Agent Arrested and Convicted for Selling an Annuity.
- Thread starter Crabcake Johnny
- Start date
-
- Tags
- annuity
- 717
The prosecutor said the sale was considered theft because Schuber was deprived "for an extended period of time of the major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property," according to her response to Neasham's request for a new trial.
G
Guest
Guest
hardworkwillwin said:
Wow. I'm guessing Fran and her kids didn't complain too much about the earnings...
The only red flag that was required was the red flag of putting most of her liquid net worth in an annuity with VERY high surrender penalties and a VERY long surrender charge period to an 80-something. (especially a two-tiered product that required annuitization in order to get the 10% bonus.)
Why not put $50K in that product, leave $50K in the C.D. and split the other $75K between two annuities with very short surrender penalties and very low surrender charges?
You can debate the structure all day long, I don't think that really caused much of the issue. Not involving the family before the sale is what caused the issue (in my mind anyway).
If Glenn had called the son and said that his mom was wanting to get an annuity and he wanted to discuss it with him before the deal was done, my guess is, nothing would have ever happened. Okay, the annuity may not have happened either, but it would have removed the cause of the problem.
The fact that the boyfriend may have already been listed as the beneficiary of the CD is somewhat meaningless to me. Not that I count, but in this case, I'm pretty convinced that the beneficiary designation was the catalyst that got the DA involved. Yes, doing transfer paperwork rather than the check probably would have avoided the issue, unless the son got involved later.
Couple that with the fact Fran had been medically diagnosed with dementia, its just trouble in the making. I don't know how an agent could or even should know this, but it isn't a discussion of whether or not she had dementia, she did.
Dan
If Glenn had called the son and said that his mom was wanting to get an annuity and he wanted to discuss it with him before the deal was done, my guess is, nothing would have ever happened. Okay, the annuity may not have happened either, but it would have removed the cause of the problem.
The fact that the boyfriend may have already been listed as the beneficiary of the CD is somewhat meaningless to me. Not that I count, but in this case, I'm pretty convinced that the beneficiary designation was the catalyst that got the DA involved. Yes, doing transfer paperwork rather than the check probably would have avoided the issue, unless the son got involved later.
Couple that with the fact Fran had been medically diagnosed with dementia, its just trouble in the making. I don't know how an agent could or even should know this, but it isn't a discussion of whether or not she had dementia, she did.
Dan
- 325
- 325
Mr.Ed,
There's more...She purchased this product as basically a legacy product. Money she'd probably never use.It offered plenty of liquidity options.10% per year free withdrawl,50K loan provision,guaranteed monthly income after five years,income she can never outlive, and the #1 selling product out of all FIA in California for five years. In addition it was kind of like Lou's product, and thats what she wanted. That pretty much says it all????
P.S. Have you ever sold annuities. You seem uneducated about things including suitability???
P.S.S. She also wanted to earn more than her CD was paying. Lou earned 10% that year, and she wanted a similar type product.
ANBC - Glenn Neasham Appellate Trust Fund
Last edited:
- 717
Why did Alan Kifer write that letter to your client in 1998, long before you sold the annuity to her? Was letter introduced as part of trial?
Also, I thought she had $64k of liquidity after annuity transaction??
$239k in CD, $175k transferred to annuity..leaves $64k in CD....at least that's what the statement of appealability says.
Also, I thought she had $64k of liquidity after annuity transaction??
$239k in CD, $175k transferred to annuity..leaves $64k in CD....at least that's what the statement of appealability says.
Mr.Ed,
There's more...She purchased this product as basically a legacy product. Money she'd probably never use.It offered plenty of liquidity options.10% per year free withdrawl,50K loan provision,guaranteed monthly income after five years,income she can never outlive, and the #1 selling product out of all FIA in California for five years. In addition it was kind of like Lou's product, and thats what she wanted. That pretty much says it all????
P.S. Have you ever sold annuities. You seem uneducated about things including suitability???
P.S.S. She also wanted to earn more than her CD was paying. Lou earned 10% that year, and she wanted a similar type product.
ANBC - Glenn Neasham Appellate Trust Fund
My conscience would not allow me to sell a product with a 15 year surrender penalty period to anyone over the age of 65, let alone someone in their 80's.
Last edited:
