Moving van at Cooper House now (11/13/08)

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're welcome! I assume the BMW pulled in backwards was his car. It does look like there's a sunroof, but I can't tell for sure.

So it seems to me on the date he was arrested, he still had access to the 325 - possibly he had signed it over to Mum but nothing else - no changes other than he signed the title over but still driving it.
 
Is that indeed Cooper's BMW? It's surely a white car with a sunroof, but it also appears to be pulled in backwards.

(The clapping never fails to make me smile).

The clapping makes me think they know something we definitely don't know yet.
 
That clapping sounds like palatable relief + 'atta boys' for the detectives, since those were the 3 working the case from the beginning (minus Daniels, who wasn't there). I would have given them hugs, but that's just me! :wink:
 
Quick update courtesy of Mto3K, who just called me after having driven by BC's house on her way home. She said a cleaning crew was just finishing up and the house is completely empty now, except for a couple boxes in the garage. All the kids' things are gone...everything is gone.

And that's that.

The house is ready for sale.
 
Quick update courtesy of Mto3K, who just called me after having driven by BC's house on her way home. She said a cleaning crew was just finishing up and the house is completely empty now, except for a couple boxes in the garage. All the kids' things are gone...everything is gone.

And that's that.

The house is ready for sale.

Interesting and thanks to both you and Mt3K for the update.
 
Oh one more thing...the lawyers took EVERYTHING except for some kids' toys and some plastic bins. Every piece of furniture is in DS's hands, including the little kids' table and chairs. :frown:
 
Oh one more thing...the lawyers took EVERYTHING except for some kids' toys and some plastic bins. Every piece of furniture is in DS's hands, including the little kids' table and chairs. :frown:

SleuthyGal:

Thank you for the update and thanks to mom too! Although I saw your post the day you made it, it's taken me this long to respond. When I first saw your post, I was stunned and heartbroken,.......heartbroken for the finality of that moment, for the reality of Nancy gone forever, of the loss for her two little ones, for the family and friends of Nancy's who had to drive by and see the empty home and the feeling of devastation this is real, final, an end of Nancy...........

The book Erased comes to mind. The stark reality that this is what happens when people decide their own wants and needs are more important than the very life of the one they so long ago promised love never-ending. The realization that Nancy will never again jog away from that doorway and never again return to the laughter and squeels of delight from her two beautiful little girls.

This is the part of these cases I hate. Where the REAL LIFE ending is near. I don't give a dam* about Brad. (I know, I know, innocent until proven guilty. IMHO, he is guilty and WILL be proven so in court.) Whether Brad is given the death penalty or not, won't really matter in the end, imho, to us that have been watching this case from the beginning and now feel an emotional connection, although we never knew Nancy in RL. You'll see when the verdict comes in and the sentence is imposed. You'll feel grief, tears, and an emptiness just like the house stands now. In the end,.. it doesn't matter what they do with Brad as long as he's locked up and not enjoying his life. NOTHING will ever bring Nancy back. NOTHING will ever be the same for that family and the scores of victims left behind by ONE selfish individual.

I know that lawyers work for $$ and nothing in life is free. The lawyers that picked that house clean knew Brad's financial condition when they started working for him. Both of Brad's law firms have gotten huge 'free' publicity from this case. Although there have been some filing fees etc. for everything that's been done thus far, the rest of whatever Brad owes them is 'gravey.'

As Brad is stating Nancy died intestate, then he's only due 1/3 of her real property and $30K of personal and 1/3 of the difference. The rest belongs to the children. Keeping that in mind and the fact that Brad is now in jail for possibly the rest of his life, Nancy's little girls are now left to fend for themselves. Yeah, they have Nancy's family that will see that they are fed and clothed and loved. But morally, ....2/3's of Nancy's estate belongs to the little ones,......but 2/3's of Nancy's estate may be close to 0 by the time Brad gets done with it and the attorney get done picking the bones.

