Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #32

[bears10]

It's rare because it is barred by the standard court order!

Here is a link to the standard preliminary injunction issued in response to an Arizona divorce filing: https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/34/Forms/DR14F.doc

Here are some key excerps:

Your spouse has filed a “Petition for Dissolution” (Divorce) or “Petition for Annulment” or “Petition for Legal Separation” with the court. This Order is made at the direction of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Arizona in County. This Order has the same force and effect as any order signed by the judge. You and your spouse must obey this Order. This Order may be enforced by any remedy available under the law, including an “Order of Contempt of Court.” To help you understand this Order, we have provided this explanation.

1. ACTIONS FORBIDDEN BY THIS ORDER: From the time the “Petition for Dissolution” (Divorce) or “Petition for Annulment” or “Petition for Legal Separation” is filed with the court, until the judge signs the Decree, or until further order of the court, both the Petitioner and the Respondent shall not do any of the following things:


ü You may not hide earnings or community property from your spouse, AND

ü You may not take out a loan on the community property, AND

ü You may not sell the community property or give it away to someone, UNLESS you have the written permission of your spouse or written permission from the court. The law allows for situations in which you may need to transfer joint or community property as part of the everyday running of a business, or if the sale of community property is necessary to meet necessities of life, such as food, shelter, or clothing, or court fees and attorney fees associated with this action. If this applies to you, you should see a lawyer for help....

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: Arizona Law, A.R.S. §25-315(A) provides:

1(a). RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY OF THE MARRIAGE: That both parties are enjoined from transferring, encumbering, concealing, selling, or otherwise disposing of any of the joint, common or community property of the parties, except if related to the usual course of business, the necessities of life, or court fees and reasonable attorney fees associated with an action filed under this article, without the written consent of the parties or the permission of the court.

Changing the beneficiary of a life insurance policy would absolutely certainly violate the statute if done without court permission unless is was clearly separate property. That would be a transfer of Lori's interest in the community property as beneficiary. It is entirely possible that it was a whole life police taken out and fully paid for prior to Charles' and Lori's marriage in which case she had no claim. But if $0.01 had been paid into the during their marriage with community marital property, there would at best need to be a proration done prior to settlement.

Do we know if Charles's had a will and his estate went through probate? If so, Lori would get half of Charles's separate property, the three children (JJ, Zach, and Cole) would split the other half of Charles's separate property equally. Lori would get half of their community property and the other half would be split among the 3 kids.

Life insurance payouts are treated outside of a will in Arizona.

His attorneys likely had good reason to believe it was a justified situation and that they would be able to defend the action to the judge. But anyway, Charles had the divorce petition dismissed, so what he did with his policy while he was a Texas resident doesn’t really seem all that relevant to Arizona imo.

 

[Sticksandspades]

What else would it be? Anything that can be owned is property

Legal Definition of Property | UpCounsel 2019

"Property includes not only money and other tangible things of value, but also any intangible right considered as a source or element of income or wealth."

The right to benefit from the contract is property.

Yes but, as someone else pointed out there are various laws at play here. First we don't even know which kind of policy and if it was paid for with community assets or before they got married. We also don't know the entire size of the estate. AZ uses the aggregate method not the item method for dividing the community property.

Beneficiarys of Community Property | Lasiter & Jackson | Lasiter & Jackson

 

[KonaHonu]

I just scanned through like 15 pages, and didn’t stop to hit “quote” on anything... hope whoever needs to see this sees it.

The life insurance policy was probably but not definitely community property.

Assuming it was community property, though, it was not “illegal” under AZ law to name a non-spouse beneficiary. And if this was done after the filing of a divorce petition (which it was), and the divorce had actually gone through (which the lawyers presumably assumed it would), it would have worked out just as CV intended.

Because the divorce DIDN’T go through before CV died, it’s possible LV would have had a claim to nearly half of the life insurance proceeds. This would depend on how much other community property existed—she would have a claim to half of the total. THIS WOULD BE TRUE REGARDLESS OF ANY CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN—that’s a totally unrelated issue.

