Safe Deposit Boxes

You're completely right , we decided to change banks where our SDBs are well then my wife got sick and I never got around to having my name put on it , now that she's died , after trying different things for a month the only way they will open it is If I get a order that I'm the executar of her estate or something so I'm talking to a lawyer in a week . Now I live in Illinois so it might be different in another state ,
rzage

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I agree on your odds.

 

That way you double the chances of it being seized (if they are arrested OR you are arrested the box is seized). This is not "this never happens" stuff, this happens all the time.

 

I know someone who lost a lot due to box being seized. We are talking about different things though, I am talking about law enforcement and RICO-type laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO (which have frighteningly few due-process procedures involved), you are talking about civil suit-types of things for non-payment. As a bank employee you would not be privy to RICO seizures unless you were pretty high up. I can almost promise you that there were RICO-type seizures at your bank while you worked there.

 

Very interesting but I did not see anything in there that was specific to allowing access to Bank SDB's? I guess it could be implied though.

 

It is done every day.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...q=RICO+seizure+"safe+deposit+box"&btnG=Search

 

Wow, when you see all those links it looks like lots of mistakes happen related to the boxes.

Here is a link to someone who lost $75K in cash. http://www.flprobatelitigation.com/2007/09/articles/corporate-trustees-in-hot-water/banks-opening-of-safedeposit-box-leads-to-trial-on-missing-cash-claim/

 

Yes, and I know several people who have had their homes broken into and been robbed. All I'm saying is a SBD is safer...I never said they were 100% safe. You don't have to use one if you don't want to (and I don't)...but there is no argument (and I mean none) that storing them at home is safer.

You have to remember though, there are millions of boxes in the country. It's kind of like a plane crash. Every now and again, one goes down...but are they really dangerous?

 

So now we just have to take the percentage of homes in the U.S. that get robbed vs. the percentage of SDB's that get entered by someone other than the owner for whatever reason.

 

Will you e-mail that line to the lady in that video? If this is the odds you're willing to give yourself concerning the chance of a point in time when you're willing to admit that an authority willingly engaged in corruption, than I would agree.

It's amazing how some people will try to rationalize, deny and find every excuse in the book to somehow find themselves or someone else at fault when something like what happened to the woman in the youtube video happens. As in, there just 'had' to be some legal reason why that happened.

I view the situation very simply. Somebody was legally ripped off by the state. Their money was stolen and used by the state. Now they have to settle in court for a $$ amount over family heirlooms lost. That is the reality of the situation. To me, this is corruption that should NOT have happened. Not an unfortunate incident. How many more cases have happened that didn't make the news? That's the big question.

Maybe you should put odds on what the chances are of having your box left alone? Of course they won't steal from everybody all at once. But I'm sure a certain percentage they will try and more than likely get away with, calling them all "unfortunate incidents" or "accidents" if they get caught, of course! You see, they can get away with that. You and I can't. We would go to jail.

To me, it's painfully obvious that many states view these SDBs as a revenue source. Was it N.H. they said that unclaimed property was the state's third largest income!?

As such, they have zero incentive to spend much effort if any to locate people. This is a conflict of interest. It's apparent to me that they know a certain percentage will pass a time limit. A certain percentage of customers will pass away. Somebody will miss a payment. Somebody will break a rule.

Then they hope that people will be too discouraged or unable to spend their time, tied up in court to get their own or their family's property. To me, it seems like nothing more than another scam, or slight of hand trick (out of many) being pulled by the banking industry and apparently some states.

I'm sure the rules and policies vary greatly from state to state and bank to bank at the moment as well. A local bank in rural Montana would probably worry me less than a large bank in California right now.

BTW, notice that the woman in the video, once realizing what had happened, couldn't just go to the nice little bank, explain what had happened and be fully reimbursed. Notice that she had to hire a lawyer and go to court to get a settlement after the bank and the state realized THEY were at fault. How exactly does that earn people's trust here??

 

I didn't try and rationalize, deny or find any excuse cor anything...I think you misread what I said. I just didn't buy into the fear some people here are trying to promote. I have stated...at least twice that SDB's aren't 100% safe. But, there are millions upon millions of boxes in this country. Is it more likely that the state is systematically stealing from these boxes as a revenue source or that due to the huge number and ton of paperwork...that a couple mistakes have been made. I believe this is an example of a mistake, pure and simple. A very tragic one, and that person should be compensated for her loss because it shouldn't have happened...but it was nothing more than a mistake. This is not some big corrupt conspiracy...it was a clerical error.

 

Regardless of how terrible that is, it doesn't begin to show/prove that it's safer, statistically, to keep valuables in your home than it is in a deposit box. And that is what counts.

 

You obviously can't think outside of the box. No pun intended.:goof:

I have a low profile, old house that blends into the neighborhood. There would be no indication that anything was here.

If my house got broken into (only while I was gone), some electronics could easily be taken. And whatever else may catch their eye. I have zero concern for my collection. I wouldn't even give it a 1% chance. I have adequate security measures in place at all levels of the house to where it would be impossible to catch me off guard while home. Intruder(s) would be subdued before police arrived or they might get caught running away.

Based on what we're learning about SDB's, it would appear that the chances of something going wrong, from several threats on a 24/7, 365 basis, from different directions, are much higher than 1%, depending on the bank you use and the state you live in. You are not there every day to keep an eye on it. I'm not trying to compare apples and oranges. I'm just looking at the oranges. There is most definitely an argument.

Bottom line. Multiple strangers have access to known valuable assets vs. a home situation that nobody knows about and you decide who has access while you're alive and after you're gone. Which should be a very basic freedom for a spouse anyway. Also, costs vs. free.

It's not my job to convince anyone. I just find this to be an interesting argument. I'm only offering my opinion based on the facts I've seen. I'm sure others will view the facts in a different way. Everybody's situation is different. Truth be told, if I was still living at an apartment, I could not adequately do much there and might consider other alternatives.

 

I find that "much higher than 1%" figure incredible, and in fact, unbelievable - sorry.

 

In any instance, those will be the excuses used when they get caught. I guess we'll never know.

It would be much easier to believe if the state of CA wasn't in such a financial mess. Then you could say, "Sure, what was the point?" "They don't need it."

In reality though, when it comes to revenue sources, I doubt much is off the table there these days.

 

I fully agree. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a 1% chance of losing your stuff in your box. That's crazy. Most banks have more than 100 SDBs in their vault...the one I worked at did and we were a small branch. That would mean one at every bank. There is no way.

I'm sorry, you may have the most "blend into the background" house, everything well hidden, and be more heavily armed than I am...but the SDB is still safer. You can believe whatever you want...but those are the facts.

 

I personally keep my coins at home. Not scared of the law trying to take them or anyone trying to come in. In the event someone, including the government tries to take my stuff ( there will be problems ). I dont only collect coins but my arsenal is also amazing. :smile

 

I'm the same way. I don't have a box because I want my coins where I can be close to them. I enjoy my collection and I don't want to have to go to the bank to do so. Like you, I am also heavily armed.

 

De Orc- I would sincerly ask that moderators consider the PRWE section null and void. Who goes there? We talk about coins, and coins are intertwined and inseperable from those issues (PRWE) when it comes to their safety, their perceived market value, and future values. Particularly talks of bullion. I seems like censorship whenever someone posts that the world isn't safe or bad things may happen, etc.. If we say "all is well" we can keep posting. Just MHO's. This has been one of the most interesting posts, to me, in a while.

 

BTW Vess1- incredible video of the SDB seizure. I have been reading these stories for years now.