Yes,.... I said picking the bones. Because these two law firms have made themselves high-profile by this case, the PUBLIC is going to see what kind of people these are. They did a terrible job for their client, IMO. He lost his kids, they led him down the wrong path, he's arrested and charged, but they still get their $$. Oh,..............and they're going to get paid an additional fee from the good taxpayers of that county as well.

I hope their client base is watching. I pray they are following this latest segment of this real-life drama. Let people see what happens when the lights are turned out and their client has lost or is in jail. Yes, people want to hire attorneys that will win their case, but they also want their attorney to have a high moral standard. People want blood running through their attorney's veins, not greed the color of money.

I'm sure that in the end, Nancy's family and friends will realize, that although they lost in material things, they won the war for Nancy. Keeping the joy of Nancy's life real to her little girls and sharing the love and future with her two precious babies, have no price tag. Only love....and honor.

Nancy is watching..................and I'm sure she approves of what her friends and family have done and are doing. It's about love and honor and goodness. Something some people just don't understand.

:(
fran
 
I understand your feelings, Fran. It is so sad and it does feel like she was erased, but I'm sure her family & friends will keep her alive with stories through the years.

As for the lawyers and the assignment of assets, the responsibility still lies squarely in the jailed-one's hands, IMHO. Why? Because he knew upon hiring these different lawyers what their fees would be. Further, as time went on he could see their personalities and get a sense of their priorities. There were no surprises there. He could have tried to negotiate something different...or gone to a different attorney altogether, or limited the scope of the lawyers' services to just representing his fitness as a parent, instead of trying to address the criminal case itself (which took probably 75% of the time/billable hours), which he did not have to do . He made the decision to hire these attorneys, knowing that the costs were going to amass quickly. And he proceeded. He's an adult and fully responsible for his life, his decisions, and his financial situation.

So while we can point fingers at greedy lawyers, there was no rule that he HAD TO hire them. He assigned assets to his parents in July, preparing for this--he didn't have to do that either. These were all choices he made.

As to the legality of his choices, well, the judge will be looking into all of that. His poor decisions have affected his children in a hundred different ways, without even considering the financial impact. But the courts will rule where they can.
 
SleuthyGal:

As Brad is stating Nancy died intestate, then he's only due 1/3 of her real property and $30K of personal and 1/3 of the difference. The rest belongs to the children. Keeping that in mind and the fact that Brad is now in jail for possibly the rest of his life, Nancy's little girls are now left to fend for themselves. Yeah, they have Nancy's family that will see that they are fed and clothed and loved. But morally, ....2/3's of Nancy's estate belongs to the little ones,......but 2/3's of Nancy's estate may be close to 0 by the time Brad gets done with it and the attorney get done picking the bones.



:(
fran

First let me say this is not a pro BC post. In NC property owned by spouses in most cases is recorded using "tenents by the entirety". This form of recording allows for survivorship, meaning that if one spouse dies the real property automatically reverts sole ownership to the surviving spouse regardless of status as intestate. I will research this tenancy to make sure I am correct, but if it is as I understand it BC owned the home in it's entirety at the moment of NC's death. It is also generally understood that any personal property inside the home unless otherwise noted by lienholder becomes the personal property of the surviving spouse, by virtue of the fact it is inside the real property and considered marital property. I have all ideas that BC's attorney's advised him of this and he moved the property immediately and it was all legal. Anyway, this my 2cents, and as bad as it is, BC took advantage of this.
 
First let me say this is not a pro BC post. In NC property owned by spouses in most cases is recorded using "tenents by the entirety". This form of recording allows for survivorship, meaning that if one spouse dies the real property automatically reverts sole ownership to the surviving spouse regardless of status as intestate. I will research this tenancy to make sure I am correct, but if it is as I understand it BC owned the home in it's entirety at the moment of NC's death. It is also generally understood that any personal property inside the home unless otherwise noted by lienholder becomes the personal property of the surviving spouse, by virtue of the fact it is inside the real property and considered marital property. I have all ideas that BC's attorney's advised him of this and he moved the property immediately and it was all legal. Anyway, this my 2cents, and as bad as it is, BC took advantage of this.

