Since I can be Monday morning QB. My thought it don't do business with seniors in California. The balance has swung way to far to the nanny-state. A senior citizen isn't competent enough to make financial decisions. They must be made with a younger family member no matter the relationship. I wouldn't sell houses or cars or jewelry to a senior in California.
Agent Arrested and Convicted for Selling an Annuity.
- Thread starter Crabcake Johnny
- Start date
-
- Tags
- annuity
Since I can be Monday morning QB. My thought it don't do business with seniors in California. The balance has swung way to far to the nanny-state. A senior citizen isn't competent enough to make financial decisions. They must be made with a younger family member no matter the relationship. I wouldn't sell houses or cars or jewelry to a senior in California.
Glenn - I know how you feel. I felt the same way, but what I have found is.... oh wait, wrong thread.....
My point is there is a LOT more to this than what has been presented. We both know that.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether you knew Fran had dementia or not, its whether the prosecution could make a reasonable case that made it appear that you should have been reasonably aware of it. I wasn't on the jury, so my opinion isn't that meaningful. The relationship with Lou, the length of time you knew Fran and a few other things make it appear that its reasonable that you should have at least suspected something. Or at least reasonable for the prosecution to pitch it this way.
On the CYA letter, you have fallen into the trap that I warn many people of when they do this type of thing. It seems reasonable and you think its a good thing at the time, but, when it falls outside of a normal pattern, then the prosecution runs with it to make it appear as if it was something you did just to cover your tracks. If you always do it, then it becomes a non-issue.
I'll give you kudos for contacting the son, but it should have been done before the sale. Probably would have been absolutely no case if you had. This is always tough on the agent, when you have the client wanting one thing but something different is the right thing to do.
Dan
My point is there is a LOT more to this than what has been presented. We both know that.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether you knew Fran had dementia or not, its whether the prosecution could make a reasonable case that made it appear that you should have been reasonably aware of it. I wasn't on the jury, so my opinion isn't that meaningful. The relationship with Lou, the length of time you knew Fran and a few other things make it appear that its reasonable that you should have at least suspected something. Or at least reasonable for the prosecution to pitch it this way.
On the CYA letter, you have fallen into the trap that I warn many people of when they do this type of thing. It seems reasonable and you think its a good thing at the time, but, when it falls outside of a normal pattern, then the prosecution runs with it to make it appear as if it was something you did just to cover your tracks. If you always do it, then it becomes a non-issue.
I'll give you kudos for contacting the son, but it should have been done before the sale. Probably would have been absolutely no case if you had. This is always tough on the agent, when you have the client wanting one thing but something different is the right thing to do.
Dan
My parents turned 65 this last year. I demand they get my permission for every transaction from now on. I don't want them pissing away my inheritance on vacations, medicine and stupid crap like that. I'm pretty sure my mom lost her keys for about 3 days a couple of months ago...
Last edited:
- 8,707
So how does it feel to be disinherited?
I haven't signed off on any statement they have disinherited me. As seniors they need my protection. I'm going to call the insurance department, the attorney general, and the local sheriff to arrest anyone that attempts to do anything not in my interest. I really need them to move to California though.
Clearly my last two posts were sarcasm. This case is pure lunacy as is California.
Arthur Rudnick
Guru
- 1,652
Glenn Neasham: victim of geography?
by Stephen Forman on June 6, 2013
Editor's note: On June 3, 2013, Glenn Neasham informed ProducersWEB that his legal team had filed a reply brief to the Court Of Appeal of the state Of California. Neasham said he anticpates oral arguments to begin in approximately six months.
No matter your feelings about Glenn Neasham — and surely he's as polarizing a figure in insurance as any of the last decade — I believe his story would have played out very differently had it not taken place in California. Let's go even further: had it not taken place in Bakersfield, California.
Rather than re-hash Mr. Neasham's case (of which there are some 50-odd articles on ProducersWEB), I'd like to make my point by contrasting his with a recent crime blotter which appeared on the Washington State Insurance Department's site. The reader can draw his own conclusion.
In March, 2010, Michael A. Porfirio met with a Washington couple in their 90s and their son (to whom they'd given power of attorney). They discussed consolidating all of their liquid assets into a single American National annuity. According the Insurance Commissioner, at the time of this meeting, "the couple was in declining health, including dementia, and in need of easy access to funds on a monthly basis for the payment of home health care (HHC) expenses."
