Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #13

[Seattle1]

Reposting article for reference.

Barry Morphew files for guardianship of missing wife Suzanne Morphew

June 5, 2020

CrimeOnline obtained documents from Hamilton Superior Court in Hamilton County, Indiana, showing that Barry Morphew filed a petition for guardianship of Suzanne Morphew on June 1.

[..]

The pending petition states that Suzanne Morphew “is deemed incapacitated under Indiana Law because she cannot be located upon reasonable inquiry.”

The document also states that Barry Morphew is requesting to sell real estate in Indiana on behalf of Suzanne, who is the joint owner of a property that is currently in contract and scheduled to close on June 6.

“The need exists for the appointment of a guardian of the alleged incapacitated person in that she cannot be located upon reasonable inquiry and property in Hamilton County, Indiana, needs to be sold,” the petition reads.

A member of Suzanne Morphew’s family who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that Barry and Suzanne owned multiple rental properties in Indiana, and said they recalled Suzanne saying that the couple was planning on selling at least one of them. The family member said they were unaware of Barry Morphew’s petition for guardianship when CrimeOnline asked them to comment on the matter.

The court documents show that Suzanne and Barry Morphew’s eldest daughter, who is an adult, provided consent for her father to be appointed guardianship of Suzanne.

[..]

James McGuire, a staff attorney at the Indiana [*] Supreme Court, said that Indiana Supreme Court lawyers could not comment on the guardianship petition because the case is still pending, and could potentially proceed to the higher court. Several private practice attorneys based in Indiana declined to comment, and the attorney representing Barry Morphew in the petition for guardianship did not immediately respond to an interview request.

ETA: [*] I believe the author means the Indiana Superior Court where Probate matters are heard and not the Supreme court. MOO

 

[brooks]

Why continue devoting so much time to the guardianship issue? The IN judge, lawyers, and IN law has already made a decision.

I don't think anyone here would have standing to object.

 

[wheatnotchaff]

I see quite a bit of angst regarding the guardianship issue. I understand the concerns, but I wanted to assure you all that the UAGPPJA (Uniform Guardian Act, for short) is very good law.

One of the primary concerns I see voiced here is that the laws of Indiana (and Colorado, for that matter) encourage "forum shopping." The reality is quite the contrary; uniform laws were created with the explicit goal of facing this matter. The reasoning: "Why would I choose State A over State B when the laws are essentially the exact same in both instances?" This rationale lead 47 states to choose to modify their guardianship laws to this universal language, to actually discourage forum shopping. The language and rationale is exactly the same as the uniform laws on child custody matters, which have been adopted everywhere other than Massachusetts.

I also see some concern over due process issues, i.e. notice and opportunity to be heard by those who would oppose the guardianship. The UAGPPJA also provides for this, requiring notice regarding guardianship hearings, as well as a provision requiring State A to contact State B to determine which forum would be best for all parties involved. And this makes sense; where would more people live that would be in opposition to a guardianship? In State A, where no significant amount of people know the respondent's (Ms. Morphew) wishes, or in State B, where the majority of her friends, family and acquaintances live?

Irrespective of Mr. Morphew's culpability, I feel compelled to stick up for the UAGPPJA. It discourages "granny snatching," which was a very real issue prior to its overwhelming adoption, one that I faced quite a bit (and still do) in my work. All laws have shortcomings, as they can't predict every wild fact pattern. However, I have no doubt that the district judge in Indiana is honorable and qualified to make a decision on this matter; he wasn't endorsed by his peers and elected for nothing.

I'll leave this with an article with a fact pattern that might, if not change minds, at least add understanding regarding the laws of Indiana, Colorado, and 45 great other States:

Interstate Guardianship Issues

P.S. Sorry for the longcat/TLDR!

No need to apologize - your post is informative and to me, helpful. I came across the UAGPPJA and posted about it upthread this morning ... what caught my attention was the section about "signification connection state", which apparently is used to help determine jurisdiction for guardianship, and part of what I believe you're describing here. Sounds like proposing guardianship in IN (vs CO) is actually favorable to SM's interests, not simply (or at all) because she owns property there, which was what I highlighted in my post, but rather because most of her family connections are there. I guess if anyone is looking for even the tiniest bit of positive news on this aspect of the case, this could be it.

 

[brooks]

Replying to a post from previous thread.

JMO
I totally agree. I was so glad the newest video from TD showed the exact spot where the bicycle was found.

If that was the actual spot then it finally proves to me that her bicycle had to be thrown from the road by a person because I think it would have hung up in the brush more towards the top and not made it that far down the hill if she had a normal wreck or wipeout from the road area.

If it was a normal wreck, the bicycle would not have made it that far down. So some sort of human intervention like throwing it from the road or someone taking it down there had to have happened.

This helps us to limit what possibly happened to her.

With a person on the bicycle, I believe it would have made it that far down the hill.

 

[CronesEye]

Replying to a post from previous thread.

JMO
I totally agree. I was so glad the newest video from TD showed the exact spot where the bicycle was found.