Good morning.
I'm sure you're correct about the survivorship rights. It wouldn't even matter if they were married or not.... if the property was titled in both names, as "tenancy by the entirety," it would automatically revert to the surviving party. Her parents can sue, I suppose, but by now, it wouldn't surprise me if the attornies have slapped a lien on the property.

Do we know for sure that she had no will? I may have missed that.

Also, I've seen a number of comments here about the lawyers taking the children's things. Aren't the items simply being placed in storage? Unless his parents are able to stay in the house and watch over things, that only makes sense to me. It's not a good idea to leave items in an empty house.

I've been trying to follow Caylee's case, and may have missed some details. And since I'm still sitting on the fence about Cooper's guilt (or not), haven't commented much. I know it's statistically very likely that he killed her, but something just doesn't feel right about the whole matter.
 
Warrkat,

I agree with you statistically the finger points directly at BC, but evidence has yet to be presented showing his guilt. I have always had the feeling we were missing something, I have been concerned that CPD had tunnel vision toward BC and did not look elsewhere. I will be glad when trial arrives and we can see and hear the "concrete" evidence, it will put my mind at ease that we have the right man. BTW, in North Carolina only spouses can be recorded at Tenants by the entirety, if the couple is not married the most common type of recordation is tenants in common, joint tenancy is not as common, neither tenants in common or joint tenants allows for survivorship only tenancy by the entirety, in some states joint tenancy has survivorship but not in NC. I checked my reference last evening and I am right regarding the tenancy by the entirety, the whole amount of real property reverted to BC at the moment of NC's death. Regarding her personal property it is all his, as she died intestate and they were legally married and not separated at the time, regardless of their plans no legal agreement had been signed. I truly hate it for the girls, but it appears that BC was totally within his rights, and probably Sasser knew that when she ruled as she did regarding his property.
 
FWIW, my previous post was not so much about the LEGAL rights of Brad, but more so the MORAL rights. Same goes with the attorneys of the accused.
I think the jury is out about 'rights' of inheritance regarding this case. (Michelle Young comes to mind.)

JMHO
fran



http://www.hashemilaw.com/inheritance.htm

If a person murders a relative, is he/she entitled to receive any of the victim's property? In most cases, the answer would be "no." Usually, a convicted killer cannot inherit a victim's property, even if he/she is a rightful heir or a named beneficiary.


Required Characteristics
To lose all rights to the dead relative's property, the criminal court will need to find that a killer:


Intentionally murdered the person
Was legally sane at the time of the murder
<<<<<<<<<more at link>>>>>>>>



http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0086.htm

3. North Carolina allows the court to find that the person willfully and unlawfully killed or procured the killing by the preponderance of the evidence in a civil action brought within two years after the death. If a criminal proceeding is brought within the two years, the civil action can be brought within the later of two years or 90 days after a final determination by the criminal court. The burden of proof is on the party seeking to establish the killing.

<<<<<<<<<more at link>>>>>>>>
 
Fran,

You are exactly right, but BC moved assets prior to indictment, when he was legally entitled to do so, so ultimately the kids lose, again.
 
So the bottom line is, if the courts do not convict him, the Plantiffs will have to sue for wrongful death, unfortunately no simple solutions.
 
Fran,

You are exactly right, but BC moved assets prior to indictment, when he was legally entitled to do so, so ultimately the kids lose, again.

IMHO, a jury MAY find that it wasn't Brad's to give or assign, which COULD void any agreement with the attorneys. IMHO, that's why the attorneys moved so quickly upon the judge's ruling. Hopefully a jury will see beyond their actions and rule for the children. I trust the Rentzes have taken approporiate action against the attorneys responsible for the removal of the home contents and put a stop to them liquidating.

