Well, the state says it is legal, the product manufacturer says it is legal, she had plenty of ways to access the money. Maybe you don't like annuities?
Agent Arrested and Convicted for Selling an Annuity.
- Thread starter Crabcake Johnny
- Start date
-
- Tags
- annuity
Well, the state says it is legal, the product manufacturer says it is legal, she had plenty of ways to access the money. Maybe you don't like annuities?
- 325
Because Alan kifer tried to help her too in 1998.She was having problems with family back in 1998.
There was 64K left in CD plus the other money she had.Another CD 20K, and checking 13-14K.
No letter wasn't introduced at trial.
Last edited:
Let me start by reminding everyone I'm not an attorney, but hey, I like to give my opinions.....
I don't think the Alan Kifer letter would have helped in the trial (and apparently, neither did his lawyer). Why? 2 reasons...
- It clearly indicates Glenn had a long term relationship with Fran. Now, this was already known, I think the only issue is the depth of that relationship. By showing that this sale took 10 years and involved more than just a seminar 10 years earlier would increase the likelihood that he should reasonably have known of any dementia issues. Not a slam dunk, but why help make the prosecutions case?
- Reason 2 is Alan had some fundamental facts wrong, like calling Lou by Luke in the letter. If I was the prosecutor, I would have made light of the fact that he wasn't familiar with the facts of Frans relationship, but was simply trying to help Glenn close the sale, painting both of them as greedy insurance salesmen, not individuals with concerns for the client.
Nope, I don't think it would have helped to introduce this at all. I'm glad to see he didn't.
Dan
P.S. This isn't an attack, just a reminder when you look at evidence, you have to look at it from the opposing viewpoint even more than you look at it from your own.
I don't think the Alan Kifer letter would have helped in the trial (and apparently, neither did his lawyer). Why? 2 reasons...
- It clearly indicates Glenn had a long term relationship with Fran. Now, this was already known, I think the only issue is the depth of that relationship. By showing that this sale took 10 years and involved more than just a seminar 10 years earlier would increase the likelihood that he should reasonably have known of any dementia issues. Not a slam dunk, but why help make the prosecutions case?
- Reason 2 is Alan had some fundamental facts wrong, like calling Lou by Luke in the letter. If I was the prosecutor, I would have made light of the fact that he wasn't familiar with the facts of Frans relationship, but was simply trying to help Glenn close the sale, painting both of them as greedy insurance salesmen, not individuals with concerns for the client.
Nope, I don't think it would have helped to introduce this at all. I'm glad to see he didn't.
Dan
P.S. This isn't an attack, just a reminder when you look at evidence, you have to look at it from the opposing viewpoint even more than you look at it from your own.
Last edited:
- 15,041
Last I checked, the state DOI doesn't decide the laws or ultimately what is legal or isn't legal. The insurance company definitely doesn't do it as well. The right to review laws and determine the legality of a particular action is reserved to our courts.
Also, it is quite possible for something to be legal in one set of circumstances and completely illegal in another.
Also, it is quite possible for something to be legal in one set of circumstances and completely illegal in another.
that's a great point, Vol.
There are lots of products that can be legally sold in some cases and illegally sold in others.
And every product can be sold ethically or unethically.
The DOI deals with ethical issues, they chose not to pursue this case but did apparently refer it to the DA.
The DA deals with legal issues. Obviously, selling an annuity is legal, this annuity was legal to age 85, so the annuity itself was NOT the problem.
This is one of those situations where the situation was the problem, not the individual items of the sale. For instance, if Fran was 30, even with dementia, there is NO elder abuse, therefore, ironically, not the same problem. I assume if the son had been the beneficiary, there would have been no real issue, at least nothing that would have been pursued.
This is a case where if you look for the 1 thing that caused the problem, you won't find it. It is the situation as a whole.
Dan
The DA deals with legal issues. Obviously, selling an annuity is legal, this annuity was legal to age 85, so the annuity itself was NOT the problem.
This is one of those situations where the situation was the problem, not the individual items of the sale. For instance, if Fran was 30, even with dementia, there is NO elder abuse, therefore, ironically, not the same problem. I assume if the son had been the beneficiary, there would have been no real issue, at least nothing that would have been pursued.
This is a case where if you look for the 1 thing that caused the problem, you won't find it. It is the situation as a whole.
Dan
- 2,584
The Bank, Lou and the son are on record as never mentioning a thing about dementia to Glenn.
If they knew, wouldn't they have gone on record as telling Glenn she had dementia?
If they didn't know, why should Glenn have known?
If they knew, wouldn't they have gone on record as telling Glenn she had dementia?
If they didn't know, why should Glenn have known?