@KonaHonu is the only tag I know for sure I should include

@AZlawyer, thanks, I think you have confirmed much of what I've said although I likely have many details wrong.

It seems I am wrong that it is "illegal" to change beneficiary on life insurance without spousal permisssion in Arizona. I defer to your knowledge, but in decades of living in Arizona, every time I made a beneficiary change I had to check a box if the beneficiary was not my wife aven if it was a trust she was part of. And the link below from nolo.com also supports the need for written consent

Naming a Beneficiary for Your Life Insurance Policy

And, wouldn't you agree that changing the beneficiary would violate the standard preliminary injuction initiated by a divorce petition by impairing Lori's interests?

 

[osu]

DBM

 

[GoneGoldfishin']

It's rare because it is barred by the standard court order!

Here is a link to the standard preliminary injunction issued in response to an Arizona divorce filing: https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/34/Forms/DR14F.doc

Here are some key excerps:

Your spouse has filed a “Petition for Dissolution” (Divorce) or “Petition for Annulment” or “Petition for Legal Separation” with the court. This Order is made at the direction of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Arizona in County. This Order has the same force and effect as any order signed by the judge. You and your spouse must obey this Order. This Order may be enforced by any remedy available under the law, including an “Order of Contempt of Court.” To help you understand this Order, we have provided this explanation.

1. ACTIONS FORBIDDEN BY THIS ORDER: From the time the “Petition for Dissolution” (Divorce) or “Petition for Annulment” or “Petition for Legal Separation” is filed with the court, until the judge signs the Decree, or until further order of the court, both the Petitioner and the Respondent shall not do any of the following things:


ü You may not hide earnings or community property from your spouse, AND

ü You may not take out a loan on the community property, AND

ü You may not sell the community property or give it away to someone, UNLESS you have the written permission of your spouse or written permission from the court. The law allows for situations in which you may need to transfer joint or community property as part of the everyday running of a business, or if the sale of community property is necessary to meet necessities of life, such as food, shelter, or clothing, or court fees and attorney fees associated with this action. If this applies to you, you should see a lawyer for help....

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: Arizona Law, A.R.S. §25-315(A) provides:

1(a). RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY OF THE MARRIAGE: That both parties are enjoined from transferring, encumbering, concealing, selling, or otherwise disposing of any of the joint, common or community property of the parties, except if related to the usual course of business, the necessities of life, or court fees and reasonable attorney fees associated with an action filed under this article, without the written consent of the parties or the permission of the court.

Changing the beneficiary of a life insurance policy would absolutely certainly violate the statute if done without court permission unless is was clearly separate property. That would be a transfer of Lori's interest in the community property as beneficiary. It is entirely possible that it was a whole life police taken out and fully paid for prior to Charles' and Lori's marriage in which case she had no claim. But if $0.01 had been paid into the during their marriage with community marital property, there would at best need to be a proration done prior to settlement.

Do we know if Charles's had a will and his estate went through probate? If so, Lori would get half of Charles's separate property, the three children (JJ, Zach, and Cole) would split the other half of Charles's separate property equally. Lori would get half of their community property and the other half would be split among the 3 kids.

Life insurance payouts are treated outside of a will in Arizona.

(Underline by me)
Since you have been away for a while, maybe you missed the part about Lori fraudulently impersonating Charles and locking him out of his life insurance policy in February 2019..I'm pretty sure that would be considered violation of the statute.
Lori Vallow Daybell's Sister-in-Law Says If 4th Husband Hadn't Had Life Insurance 'He Would Be Alive'

 

[KonaHonu]

No, I didn't. But you're trying to argue a point I wasn't making. My point is, each state has their own department of insurance. And Arizona's dept of insurance says you can name anyone you want as a beneficiary. I linked it earlier.

Yes, of course you can. But you only have 1/2 the vote. You need your spouse's permission if it is not separate property completely paid for prior to the marriage.

