I am soliciting your help and insight with an important matter. PLEASE read on! An elderly man and his son have joint ownership of a checking account. The father has been a bank customer for years. Recently, the son reviews their current statement and sees 9 checks that were written for cash over 1 1/2 weeks and ranging in amounts from $150 to one for $700. The in-person cash withdrawals were made by the elderly man and handled by the same teller. There were repeat withdrawals on one of those days.

The son who lives out of this city finds out that some guys have been taking advantage of him. He calls us and says that he he can not believe we would not have a report to catch these unusual withdrawals so that we could have notified him (similar to what some credit card cos. do).
Those are the facts. Now I'm hoping that you can provide me some good insight in how to approach and respond to this sensitive issue. I mean where is the line between the bank's duty and customer's responsibility. Thanks so much.

Similar circumstances were discussed here.

And here, a little.

Depending on your state's law, you have to balance what was "unusual", was he under any duress, mental capacity and privacy.

What about having two signatures required so dad can't cash a check without sons signature.

While you don't want to see anyone taken advantage of and are sympathetic to their problem, you have a legal obligation to honor demands for payment on accounts, and it impossible to monitor every customer for every circumstance.

Also sound like dad likes to go to the same teller, and with an internal desire to help ask the teller, or flag the account to refer cash withdrawal requests to an officer.

Help if you can, but do not obligate the bank to do something that cannot be guaranteed. Make sure the son cannot construe something said as a guarantee the bank will monitor dad FOR HIM.

Imposing a second signature requirement may only burden the bank at the same time as it gives virtual ownership and control of dad's money to someone else.

Perhaps not an issue, but is son watching out for dad, or son? If dad is competent, the bank shouldn't get involved in influencing these issues. Perhaps reporting the situation to the authorities is in order, but the bank need go no further at this point.

In PA we have county agencies that watch out for seniors. We have an obligation to report it if we see someone taking advantage of the elderly, but that is a real dicey situation. I know what you mean about the son, is he watching out for Dad or his inheritance? In those situations where we do not see it but the son has a concern, I would refer him to the agency. These agencies send social workers to speak with the elderly customer and determine if they are competent to make their own decisions regarding their finances, if not they arrange for a representative payee or other appropriate measures. We just ran into this where a son or daughter reported suspected abuse, a lot of mom's money was leaving the checking account, and the investigator found the lady to be competent - she just liked to buy stuff off the home shopping channel!

I appreciate the comments and suggestions. The son is believed to be concerned on his father's behalf as opposed to self-interest. I don't believe I mentioned it earlier but the total amount in question is $2500. Perhaps someone in the bank should meet with them "in person" to discuss this concern. If you have additional thoughts please pass them along. Thanks

I used to deal with these issues alot, living in a high retirement area. I would suggest to the son that he meet with someone to determine what the next best step to deal with Dad might be. If dad is no longer competent to handle his funds, son has to face the hard decision of taking controll for his dad. This can not be done effectively wihtout legal assistance. A third party often makes it easier on both dad and son as well as they can be a bit more dispasionate about the issues. When parents go from parent to dependant, it's difficult for the entire family.

If he wants a quick solution to the problem on a temporary basis, he could consider opening another account to handle dads affiars out of, leaving just a small amount of money in joint ownership. He is a signer and has the right to do this with funds from the account, but should do so cautiously. It's a short term fix until he can get dad and his new money draining friend under controll.