If that was the actual spot then it finally proves to me that her bicycle had to be thrown from the road by a person because I think it would have hung up in the brush more towards the top and not made it that far down the hill if she had a normal wreck or wipeout from the road area.

If it was a normal wreck, the bicycle would not have made it that far down. So some sort of human intervention like throwing it from the road or someone taking it down there had to have happened.

This helps us to limit what possibly happened to her.

Wouldn't that area be heavily trampled if that was where the bike really was? If I was searching that area, I would be walking all over that growth and looking at the base and in between. That vegetation looks too good to have been searched.

Would be nice to get another confirmation to know if that was the real site the bike was found. As it doesn't look like it was searched very well.

 

[Seattle1]

SM now appears in the Guardianship Registry as an Incapcitated Adult, BM the Guardian, and the expiration date of 9/3/2020.

 

[Madeleine74]

I agree. The date of closing (today) makes it very possible the sales contract was signed before she went missing. But until we know that for sure, I’m not taking it as a given.

Is it more reasonable to believe BM was out selling the IN property sometime after 5/9, to a buyer who just so happened to want that very property to close in 27 days? And LE wouldn't have known about that transaction?

 

[Hoosierfan72]

House sold May 2019, yet it remained in BM/SM name. Why? Did they offer a “lease to purchase” for couple who wanted to buy the home? Did couple make monthly payments with intent and/or requirement to get their own financing after 1 year?

This may be the Emergency. It has been one year and the couple had procured financing to make purchase but SM is needed to sign off on the final deal. The property is legally being transferred into new owners names and funds given to BM/SM for the remaining balance.

But, I don’t understand why the taxes weren’t paid by either party on or before May 11 due date? If purchaser fully intended to go through with purchase, why didn’t someone pay the taxes?

Was there a QUESTION of whether or not the property would be sold and that is why taxes weren’t paid?

All other property taxes on other BM/SM properties were paid, why not on this home? I’m wondering if SM might have considered moving back? She could have backed out of sale, according to Realtor (attached). There might have even been a contingency that stated they could choose NOT to sell property after 1 year lease was up - on May 29.
Is that why neither party paid taxes because no one wanted to lose that $7k if either party backed out. Obviously, it bugs me those taxes were due May 11 and she goes missing on or before May 10. The check should have already been sent in my opinion - or paid online - BEFORE due date unless there was a question of whether or not the property would be sold.

I don’t see that as an excuse to murder someone, of course. But, if she found out something about BM and was considering divorce or maybe after 2 cancer stints she just wanted to live her own life, I could see her postponing any financial deals and possibly considering moving back to Indiana. It appears to be a very beautiful and peaceful place, much more so imo than the CO home. I’m just speculating!

Interesting speculation, IMO. I do think, given her deep roots in IN, that IF SM was wanting to divorce BM, it would be very possible (maybe even likely) she would want to return to IN and take possession of this home. The timing on this could be just an odd coincidence, but it sure is suspicious.

 

[al66pine]

Killer Benefiting /Inheriting from Deceased's Estate?

This may be a dumb question but if a wife left her assets in a will to her husband and he is later found guilty of murder of said wife....is he still entitled to receive them?

@Blue Amethyst
Briefly, as a general legal principle, but as others posted, it sometimes happens.
Not so briefly: Slayer rule
Slayer rule - Wikipedia.
"...The slayer rule, in the common law of inheritance, stops a person inheriting property from a person they murder (e.g., a murderer does not inherit from parents or a spouse they killed). In figuring inheritance of the decedent's estate, the slayer is treated as though they had died before the person they murdered, hence the murderer's share of the estate would pass to their[clarification needed] issue.
While a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the slayer rule applies to civil law, not criminal law, so the prosecutor must only prove the murder by a preponderance of the evidence, as in a wrongful death claim. Hence, even a slayer who is acquitted of the crime of murder can lose the inheritance by the civil court running the estate...
"In the United States, most jurisdictions have enacted a slayer statute,[8] which codifies the rule and supplies additional conditions. Such laws have sometimes been construed narrowly because the relevant statutes are criminal in nature, and serve to take away someone's rights that are otherwise afforded by law. Interpreted this way, a slayer statute will not prevent the killer from acquiring title to the property by other means. In jurisdictions with a common law slayer rule, a slayer statute may serve to extend and supplement the common law rule, rather than limiting it. For example, where the statute requires the heir to have been convicted to bar inheritance, a common law slayer rule that does not have this requirement may still serve to bar inheritance.[9]" bbm
I'll check in later, and if no one else has posted CO. statutes, I will.
{{ETA: After further thought, imo, SM's estate (testate or intestate} would likely be probated in CO, so I won't post IN. law.}}

 

[Shiloh28]

Interesting speculation, IMO. I do think, given her deep roots in IN, that IF SM was wanting to divorce BM, it would be very possible (maybe even likely) she would want to return to IN and take possession of this home. The timing on this could be just an odd coincidence, but it sure is suspicious.

To do that, she would have had to default on the land contract and somehow take possession from the people who live there now.

EBM to add: Assuming the guardianship property is the IN home and not another property.

 

[Hatfield]

Wouldn't that area be heavily trampled if that was where the bike really was? If I was searching that area, I would be walking all over that growth and looking at the base and in between. That vegetation looks too good to have been searched.

