• Go to page :
  • 1 23
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
My dad is the contributor and custodian of a UGMA or likely UTMA account for me and I reside in the state of california. I'm 24 years old yet when I called fidelity and asked them if I could withdraw funds or make changes, they wouldn't allow me to. They said that the custodian needs to sign over the account to me yet I told them the law says that I should own the account once I reach the age of majority and that I shouldn't have to ask permission to do this. They were stubborn and refused to listen to me and said that THEY were following the law yet when I asked them to tell me "which law" and to cite their sources, they said it was company policy which follows the law and that he didn't have to go to the effort of looking up this information. I'm on good terms with my dad (the custodian) and I obviously could get the account transferred over to me but I'm bothered by the idea that fidelity thinks that they need the custodians permission in order to let the beneficiary take out funds or do what they want with the money even though I've already reached the age of majority.

Am I missing something here?

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Good find, jrbirnba. I don't think that I've seen one of those forms before. Like I asked earlier in the thread, "With... (more)

BrodyInsurance (Feb. 09, 2013 @ 5:55a) |

That's my kind of father.

BEEFjerKAY (Feb. 09, 2013 @ 6:19a) |

I'm going through this right now in IL, at 26 years old. My relationship with my father, the custodian, is totally amica... (more)

geniusboy5 (Apr. 20, 2013 @ 4:33p) |

You must sue to enforce your rights.
  • Also categorized in:
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

They are correct.

according to this:http://collegesavings.about.com/od/ugmautmacustodialaccts/ss/cus... which doesn't cite any tax codes or anything, it says un-used funds MUST distributed to child when they reach the age of majority.

This one:http://www.morningstar.com/advisor/t/52251337/don-t-let-an-ugma-... says the following: "Furthermore, when the minor in whose name the UGMA/UTMA account is established reaches age 18 or 21 (depending on the state and type of account), he or she assumes control of all the assets. "

This site: http://www.finaid.org/savings/ugma.phtml says the following: "To establish a custodial account, the donor must appoint a custodian (trustee) and provide the name and social security number of the minor. The donor irrevocably gifts the money to the trust. The money then belongs to the minor but is controlled by the custodian until the minor reaches the age of trust termination. (The age of trust termination is 18 to 21, depending on the state and whether it is an UGMA or an UTMA. Most UGMAs end at 18 and most UTMAs at 21, but it does depend on the state.) The custodian has the fiduciary responsibility to manage the money in a prudent fashion for the benefit of the minor. Custodial accounts are most often established at banks and brokerages. "

Still confused.....

goku2 said:   My dad is the contributor and custodian of a UGMA or likely UTMA account for me and I reside in the state of california. I'm 24 years old yet when I called fidelity and asked them if I could withdraw funds or make changes, they wouldn't allow me to. They said that the custodian needs to sign over the account to me yet I told them the law says that I should own the account once I reach the age of majority and that I shouldn't have to ask permission to do this. They were stubborn and refused to listen to me and said that THEY were following the law yet when I asked them to tell me "which law" and to cite their sources, they said it was company policy which follows the law and that he didn't have to go to the effort of looking up this information. I'm on good terms with my dad (the custodian) and I obviously could get the account transferred over to me but I'm bothered by the idea that fidelity thinks that they need the custodians permission in order to let the beneficiary take out funds or do what they want with the money even though I've already reached the age of majority.

Am I missing something here?

Just curious: You are well past 18/21 years old. What triggered this need to call Fidelity now to withdraw funds?
Obviously there is more to this story!

uutxs said:   goku2 said:   My dad is the contributor and custodian of a UGMA or likely UTMA account for me and I reside in the state of california. I'm 24 years old yet when I called fidelity and asked them if I could withdraw funds or make changes, they wouldn't allow me to. They said that the custodian needs to sign over the account to me yet I told them the law says that I should own the account once I reach the age of majority and that I shouldn't have to ask permission to do this. They were stubborn and refused to listen to me and said that THEY were following the law yet when I asked them to tell me "which law" and to cite their sources, they said it was company policy which follows the law and that he didn't have to go to the effort of looking up this information. I'm on good terms with my dad (the custodian) and I obviously could get the account transferred over to me but I'm bothered by the idea that fidelity thinks that they need the custodians permission in order to let the beneficiary take out funds or do what they want with the money even though I've already reached the age of majority.

