Her stepfather’s mother passed away five years ago, and at some point after that he appears to have simply never told TIAA she was gone. The trust she’d been receiving payments from should have terminated at her death, but the $2,500 monthly deposits kept coming anyway, landing in his personal bank account, not a joint account he shared with her mother, and disappearing almost as quickly as they arrived. Over five years that added up to roughly $150,000. None of it showed up on the joint tax returns he and her mother filed during those years. Her mother had no idea any of it was happening.
He passed away earlier this year, and the full picture only emerged after his death. His estate has almost nothing in it. He owned very little and left behind almost no money, which means the obvious first source of repayment, his estate, is essentially empty. Now her mother is trying to understand what her exposure actually is, whether she could be held personally responsible for $150,000 she never knew existed, and what the tax situation looks like on income that was never reported during years when she filed jointly with her husband.
💸 Take Back Control of Your Finances in 2025 💸
Get Instant Access to our free mini course
5 DAYS TO A BETTER BUDGET
Her mother’s exposure on the trust repayment
The core question of whether her mother owes TIAA the $150,000 back turns largely on what legal theory TIAA or the trust pursues to recover the funds. Her stepfather received money he wasn’t entitled to, which creates an unjust enrichment claim against his estate. Since the estate has nothing, recovery from that avenue is essentially foreclosed.
Whether her mother faces personal liability depends significantly on whether she can be shown to have benefited from the funds. If the $150,000 was spent on household expenses, vacations, home improvements, or other things that benefited them both, there’s a stronger argument that she received some of the value even without knowing the source. If it went into personal spending he controlled entirely and she received no benefit from, that argument weakens considerably. The fact that the money went into a personal account rather than a joint one and appears to have been spent as it came in works in her favor, but it’s a fact-specific question an attorney needs to evaluate with the actual records.
The tax situation is its own separate problem
The unreported income is the piece that creates independent exposure regardless of how the trust repayment question resolves. Her mother filed jointly during those years, which means she signed returns that didn’t include $2,500 a month in income her husband was receiving. Joint filers are generally both responsible for the accuracy of their return, but the IRS provides an avenue called Innocent Spouse Relief specifically for situations where one spouse had no knowledge of the other’s unreported income and it would be unfair to hold them liable.
Innocent Spouse Relief isn’t automatic and it isn’t guaranteed, but the facts here are about as clean as that kind of claim gets. The money went into a personal account she had no access to or awareness of, it was spent before she could have seen it in any household finances, and she had no reason to know her husband’s mother had died and that payments were continuing. Filing for Innocent Spouse Relief should be one of the first things her attorney addresses alongside the trust repayment question.
Getting the right attorney involved immediately
Her mother’s instinct to hire an attorney is the right one, and the attorney she hires needs to have experience in both estate matters and tax law, or she needs two attorneys covering those separate tracks. The trust repayment question and the IRS question are related but distinct, and they may need to be handled on different timelines with different agencies.
Before that first attorney meeting, it helps to pull together everything available, the joint tax returns from the relevant years, any bank statements that show the personal account the payments went into, documentation of his estate and what it contains, and whatever information exists about the trust and TIAA. The more organized that picture is going in, the faster an attorney can give her a realistic assessment of what she’s actually facing rather than a general overview of what could happen.
The realistic range of outcomes
The worst case scenario, her mother personally on the hook for $150,000 plus back taxes and penalties, is possible but not inevitable. It depends on facts that haven’t been fully established yet, including whether she benefited from the funds, how TIAA and the IRS choose to pursue recovery, and whether Innocent Spouse Relief is granted. The best case is that her mother’s lack of knowledge and the absence of any benefit to her from those funds shields her from both the repayment obligation and the tax liability, leaving those problems with an estate that has nothing to pay them with.
The honest answer is that where this lands sits somewhere in that range, and the attorney she hires will be able to narrow it down once the full picture is clear.
Featured on Cents + Purpose: