Đã
ly dị thì phải thay sổ tiền
Woman drains ex’s retirement account
Imagine
this scenario: After 11 years of marriage, you and your spouse call it quits
and you move out of the house. After you leave, a letter from your former
employer is delivered to the house that your ex now resides in. The envelope is
clearly marked: "To be opened by addressee only." Your ex opens it and
discovers there's a new procedure in place to access your retirement funds
online. After following the procedures, your ex drains the account in four
months.
This happened to Michael Foster of Tulsa ,
Okla.
He lost $42,126.38 altogether -- and didn't even find out about it until
January of the following year, when he received a tax form from the plan
provider reporting a distribution of that amount. Foster sent a letter to his
former employer's plan administrator, "claiming potential fraud, as I did
not request withdrawal from my plan and I did not authorize any disbursement
from this plan," according to court documents.
The
10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with a district court's ruling
that the plan was not at fault because it doesn't have to insure against
wrongful actions by third parties, according to PlanSponsor.com. The court
found that the plan isn't under any obligation to pay the benefits twice
"because of William Foster's failure to comply with his obligations to
ensure the plan had his correct address," according to the report.
Foster
neglected to notify his former employer, where he hadn't worked for the
previous six years, of his change of address. And now he's out 42 grand.
From
the PlanSponsor article by Rebecca Moore:
The court found that the
employer and plan did nothing wrong. The decision to process account
withdrawals was based on receipt of a procedurally sound request. According to
the court's opinion, Foster was fully informed of how the plan would allow him
access to his money, and that someone with the correct User ID and PIN would be treated as the legal participant for purposes of processing
withdrawals.
Foster failed to notify the plan of his new address until 15
months following his split from his wife. In the meantime, the plan mailed a
document to the Foster home describing changes in how participants would access
their accounts. It included an explanation of how a User ID created by the
participant would replace the Social Security number for identification
purposes. Foster's ex-wife received the document and made an online request to
put in place a new User ID, which the plan confirmed in April 2005. The
following month, she changed the account password, changed the listed permanent
address to a post office box and withdrew $4,000 from the account. During the
next several months, she drained the account.
Anyone
is capable of this type of oversight. Let's learn from this poor guy's mistake
and stay on top of our retirement
planning paperwork, no matter what may be going on in our lives.
What do
you think? Should the court have ruled differently? Should the plan provider
cough up his money?
No comments:
Post a Comment