31

My wife passed away on the 17th of November 2022. I just sold her car to Carvana. When I got home I noticed the check was made out to my wife ($4,000). We did not have a joint bank account. I do my banking with Chime. How do I handle this?

Peter Mortensen
  • 341
  • 2
  • 6
Tony Piotrowski
  • 311
  • 3
  • 3

3 Answers3

64

I'm sorry for your loss. In this case, you give it to her estate executor (if that is not you) who would then deposit the check in her account or in the account of her estate.

Dilip Sarwate
  • 31,562
  • 4
  • 55
  • 122
littleadv
  • 172,884
  • 15
  • 295
  • 479
  • 20
    assuming you are the executor, you can presumably endorse the back of it with something like "Your Name (Executor for estate of Wife's Name)", it might be worth an inquiry to the bank first. – Zach Feb 20 '23 at 16:11
11

Once I was officially appointed the executor of my mother's estate, I was able to open an estate account in her name. Then I could deposit checks made out to her and write checks to distribute the account to her heirs.

stannius
  • 5,301
  • 30
  • 37
-24

This might not be strictly legal but I would not hesitate to fake your wife's signature on the back of the check signing it over to you, and then deposit the check in your own account. Who is going to object?

Edited to add: In response to the many comments, I did not intend to advocate anything underhanded. I only meant to suggest that there is no harm in circumventing some red tape, assuming that the OP is the legitimate heir, that there is no dispute about that, and that the money will eventually be his in any event. Of course those assumptions might not always be correct, but for cases involving the death of a spouse (at least in the jurisdictions I'm aware of), they are likely to be.

And in this case, that likelihood is considerably increased by what the OP has told us about the source of the funds, namely "I had just sold her car". Apparently the OP is already operating under the assumption that his wife's property is now legitimately his.

WillO
  • 209
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
    The person who wrote the check may object, and they may be able to trivially prove that the check was received after her death. – David Schwartz Feb 21 '23 at 03:08
  • 24
    I'm trying to think of a reasonable scenario where forging a signature is ever the correct advice. – PC Luddite Feb 21 '23 at 04:37
  • 3
    @PCLuddite It doesn't exist. The very definition of "forgery" is that it is legally wrong. Doing it legally would involve aspects of law that makes it legal, instead of forgery. – Nelson Feb 21 '23 at 04:56
  • @DavidSchwartz : This strikes me as unlikely, as the issuer of the check presumably did intend for it to be cashed, and under the circumstances it's hard to see why he'd object to having it cashed by a legitimate heir (which I presume the OP to be). – WillO Feb 21 '23 at 05:00
  • @Nelson I don't think we disagree, but I also wasn't implying anything about legality, but whether or not it "forging" would ever be good advice. Which, again, I don't think there's a scenario that I could find myself in where that would be the recommended option. Maybe short of being asked to at gun point, but In that case, I think we've moved outside the bounds of a reasonable (or likely) scenario. – PC Luddite Feb 21 '23 at 05:05
  • @PCLuddite I think I've experienced something that can be considered "forgery' though. Let's say you receive a cheque that's intended for you, but for some reason, the owner left out the last letter of your name. You adding that letter so you can deposit it is, strictly speaking, within the realm of "forgery" but it probably shouldn't have any real legal consequences. – Nelson Feb 21 '23 at 05:10
  • 2
    @WillO there are plenty innocuous reasons why the OP may not be the heir, or maybe they are but not the executor. In any case, forging a signature is really never a good option, especially if the legal way is trivially more effort than the illegal one (or probably no more effort at all if they are the executor). – PC Luddite Feb 21 '23 at 05:12
  • @Nelson it probably wouldn't, but it also probably wouldn't be a problem if you didn't add the letter to it as long as it's intended for you and has your endorsement on the back. – PC Luddite Feb 21 '23 at 05:14
  • 18
    Who's going to object are other heirs to the estate. If there's some dispute (and family disputes tend to be nasty) they subpoena the husband's bank records and the check, find the impossible signature, and boom felony embezzlement charges. It happens. – user71659 Feb 21 '23 at 07:11
  • 1
    Yeah, I've flagged this for removal as it's recommending committing a crime... – ScottishTapWater Feb 21 '23 at 16:51
  • 1
    It would be a lot cooler if you didn't post answers like this. – Thomas Markov Feb 21 '23 at 17:52
  • 1
    I've edited the answer to use the word "fake" instead of "forge"; I don't think it's unambiguous that this is actually illegal behaviour, as forgery also requires an intention to defraud. – GS - Apologise to Monica Feb 21 '23 at 19:33
  • There's a proper procedure for doing that. Just do that.. People who do dumb things just because they can't be bothered to research what the heck to do, SMH deserve the trouble they ge.t – Harper - Reinstate Monica Feb 22 '23 at 03:12
  • @WillO Say the check was an advance payment for something the deceased was going to do, which they now won't do because they're dead. You don't think that the person who wrote the check, when they found out about the death, is going to be pissed? – David Schwartz Feb 22 '23 at 06:29
  • 1
    @DavidSchwartz : But the check was not an advance payment; it was payment for a car belonging to the deceased, which the OP had sold, presumably because he believes that he is the legitimate heir to his wife's property. I certainly agree that there are circumstances in which it would be inappropriate to sign someone else's name to a check, but the question was not whether such circumstances exist; it was about what to do in the particular circumstances faced by the OP. – WillO Feb 22 '23 at 06:33
  • @DavidSchwartz: Note in particular that the OP, having sold his wife's car, seems to have expected the check to be made out to him. Do you see an important difference between A) the OP selling the wife's car and then accepting a check made out to him, and B) the OP selling the wife's car, accepting a check made out to her, signing her name, and then depositing the check to his own account? If so, exactly who do you envision being more damaged by one scenario than the other? – WillO Feb 22 '23 at 06:45
  • @WillO I suspect that the car wasn't titled to the OP but rather to the deceased, as such the check was made in that name. It's left to wonder though how the OP was even able to sign over the title... – littleadv Feb 22 '23 at 06:55
  • 1
    The edited to add is really just doubling down on a bad idea, and in no way helps. – le3th4x0rbot Feb 23 '23 at 02:20
  • 1
    There some cases where following the letter of the law means more time, effort, and money spent to arrive at the same result. If there is no one adversely affected, no intent to defraud, the alternative is convoluted, and risk is minimal, I see no problem in taking a shortcut. Not everything strictly outside the law is morally wrong. – Earth Mar 05 '23 at 04:48