Mr. Porfirio "knew or should have known" this. To ensure the couple understood what they were purchasing, Mr. Porfirio drew up a letter of understanding for their signature. It listed these highlights:
Do we not "throw the book" at Mr. Porfirio because the son had power of attorney and was present? Or because Washington state does not have the powerful elder financial abuse laws (and prosecutorial saliva) that California has? What do you think? Would Glenn's case have been different had it happened in your state? Would Mr. Porfirio have received harsher justice had he practiced in California?
by Stephen Forman on June 6, 2013
Editor's note: On June 3, 2013, Glenn Neasham informed ProducersWEB that his legal team had filed a reply brief to the Court Of Appeal of the state Of California. Neasham said he anticpates oral arguments to begin in approximately six months.
No matter your feelings about Glenn Neasham — and surely he's as polarizing a figure in insurance as any of the last decade — I believe his story would have played out very differently had it not taken place in California. Let's go even further: had it not taken place in Bakersfield, California.
Rather than re-hash Mr. Neasham's case (of which there are some 50-odd articles on ProducersWEB), I'd like to make my point by contrasting his with a recent crime blotter which appeared on the Washington State Insurance Department's site. The reader can draw his own conclusion.
In March, 2010, Michael A. Porfirio met with a Washington couple in their 90s and their son (to whom they'd given power of attorney). They discussed consolidating all of their liquid assets into a single American National annuity. According the Insurance Commissioner, at the time of this meeting, "the couple was in declining health, including dementia, and in need of easy access to funds on a monthly basis for the payment of home health care (HHC) expenses."
Mr. Porfirio "knew or should have known" this. To ensure the couple understood what they were purchasing, Mr. Porfirio drew up a letter of understanding for their signature. It listed these highlights:
- The annuity was guaranteed by the WA State Guaranty Fund
- The annuity was being purchased as a simplified way to access funds to cover HHC expenses
- The annuity was being purchased to ensure adequate retirement income
- The annuity was being purchased to establish an emergency fund with easy access to unforeseen expenses
- It contained a 10-year surrender schedule (listed only as "10 year declining"), and a 10-percent-per-year free withdrawal cap (this limitation was not listed at all by the agent).
- Its nursing home expense waiver and disability insurance waiver had upper age limits of 80 and 65 respectively, which neither qualified for.
- Due to their ages, neither of the consumers qualified to be the annuitants (maximum age 85). The couple was therefore listed as owners, and their son as the annuitant (giving rise to a 37-year amortization schedule).
- The American National annuity was funded in part by a 2002 annuity: This replacement was not listed. One year later in 2011, the couple needed full-time home care totaling $15,000 per month. The annuity they purchased as a simplified way to cover those expenses only permitted around $3,600 per month in penalty-free withdrawals. Anything more would've incurred "substantial penalties." Fortunately, we are told, American National did right by the customers and allowed them to terminate the "unsuitable policy" without penalty and receive their money back. Mr. Porfirio was found guilty of several Washington regulations, including the following:
- Misrepresenting the terms of a policy
- Using the existence of the WA Insurance Guaranty Association in connection with a sale or solicitation
- Recommending an unsuitable annuity
- Failing to disclose a replacement
- Failing to disclose the penalties and surrender fees in connection with an annuity
Do we not "throw the book" at Mr. Porfirio because the son had power of attorney and was present? Or because Washington state does not have the powerful elder financial abuse laws (and prosecutorial saliva) that California has? What do you think? Would Glenn's case have been different had it happened in your state? Would Mr. Porfirio have received harsher justice had he practiced in California?
No doubt that in a different state, Glenn's outcome would have been different.
Doesn't matter though. As an agent, you are responsible to the state you are licensed in / doing business in. You are not held to the rules of states where the transaction did not occur, the client does not live and you are not licensed.
Dan
Doesn't matter though. As an agent, you are responsible to the state you are licensed in / doing business in. You are not held to the rules of states where the transaction did not occur, the client does not live and you are not licensed.
Dan
- 8,707
Or like most Californians, except those I have dealt with such as Wino and Rick heck I even offered he who shall not be named if he came to Maine I would have a drink with him.
