 |
| Kristy Strong |
From Newsweek:
Kristy Strong, a 45-year-old disabled woman in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, was shocked when her Supplemental Security Income benefits were stopped in January. ...
"They claim I was overpaid," Strong told Newsweek. "I was sleeping behind dumpsters [and] eating out of trash cans, so I had nothing."
When Strong received the letter saying she owed the money, she immediately appealed and contacted legal counsel, but she said she has been waiting for a court date for more than six months, even though her lawyer told her the case has been expedited, she said. ...
Strong didn't even know what assets the SSA had been referring to but was informed the agency was under the impression that Strong had inherited property when her grandmother died in November 2021.
"I told them I did not," Strong said. "My grandma left everything to my aunt, who didn't have money to probate her will, and had asked me to sign a paper agreeing not to have to probate it. I never inherited anything."
She was told by Social Security she would have to prove she didn't own the property, despite it never being in her name. ...
"I wish people knew that real peoples' lives are at stake, and this isn't just a debate in an election year," Strong said. "So much more is at risk than votes."
11 comments:
I wish reporters would fact check stories like these. SSA almost certainly has some document to the contrary, some bank statement or title to property. Or perhaps the document she signed for her aunt doesn't say what she thinks it says.
This. SSA possibly has IRS records for an inheritance under the claimants SSN (some sort of inheritance income was likely reported) or they have some sort of documentation. Something like this doesn’t just appear out of thin air on someone’s record.
Well isn't the solution to state exactly what assets caused the problem with a copy of the documentation they are relying on. Instead crazy hard to decipher letters are sent with generalized text that explains nothing.
If the Grandmother’s will wasn’t probated (which is what the story says) then the property passed in accordance to Intestacy Laws equally to the Grandmother’s children and not just to the Aunt. If Ms. Strong’s parent is also deceased then Ms. Strong inherited her parent’s portion of the grandmother’s property.
It's hard to justify insanity by quoting rules. Kind of reminds me of Nazis who were "following orders."
I don't know what happened here, but sometimes SSA does get bad info. I know someone who was denied SSI because he allegedly had a bank account that would put him over the resource limit. The bank was in a state he'd never been to. There was probably someone with the same name who did have an account there. He ended up going to the bank with his ID and other proofs, and they wrote him a letter for SSA saying it wasn't him. Luckily the other state was just a few hours away, he had someone to drive him and help him communicate the situation, and the bank was small/flexible/kind enough to write the letter.
I have also seen situations where SSA was correct that someone did inherit property, but they valued it too high (loved the one where the FO worker just put in $999,999 for a small piece of scrubland and then claimed that was SSA policy unless the beneficiary provided an assessment) or didn't follow the POMS for situations where there were multiple owners and it wasn't possible to sell. Sometimes mom leaves her house to her 9 kids and it's a real mess to unravel!
If a person dies and leaves you money yet no one tells you and therefore you have no idea of its existence how is this an asset? I mean, is possession of something not required to be considered to have access to something? Because the newspapers are full of names of people being notified by the state who have abandoned bank accounts or refunds etc that they have to claim, would an SSI recipient be held accountable for such things without claiming it? Wouldn't someone have to take an affirmative action to acquire possession of an inheritance for it to be an actual asset? Or does SSI hold that a potential asset is counted against you until you prove it's not yours? Wow, if that's the case.
Or that she gave up her property for less than Fair Market Value and could not provide evidence to show she did it for another reason other than to keep her SSI benefits. That may not been her intent but it sounds like she might have signed away her portion to the property and now is being subject to the period of ineligibility.
The article makes it sound as if the claimant wouldn’t give information because her statement that she never owned it was enough.
Or SSA really made a mistake and this woman is really being hurt by it.
The outcome for her will certainly be decided quicker now that her case has media attention.
Giving it up requires you possessed it in the first place. Obviously a copy of whatever she signed is important but I'm still confused on when she's apparently deemed to possess the asset, as compared to when she actually did or does possess the asset, because that impacts the date it is held against her. I'm waiting for my dad's estate to settle, over 2 years now, before us kids get whatever we get. Charging me with an inheritance based on date of death is pretty raw and incorrect as I've got nothing and have nothing I could monetize. I may have assets coming to me but they haven't yet been received. If that alone is enough (i.e., "you could sell your inheritance for 5 cents on the dollar and have money now") that is again pretty raw. It ignores the legal system process and time involved.
File a waiver or appeal citing SI 01110.117 Unknown Assets.
We have had this issue before, and I have had to explain to SSA that just because a person was listed in a will, they don't have an asset they can convert to cash unless the will was probated and the property was deeded to them. Sometimes the property in question has been conveyed or otherwise disposed of.
Post a Comment