Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #84

[al66pine]

NS’s Claim? BL’s Parents said No Creditors?
BL's parents CL & RL engaged FL atty Galarza to file in FL. probate ct for summary admin of BL's estate. Est assets are listed as Bk of Am checking & savings a/c. Page 2, para 9, after diligent search for creditors, they found no creditors. Each asks for 50% of ^ a/c,* presumably held in BL's name only.
Did NS make claim for $1000+ in charges BL made w GP's bank card?**

Many/most(?) banks allow card holders to name another as an authorized user, so bank issues a separate card to the other individual as an authorized user in that individual's name. Did GP arrange that or decide not to?
If BL had separate in his name, debiting from her a/c, likely imo per terms of use or laws of agency, BL could not lawfully continue using that card after GP/ primary a/c holder's death. Or was GP an authorized user on Mother's or Father's card? IDK.

In Sept (?), FBI secured a warrant to arrest BL for unauthorized use of GP's debit card for $1000 plus. How much more? Conceivably could have maxed out the card or withdrawn all cash in just those couple days.

W publicity re BL's then unknown whereabouts, it's difficult for me to believe BL's parents were not aware of this warrant & allegations. Or that atty rep'ing BL did now know. Were they also unaware of GP’s (& maybe BL’s) property at their house and maybe at storage unit?

Conceding 1. It was an indictment, not conviction and 2. Likely not a large $ amt and 3. it was prob'ly not at the top of their worries list.
Likely a relatively minor matter. Just caught my attn --- under penalties of perjury, both parents signed the allegations are true. No creditors.
_________________________
* pdf of CL & RL's Petition for Summary Admin. of BL's probate estate.
Laundrie family files for control of Brian’s estate
** WY.U.S. Dist Ct issued fed arrest warrant for Laundrie for "use of unauthorized devices" after Petito died.... "used a debit card and PIN number for accounts that did not belong to him for charges over $1,000 between the dates of Aug. 30 and Sept. 1."
^ Federal arrest warrant issued for Brian Laundrie, FBI says Sept 24

 

[NCWatcher]

Return of GP's Property?
@NCWatcher sbm for focus. Again TY for post. Agree re possible conflict of interest, if an atty agrees to rep both in this circumstance.

Is GP's Mother/NS' request for return of GP's personal property (as a creditor) appropriately filed in BL's probate proceeding?
Now case info shows NS's "Statement of Claim" was filed Dec. 18.. @SeesSeas Thanks for posting.

FL statute* specifically addresses "claim for personal property in the possession of the personal representative."
RL & CL requested "summary admin" (estate < $75,000; no personal rep), I wonder what kind of ruling judge might make re GP's prop.
Anyone?

Note:
12/28/2021 18 COURT EVENT SET EVENT: MOTIONS DATE: Jan 5 2022 10:15AM
_________________________________
* FL. Statutes Title XLII, Chapter 733, re Admin of Estates, Sec. 733.702
^ Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
** FYI: FL law 733.816 "Disposition of unclaimed property" held by pers reps

Thanks @SeesSeas and @al66pine for the additional information.

Perhaps NS is acting as a sort of creditor. (Not at all sure that term truly applies re: personal property. Think with estates it means money owed. At the very least, creditor implies a transaction occurred. That's not the case with her property.) But it's certainly not clear to me why GP's personal property would be a part of BL's estate or would be considered to be in the possession of the L's in their role as BL's personal representative.

I could see it that way if the house where the stuff was left had belonged to BL but it doesn't and never did. I guess IF all the property GP left behind was left in the storage locker (and we don't know if that's true), perhaps it can be claimed she gave control of it to BL when he flew back and moved it from the locker to the L's house? And since she never was able to do anything with that property it remained under BL's control?

The above sort of reasoning would mean IF GP stored the property at the L's house herself (say there never was a storage locker and G&B's stuff was always left in the L's garage) then it wouldn't be a matter involving BL's estate?

It seems to me it's just as well the L's are going to return the property (and why wouldn't they? Why would they want GP's extra clothes and collected momentos?) It's not at all clear to me why it can be claimed legally the property is in the possession of BL's estate vs in the possession of the L's as GP's former "landlord." Certainly there's not much doubt (IMO) that whatever was in their house when BL died that belonged to GP is likely still there. I just don't understand how it becomes a matter for BL's estate. (It is an estate matter for GP's estate.)
JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

NS’s Claim? BL’s Parents said No Creditors?
BL's parents CL & RL engaged FL atty Galarza to file in FL. probate ct for summary admin of BL's estate. Est assets are listed as Bk of Am checking & savings a/c. Page 2, para 9, after diligent search for creditors, they found no creditors. Each asks for 50% of ^ a/c,* presumably held in BL's name only.
Did NS make claim for $1000+ in charges BL made w GP's bank card?**

Many/most(?) banks allow card holders to name another as an authorized user, so bank issues a separate card to the other individual as an authorized user in that individual's name. Did GP arrange that or decide not to?
If BL had separate in his name, debiting from her a/c, likely imo per terms of use or laws of agency, BL could not lawfully continue using that card after GP/ primary a/c holder's death. Or was GP an authorized user on Mother's or Father's card? IDK.

In Sept (?), FBI secured a warrant to arrest BL for unauthorized use of GP's debit card for $1000 plus. How much more? Conceivably could have maxed out the card or withdrawn all cash in just those couple days.

W publicity re BL's then unknown whereabouts, it's difficult for me to believe BL's parents were not aware of this warrant & allegations. Or that atty rep'ing BL did now know. Were they also unaware of GP’s (& maybe BL’s) property at their house and maybe at storage unit?

Conceding 1. It was an indictment, not conviction and 2. Likely not a large $ amt and 3. it was prob'ly not at the top of their worries list.
Likely a relatively minor matter. Just caught my attn --- under penalties of perjury, both parents signed the allegations are true. No creditors.
_________________________
* pdf of CL & RL's Petition for Summary Admin. of BL's probate estate.
Laundrie family files for control of Brian’s estate
** WY.U.S. Dist Ct issued fed arrest warrant for Laundrie for "use of unauthorized devices" after Petito died.... "used a debit card and PIN number for accounts that did not belong to him for charges over $1,000 between the dates of Aug. 30 and Sept. 1."
^ Federal arrest warrant issued for Brian Laundrie, FBI says Sept 24

It seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that the bank devices indictment against Brian means the L's may have committed perjury when they said there were no creditors against his estate. I'm not an attorney but I really don't think unproven charges equal a legal "creditor." It's possible GP's family could try to collect that money. I have no idea if they'd be successful because I have no idea what the evidence is the FBI has. None of us know. And I'm pretty sure alot more would be involved than simply showing up in court with a copy of the indictment and saying "This is true." For one thing, NS would have no way to know if it's true except by what she'd been told by the FBI they thought happened.

But even if an attempt was made to collect and even if it was successful, that doesn't mean her family (or rather GP's estate) was already a legal creditor at the time BL's estate was opened. It seems to me in my non-attorney mind, the only way the L's would need to accept GP's estate as a "creditor" is if they accepted the indictment as true. And there's certainly no legal requirement that they do that! Finally, obviously GP didn't bring the charge against BL-- it was a violation re: the bank. It's possible the bank already returned the money to GP's acct. Sometimes in cases of fraud that is done. So if there WAS a creditor it wouldn't be the Petito family anyway. It would be the bank. And I somehow doubt big banks go after dead people for relatively small amounts of money. But that's JMO.

At any rate, the warrant did not state the card & PIN were used for "$1000 plus." It states "$1000 or more."

DocumentCloud

That's a subtle difference but it is a difference. I know the words used in many articles and headlines are wrong though. It just goes to show though that the MSM doesn't always get it right. And when we speculate based on MSM "facts" we may go far afield!

JMO

 

[Wallendo]

The initial probate filing for BL's estate would just have to list known creditors at the time of the filing. Other creditors would then have to make a claim on their own against the estate within a certain time period.

As for Gabby's stuff" If the Laundrie's had been seen searching through the boxes stored in the storage area during the height of the case, this board would have blown up with claims they were destroying evidence. They may have even been advised by their lawyer, or law enforcement, to leave the boxes alone.

It would be nice to know what items were requested by the claim filed other than "stuff". Any items belonging to Gabby would need to be distributed to the executor of her estate. At her death, all assets would belong to the estate, not the family. Probate can be messy, especially when two intestate estates are involved, and one of the deceased is accused of killing the other.

 

[al66pine]

Filing by NS. For GP's Property or $? My comments in red.

Thanks @SeesSeas and @al66pine for the additional information. NCWatcher. Thank you for your analysis and have added my thoughts in red here in your post. I have some questions about it & wish we could see the doc itself.
BL's parents filed for "Summary Administration"* (Probate-Lite ), which dispenses w some probate formalities. No pers rep's are appt'ed.


THE CLAIM?
Perhaps NS is acting as a sort of creditor.
Docket shows her filing as a "Statement of Claim." FL. sec. 731.201(4) defines "Claim"* as "a liability of the decedent, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise..." Is she making claim for return of GP's prop, or for $ for bank card charges, or both? IDK, but in this post I'm ignoring any $ claim.

(Not at all sure that term truly applies re: personal property. Think with estates it means money owed.
Per ^ a claim is not limited to "money owed." FL statute also
specifically addresses procedure for owner to make "claim for personal property in the possession of the personal representative."

At the very least, creditor implies a transaction occurred. That's not the case with her property.)
Agreeing that as to GP's prop in FL, GP had no transaction directly w BL's parents, but a claim against an est is not necessarily a money based transaction.

RESPONSIBILITY of PERS REP? Or NOT?
But it's certainly not clear to me why GP's personal property would be a part of BL's estate or would be considered to be in the possession of the L's in their role as BL's personal representative....
Because a pers rep stands in the decedent's shoes (generally). Let's 'rewind the tape,' to a hypo when GP & BL were alive. If they had broken up & GP asked for BL to return of her prop, then BL "owed"
that prop to GP. Likewise, now w both deceased, the BL's est.'s pers rep "owes" GP's est the return of the prop. See below re GP's est.

Aye, there's the rub: if people standing in GP's & BL's shoes cannot reach a mutually acceptable agreement, they must go thru legal probate hoops.

I could see it that way if the house where the stuff was left had belonged to BL but it doesn't and never did.
Okay, not disagreeing.

LOCATION of PROPERTY?
I guess IF all the property GP left behind was left in the storage locker (and we don't know if that's true), perhaps it can be claimed she gave control of it to BL when he flew back and moved it from the locker to the L's house? And since she never was able to do anything with that property it remained under BL's control? bbm
Agreeing w ^ reasoning, prop was in BL's constructive possession.

The above sort of reasoning would mean IF GP stored the property at the L's house herself (say there never was a storage locker and G&B's stuff was always left in the L's garage) then it wouldn't be a matter involving BL's estate? bbm
Imo, could still be a (potential) issue in involving BL's est. A pers rep's responsibility for returning prop of another, which had been in the deceased's possession, does not hinge on the prop's location. imo

It seems to me it's just as well the L's are going to return the property (and why wouldn't they?
I hope they do, as atty said they will. Seems simple. imo

Why would they want GP's extra clothes and collected momentos?)
No reason I can think of.

It's not at all clear to me why it can be claimed legally the property is in the possession of BL's estate vs in the possession of the L's as GP's former "landlord." Certainly there's not much doubt (IMO) that whatever was in their house when BL died that belonged to GP is likely still there. I just don't understand how it becomes a matter for BL's estate.
(It is an estate matter for GP's estate.) bbm
I have not seen info about whether NS (or JP, or anyone else) has been granted authority by a court to act re GP's estate. And w'out seeing Statement of Claim doc, we don't know basis for her authority, aside from mother as natural guardian, but GPM was longer a minor.

If this relates only to return of property, sad that a parent is compelled to turn to our judicial system for what seems to be a relatively simple request.

JMO

_________________________________
FL. Statutes Title XLII. Estates and Trusts. Probate Code.
* Chapter 735. Small Estates. Summary Administratn. (ss. 735.201-735.2063)
Disposition of Personal Property Without Administration (ss. 735.301-735.304)
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
** Chapter 731. General Provisions. Definitions. Sec. 733.201(4)
(4) “Claim” means a liability of the decedent, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, and funeral expense..."
^ Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine1.201.html
^ Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
*** Chapter 733. Administration of Estates.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2021->Chapter 733 : Online Sunshine

 

[Laura456]

I know I'm going to be cursed for this. I see this as anger that went to far. We don't know what happened to these two kids. Yes he killed her why? We don't have the answer. But I don't think it was intentional. I see it as he got angry and went to far. That's why he killed himself. We don't know if it's because he was being a coward or not wanting to face what he did. But no matter what his debt is paid. He was judged tried and ready for execution before anyone knew the truth. Those kids loved each other and we only saw the video of them being pulled over and the phone call a guy made about him hitting her. I believe they we're both guilty of putting their hands on the other. Is that right? No definitely toxic. But this couldn't have been the first time. I see young people like this quite often but they continue to love each other. Immaturity. No he didn't handle it the way we all think he should have. But we are also not them. Let these two kids rest. Obviously they thought they loved each other.

With all due respect, they weren't Romeo and Juliet. A toxic relationship is NOT love. This is the stuff that has abuse victims going back to their abuser.

PLEASE don't make this out that they both laid hands on each other, we do not know this or much about their real relationship, really.

Let's try to emphasize that any amount of abuse is NOT OK even if "they love each other". A relationship where one or both people are abusive is not love, no matter what they might think at the time.

 

[MountainGal33]

With all due respect, they weren't Romeo and Juliet. A toxic relationship is NOT love. This is the stuff that has abuse victims going back to their abuser.

PLEASE don't make this out that they both laid hands on each other, we do not know this or much about their real relationship, really.

Let's try to emphasize that any amount of abuse is NOT OK even if "they love each other". A relationship where one or both people are abusive is not love, no matter what they might think at the time.

Absolutely agree.

Also he may not have woke up that day and said today l am going to kill Gabby.

Or maybe it was in the heat of some rage moment..who knows.

What l do know is he did.not.stop. And when you are willfully strangling the life out of someone and you do not stop, it isn’t love. It’s abuse. At that point it’s beyond abuse.

The opposite of love. He didn’t stop.

 

[NCWatcher]

Filing by NS. For GP's Property or $? My comments in red.

_________________________________
FL. Statutes Title XLII. Estates and Trusts. Probate Code.
* Chapter 735. Small Estates. Summary Administratn. (ss. 735.201-735.2063)
Disposition of Personal Property Without Administration (ss. 735.301-735.304)
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
** Chapter 731. General Provisions. Definitions. Sec. 733.201(4)
(4) “Claim” means a liability of the decedent, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, and funeral expense..."
^ Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine1.201.html
^ Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
*** Chapter 733. Administration of Estates.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2021->Chapter 733 : Online Sunshine

Wow. Lots of info!

Because you wrote most of your comments in red inside a post of mine, I can't seem to quote that part. But here are my issues even with all that extra information.

1. To me, having a a claim against an estate doesn't make a person a "creditor." My question was about the terminology, not whether NS could bring a claim in her role as GP's personal rep. (While we talk about GP's things going to "her family," i think we all know that NS is legally acting in her role as the executor/personal rep for GP's estate not in her role as GP's mom.).

2. I get that a personal representative is "standing in" for the dead person. That's not in question. My question is why we are assuming that when she died GP's property was under the control of BL rather than under the control of her former landlords, the L's. That's what I don't understand. I would understand if they'd lived in a house B owned or even one he rented. They didn't. I'd understand if the property in question had been gifted to B as an engagement present. It wasn't. I'd understand (as in your example) if G&B had broken up and B had kept her property and refused to give it back. That didn't happen either.

Is the property assumed to have been under B's control ONLY because he flew back and purportedly removed it from a storage locker and put it in the L's house or garage? If so, hypothetically, if they'd both come back and moved the property it wouldn't be an estate matter? Or if only GP came back? (Not ever likely I know.) Or if they had left the property in the house/garage to begin with and there had been no locker and no trip back, would the property still be assumed to have been under B's control?

JMO

 

[Allabouttrial]

With all due respect, they weren't Romeo and Juliet. A toxic relationship is NOT love. This is the stuff that has abuse victims going back to their abuser.

PLEASE don't make this out that they both laid hands on each other, we do not know this or much about their real relationship, really.

Let's try to emphasize that any amount of abuse is NOT OK even if "they love each other". A relationship where one or both people are abusive is not love, no matter what they might think at the time.

I don't believe the original poster said that abuse in a relationship is ok, unless I missed it? I think we're all adults and are well aware that it's not.

You are correct, we have no clue what there relationship was like before all this. Even her parents say they didn't see anything out of the norm. IIRC Gabby's mum said as far as she was aware it was just the usual problems, that most couples deal with.

Love is how an individual feels. They quite clearly felt they loved each other. IMO

 

[NCWatcher]

I don't believe the original poster said that abuse in a relationship is ok, unless I missed it? I think we're all adults and are well aware that it's not.

You are correct, we have no clue what there relationship was like before all this. Even her parents say they didn't see anything out of the norm. IIRC Gabby's mum said as far as she was aware it was just the usual problems, that most couples deal with.

Love is how an individual feels. They quite clearly felt they loved each other. IMO

Quite true. And NS even went farther than that. She said that since Gabby's death she'd poured over every aspect of G&B's relationship that she knew about and even in retrospect she didn't see warning signs. TP who said she'd been in an abusive relationship in the past concurred.

Of course, JP explained BL showed "all the hallmarks" of an abuser but I'm pretty sure JP never saw those supposed hallmarks in advance or even knew what those hallmarks were before becoming active in their foundation. If he did see abuse issues, it's a mystery why he supported the first road trip by leasing the Nissan for GP and why he supported the second trip in a variety of ways including financial. I don't think it's a secret he didn't like BL but he's made plenty of statements in the past (reported in the MSM) that suggest he didn't like anyone GP ever dated. And he's said on the record he tried to intentionally humiliate her boyfriends by calling them girls' names so I'm not sure he would have been focused on other aspects of those relationships anyway. But I suspect NS would have been.

Gabby Petito’s mother says she didn’t see warning signs in Laundrie relationship

JMO

 

[Allabouttrial]

https://www.fox4now.com/news/local-news/brian-laundries-parents-request-ownership-of-notebook
.......
NORTH PORT, Fla. — Chris and Roberta Laundrie have reportedly requested the ownership of the noteboook found near the body of their son Brian at the Carlton Reserve.

The family attorney, Steven P. Bertolino, says the family's filing to get the notebook is a formality to process Brian's estate.
.......

 

[Allabouttrial]

Josh Benson
@WFLAJosh

GUN UPDATE. Remember the gun found off the Fort DeSoto shoreline in October? I finally got the case and ballistics reports back from Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. Posting findings shortly. We’ll discuss on #JoshLive Space at 1:30pm.
@WFLA

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Brian Laundries parents are trying to take possession of his notebook that is in FBI custody. Their attorney Steven Bertolino tells me this is part of a formal proceeding to administer Brian's estate.