You are right though, no matter what, the children have already lost. :(

JMHO
fran

PS......FWIW, I'm not convinced Nancy did NOT have a will. The only source we have that Nancy didn't have one is Brad and he's already proven that he's not exactly reliable for telling the truth. One of Nancy's friends said she DID have a will. How hard would it be to 'shred' a will? when you're the only one with access? Hope LE looks for downloads of wills, while they're inspecting Brad and Nancy's computers..........fran
 
If a will for NC is or has been found that would be a smoking gun IMO. The sad thing is a civil trial can rule in favor of Plantiffs for wrongful death, but ever being able to collect is another thing, look at OJ Simpson.
 
Warrkat,

I agree with you statistically the finger points directly at BC, but evidence has yet to be presented showing his guilt. I have always had the feeling we were missing something, I have been concerned that CPD had tunnel vision toward BC and did not look elsewhere. I will be glad when trial arrives and we can see and hear the "concrete" evidence, it will put my mind at ease that we have the right man. BTW, in North Carolina only spouses can be recorded at Tenants by the entirety, if the couple is not married the most common type of recordation is tenants in common, joint tenancy is not as common, neither tenants in common or joint tenants allows for survivorship only tenancy by the entirety, in some states joint tenancy has survivorship but not in NC. I checked my reference last evening and I am right regarding the tenancy by the entirety, the whole amount of real property reverted to BC at the moment of NC's death. Regarding her personal property it is all his, as she died intestate and they were legally married and not separated at the time, regardless of their plans no legal agreement had been signed. I truly hate it for the girls, but it appears that BC was totally within his rights, and probably Sasser knew that when she ruled as she did regarding his property.


Thinking that you were mistaken about the survivorship of tenants in common, I went here http://www.rmlawgroup.com/Real/Topics/Taking_Title/index.htm to look it up. You're correct, but I thought it was kind of funny the way it is worded.

"A common misconception about tenancy in common is that when one tenant dies, the other remaining tenants acquire the deceased tenant&#8217;s interest."

That's me..... Miss Misconception! :crazy:

I've had a queasy feeling about this case from the beginning. It's hard to believe that LE would arrest him simply on the word of his in-laws and neighbors, but that's certainly how it sounds so far. We will probably have to wait until trial (if it comes to that) to see what they have. My concern is that if they do have the wrong person, there is still a killer out there, and valuable time has been lost in looking for that person.
 
If a will for NC is or has been found that would be a smoking gun IMO. The sad thing is a civil trial can rule in favor of Plantiffs for wrongful death, but ever being able to collect is another thing, look at OJ Simpson.

Usually when a wrongful death suit is brought against an individual, especially if they're in jail, I believe the plaintiff believes they most likely will never collect. At the same time, they're insuring that the suspect will never profit from their crime. This would include any life insurance due upon the victim's demise.

JMHO
fran
 
I've had a queasy feeling about this case from the beginning. It's hard to believe that LE would arrest him simply on the word of his in-laws and neighbors, but that's certainly how it sounds so far. We will probably have to wait until trial (if it comes to that) to see what they have. My concern is that if they do have the wrong person, there is still a killer out there, and valuable time has been lost in looking for that person.

I don't think they arrested him on that 'evidence'. And - while police may arrest for flimsy things, remember the Grand Jury indicted him saying that there was enough EVIDENCE to charge him with first degree murder.

A DA going for Murder 1 will want to be procedurally anal retentive and not hinge an entire case on hearsay.

If they haven't arrested / indicted Jason Young on the evidence they have on him - I have to believe that there is quite a bit MORE in this case.
 
I don't think they arrested him on that 'evidence'. And - while police may arrest for flimsy things, remember the Grand Jury indicted him saying that there was enough EVIDENCE to charge him with first degree murder.

A DA going for Murder 1 will want to be procedurally anal retentive and not hinge an entire case on hearsay.

If they haven't arrested / indicted Jason Young on the evidence they have on him - I have to believe that there is quite a bit MORE in this case.

I hope you're right, that they have good evidence, and that he will get a fair trial.

Love your dog.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
1,912
Total visitors
2,106

Forum statistics

Threads
589,949
Messages
17,928,072
Members
228,011
Latest member
legalpyro74
Back
Top