Is this considered theft?

[mss080]

What is the name of your state? Indiana
I have maintained a separate checking account from my soon to be ex-wife for a year now. I set up my own account because she was always bouncing checks. During this month she has taken my ATM card out of my wallet without my knowledge and taken over $800. She had my pin number from a time when we were getting along. I know, I was stupid for trusting her with it. My question is do I have any legal recourse for getting my money back? Can she be charged with theft or identity theft?
Thank you very much.

 

[Veronica1228]

What is the name of your state? Indiana
I have maintained a separate checking account from my soon to be ex-wife for a year now. I set up my own account because she was always bouncing checks. During this month she has taken my ATM card out of my wallet without my knowledge and taken over $800. She had my pin number from a time when we were getting along. I know, I was stupid for trusting her with it. My question is do I have any legal recourse for getting my money back? Can she be charged with theft or identity theft?
Thank you very much.

You may have a case, but first you have to go to the police station and file a report about the incident. Then you have to take a copy of that report to your bank and tell them that your ex has stolen your card and you are pressing charges. They will most likely have you fill out an affidavit and take it from there.

It is going to complicate matters that you gave her your PIN, but be honest about it both to the police and the bank. Be sure to stress that while she had knowledge of the PIN, she did not have your permission to use it.

Good luck.

 

[Happy Trails]

You may have a case, but first you have to go to the police station and file a report about the incident. Then you have to take a copy of that report to your bank and tell them that your ex has stolen your card and you are pressing charges. They will most likely have you fill out an affidavit and take it from there.

It is going to complicate matters that you gave her your PIN, but be honest about it both to the police and the bank. Be sure to stress that while she had knowledge of the PIN, she did not have your permission to use it.

Good luck.

It's his soon to be ex.

So the accounts are still marital property.

 

[Veronica1228]

It's his soon to be ex.

So the accounts are still marital property.

The account is in his name only, and Indiana is not a marital property state. From a banking standpoint, this could be theft. I say could because I still have a problem with him giving his soon to be ex his PIN.

 

[Happy Trails]

The account is in his name only, and Indiana is not a marital property state. From a banking standpoint, this could be theft. I say could because I still have a problem with him giving his soon to be ex his PIN.

How difficult would it have been for him to change the pin?

The problem 'mss080' has is proving she took something that she wasn't authorized to do. Even though her name wasn't on the account---he cries theft---she says, "He gave me the card and he even gave me the pin number."

He might have a good chance of getting the money back if they were legally separated, but even then she can state he gave her permission. It would be a bad case of, "He said", "She said".

Indiana Code
31-15-7-4. Division of property
(a) In an action for dissolution of marriage under IC 31-15-2-2, the court shall divide the property of the parties, whether:
(1) owned by either spouse before the marriage;
(2) acquired by either spouse in his or her own right:
(A) after the marriage; and
(B) before final separation of the parties; or
(3) acquired by their joint efforts.
(b) omitted
31-15-7-5. Presumption of just and reasonable division of property
The court shall presume that an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable. However, this presumption may be rebutted by a party who presents relevant evidence, including evidence concerning the following factors, that an equal division would not be just and
reasonable:
(1) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property, regardless of whether the contribution was income producing.
(2) The extent to which the property was acquired by each spouse:
(A) before the marriage; or
(B) through inheritance or gift.
(3) The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the disposition of the property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family residence or the right to dwell in the family residence for such periods as the court considers just to the spouse having custody of any children.
(4) The conduct of the parties during the marriage as related to the disposition or dissipation of their property.
(5) The earnings or earning ability of the parties as related to:
(A) a final division of property; and
(B) a final determination of the property rights of the parties.

Good information link: http://www.divorceinfo.com/infaqspropertydivision.htm

 

[Veronica1228]

How difficult would it have been for him to change the pin?

The problem 'mss080' has is proving she took something that she wasn't authorized to do. Even though her name wasn't on the account---he cries theft---she says, "He gave me the card and he even gave me the pin number."

He might have a good chance of getting the money back if they were legally separated, but even then she can state he gave her permission. It would be a bad case of, "He said", "She said".

Indiana Code
31-15-7-4. Division of property
(a) In an action for dissolution of marriage under IC 31-15-2-2, the court shall divide the property of the parties, whether:
(1) owned by either spouse before the marriage;
(2) acquired by either spouse in his or her own right:
(A) after the marriage; and
(B) before final separation of the parties; or
(3) acquired by their joint efforts.
(b) omitted
31-15-7-5. Presumption of just and reasonable division of property
The court shall presume that an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable. However, this presumption may be rebutted by a party who presents relevant evidence, including evidence concerning the following factors, that an equal division would not be just and
reasonable:
(1) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property, regardless of whether the contribution was income producing.
(2) The extent to which the property was acquired by each spouse:
(A) before the marriage; or
(B) through inheritance or gift.
(3) The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the disposition of the property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family residence or the right to dwell in the family residence for such periods as the court considers just to the spouse having custody of any children.
(4) The conduct of the parties during the marriage as related to the disposition or dissipation of their property.
(5) The earnings or earning ability of the parties as related to:
(A) a final division of property; and
(B) a final determination of the property rights of the parties.

Good information link: http://www.divorceinfo.com/infaqspropertydivision.htm

Agreed. That's exactly the reason for my reservation on his chances. Thanks for the clarification on how a court will look at the facts. I always look at things from a banking standpoint, so that's where my answer came from.

 

[ENASNI]

Agreed. That's exactly the reason for my reservation on his chances. Thanks for the clarification on how a court will look at the facts. I always look at things from a banking standpoint, so that's where my answer came from.

And when Veronica says standpoint... she means it, she wears Stilettos.

 

[Veronica1228]

And when Veronica says standpoint... she means it, she wears Stilettos.

3 1/2" today hon!!!