Would be nice to get another confirmation to know if that was the real site the bike was found. As it doesn't look like it was searched very well.

Good point.

No telling if that really was where it was found. There was a ribbon tied to a tree but that could have been previous search markers of how far down they looked or something.

 

[curiousgene]

I see quite a bit of angst regarding the guardianship issue. I understand the concerns, but I wanted to assure you all that the UAGPPJA (Uniform Guardian Act, for short) is very good law.

One of the primary concerns I see voiced here is that the laws of Indiana (and Colorado, for that matter) encourage "forum shopping." The reality is quite the contrary; uniform laws were created with the explicit goal of facing this matter. The reasoning: "Why would I choose State A over State B when the laws are essentially the exact same in both instances?" This rationale lead 47 states to choose to modify their guardianship laws to this universal language, to actually discourage forum shopping. The language and rationale is exactly the same as the uniform laws on child custody matters, which have been adopted everywhere other than Massachusetts.

I also see some concern over due process issues, i.e. notice and opportunity to be heard by those who would oppose the guardianship. The UAGPPJA also provides for this, requiring notice regarding guardianship hearings, as well as a provision requiring State A to contact State B to determine which forum would be best for all parties involved. And this makes sense; where would more people live that would be in opposition to a guardianship? In State A, where no significant amount of people know the respondent's (Ms. Morphew) wishes, or in State B, where the majority of her friends, family and acquaintances live?

Irrespective of Mr. Morphew's culpability, I feel compelled to stick up for the UAGPPJA. It discourages "granny snatching," which was a very real issue prior to its overwhelming adoption, one that I faced quite a bit (and still do) in my work. All laws have shortcomings, as they can't predict every wild fact pattern. However, I have no doubt that the district judge in Indiana is honorable and qualified to make a decision on this matter; he wasn't endorsed by his peers and elected for nothing.

I'll leave this with an article with a fact pattern that might, if not change minds, at least add understanding regarding the laws of Indiana, Colorado, and 45 great other States:

Interstate Guardianship Issues

P.S. Sorry for the longcat/TLDR!

Thank you ! Your input is greatly appreciated.

 

[pocketaccent]

SM now appears in the Guardianship Registry as an Incapcitated Adult, BM the Guardian, and the expiration date of 9/3/2020.

View attachment 250174

That is so very sad to see on paper. Let's see what happens in September hearing. If BM isn't arrested by then, I definitely want to know what he wants to do with a permanent guardianship. As we all do.

 

[Fireflize]

To do that, she would have had to default on the land contract and somehow take possession from the people who live there now.

As long as we are just speculating (not much else to do at this point), if she wanted to return to Indiana, she could have bought a different house with the money from the sell of the old one. Moo

 

[oviedo]

Yeah Ive been trying to think of what anyone could have done with her and unfortunately this is another Colorado case which gives plenty of remote options.

The good thing is there was a fire ban in place but then again that probably would not stop a murderer from disobeying fire laws.

I hope LE can find her or her remains soon.

Firefighters have a lot of equipment available and they weren’t tearing up that job site for no reason IMO
We wait...

 

[wheatnotchaff]

As long as we are just speculating (not much else to do at this point), if she wanted to return to Indiana, she could have bought a different house with the money from the sell of the old one. Moo

Not only that, probably would want to ... fresh start and all that. IMO

 

[TKG]

A member of Suzanne Morphew’s family who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that Barry and Suzanne owned multiple rental properties in Indiana, and said they recalled Suzanne saying that the couple was planning on selling at least one of them. The family member said they were unaware of Barry Morphew’s petition for guardianship when CrimeOnline asked them to comment on the matter.

BBM

To your point:
Yes, it would be in SM’s interest as most of her family and friends reside in IN. However, her family was unaware of the petition. So that mitigates the benefit of hearing the petition there. IMO

 

[Ontario Mom]

This is just how investigations go. I’d expect a hell of a lot more waiting, and little to no information for a while.

I’m hoping we see developments in weeks, and not months, but I would bet on it being months.

If they are searching locations of interest for her body, it’s possible they have managed to keep it a secret.

She could be anywhere though.

It's quite possible BM's phone data will reveal where she is.
Eventually.

 

[carbuff]

Wouldn't that area be heavily trampled if that was where the bike really was? If I was searching that area, I would be walking all over that growth and looking at the base and in between. That vegetation looks too good to have been searched.

Would be nice to get another confirmation to know if that was the real site the bike was found. As it doesn't look like it was searched very well.

Given the time of year, it's quite likely that a significant part of that growth happened after the searches. It's been nearly a month. That would hide any marks the searchers left.

 

[MassGuy]

It's quite possible BM's phone data will reveal where she is.
Eventually.

I suspect that his phone data will be suspicious as hell (turned on and off), but I’m not optimistic it will provide enough information to locate her.

Even Letecia Stauch knew that a phone is essentially a tracking device, and although suspicious (and damning), it did not lead law enforcement to the initial dumpsite.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see something similar here. I think the best hope may be vehicle GPS.