Well, all, I have an update to share with you. I will try to keep this post short and simple (not always my strong suit!).
After the last word from the SmithBarney "legal department" via the SB guy (grrrr), I, again researched UGMA/UTMA comprehensively. I read everything I could find online including the October 2005 Guidelines of the Securities Transfer Association pertaining to UGMA/UTMA accounts - as well as custodial accounts in general. I re-read the New York Estates, Powers, and Trusts Laws - Section 7-6.1 to 7-6.26, where UGMA/UTMA accounts are specifically addressed. (For thoroughness, I even read previous statutes of NYEPTL (Section 7-4.1 to 7-4.13) concerning UGMA before the existence of the newer UTMA accounts.
All states repealed their UGMA statutes upon enacting their UTMA statutes... (btw, a few states don't have UGMA/UTMA statutes at all it seems). HOWEVER, any UGMA accounts in existence before the date of the repeal are grandfathered using the original UGMA age of termination. (The date of repeal varies from state to state, of course).
The "legal department" at SB were totally WRONG in their RULING! The SB guy did tell me to have my daughter (as the owner of the account) write a letter to him (advisor) stating that any transaction request of her account require both her signature and the custodian's signature. Therefore, on 8/29, my daughter sent the SB guy(hard for me NOT to use some other descriptor or this man!) an e-mail asking that both her signature and the custodian's (her father) signature be required for any transaction on her account until the "controversy" regarding the age of termination of her UGMA account was resolved. In her e-mail, she included the NY EPTL that gives clear instructions on how to treat UGMA accounts established before the date of repeal, (which date in NY is July 10, 1996). (NY EPTL 7-6.22 Effect on existing custodianships).
I did not know that my daughter sent SB her e-mail on 8/29, until after I went to drop off copies of my QDRO to the SB guy on the morning of 8/30(**). He starts off telling me he has good news! Apparently, he had been to my ex's office earlier to talk to him about my daughter's UGMA, and my ex "threw up his hands, and said let her have the money."
According to the SB guy, it was not because of my daughter's e-mail to SB which he shared with the custodian (her father)that the ex signed off her account as custodian. I find it curious, however, that my ex had a sudden change of heart on the morning after my daughter sent her e-mail to SB. There is no doubt that if she had not disputed the legal departments ruling, the SB guy would not have made a special trip to my ex's office to talk to him about her UGMA account. I believe, of course, it WAS her e-mail that made these two men realize that she KNEW of what she spoke! If she had been forced to take this thing to court, (how awful would that have been?! it has been awful enough for her!), not only would she have been granted control of her money, but I believe SB would have been found guilty of favoritism (which the SB guy tried to convince me he was absolutely NOT doing in regard to my daughter's UGMA account, at that 8/30 meeting! Yeah, right! They seem to want to think my daughter and I are stupid).
A quick and easy to understand reference on UGMA/UTMA Custodial Accounts, can be found at www.finaid.org (The Smart Guide to Financial Aid).
Perhaps later, if anyone cares, I'll share with you all my UGMA/UTMA funds philosophy - and how our children would be better served.
Thank you, everyone for your opinions. ~~peace.
**an aside, for those interested! Now, the SB guy seems to be interested in assisting me and my ex implement the QDROs - after a year and a half of saying it wasn't his job! At this point, of course, because of SB's obvious favoritism towards my ex, a previous $28,000.00 "blunder" by this person in my ex's favor, and his 'every excuse in the world not to give my daughter control of her account stalling technique, I would NEVER trust this man to divvy up my 50% of our complicated portfolio. I do, however, want to hear his suggestions, as I'm sure it will be a good laugh for me!.