Am I missing something here?

Just curious: You are well past 18/21 years old. What triggered this need to call Fidelity now to withdraw funds?
Obviously there is more to this story!


I needed to get tax information for my 2008 Tax return because I was going over the return. My dad was unavailable and they wouldn't release the tax information EVEN THOUGH I'M PAYING THE TAXES! Yes they're really this retarded! I'm bothered by the idea that I could have a bad relationship with the custodian and then all of a sudden, I could lose access to funds I think I'm legally obligated to have control over.

Fidelity is following the law. You do own the account. You have always owned the account. You are blaming Fidelity because of your own ignorance. Other firms would do the exact same thing. It remains a custodial account until the custodian signs the account over to you.

I don't get the antagonistic attitude. They are a good company and providing you a service at a reasonable cost.

The representative answering the phone doesn't have to detail everything for you. Stop being so difficult and follow their rules.

BrodyInsurance said:   Fidelity is following the law. You do own the account. You have always owned the account. You are blaming Fidelity because of your own ignorance. Other firms would do the exact same thing. It remains a custodial account until the custodian signs the account over to you.But the quotes I've made above seem to indicate otherwise. How can I own something but not control it if I've already reached the age of majority? I mean this isn't a trust we're talking about here which is why there seems to be a conflict of information going on here. Why not respond to the quotes I've posted? Here is another one:https://www.oppenheimerfunds.com/articles/article_09-23-10-12213...

The Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (UGMA) and the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA) are types of custodial accounts that are set up by an adult on behalf of a minor. All the money and assets (e.g. mutual funds, stocks, bonds, Certificates of Deposits, etc.) in these types of accounts are turned over to the beneficiary’s control at the age of 18 to 21 (depending on the state in which the account was opened) and they can use the funds in any way they choose.

I'm hot and bothered by the inconsistency and them not following the law. What if I was in a situation where I DIDN'T have good relations with the custodian of the account or the custodian stopped liking me because of life choices, what then?

goku2 said:   How can I own something but not control it if I've already reached the age of majority?

Control and ownership are 2 different legal concepts. There are many instances in which one can own an asset but have not control over it. Or limited control. Regardless of how old.

They teach this in introductory biz law classes.

goku2 said:    What if I was in a situation where I DIDN'T have good relations with the custodian of the account or the custodian stopped liking me because of life choices, what then?

You would have to take them to court. Happens all the time.

goku2 said:   BrodyInsurance said:   Fidelity is following the law. You do own the account. You have always owned the account. You are blaming Fidelity because of your own ignorance. Other firms would do the exact same thing. It remains a custodial account until the custodian signs the account over to you.But the quotes I've made above seem to indicate otherwise. How can I own something but not control it if I've already reached the age of majority? I mean this isn't a trust we're talking about here which is why there seems to be a conflict of information going on here. Why not respond to the quotes I've posted? Here is another one:https://www.oppenheimerfunds.com/articles/article_09-23-10-12213...

The Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (UGMA) and the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA) are types of custodial accounts that are set up by an adult on behalf of a minor. All the money and assets (e.g. mutual funds, stocks, bonds, Certificates of Deposits, etc.) in these types of accounts are turned over to the beneficiary’s control at the age of 18 to 21 (depending on the state in which the account was opened) and they can use the funds in any way they choose.

I'm hot and bothered by the inconsistency and them not following the law. What if I was in a situation where I DIDN'T have good relations with the custodian of the account or the custodian stopped liking me because of life choices, what then?


Actually, these are trust accounts. Do you really think that you understand the law better than Fidelity and all of the other firms?

They are not automatically turned over to the child at a certain age. How would they even know if the child is competent to control the account? The custodian needs to sign over the account. The custodian is legally required to do so if the child is competent and if they won't do so, the child can take them to court. The firm holding the money can't proactively take the custodian off the account.

(I posted without seeing what Beef wrote.)

here is one post in one forum --- apparently relating to one state --- take it for what it is worth

http://fairmark.com/forum/read.php?1,7953 Re: UGMA account accessPosted by: debbie5, May 19, 2008 04:18PM My sons had the same problem with my husband. He wouldn't release the funds, and so they sent a notarized request to have him removed as custodian from their Fidelity UGMAS and UTMAS. Fidelity released the funds because they were over the age required by the state.

