A new low in rotten
Many years ago, when his son was still a minor, the father took his son to the bank to establish a savings account for the boy. A fairly common practice, but in this case a bit of a milestone. The son was born with multiple disabilities, but he worked hard and often struggled to overcome many of the limitations; and he continued to make regular deposits to his savings account.
Fast forward to the present. The son, now a young man in his late 20s who lives independently, goes to visit his parents. Like many families, they have been hit hard in the tough economy, and there has been a foreclosure. His dad has some health issues, and his mother is struggling through the final stages of cancer. Wanting to do something to brighten the dreariness, he goes to the bank to withdraw a little money. The account is empty. The bank took the money during the foreclosure because the father had, all those years ago, co-signed on his disabled child's savings account.
The sign out front says "Bank of America," but I have to wonder -- which "America" approves of theft from the disabled?
-
= new reply since forum marked as read
Defaulting on a loan is not immoral when you lose your job due to cancer or because banks like yours break the law with your illegal rushing of foreclosures with assembly line signings. It is immoral to refuse to work with people who would pay their loans and make you rich in the process if they could. It is immoral of your bank to take the people's money to get bailed out for gambling with their money and losing your fucking ass shirts and then turning around and giving yourselves bonuses while ignoring the reason for the bailouts in the first place. But, of course it isn't illegal so your ass is certainly covered.
Congratulations on winning the game. 
To me about things that were devastating to me or people I cared about:
'It's not personal. It's paperwork. In a world of strangers, who know nothing about each other, paperwork is all there is to work with. They are not trying to harm you because they don't know you. They can't justify their jobs without paperwork instructing them. Supply them with the necessary paperwork and you will win the case.'
So when I thought it was cruel, it was not. Those who are passing money back and forth can't be personal. So please don't give yourself any more pain than this already is. I've been there, okay?
I've had to deal with a lot of issues about disabled people and money. It's tiresome and frightening, because in most cases it's just a quick skip to homelessness. The only advice I have to give is if the son has anything else of value, to look into what are 'irrevocable trusts.' Those are set up to take care of disabled people and are proof against seizure of funds in almost all cases.
They are not just for the wealthy, either. I had to set one up for over the matter of the costs of cremation, to keep it out of the accounting for their 'assets' in considering nursing home care. The person really is indigent, but that one item was hanging out there that could disqualify one for what was needed.
At the time the father co-signed, the boy was unable to legally sign for himself; may still be considered incompetent to sign for such matters. I know your family has been going through a tremendous deal and that foreclosure is huge strain. While fighting it one does not have time to inspect all past financial affairs like this one was.
When you say 'co-sign' on an account, if you don't mind my asking, how was the account named? Was it joint or in the format of 'father's name for son's name' as these are often done? This makes a difference, I think. If any social security monies are involved, they are often set up with that format. The funds must not be co-mingled or used by both without a paper check to withdraw the funds, as it will be needed to account for the money with the federal government or state court if the father was his guardian.
That status does not always end at the age of eighteen, either. Although you say the boy was living independently, which may mean he was capable of managing his financial affairs without help. Is there a state agency of any sort that is helping the young man live on his own?
They have a vested interest in protecting his assets from being seized. Because they should know about those assets. I'm only asking because these are my frames of reference, and trying to figure out what will work to help this young man.
Very sorry about all the things that have been going on for you and appreciate your posts and activism. It's hard to not feel hurt, abused and betrayed in facing these challenging and costly events that are so crucial to people in need.
to you and him.
