-SBM for focus-
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.
-SBM for focus-
So trying to put myself in BC's shoes, why did she have to do what she did?
-SBM for focus-