 

[osu]

Here’s Part 2 of the CBS 5 Morgan Loew interview with Melani and Ian that aired tonight. (8:49 minutes long)

EXCLUSIVE: 'It seems like the information I shared with them turned into this nationwide frenzy'

Updated 15 min ago

EXCLUSIVE: 'It seems like the information I shared with them turned into this nationwide frenzy'

 

[bears10]

@AZlawyer, thanks, I think you have confirmed much of what I've said although I likely have many details wrong.

It seems I am wrong that it is "illegal" to change beneficiary on life insurance without spousal permisssion in Arizona. I defer to your knowledge, but in decades of living in Arizona, every time I made a beneficiary change I had to check a box if the beneficiary was not my wife aven if it was a trust she was part of. And the link below from nolo.com also supports the need for written consent

Naming a Beneficiary for Your Life Insurance Policy

And, wouldn't you agree that changing the beneficiary would violate the standard preliminary injuction initiated by a divorce petition by impairing Lori's interests?

Charles had the divorce proceedings dismissed.

 

[KonaHonu]

(Underline by me)
Since you have been away for a while, maybe you missed the part about Lori fraudulently impersonating Charles and locking him out of his life insurance policy in February 2019..I'm pretty sure that would be considered violation of the statute.
Lori Vallow Daybell's Sister-in-Law Says If 4th Husband Hadn't Had Life Insurance 'He Would Be Alive'

If she did it after she was served the divorce paperwork, yes it would be.

My only point with all of this is that If CV had a $1,000,000 life insurance policy that was not his separate property because it was fully paid before the marriage, then Lori would get at least $500,000 from his estate no matter what. Perhaps she has. But if so given Chad's known $430,000, why has she not bailed out.

If there is no probate filing it probably means his estate was worth less than $75000. That excludes life insurance and retirement accounts.

 

[indicolite22]

Here’s Part 2 of the CBS 5 Morgan Loew interview with Melani and Ian that aired tonight. (8:49 minutes long)

EXCLUSIVE: 'It seems like the information I shared with them turned into this nationwide frenzy'

Updated 15 min ago

EXCLUSIVE: 'It seems like the information I shared with them turned into this nationwide frenzy'

 

[KonaHonu]

Charles had the divorce proceedings dismissed.

Right, which means the beneficiary change should not have gone into effect.

 

[spandangly]

Here’s Part 2 of the CBS 5 Morgan Loew interview with Melani and Ian that aired tonight. (8:49 minutes long)

EXCLUSIVE: 'It seems like the information I shared with them turned into this nationwide frenzy'

Updated 15 min ago

EXCLUSIVE: 'It seems like the information I shared with them turned into this nationwide frenzy'

The plot thickens! Melani claims there was a $2mil policy on Lori. That BB & CV worked together in the insurance industry and had a nefarious plan, involving Kay as well. She also insinuates there is no real evidence that BB was shot at, or that AxC was implicated (he seemingly wasn't sought or questioned by police). So much to wade through, I'm going to have to sleep on it!

 

[Sticksandspades]

Looks like she dodged the Zombie question

 

[bears10]

Right, which means the beneficiary change should not have gone into effect.

how so? He changed the beneficiary on his life insurance policy. Whether or not that broke some Arizona divorce court law doesn’t matter because 1) he lived in Texas and 2) the Arizona divorce case was no longer active

Eta- also, we know nothing about his policy in terms of when he first got it. So, if he had it before Lori, or paid with separate funds....

