A borrower signed a promissory note in which he put up an annuity plan and his 401k plan as collateral. Borrower defaulted and there is strong evidence of promissory fraud. How can the annuity plan account and 401k account best be reached?
Generally speaking, a security agreement purporting to use a 401(k) account as collateral is void as a matter of law unless the loan is made by the institution that maintains the 401(k) account. This is also true of many annuity accounts which have special retirement account character (e.g. a TIAA-CREF annuity as part of a teacher's retirement plan). A non-retirement private annuity could normally be foreclosed upon in some manner as security, by forwarding the note, evidence of default and the security agreement to the private annuity holder, assuming that the security interest in the private annuity was properly perfected under the Uniform Commercial Code Article 9. If it was not properly perfected, it still might be possible to access this assets in a court action to enforce the promissory note and security agreement. Default would be sufficient to get a money judgment under the promissory note, and the mere fact that a 401(k) was pledged as collateral when it was not legal to do so would not show promissory fraud, without a showing that the borrower knew this and intended this effect. Otherwise, it could simply be a mutual mistake as to the legality of that security agreement. A court might very well find not fraud but negligence on the part of the creditor for not taking the proper steps to obtain collateral status for the collateral under the Uniform Commercial Code. Even if there was promissory fraud, this would only prevent discharge of the debt in bankruptcy if the creditor made the proper showing in a contested adversary action timely filed in a bankruptcy and would generally not permit access to the 401(k) funds. There are very few exceptions to the immunity of 401(k) funds from creditors claims and nothing in the OP suggests that the facts necessarily to benefit from any exception would be present in this case.
If he is still pressuring you for the money even after filing insurance, talk to your city or county prosecutor's office. If you call the police, they may say they're too busy to deal with it and that it's a "he said-she said" situation anyway. But if you go to the local prosecutor, they should be more interested, as this could be a felony, considering the amount of money demanded, and they can instruct the police to help investigate.
The Facebook forum doesn't prevent a contract from being formed. But, for a contract to be formed there must be an affirmative agreement, not silence (at least in cases that aren't between merchants). If they later decide to work together without reaching an agreement on the details, the draft contact could be considered, but the Facebook forum for its delivery and that fact that it wasn't expressly assented to might reduce its weight as part of the evidence in an attempt to determine what the terms of their oral or implied agreement to work together involved. It would be very unusual for a broker not to get a signed agreement in writing to pay his fees, although an oral or unsigned agreement to pay a broker is not necessarily barred by a statute of frauds. A finder of fact would be quite skeptical of a broker's claim to have an agreement in those circumstances and often the professional regulatory provisions related to brokerages would require that fee agreement must be signed and in writing even if contract law does not require that this be done.
What would be the best course of action now? It has been six months with no communication from him or his estate lawyer, and no will has been filed with the court. Since it's not entering probate, is there any guarantee that he has to faithfully execute the conditions of the will at all or notify any of the beneficiaries? Without probate, can he simply choose to not execute the will? A will has no effect or validity until it is admitted to probate. You can't do anything with a will outside a probate proceeding. Usually state law requires that a will that is in someone's possession be lodged with the court, whether or not they plan on opening up a probate estate, but this requirement is widely ignored. Unlike a will, a trust can be administered without court supervision, without being admitted to probate, although usually, the trust is required to file a notice of its existence with the court if it has become irrevocable (a requirement that is also widely ignored). The trustee of a trust has a fiduciary duty to administer the trust in accordance with its terms and to keep the beneficiaries of the trust reasonably informed about it. Again, sometimes the notice to the beneficiaries is overlooked. Also, it wouldn't be unusual for someone to inaccurately say that a will provided that a certain thing happen, when, in fact, that was a provision in a trust. People are sloppy in ordinary conversation about the distinctions between wills and trusts. If a trust was drafted to avoid probate, the will is probably just a "pour over will" which states that if there is any property that is not in the trust as her death that it is hereby transferred to the trust. Normally, a person would not have both a trust designed to avoid probate and a will with substantive provisions at the same time. If you suspect that you know who the trustee is, the first step would be to write a formal letter that you can prove was sent and received (e.g. via certified mail or FedEx), asking if there is a trust, and if there is one, if you are a beneficiary of that trust, and asking for the trust agreement (or at least the parts of it pertinent to you status as beneficiary). If the person that you suspect is trustee is a trustee, he has a legal duty to let you know these things (which doesn't mean that he necessarily will do so). If you fail to receive cooperation or a response after this initial inquiry, you may need to hire counsel to attempt to obtain this information through the courts.
Do I have standing to sue a credit bureau or lender after being approved for a loan but being prevented from signing due to their error? Unfortunately, no. The email you got from the loan agency reflects that no contract was formed yet. The email merely is the loan agency's expression of interest to proceed toward the formation of that contract. Absent that formation of the contract, even if for reasons beyond your control, you are not entitled to the benefits or consideration(s) the contract would provide. Nor would the lender be entitled to your compliance with the terms of that contract, terms which might not even be informed --let alone known-- to you. There is no legal obligation from one party to the other. Lastly, the agency's or bureau's faulty process/questionnaire is not actionable either. Lender's reluctance to employ an alternative method is within his freedom of contract.
If you lived in a community property state, that would create responsibility for your late wife's debts (but Kansas is not one). If you signed a financial responsibility agreement you would be liable (but I assumed you did not). No matter what, her estate is liable, and that could eventually affect you (her debts must be paid first). However, there is one last criterion, the "doctrine of necessaries". This ruling notes Kansas recognizes the doctrine of necessaries, under which a spouse can be held liable when the other spouse obtains necessary items, like food or medical care, on credit. See also St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Bowles for support that the doctrine survives in Kansas.
Controlling shareholders of a company have a fiduciary duty to other stockholders (see the section on controlling stockholder/company in the reference). That is, their decisions must be guided by the legitimate interests of the other stock holder, they can't privilege their own outcomes, or maliciously torpedo the interests of the other stockholders. If you think they have deliberately made bad decisions just to screw you, you can sue them for breech of their fiduciary duty. Of course their defense can be that they made decisions for perfectly rational reasons that respected their fiduciary duty, but simply turned out badly. You'd have to provide evidence that the decisions were reckless and/or malicious.
If the purported guarantor can prove the facts stated then they are not a guarantor You can rely on the signature and the onus of proving it isn’t theirs on the balance of probabilities rests on the guarantor. However, if they can do that, then they never agreed to be guarantor and you’re out of luck.