Found Deceased TX - Michael Chambers, 70, Hunt County, 10 March 2017 #2

[LaneGirl]

Respectfully, I disagree. Sometimes small town friendship and networks can and do accomplish the impossible. As you stated none of us truly know tho so it's all a matter of my opinion versus your opinion.

I choose to follow the professionals and the investigation, which at this time tells us they do not have evidence of a crime or a death since they will not reclassify the case from missing to criminal. That speaks volumes to me.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

The sheriff did sign off on the paperwork to declare him deceased though. At least that is my understanding.

 

[marishka94]

WHAT ARE THEY??? You've said that before and you're only cite was she could have gotten a power of attorney - which she couldn't. So, WHAT COULD SHE HAVE DONE TO KEEP THE PENSION PAYMENTS MONTHLY?

But wouldn't declaring him "dead" change the monthly pension payouts to a reduced amount? If he was still listed as missing, would the pension still remain the normal amount before his disappearance? According to our VI, they were not having any financial problems, so why the rush to declare him deceased? It would appear it would hurt more than help in regards to the pension payout.

 

[Yvettea]

But wouldn't declaring him "dead" change the monthly pension payouts to a reduced amount? If he was still listed as missing, would the pension still remain the normal amount before his disappearance? According to our VI, they were not having any financial problems, so why the rush to declare him deceased? It would appear it would hurt more than help in regards to the pension payout.

Is that supposition on your part that the payment would be reduced? Or do you know that for a fact?

 

[marishka94]

WHAT ARE THEY??? You've said that before and you're only cite was she could have gotten a power of attorney - which she couldn't. So, WHAT COULD SHE HAVE DONE TO KEEP THE PENSION PAYMENTS MONTHLY?

Is that supposition on your part that the payment would be reduced? Or do you know that for a fact?

Some retirements have a reduced payment benefit if the retiree dies. I thought I read on the DF retirement info that is a reduced amount. Let me see if I can find it.

 

[Yvettea]

Some retirements have a reduced payment benefit if the retiree dies. I thought I read on the DF retirement info that is a reduced amount. Let me see if I can find it.

Thanks. I've read some of the plan but I didn't see that. Not that it's not there.

 

[Hstevenson86]

Frankly, this scenario makes more sense to me than any of the others.

Sent from my SCH-I435L using Tapatalk

This same scenario has entered my mind a time or two


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[marishka94]

WHAT ARE THEY??? You've said that before and you're only cite was she could have gotten a power of attorney - which she couldn't. So, WHAT COULD SHE HAVE DONE TO KEEP THE PENSION PAYMENTS MONTHLY?

Thanks. I've read some of the plan but I didn't see that. Not that it's not there.

https://www.dallaserf.org/benefit

Go to Tier A Benefits, it will pull up a .pdf, and go to page 11. Tier B looks to have the same death benefit options too.

 

[Yvettea]

https://www.dallaserf.org/benefit

Go to Tier A Benefits, it will pull up a .pdf, and go to page 11. Tier B looks to have the same death benefit options too.

That's interesting (and not the guide I was using.) So it depends on the payment option you select whether or not your spouse will draw the same benefit after you die.

Thanks again.

 

[KeepTheLightOn]

I was just on another page and saw this quote. It made me think of PaPaw.

A grandfather is someone with silver in his hair and gold in his heart. ~Author Unknown

 

[inmyhumbleopinion]

https://www.dallaserf.org/benefit

Go to Tier A Benefits, it will pull up a .pdf, and go to page 11. Tier B looks to have the same death benefit options too.

That's interesting (and not the guide I was using.) So it depends on the payment option you select whether or not your spouse will draw the same benefit after you die.

Thanks again.

I believe the cited material pertains to a different retirement fund than the one PaPaw is a member of. It is confusing because he did work for the City of Dallas; however, I found the following on the linked website (BBM):

"Membership:
Who Is Eligible:
Most non-uniformed, permanent City of Dallas employees are eligible to participate in the Employees’ Retirement Fund.
-SBM for space-
You are not eligible to participate in the Fund if you are:
-SBM for space-
• A uniformed employee of the police or fire department."

See page 1: https://www.dallaserf.org/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/brochures/ERF_Members_Guide.pdf

 

[abstr]

Do you have a link you can provide?
I have never heard of a QDRO.