I still don't get the need to get all huffy about something that isn't a problem. If your time is valuable, just follow their normal procedure and move on.

germanpope said:   here is one post in one forum --- apparently relating to one state --- take it for what it is worth

http://fairmark.com/forum/read.php?1,7953 Re: UGMA account accessPosted by: debbie5, May 19, 2008 04:18PM My sons had the same problem with my husband. He wouldn't release the funds, and so they sent a notarized request to have him removed as custodian from their Fidelity UGMAS and UTMAS. Fidelity released the funds because they were over the age required by the state.

I still don't get the need to get all huffy about something that isn't a problem. If your time is valuable, just follow their normal procedure and move on.


Sounds like the guy went through exactly what I'm experiencing though I don't have a problem relative. His arguments mirror mine exactly to the T. As for "following their normal procedure", their normal procedure is problematic for someone with a crappy Custodian. Sending a notarized letter isn't their "normal procedure".

Fidelity phone rep once told me that they were like a huge barge, takes a long time to get them to change...
He also continued to say that I would have similar problems like this all my life (!)

This was re: their solo 401k form the front desk refused to accept in person, but necessary if mailed? They can be like a govt. bureaucracy. But I do agree they're cheap!

goku2 said:   BrodyInsurance said:   Fidelity is following the law. You do own the account. You have always owned the account. You are blaming Fidelity because of your own ignorance. Other firms would do the exact same thing. It remains a custodial account until the custodian signs the account over to you.But the quotes I've made above seem to indicate otherwise. How can I own something but not control it if I've already reached the age of majority? I mean this isn't a trust we're talking about here which is why there seems to be a conflict of information going on here. Why not respond to the quotes I've posted? Here is another one:https://www.oppenheimerfunds.com/articles/article_09-23-10-12213...

The Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (UGMA) and the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA) are types of custodial accounts that are set up by an adult on behalf of a minor. All the money and assets (e.g. mutual funds, stocks, bonds, Certificates of Deposits, etc.) in these types of accounts are turned over to the beneficiary’s control at the age of 18 to 21 (depending on the state in which the account was opened) and they can use the funds in any way they choose.

I'm hot and bothered by the inconsistency and them not following the law. What if I was in a situation where I DIDN'T have good relations with the custodian of the account or the custodian stopped liking me because of life choices, what then?

The Fidelity Reps can only follow the rules - when there is a custodian, they can only accept instructions from the custodian. You need to contact them in writing informing them of your desire, as account owner who's no longer a minor, to remove the custodian. Maybe, you know, even include a copy of your birth certificate and/or license to document your age, instead of expecting the Rep (who cant "just do it" anyways) to follow the instructions of some random person calling anonymously on the phone.

goku2 said:   germanpope said:   here is one post in one forum --- apparently relating to one state --- take it for what it is worth

http://fairmark.com/forum/read.php?1,7953 Re: UGMA account accessPosted by: debbie5, May 19, 2008 04:18PM My sons had the same problem with my husband. He wouldn't release the funds, and so they sent a notarized request to have him removed as custodian from their Fidelity UGMAS and UTMAS. Fidelity released the funds because they were over the age required by the state.

I still don't get the need to get all huffy about something that isn't a problem. If your time is valuable, just follow their normal procedure and move on.


Sounds like the guy went through exactly what I'm experiencing though I don't have a problem relative. His arguments mirror mine exactly to the T. As for "following their normal procedure", their normal procedure is problematic for someone with a crappy Custodian. Sending a notarized letter isn't their "normal procedure".


As long as a custodian is on the account, the firm (Fidelity) can't take orders from you. The custodian must be removed from the account and this is not something that the firm can legally do on their own. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

goku2 said:   germanpope said:   here is one post in one forum --- apparently relating to one state --- take it for what it is worth

http://fairmark.com/forum/read.php?1,7953 Re: UGMA account accessPosted by: debbie5, May 19, 2008 04:18PM My sons had the same problem with my husband. He wouldn't release the funds, and so they sent a notarized request to have him removed as custodian from their Fidelity UGMAS and UTMAS. Fidelity released the funds because they were over the age required by the state.

