Imagine inheriting money from a grandparent. If you were told that you needed to sign something stating that you had received the money before you actually received the money, would you do it or would you insist on getting the money first before signing anything?

I know I wouldn’t be comfortable claiming I’d received money I hadn’t actually received. It would seem like that would make it pretty easy to get cut out of the inheritance altogether.

In this story, one grandchild is in this exact situation when their grandfather passes away. They think it’s a really bad idea to sign something stating they received money they didn’t receive, and the bank lady’s logic doesn’t make sense at all. Yet, the bank lady won’t back down.

How is this grandchild going to get their inheritance if the bank won’t back down on this really weird request?

Keep reading to see how the story plays out.

Receipt for the money, then the money? How about no?

My grandfather was not a wealthy man by any stretch, but he worked hard for many years, and was always very careful with money, and invested wisely.

He lived well in his retirement, and even so, when he passed, he left a trust fund in the low six figures.

Per the terms of the trust, the interest earned by the fund was to be paid to his wife – my step-grandmother – for the remainder of her life.

When she passed, the trust was to be distributed among his children and grandchildren, by prescribed percentages, with all taxes & expenses paid by the trust itself.

This doesn’t sound right.

After my step-grandmother passed, I received a letter from the bank holding the trust, notifying me that I was to receive a few thousand dollars from the distribution of my grandfather’s trust. They just required that I notarize the enclosed “receipt” document and mail it back.

To be clear, the receipt document said something like “I hereby acknowledge receiving a check in the amount of $3,456.78 from BankCo, from the Phinneas Q. MacGillicuddy Trust.”

To be even more clear, they were asking me to notarize a statement saying I had already received the alleged check, before they would even send it.

This logic doesn’t make sense.

I spoke to three notaries, two bank managers and the district attorney; they all agreed they had never heard of such a thing.

The DA said it wasn’t illegal, but very strange.

I called the bank and spoke to the woman handling the trust, BankLady (BL), saying I was not comfortable sending them a notarized document acknowledging the receipt of funds that I had not, in fact, received.

She insisted, saying it was just their policy. Her logic was that if they were to send a check, without having a receipt to prove that I had received it, they couldn’t prove they had sent it.

The bank lady wasn’t backing down.

My logic was that if I sent them a receipt first, and then the check never arrived for whatever reason, I’d be screwed because they would be holding a notarized document stating I had in fact received the check.

We went round and round, and at one point I offered to drive 120 miles to receive the check in person and then sign the receipt in front of her and her notary.

BL said even if I were there in person, she would still require me to sign the receipt first, before she would hand over the check.

Eventually I gave in – I had some unexpected expenses of my own at the time, and really needed that money to fill in a hole before I fell in it. So I swallowed my pride and told my principles to get bent, sent BL her damned notarized receipt, got my check and took care of my business.

But it wasn’t over.

A few months later, I got another letter from BL. It seems they had overestimated certain taxes and distribution-related expenses, and as such, there was a second, much smaller distribution for each beneficiary. In my case, it was about $90.

Again, all I had to do was get the enclosed receipt notarized, acknowledging that I had received a check in the amount of $87.65 from BankCo, from the Phinneas Q. MacGillicuddy Trust.

With my financial hole filled in, I could afford to stand on principle over $90, and this time stood my ground.

Time to escalate the situation.

I called BL and once again told her that I was not comfortable signing a receipt stating I had received a check that I had not, in fact, received.

She insisted, said it was just their policy, and got quite short with me about it.

I hung up, then called back and asked for the name of that lady’s supervisor, and for the highest-ranking person in charge at that location (who turned out to be the president of BankCo, sweet!).

OP used their wording against them.

I wrote a snail-mail letter to BL, CC her supervisor, CC the president of BankCo. Borrowing language directly from their letter and receipt document, I required them to send me a notarized copy of the enclosed receipt, acknowledging that they had received my notarized receipt, acknowledging that I had received a check in the amount of $87.65 (blah blah etc etc).

I said that upon receiving their notarized receipt, I would then send them my notarized receipt immediately. I said it was just my policy.

I sent these three letters via certified mail, return receipt requested.

It worked!

A few days later I received the return receipts from the post office, documenting that all three letters had been delivered to their intended recipients.

A few days after that, I received an envelope from BL… containing the check for $87.65.

No further comment from BL or anyone else at BankCo. 🙂

I’m actually surprised that worked out so easily!

Let’s see how Reddit responded to this story.

This is funny to imagine!

This is a good question.

OP definitely won!

One person shares a story about joining a union.

OP won and that’s what really matters the most. 

I’m honestly surprised the bank actually sent the money after receiving the notarized statement the first time around. I expected it to be some sort of scam, because it certainly isn’t a policy that makes sense.

Hopefully, after receiving the letter the second time around someone higher up at the bank made policy changes to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future. It would be interesting to find out if they still require a notarized statement that customers received a check before receiving a check or if they finally realized that this policy makes absolutely zero sense.

Regardless, at least OP got the money in the end. While surprising, it worked out really well, and I’d like to think that the internal policy changed.

The lesson here is to point out ridiculous policies when you see them because bank policies don’t always make sense.

If you enjoyed this post, check out this story about a woman who is ready to file for divorce after she found out her husband drained their savings to buy an old car.