Just my random thoughts & opinions...

That would go before a judge as part of a separation or divorce proceedings. IMO, that would mean the judge would have the option to grant or not. The pension board goes by the legal judgement. If the judge rules against no money at all from the pension or DROP for BC.

 

[abstr]

Regarding the pension only, in a divorce each person would have received 50% of the fund. BC would not be able to remain as a beneficiary on MC's share of the pension. (This presumes she was originally designated beneficiary by MC.)

By declaring MC dead she would receive the full pension if she had been designated beneficiary.

MOO

If the judge declared it then you are correct it would be 50/50. (Depends upon the state).
In my own case and I believe it is law in most states that you must declare your spouse beneficiary for pension and employment provided life insurance unless she/he signs a waiver. All MOO.

 

[abstr]

Thanks. I've read some of the plan but I didn't see that. Not that it's not there.

IMO, it is still better then 50% if in fact it is a reduced benefit. Every retirement plan is different, even for different first responder departments. DROP also is as far as I know (I am no expert) is only used in municipal, state and federal government positions. I could be wrong about that.
DROP is actually a really good concept as it gives gvmt. workers who make a good income but not as much as the private sector would (in the past the best reason to take the lower salary is to get the awesome benefits) get the chance to make some really good money in investments to supplement the 50/60% of income that they would receive in retirement.

I feel like some of this is moot because we just don't know the financial affairs involved.

Someone questioned that BC would need to do this so quickly and that if they had good jobs, a home, property and cars they had to have reserve money. I personally know many people that live paycheck to paycheck. What you see on the outside doesn't always match the bank account.
I know zero about the Chambers' situation but I do know that there are statistics about the rarity of families having at least a 3 month salary savings.

 

[abstr]

http://benefitsattorney.com/articles/ria/

For those who want to understand what the DROP is. In reading this it does seem that some private company's use this, so I stand corrected. I think it started with government workers.

I know this is peripheral to this case but might help some to understand the financial aspect.

My first husband was a FF in a major city. In his case, when he hit 20 years he could retire at 40% income. Many FF did that and moved to state jobs with a 15 yr. retirement so they could "double dip"(I see nothing wrong with that....you worked for the benefits).
My ex got a promotion (He went from FF to LT to his current title) and really loved his job so he went into DROP for the term set (I cannot remember if it was 3 or 5 years) . After DROP was over (we split up during this time) he went back on his pension. At this point in time I think he gets 60% of income if he retires and then chooses how to distribute his DROP.
Until we were legally divorced I remained the beneficiary on everything. At the time of divorce he was able to change to the kids. If he would have passed while we were still legally married I would have received life insurance and a lump sum, which varied depending on how he passed. What I mean by that is if he died in line of duty it is much bigger. If LOD death I would have gotten his salary for life until I remarried (which I have). If, God forbid, that happens now that he is divorced, the kids get the lump but not his salary.
With his DROP if you did not take lump sum and took monthly payments, they ended with the FF's passing.
We and many other people my ex worked with used a retired FF who became an attorney specializing in this sort of stuff to make decisions. It is very complicated stuff.

If you have read this far I will just say, I feel horribly for the entire family, BC included. It has to be hurtful for people to question you. That said, if my husband or ex husband disappeared you all can tear me apart.....all I want is for my loved one to be found!

 

[ScoobySnax]

Excellent post!

A divorce would have been granted, IMO. And this is probably only because I am not a lawyer and thus missing something, but ...: I really don't understand why BC's attorney would even suggest that as an alternative (personally, I don't understand why what she did was necessary, either, and I will get to that in a minute). Here is what our VI said (RBBM):


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ounty-10-March-2017-1&p=13511076#post13511076

However, as many others have pointed out:

"If a Member, Pensioner or Qualified Survivor designates a Spouse to receive a payment and the parties are later divorced, the designation is void unless ratified in writing after the divorce.
-SBM for space-
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, if a Member or Pensioner has previously designated his Spouse as his beneficiary or co-beneficiary of his DROP account and such Member or Pensioner and such Spouse are subsequently divorced, such divorce shall automatically result in the invalidation of the designation of such Spouse as a beneficiary or co-beneficiary"
https://www.dpfp.org/images/PDFs/Plan/DPFP Plan Document_09082016.pdf

If there was a divorce, both regular pension and DROP payments would stop. Plus, no future death benefits. And BC would likely be ineligible for any other benefits (e.g., health insurance) she might have been receiving through PaPaw's employment with the Dallas Fire Department.