I still don't get the need to get all huffy about something that isn't a problem. If your time is valuable, just follow their normal procedure and move on.


Sounds like the guy went through exactly what I'm experiencing though I don't have a problem relative. His arguments mirror mine exactly to the T. As for "following their normal procedure", their normal procedure is problematic for someone with a crappy Custodian. Sending a notarized letter isn't their "normal procedure".


Sounds like. But you might be in a different state. And there may be more details and circumstances than what appear in the post. And the post might not even be correct.

That is why it is better to start with the position that Fidelity has good reason for doing what they are doing. They manage multi-billions. Sure, they make exceptions to policy. But I still see no reason to find a battle when there is none. You can be certain that you are costing them more than you are worth (as little as that is) when you make up your own rules for no reason.

BrodyInsurance said:    ... Why is this so hard for you to understand?

He is 24 years old. So maybe needs a little more time to broaden his perspective on the world.

germanpope said:   BrodyInsurance said:    ... Why is this so hard for you to understand?

He is 24 years old. So maybe needs a little more time to broaden his perspective on the world.


Sounds like he's too immature to deal with the money on his own. OP, your dad has to sign the account over to you--it's not up to Fidelity to do anything upon your reaching the age of majority. If you have someone to fight with, it's your dad who didn't properly sign the account over at your age of majority--as custodian of the account it's up to him to do this, not Fidelity.

goku2 said:   As for "following their normal procedure", their normal procedure is problematic for someone with a crappy Custodian. Sending a notarized letter isn't their "normal procedure".A crappy custodian is still the custodian. And yes, it is the rather standard procedure for re-titling an account.

raringvt said:   germanpope said:   BrodyInsurance said:    ... Why is this so hard for you to understand?

He is 24 years old. So maybe needs a little more time to broaden his perspective on the world.


Sounds like he's too immature to deal with the money on his own. OP, your dad has to sign the account over to you--it's not up to Fidelity to do anything upon your reaching the age of majority. If you have someone to fight with, it's your dad who didn't properly sign the account over at your age of majority--as custodian of the account it's up to him to do this, not Fidelity.

So you're saying that the law is saying he needs to sign over the account to me and that it's his responsibility to do so, not fidelity? Is it that Fidelity isn't required to automagically turn over the account to me because the law doesn't explicitly require it? It's funny because I had this exact same problem with citibank where I had a citibank account for minors and once again, despite being an adult, they wouldn't let me have the funds unless I had permission from my Dad despite it being my account.


This feels awfully similar to brokerage firms being required to report gross proceeds from stock sales and not reporting their cost basis until very recently. That is was required of the individual doing the tax return to figure out the cost basis and that the IRS didn't know what your cost basis was.

I don't have plans on changing out this UGMA arrangement as I like that my Dad trades out of the account but it's still ridiculous that they wouldn't even consider me looking at my tax return information when I'M the one paying the taxes!

I feel for the OP... I had to deal w/ the same issue a decade or two ago, with a 100 share stock certificate I was gifted when I was born, that split into 5 companies.. He's only trying to get tax information, not change the titling.

I was extremely lucky, my dad and I had the same names, so the account was titled "Joe Smith UTMA Joe Smith", and I identified myself to the phone reps as Joe Smith, and 95% of the time they didn't inquire further.
Work with your dad to get the tax info you need. I do not in any way suggest impersonating your dad to an idiot rep who can't give basic tax info to you.

Dealing with the trust departments of banks is always a bit of a nightmare.

The only way to teach them to heel is to hit them with Court orders.

goku2 said:   raringvt said:   germanpope said:   BrodyInsurance said:    ... Why is this so hard for you to understand?

He is 24 years old. So maybe needs a little more time to broaden his perspective on the world.


Sounds like he's too immature to deal with the money on his own. OP, your dad has to sign the account over to you--it's not up to Fidelity to do anything upon your reaching the age of majority. If you have someone to fight with, it's your dad who didn't properly sign the account over at your age of majority--as custodian of the account it's up to him to do this, not Fidelity.

So you're saying that the law is saying he needs to sign over the account to me and that it's his responsibility to do so, not fidelity? Is it that Fidelity isn't required to automagically turn over the account to me because the law doesn't explicitly require it? It's funny because I had this exact same problem with citibank where I had a citibank account for minors and once again, despite being an adult, they wouldn't let me have the funds unless I had permission from my Dad despite it being my account.