Bertolino says: "Nichole Schmidt filed to obtain Gabby’s belongings that are in the Laundrie home or in police custody. Rick Stafford and I are trying to work this out cordially. " Stafford is the Petito family attorney.

https://twitter.com/BrianEntin/status/1478429045650034690

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Josh Benson
@WFLAJosh

GUN UPDATE. Remember the gun found off the Fort DeSoto shoreline in October? I finally got the case and ballistics reports back from Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. Posting findings shortly. We’ll discuss on #JoshLive Space at 1:30pm.
@WFLA

I was listening to JB on another case. What is the update for this?

 

[Allabouttrial]

I was listening to JB on another case. What is the update for this?

Josh Benson
[URL='https://twitter.com/WFLAJosh']@WFLAJosh[/URL]

On 11.18.21, the final report was released from FDLE. The revolver was reassembled and test fired and was functional. But the cartridge cases did not meet requirements for NIBIN protocol. At this time, no further law enforcement action required. CASE CLOSED, NON-CRIMINAL.

Josh said on the live this gun has nothing to do with the Laundrie case.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Josh Benson
@WFLAJosh

On 11.18.21, the final report was released from FDLE. The revolver was reassembled and test fired and was functional. But the cartridge cases did not meet requirements for NIBIN protocol. At this time, no further law enforcement action required. CASE CLOSED, NON-CRIMINAL.

Josh said on the live this gun has nothing to do with the Laundrie case.

Thank you!

 

[Armalita]

With all due respect, they weren't Romeo and Juliet. A toxic relationship is NOT love. This is the stuff that has abuse victims going back to their abuser.

PLEASE don't make this out that they both laid hands on each other, we do not know this or much about their real relationship, really.

Let's try to emphasize that any amount of abuse is NOT OK even if "they love each other". A relationship where one or both people are abusive is not love, no matter what they might think at the time.

Exactly that's why I stressed it was toxic. With both of them having marks on each other one could assume they both laid their hands on one another. I wasn't there nor anyone else. I'm just saying kids nowadays and I should stress not all kids seem to think these kind of relationships are love. Never did I say they were Romeo and Juliet

 

[txsleuth70]

I don't believe the original poster said that abuse in a relationship is ok, unless I missed it? I think we're all adults and are well aware that it's not.

You are correct, we have no clue what there relationship was like before all this. Even her parents say they didn't see anything out of the norm. IIRC Gabby's mum said as far as she was aware it was just the usual problems, that most couples deal with.

Love is how an individual feels. They quite clearly felt they loved each other. IMO

I completely disagree. Love is an action. Someone may tell you they have feelings of love for you, and you may think you feel you're in love. But if that same someone is beating the s* out of you, that isn't love, on either person's side. Even if they FEEL that it is. Love is shown and proven in actions, not words or feelings. IMO

 

[GRT]

I completely disagree. Love is an action. Someone may tell you they have feelings of love for you, and you may think you feel you're in love. But if that same someone is beating the s* out of you, that isn't love, on either person's side. Even if they FEEL that it is. Love is shown and proven in actions, not words or feelings. IMO

Love is a habit, and Gabby and Brian certainly seemed to have been locked into a relationship where they were acting on habit.

Did they have warm feelings for one another? Probably, but we don't know the dynamics of their relationship.

I agree that "beating the s* out of you" is a huge red flag, but we don't know when that started because even Gabby's dad said he saw no concerns, even in retrospect. The physical altercations could have been a very recent development that quickly escalated.

Nothing happens in a vacuum and nothing is black and white. All we know is that a young couple died tragically and broken families are left to pick up the few remaining pieces. It's just sad all the way around and for everyone who is involved.

 

[NoSI]

A friend of mine, who is not on Websleuths, has asked me if I knew what day/time (if known) BL purchased the ticket to fly from SLC to Florida for the storage cleanout. I was unable to answer her questions and was wondering if this information was ever made public. Thank you so much in advance.