Our VI also said (RBBM):

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ounty-10-March-2017-2&p=13526202#post13526202

PaPaw's pension and DROP funds were definitely something BC was counting on, IMO, so whether "for emotional/sentimental reasons" or simply as a financial matter, I don't understand why her attorney would even consider this as a viable option. Or perhaps there was a miscommunication between the attorney and BC or the son.

So in my "quest" to try and understand why what BC did was indeed "what needed to happen," I came across this (BBM):

"FAMILY CODE; TITLE 1. THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP;
SUBTITLE B. PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES;
CHAPTER 3. MARITAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES;
SUBCHAPTER D. MANAGEMENT, CONTROL, AND DISPOSITION OF MARITAL PROPERTY UNDER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES:
Sec. 3.301. MISSING, ABANDONED, OR SEPARATED SPOUSE.
(a) A spouse may file a sworn petition stating the facts that make it desirable for the petitioning spouse to manage, control, and dispose of community property described or defined in the petition that would otherwise be subject to the sole or joint management, control, and disposition of the other spouse if:
(1) the other spouse has disappeared and that spouse's location remains unknown to the petitioning spouse, unless the spouse is reported to be a prisoner of war or missing on public service;
-SBM for space-
(b) The petition may be filed in a court in the county in which the petitioner resided at the time the separation began, or the abandonment or disappearance occurred, not earlier than the 60th day after the date of the occurrence of the event.
-SBM for space-
CHAPTER 5. HOMESTEAD RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER B. SALE OF HOMESTEAD UNDER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES :
Sec. 5.102. SALE OF COMMUNITY HOMESTEAD UNDER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. If the homestead is the community property of the spouses, one spouse may file a sworn petition that gives a description of the property, states the facts that make it desirable for the petitioning spouse to sell, convey, or encumber the homestead without the joinder of the other spouse, and alleges that the other spouse: (1) has disappeared and that the location of the spouse remains unknown to the petitioning spouse;
-SBM for space-
Sec. 5.103. TIME FOR FILING PETITION.
The petitioning spouse may file the petition in a court of the county in which any portion of the property is located not earlier than the 60th day after the date of the occurrence of an event described by Sections 5.101(1)-(3) and 5.102(1)-(3)
-SBM for space-
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/SDocs/FAMILYCODE.pdf

Now I'm left wondering why something like the above wasn't considered because this seems like something BC could have done at least for the time-being. If I am understanding correctly, with a judge's order she would have even been allowed her to sell her and PaPaw's home, and all the while the pension and DROP payments would continue.

And now, BC does not have access to the estate for three more years: (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ES/htm/ES.454.htm).

So trying to put myself in BC's shoes, why did she have to do what she did?

Despite what our VI has told us, perhaps BC needed -or needs- a large amount of money quickly? Not just for the bills?

According to the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System Combined Pension Plan Document (it says, "As Amended and Restated Through September 8, 2016," but this is the only version available on their website; BBM):
"A Member, Pensioner or Qualified Survivor may at any time designate, in writing, one or more persons (a “designee”) to receive any lump sum payment due from the Pension System upon the death of the Member, Pensioner or Qualified Survivor. A designation under this Subsection of a person other than the Spouse must be made with the written consent of the Spouse if there is a Spouse. Any designation may be revoked or changed at any time. However, a designation shall become void if the person designated dies or goes out of existence before the payment is made."
https://www.dpfp.org/images/PDFs/Plan/DPFP Plan Document_09082016.pdf

So in her capacity as a "Qualified Survivor," BC could elect to receive a lump sum payment or even designate someone else -e.g. a family member- to receive a payment ..., correct?

The above applies to their regular pension only, and it appears that lump-sum withdrawals from DROP accounts were suspended last December.

And I am still wondering why the DROP/pension board letter wasn't returned in a timely manner .... :thinking:.

 

[Greater Than]

Hi everyone.

Please start making your way over to Thread #3

This thread will be closing in about 10 minutes.

:tyou:

 

[Greater Than]

This thread is now closed.

Please continue discussion at Thread #3