The characterization of the first premium payment as separate property or community property determines the characterization of the policy. Therefore, if a policy is purchased prior to marriage and the first premium is paid with separate property funds, then the policy is characterized as the separate property of that owner

Marital

 

[squareandrabbet]

Kay's emails and texts to Lori were escalating in anger, desperation, frustration and any other natural emotion, because she was being ignored. This is just another one of those examples of "reverse accusation" where Kay is trying to be civil and work something out so she has visitation, Facetime etc. She does mention in her interview that she did get uppity once or twice. Yet, Summer is accusing Kay of threats and saying this could have been handle more quietly. I'm not sure how, as Lori wasn't responding (does Summer know that), which triggered the escalation. Summer also posits that Lori has the right, as a parent to do whatever she wants and can restrict people from seeing her children if she thought they were a bad influence. Can't have it both ways. If Lori want to restrict Kay, it was going to escalate - what action did Lori take to handle this quietly? Hiding the children isn't handling this quietly, now it is.

yeah, I know a wee bit about the ‘grandparents rights’ movement and, even if Kay and Larry are horrible people (I don’t think they are), surely there’s no harm in talking to the kid on Skype from states away. If they say anything inappropriate Lori can be there to terminate the connection.

There’s just so much good stuff to analyze in that interview.

It’s a close family but neither mother nor sister attend any weddings of Lori.

It’s a close family but they didn’t know of Lori’s marriage to Chad until it was on the news.

It’s a close family but they barely mention missing Tylee and JJ, nor do they speak much about the loss of Alex.

I wonder how SS’ husband feels upon learning that Chad rated him a big fat D. Funny how the spouses seem to be Ds. You’d think all these Ls would be better at finding L partners.

seems to me that if Lori said somebody was a nasty-wasty meanie-mean, Chad conveniently labeled them a ‘D’.

Agree but even worse, Chad’s imagined son (16, tall, high sch QB) and daughter (Dream Girl) are real people. Off the scale creepy IMO.

Um, yeah, if I found out some creeping creeper was coveting my kids to the point of saying they were his in a past life, I’m paying that person a visit with a baseball bat.

I would assume LE is/has reviewed financial records. If they find SSA deposits, but don't find any payments to others for the care, education and support, that could be a problem. If she gave a lump sum to a caregiving family, I hope she has proof. Maybe a contract? Temp guardianship paperwork, what happens if one of the children get sick and needs care? Who is responsible for major medical decisions, medication, appropriate education? I agree, it's possible, but there are a lot i's and t's that would need to be dotted and crossed and I don't see any evidence of that happening. I agree this is the narrative the CFMs are trying to project, but absolutely no verifiable evidence has been produced.

TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 4
ABANDONMENT OR NONSUPPORT OF WIFE OR CHILDREN
18-401. DESERTION AND NONSUPPORT OF CHILDREN OR SPOUSE. Every person who:
(1) Having any child under the age of eighteen (18) years dependent upon him or her for care, education or support, deserts such child in any manner whatever, with intent to abandon it;

we don’t have to assume; it’s in the arresting affidavit from the Arizona (?) officer. Local jurisdictions and FBI traced all of Lori’s and Tylee’s bank accounts; nothing that could be construed as payments to hide the kids were recorded being sent to anyone. Lori also had Tylee’s bank card.

So Alex died of natural causes. Fine, that rabbit hole is closed regardless of what we think or feel.

Lori has a claim to the life insurance money because of Arizona’s community property laws, ok fine. That’s straight forward enough too. So, now we know her custody battle is about the possession of cash not kids because the custody battle can’t involve Tylee since the Woodcocks have no claim on her.

Good enough, let’s move on. Let’s talk about the most recent release of more whack job writings by the prophet Chad. We’re in Jim Jones/David Koresh territory here and we know how those ended. Let’s be happy Chad never gathered such a flock.

This case just makes me want to puke, the hubris is waist deep. Lolo’s entire family is living on the edge of reality. Actually, outside of reality but let’s not confuse their nonsense with facts.

During the short time I’ve been here this is one of the most frustrating and unnecessary cases I’ve followed. Whatever Lolo and Chad did didn’t have to happen. Whatever motive they had to dispose of the kids could have been handled differently.

If I could reach through the screen and strangle that entire bunch of Coxes and Daybellls I’d be there. RIGHT NOW! Please let this insanity end. PLEASE! There is no reason whatsoever for those children to be hidden. ZERO! Good lord help me.