This feels awfully similar to brokerage firms being required to report gross proceeds from stock sales and not reporting their cost basis until very recently. That is was required of the individual doing the tax return to figure out the cost basis and that the IRS didn't know what your cost basis was.

I don't have plans on changing out this UGMA arrangement as I like that my Dad trades out of the account but it's still ridiculous that they wouldn't even consider me looking at my tax return information when I'M the one paying the taxes!


Wait a second here. You started on a tirade against Fidelity after you have already had this experience with Citibank?

Is someone allowed to have an UTMA account past the age of 21? Yes. Therefore, a company can only take instruction and answer specific questions from the custodian. Until proactive action is taken to remove the custodian, the company has no choice about how to handle this. They are not legally able to take proactive action to remove the custodian.

goku2 said:   I don't have plans on changing out this UGMA arrangement as I like that my Dad trades out of the account but it's still ridiculous that they wouldn't even consider me looking at my tax return information when I'M the one paying the taxes!

OP, there is such a thing as a non-UGMA account where someone other than the owner has a limited power of attorney to trade on the owner's behalf. The account would be in your name, and you would be able to do with it as you will. At the same time, your father would be able to continue to trade it on your behalf.

The brokerage will require you to set it up as a new account. However you can transfer the assets to that account.

This is what we did for each of our children when they reached 21.

Put this as another reason why I feel bad for all those that take calls from customers insisting that they are right.

Thread summary: OP: Is A or B true?
Everyone: A is true, B is not.
Op: But I was in the following situation, Is A or B true?
Everyone: It's A! It's A!
Op: But A is very inconvenient for me. Can't It be B?
Everyone: No, it's A.
Op I totally think it should be B.
Everyone: Perhaps so, but it happens to be A right now.
Op: They should change it to B.

soundtechie said:   Thread summary: OP: Is A or B true?
Everyone: A is true, B is not.
Op: But I was in the following situation, Is A or B true?
Everyone: It's A! It's A!
Op: But A is very inconvenient for me. Can't It be B?
Everyone: No, it's A.
Op I totally think it should be B.
Everyone: Perhaps so, but it happens to be A right now.
Op: They should change it to B.


You forgot:

OP: But last time I was in this same situation, it was also A even though I wanted it to be B.
Everyone: So you should've know what to expect this time. Fix it and move on.
OP: But I dont want to actually change anything, so next time I need account information I can have this same problem all over again.

holv said:   Put this as another reason why I feel bad for all those that take calls from customers insisting that they are right.

It hurts the rest of us also. Because we end up with tired cynical reps that already assume we (the customer) are idiots --- when we in fact have a real problem.

1. When you called, you asked to "withdraw funds or make changes". Later you stated that you wanted tax info. Which was it?
2. You say that you're on good terms with your dad. Why not just ask him to get the tax info for you?
3. You don't understand. Your age has nothing to do with it. The type of account is a custodial account. When your dad set it up, he had misgivings about your ability to handle the funds, so he made sure you only had access to them through him. My mother had the same kind of account for her when she was in her sixties.

Now, then...

Your father set up something for you but made damn sure you wouldn't be able to access the money directly. You called up and tried to browbeat some Fidelity phone monkey into giving you access to the funds. You've given different reasons for wanting access to the money, er, I mean tax info. You get along just great with your father/custodian, but despite that, don't want to speak to him to do what you assure us will be trivial - you'd rather yell at Fidelity.

Let me try my own interpretation.

You're in the hole due to gambling problems or poor money management. Your father had set up a fund for you but already chewed you out for tapping it for things he didn't approve of. You're trying to do an end run around him and failed with Fidelity, so you're asking us how to do the end run.

How'd I do?

StevenColorado said:   1. When you called, you asked to "withdraw funds or make changes". Later you stated that you wanted tax info. Which was it?
2. You say that you're on good terms with your dad. Why not just ask him to get the tax info for you?
3. You don't understand. Your age has nothing to do with it. The type of account is a custodial account. When your dad set it up, he had misgivings about your ability to handle the funds, so he made sure you only had access to them through him. My mother had the same kind of account for her when she was in her sixties.

Now, then...

