Complaint from atty - looks like its from the court...

[dscurlock]

To have a joint account with your wife so "they can take your wife's money and she can sue them" is not a plan. Do you have the $2000 needed in attorney fees to execute such a questionable lawsuit? You've been given excellent advice by the posters here, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Yes sir I do...and it probably would not cost that much, and even if it
did, they would be paying every penny of it back...and there is nothing
questionable about it...MN says you can not levy/seize funds from a
joint account and take from jane in order to pay joe's debts...It
would be no different then suing any other collector for making
a debt/collection violation.

I am not hiding, I am just saying my mail goes to my po box...if they
find me, then they find me, great...there is nothing in my name, I
do not have a MN lic, they would have to do more work then the
regular joe to find me, and if they want to do a public notice,
then good for them...

[WhatMoney]

Yes sir I do...and it probably would not cost that much, and even if it
did, they would be paying every penny of it back...and there is nothing
questionable about it...MN says you can not levy/seize funds from a
joint account and take from jane in order to pay joe's debts...It
would be no different then suing any other collector for making
a debt/collection violation.

There is no such law in MN. As the attorney representing the plaintiffs has already said a month ago - the law is in a state of flux and joint accounts are still vulnerable in MN. You have not researched this case and are jumping to conclusions that have not yet been made. The article you keep quoting was written over a year ago - the attorney has not won the case - and it appears he is going to lose it big time once the MN supreme court rules on some certification questions. If anything as the result of the Savig v. First Nat'l Bank of Omaha case, MN laws on levy of joint accounts will be brought in line with the other states - and a creditor will be able to garnish funds from a joint account at will. And the burden of proof for non-debtor fund allocations in a joint account will be entirely with the debtor and non-debtor joint account holders - as it now is in all states.

Here is a summary of the Federal case that was filed in MN:
And here is the written intermediate decision/order from the US District Court, Minnesota Division:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23400547/Savig-v-FNB-Omaha

The courts ruling discusses in detail all the issues involved and the relevant case law. It is quite fascinating actually. It is clear the court is leaning toward ruling against the plaintiffs, the joint account debtor's and their attorney, in this case. You will also learn about the court's slap-down to the plaintiffs for quoting from Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice", which the court points out contains anti-semitic and inflammatory language. It is not wise to quote an anti-semitic passage when you are trying to argue your case in front of Jewish supreme court justices.

A hearing before the MN Supreme Court was held in December, 2009. Here is the case summary. There is no ruling on the certification questions yet. It could take months for the SC to rule.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol

Mona Savig and Robert Savig, Plaintiffs vs. First National Bank of Omaha and Messerli & Kramer, P.A., Defendants – Case No. A09-1221:

In 2004, First National Bank of Omaha obtained a default judgment against Mona and Lowell Bjerke for unpaid credit card bills. The Bjerkes later divorced and Mona married Robert Savig. In 2009, First National Bank garnished the Savigs’ joint checking and savings accounts at Midwest Bank. Robert Savig contends that at least some of the funds garnished belonged to him. The Savigs sued First National Bank and Messerli & Kramer, the law firm that served the garnishment summons, in federal court. The Minnesota Supreme Court has accepted three questions certified to it by the federal district court: (1) may a judgment creditor serve a garnishment summons on a joint account to satisfy the debt of an account holder when not all of the account holders are judgment debtors; (2) if so, is it the judgment creditor or the account holders who bear the burden of establishing net contributions to the account during the garnishment proceeding; and (3) if so, what applicable presumptions regarding ownership, if any, apply in the absence of proof of net contributions. (Questions certified by United States District Court for the District of Minnesota)

[WhatMoney]

A video of the December 2009 arguments before the MN Supreme Court can be watched and listened to here:

http://www.tpt.org/courts/MNJudicial...mber=A09-1221#

Case Name: Savig v. First National Bank of Omaha and Messerli & Kramer
Case Number: A09-1221
Date of Oral Argument: 12/1/2009
Opinion: Not Available

I predict the opinion will favor the defendents, eg. the creditors and banks.
Then the MN Federal Court will also rule against the plaintiffs (the joint account debtors), and joint accounts will still be garnishable in MN, without regard to funds ownership, as they are today, and it will be up to the non-debtor joint account owner to challenge the garnishment of his portions of the funds in a garnishment hearing under the MN garnishment due process rules. Just as in every other state - there are always risks when parties opens a joint account if one party gets a money judgment.

The Savigs’ interpretation would have serious practical implications for post-judgment creditors seeking repayment of debts from joint accounts. While joint accounts are often referred to as a “poor man’s will,” see Note, The “Poor Man’s Will” Gains Respectability: Using the Minnesota Multi-Party Accounts Act, 1 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 48, 48 (1974), nothing in Minnesota law requires the conclusion that a joint account is a debtor’s (rich or poor) equivalent to a Swiss bank account.

From the MN Federal Judge's order in Case 09-CV-00132.