Best wishes all and thank you for all the contributions to this case.

I’ve been saying for months, every time Lori says ‘custody battle’, she has meant ‘custody over 1 million rectangles of green paper’.

In the absence of a clear reason for a collapsed adult - EMS giving Narcan is a standard "nothing to lose" no downside intervention. And yes every EMS unit id going to have Narcan available.

I don't see the Narcan as significant of anything.

yeah, I was gonna say, sadly with the opiate crisis I bet there are many communities where the official EMT policy is ‘when in doubt, assume that person is a heroin addict’.

 

[squareandrabbet]

The plot thickens! Melani claims there was a $2mil policy on Lori. That BB & CV worked together in the insurance industry and had a nefarious plan, involving Kay as well. She also insinuates there is no real evidence that BB was shot at, or that AxC was implicated (he seemingly wasn't sought or questioned by police). So much to wade through, I'm going to have to sleep on it!

uh, wait, wut?

so this is the part the network thought should be buried in the unaired footage, but wouldn’t risk the casual viewer learning about it on air? Sounds to me like they’re hoping to keep things open for backtracking purposes...

also, we’ve seen multiple closeups of the bullet hole in Brandon’s door on the news. Try again, Melani.

 

[KonaHonu]

I made an earlier post about “slayer laws,” which don't permit a person who participated in the murder of an insured to benefit from inheritance of the estate, INCLUDING proceeds paid to beneficiaries from life insurance policies on the insured. I made that post in relation to the homicide of Charles Vallow, which remains an open criminal investigation.

I hope the Arizona slayer laws can be applied but I'm not optimistic. Now that Alex is dead from natural causes, it seems highly unlikely that Lori would ever be convicted in Charles's death. What evidence could possibly exist against her. Calls to her brother would hardly be incriminating. Alex admitted to the act. I believe they conspired but good luck finding any evidence of the conspiracy.

 

[spandangly]

The plot thickens! Melani claims there was a $2mil policy on Lori. That BB & CV worked together in the insurance industry and had a nefarious plan, involving Kay as well. She also insinuates there is no real evidence that BB was shot at, or that AxC was implicated (he seemingly wasn't sought or questioned by police). So much to wade through, I'm going to have to sleep on it!

Interestingly, a life insurance policy on LV may be a reason for LV to go into hiding, but not for the kids? Is there a policy on the kids? Based on the emails we've seen from CV re: JJ I can't imagine CV had any interest in hurting the kids. So, I'm still where I started: no reason to hide the kids.

 

[Sticksandspades]

uh, wait, wut?

so this is the part the network thought should be buried in the unaired footage, but wouldn’t risk the casual viewer learning about it on air? Sounds to me like they’re hoping to keep things open for backtracking purposes...

also, we’ve seen multiple closeups of the bullet hole in Brandon’s door on the news. Try again, Melani.

It was also a nice try not to deny what she said about her dream about her kids - rather read it in context - but then happily directed us to to focus on the bit where it says theres no there there.

 

[KonaHonu]

I believe they only shared a business account. Lori transfered money from the business account to another account to which Charles had no access.

Community property means his business income was half hers.

I know you are in UK or Australia and I'm not trying to be mean. But community property is a concept in American law that does not derive from English common law. It exists is a few western US states and is inherited from Spanish law. In summary the premise is that once a couple is married all marital income belongs to the community. There are few exceptions beyond gifts and inheritances.

So if Charles bought a life insurance policy with during their marriage it would be presumed to be community property unless it could be demonstrated it was 100% paid for with with separate property he had before the marriage. That is very hard to do if you comingle money by having a joint account. And like I said before, if he made so much as a penny in contribution including reinvested dividends after marriage, the account may still be separate but would be subject to a proration analysis.

If teh money was paid to Kay as some have said, I have no reason to doubt that but I think it means someone at an insurance company made a huge mistake.