Your father set up something for you but made damn sure you wouldn't be able to access the money directly. You called up and tried to browbeat some Fidelity phone monkey into giving you access to the funds. You've given different reasons for wanting access to the money, er, I mean tax info. You get along just great with your father/custodian, but despite that, don't want to speak to him to do what you assure us will be trivial - you'd rather yell at Fidelity.

Let me try my own interpretation.

You're in the hole due to gambling problems or poor money management. Your father had set up a fund for you but already chewed you out for tapping it for things he didn't approve of. You're trying to do an end run around him and failed with Fidelity, so you're asking us how to do the end run.

How'd I do?

The issue isn't whether or not it's a trust, what it's intended for or anything to that effect. We all know (hopefully) the purpose of a UTMA account. The dispute I'm having is that I'm pretty sure it's clearly written that the account should be terminated and the assets transferred over to the beneficiary when they reach the age of majority, yet it appears that isn't the case... Nobody has addressed the points I've brought up which seem to explicitly say the accounts should almost be terminated and given to the beneficiary when they hit 18 or 21 depending on the state. I've contacted the IRS and asked them to explain the situation to me though I think I probably should contact the state of California instead.

Oh and response to your thinking about why I want this money... Hilarious! Not even close but still hilarious! Remember, I don't actually want the money, this is more of a principle thing than anything else. I've already said earlier in this thread that I like that my dad trades out of the account anyway so it works for me and I don't need the money right now or for the foreseeable future.

That's good that you are calling the IRS and the state of CA. Guys like Germanpope, BEEFjerKAY, Glitch99,and myself are just idiots who make up answers to try to trick people. Citibank, Fidelity, and every other bank, brokerage, and fund company just make people proactively remove the custodian because they want to screw with them and not because they are following the law.

(edit to change MD to CA)

Op, you are interpreting what is written by websites about the law and you aren't reading the law.

Here is what I *believe* is the law in question and note that it says "the custodian" shall transfer the property. So it appears that your dad as the custodian is responsible for giving you access. Fidelity is not the custodian.

You demanded Fidelity point you to the law, but you didn't read it yourself.

IANAL

for ref :

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=prob&group...

"3920. The custodian shall transfer in an appropriate manner the
custodial property to the minor or to the minor's estate upon the
earlier of the following:
(a) The minor's attainment of 18 years of age unless the time of
transfer of the custodial property to the minor is delayed under
Section 3920.5 to a time after the time the minor attains the age of
18 years.
(b) The time specified in the transfer pursuant to Section 3909 if
the time of transfer of the custodial property to the minor is
delayed under Section 3920.5 to a time after the time the minor
attains the age of 18 years.
(c) The minor's death."


Then later in section 3920.5 it does say that an estate can designate a age of transfer as late as 25 years old. So at age 24 there isn't a given that this money should be in your control and thats not Fidelity's job to determine,, but the responsibility of the custodian (dad).

jerosen said:    .... So at age 24 there isn't a given that this money should be in your control and thats not Fidelity's job to determine,, but the responsibility of the custodian (dad) ...

Thanks jerosen. But we are just beating a dead horse. OP is still missing the whole point. He has his own world view and it doesn't matter what anyone says --- he is right and everyone is wrong.

OP, beyond this particular issue which you said you don't care about anyways, you should probably consider whether you have the same approach to the rest of your life. Narcissistic personality traits are very easy to detect. If you possess them and exhibit them (outside of the cyber world), they might come back to bite you. Being a reasonable and likeable person can get you very far. Being the opposite, can set you back in more ways than you know.

BrodyInsurance said:   That's good that you are calling the IRS and the state of MD. Guys like Germanpope, BEEFjerKAY, Glitch99,and myself are just idiots who make up answers to try to trick people. Citibank, Fidelity, and every other bank, brokerage, and fund company just make people proactively remove the custodian because they want to screw with them and not because they are following the law.

Unless "MD" is code for something I don't know, where did I say Maryland in there or anywhere??!? It was my understanding that these companies were breaking the law based on what little I knew and while it's great you guys were chiming in, I wanted hard evidence to substantiate my point. I don't get the criticism, I'm not being a brat, I just want it pointed out cause I had a hell of a time finding the relevant statements to support their POV.

jerosen said:   Op, you are interpreting what is written by websites about the law and you aren't reading the law.

Here is what I *believe* is the law in question and note that it says "the custodian" shall transfer the property. So it appears that your dad as the custodian is responsible for giving you access. Fidelity is not the custodian.

You demanded Fidelity point you to the law, but you didn't read it yourself.

IANAL

for ref :

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=prob&group...

"3920. The custodian shall transfer in an appropriate manner the
custodial property to the minor or to the minor's estate upon the
earlier of the following:
(a) The minor's attainment of 18 years of age unless the time of
transfer of the custodial property to the minor is delayed under
Section 3920.5 to a time after the time the minor attains the age of
18 years.
(b) The time specified in the transfer pursuant to Section 3909 if
the time of transfer of the custodial property to the minor is
delayed under Section 3920.5 to a time after the time the minor
attains the age of 18 years.
(c) The minor's death."


Then later in section 3920.5 it does say that an estate can designate a age of transfer as late as 25 years old. So at age 24 there isn't a given that this money should be in your control and thats not Fidelity's job to determine,, but the responsibility of the custodian (dad).


Thank you! This is what I was looking for! I'm going to try to read the law more in depth but this would seem to support the reason why Fidelity wouldn't just magically turn over the funds to me due to the way the law is written. Law says it's the job of the custodian to transfer it over, why I don't know... Seems like a poorly written law. Also dumb on the part of Fidelity for not releasing tax information pertaining to the account when I'M THE ONE PAYING.

germanpope said:   jerosen said:    .... So at age 24 there isn't a given that this money should be in your control and thats not Fidelity's job to determine,, but the responsibility of the custodian (dad) ...

Thanks jerosen. But we are just beating a dead horse. OP is still missing the whole point. He has his own world view and it doesn't matter what anyone says --- he is right and everyone is wrong.

OP, beyond this particular issue which you said you don't care about anyways, you should probably consider whether you have the same approach to the rest of your life. Narcissistic personality traits are very easy to detect. If you possess them and exhibit them (outside of the cyber world), they might come back to bite you. Being a reasonable and likeable person can get you very far. Being the opposite, can set you back in more ways than you know.

Wow... talk about projecting! I disagreed with people in here because they were making unsubstantiated statements which were contrary to statements I could at least well you know....SUBSTANTIATE!

goku2 said:   Seems like a poorly written law.

Yeah, so what's your point? Aren't they all poorly written?

goku2 said:   Seems like a poorly written law. Also dumb on the part of Fidelity for not releasing tax information pertaining to the account when I'M THE ONE PAYING.
It is the fault of the law and Fidelty and FWF and Citi and everyone else. Nothing is your fault.
Write to your legislator to complain about the law.

goku2 said:   Wow... talk about projecting! I disagreed with people in here because they were making unsubstantiated statements which were contrary to statements I could at least well you know....SUBSTANTIATE!

I fail to see where you substantiated your claim that the financial institution was required by law to transfer things over to you at your request. As clarified earlier, there is a difference between ownership of an account and control of or access to an account.

The others who responded probably did so out of experience. A number of FWF people work in professions that deal with various account types including UGMA/UTMA accounts.

Skipping 50 Messages...
I'm going through this right now in IL, at 26 years old. My relationship with my father, the custodian, is totally amicable. I have, however, been paying taxes on my UTMA fund for 5 years without control (age of termination in IL is 21). This includes the first two years, in which Fidelity properly transferred the tax filing responsibility from my father to me, though continued to mail tax information to by dad, who didn't know he needed to transfer custody, and who's tax preparer ignored the 1099DIV, since I was now the owner and prepared my taxes separately. So, in the third year, I was hit for back taxes and penalties for the first two, and surprise taxes for that third year. Now, my dad always properly filed the kiddie taxes for the whole 21 years he was custodian of my account, and I had been working and filing taxes since I was 18, so this came as kind of a burn. What really frustrates me now is that I am interested in taking control of the account with regards to the direction of investment (not to liquidate), and have to go through a lot of legal paperwork with no mechanism or support from Fidelity. Had they verifiably notified me of my responsibility, I would have appreciated it. Had they notified my dad of his responsibility, I would have appreciated it. Had they provided support for our own initiative, I would have forgiven the previous two. But now, I'm looking at the cost of restructuring in order to move to a different firm.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014