying that the vast majority were culpable for fraud and fiduciary abuse but there were certainly enough of them to keep me and others gainfully employed. This is one "sale" I don't think the OP will be able to close. The admonition to "know your audience" leaps immediately to mind.
Everyone is entitled to their oppinion (commission) so all we can do is keep the discussion going. If nothing else, the OP did bring the issue to my attention, and many others, so all is not lost. On the bright side, all the young ones will be old some day and then their eyes might open. In the mean time, lobby for seniors!
Again, thanks guys for some great posts. It is appreciated.
While we have debated this I do feel that the agent like so many others is now facing the inherent injustice of our judicial system. He can no longer afford his attorney and is now dependent of a public defender for his appeal. Former insurance agent sentenced in elder theft case; appeal planned
Per the information, the crime of theft had to be completed no later than 2/28/2008. Evidence of a potential "deprivation" was introduced in the form of testimony about the impact of potential surrender charges on net policy values. But there was NO evidence of a surrender charge that was actually applied against Fran's premiums on or before the last available date for completion of the alleged crime, 2/28/2008.
1) The annuity contract lays out a very specific procedure that must be followed before any surrender charge can be applied against the policyowner's funds.
2) Those contractual requirements are: That ALLIANZ RECEIVED WRITTEN SATISFACTORY NOTICE SIGNED by the POLICYOWNER requesting a FULL OR PARTIAL SURRENDER beyond the annual withdrawal privilege.
Proof: I've already provided quotes from the contract to demonstrate this is the ONLY contractual way for any surrender charge to be actually applied against Fran's premiums.
The Prosecution submitted no evidence that any such request had been submitted by Fran or her legal representative on or before the latest date of the alleged completed offense of theft. Without that proper surrender request, there could be NO surrender charge levied against Fran's funds by the terms of Fran's contract. A potential, future, contingent surrender charge that might never occur cannot be used as the basis of a finding of guilt for an allegedly completed offense. We do not convict people of "future" theft.
Further, the potentially far reaching impact of such a ruling on commerce is frightening. Any contract with a "rear-end load" could have that "load" be used as the foundation of a current conviction of a completed crime, theft. The impact on businesses dealing with seniors and the availability of products to those seniors could be severely and adversely impacted. This would be bad law, not just for this case, but for our entire economy. Potential, contingent, and future surrender charges, alone, cannot be allowed to be the foundation of a currently complete crime of theft.
Some might say selling most anything to an 85 year old might not be fair....even depending on the expiration date....never mind a complex insurance product.
Wait.....a $16k front load.....now we know why.......LOL
Ho hum.....of course we would expect one in the insurance business to defend such.
Who's John, and why are you using this forum to communicate with him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughluck
John, what is your review on this issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughluck
b) Do we agree, John? What are your doubts? Questions?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who's John, and why are you using this forum to communicate with him?
