A MOM says she didn't know she was breaking a little-known Social Security rule - leading to it costing her over $20,000.
Karen Williams, 63, got into trouble when she bought a life insurance policy that would fund her funeral.
The Philadelphia mom had witnessed friends and families starting GoFundMe campaigns to pay for funerals, and Williams didn't want the same for her kids.
But Williams' purchase of insurance has led to her being caught up in antiquated federal rule dubbed an "asset limit" that snares more than 100,000 of America's poorest disabled and elderly each year.
Williams is disabled and doesn't work, meaning she relied upon a federal assistance programmed called the Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, run by the Social Security Administration.
It sends monthly checks which average around $698.
The program began 51 years ago but has not been updated much since then, meaning it has out-of-date rules like limit on assets.
Williams thought her life insurance wouldn't be used until after she died.
The mom didn't understand that she could turn it in and collect $1,900.
This was significantly less than the $10,000 in funeral expenses she had bought in the policy to cover when she died.
The cash value of her policy along with $260 she had saved in her checking account meant she was pushed over her SSI's $2,000 limit on how much a recipient is allowed in savings and other assets.
When Williams was taken off SSI - which was her income source - she was told by Social Security to pay back two years of benefits - totalling an unbelievable $20,385.
And what's more, she was given 30 days to pay it back.
Kathleen Romig, a senior adviser to the commissioner of Social Security, said: "The impact of it is just cruel.
"SSI is stuck in the past. It's hardly been changed over 50 years."
Social Security only allows a mere few exceptions to what gets counted as an asset.
But insurance for funerals often is sold as life insurance, just like the policy Williams bought.
Williams therefore found a lawyer at Community Legal Services of Philadelphia who aided her in challenging the massive SSI bill.
Last year Social Security admitted it has made a mistake and hadn't properly told Williams of her right to appeal.
Her lawyers therefore asked for and won the agency's agreement to waive the $20,385 overpayment.
But, according to Williams' lawyers, the agency ignored its own decision before reissuing the overpayment charge.
The attorneys appealed again and the order to pay is on hold.
Williams, who is still scared over not knowing whether she will be expected to pay the sum or not, said: "It's really tiresome. I am so, so through with this.