Catch 22? Why stay at the family home?

[DairyGirl]

Hello DairyGirl,

Nice to see you

You wrote:
>>I don't see her making any confessions to her parents or friends.<<

I don't think that hearing a confession would be the only reason a bug could be useful. If a house were bugged, and a listening to the video of the parents saying, "Kyron is alive" was heard on the bug, then suddenly someone in the household let out a maniacal laugh just afterward, that could be important to those listening to the bugs. On the other hand, if they heard a response of something like, "Oh GOD GOD, I sure hope they are right...I miss him so much..." See what I mean...any number of responses could guide those listening to that which was heard in a bug, I might guess.

Yes but if a person (who may or may not be a fan of, say, CSI) were to assume that a bug was in place they may also be able to put on an act, much like the act of being surprised when a child doesn't get off the bus.

 

[Wrinkles]

Not Citigirl, but,I have the same situation, in IL.

Thanks for responding Rosie. Wow...that is HUGELY interesting. Hmmm... In this state (CA), to my knowledge (maybe someone can correct me if I am wrong), if someone buys a home with their money before their marriage, it is THEIR home unless and until they make it community property by adding the other person's name to the title. I'm not sure that would rule out a marriage partner getting a portion of an increase in equity over a course of time but... I dunno.

 

[Wrinkles]

They weren't imploring her to cooperate, they were imploring her to "fully" cooperate. Like maybe she is cooperating by submitting to a LDT but maybe not passing the LDT. Just because someone is cooperating doesn't mean they are "fully" cooperating.

Ah....the "fully" word! I didn't go back and listen to the exact text. Interesting point. Thank you.

 

[carole]

Well the benchguide reads as though the judge has no choice but to order the respondent out of the home. It says it's mandatory. Makes me wonder why that didn't occur (assuming the RO was issued under this law)

BBM

Actually the benchguide says it is mandatory if the petitioner requests it --

A. Mandatory (Not Discretionary) Relief

The court must order the following relief if:

• A petitioner with an eligible relationship requests it; (BBM)

3. Ouster

So evidently Kaine did not request she be removed. Maybe for the reasons speculated here. He may know or suspect that the house is bugged, or does not want Terri to move away from Portland to her parents home.

 

[carole]

Hmmmm...really? I can't imagine that (i.e. "although my husband purchased our house before we were married, the house is legally mine also in my state.") Which state is this if I might ask?

BBM

Absolutely. That's what happens when you marry. Yours is his, and his is yours. It all becomes as one. I live in North Carolina.

 

[gwenabob]

I had some friends that divorced in Oregon a while back. He owned the house, her name wasn't on it. When they divorced she was award half the equity that it accrued while they were married. Don't know if that is standard.
As far as her staying if there are bugs there, if I were her I would assume there were. I am sure she is sticking with her story of innocence. I don't see her making any confessions to her parents or friends. One thing I am curious about, if they bugged any conversations between her and her lawyer I am sure they would be useless because of attorney/client privilege, right? I am sure he knows better then to talk at her house in any case.
Anyway, I doubt the judge would award her the house if Kaine winds up raising their daughter.

She may well be entitled to a portion of the equity accrued since their marriage. Which, under these economic times is probably zip. Or less. But any ownership would come from a divorce decree, not a current deed.

 

[DairyGirl]

She may well be entitled to a portion of the equity accrued since their marriage. Which, under these economic times is probably zip. Or less. But any ownership would come from a divorce decree, not a current deed.

Again, I would hope a man that appears to be successful and intelligent would have a good prenup in place.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Hi Oxy...

Nice to see you

It is difficult to discuss this case, because on one hand I do not want to play a part in scrutinizing someone who may have done some questionable things in their life (haven't we all?), but maybe did not do that for which they are being scrutinized.

That brings me to another Catch 22 of sorts. The family (dad, mom, step dad) goes to a news conference, they have supposedly been fully briefed by LE, they implore TH to cooperate. "Imploring" isn't like just saying, "We hope she will continue to cooperate" (as if she "has been" doing that) or "We hope she will begin to cooperate" (as if she "hasn't done" that, yet it was indicated that all family were before recent events). No, they are "imploring" her -- beseeching her...

The next day, police come out and say TH has been cooperating. They (LE) know she has an attorney now, they know there is an extra layer between TH and them... BUT...she has been cooperating.

So does the family think that "imploring" Terri to cooperate is really important if she has done that and there are no problems? Oh there are some probems with stories, and maybe due to indiscretion or lack of integrity in some answers...

Has TH been cooperating or hasn't she? Her head is surely spinning with the kinda mixed signals, but maybe that is what the mixed signals have been meant to make happen.

So what's going on with the "Imploring to cooperate" vs "she has been cooperating" and all of that within 24 hours. It "was" the family that "implored" but they also checked with LE before they gave their statement.

Were I TH, I would feel befuddled -- why are you all one day saying "I implore you to cooperate" and the next saying, "She has cooperated."

Good cop, bad cop.

 

[Calliope]

BBM

Actually the benchguide says it is mandatory if the petitioner requests it --

A. Mandatory (Not Discretionary) Relief

The court must order the following relief if:

• A petitioner with an eligible relationship requests it; (BBM)

3. Ouster

So evidently Kaine did not request she be removed. Maybe for the reasons speculated here. He may know or suspect that the house is bugged, or does not want Terri to move away from Portland to her parents home.

Thanks

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.718

 

[DairyGirl]

Yes, exactly...but for just how long could they act? Since I talk in my sleep, a bug would never be good in my home. Heck I even answer questions while I'm sleeping.

Interesting point the CSI thing. I still have a whole flock of questions about how it was that a 7 year old boy was wearing a CSI t-shirt. I certainly hope there is an innocent answer to that, because if there isn't...I can't help but thinking that the shirt was a chess move, a taunt... I hope that the latter is NOT the case.

For as long as they don't want to go to jail or permanently lose their baby.

 

[Wrinkles]

Maybe Kaine chose to let her remain in the house because he wants to keep her close? Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer perhaps?

Hello Nurse

Maybe...maybe to keep her close, maybe for any number of reasons too. Then again, I think that when someone lives in a house for X amount of time, even though it is owned by someone else, they have to be given a certain amount of notice to move out. Don't know what the laws are in Oregon for people being married with the man's name on the house OR the eviction laws.

What might be interesting, IF she does eventually move out, might be the estate of the house at that time AND particularly of Kyron's bedroom and belongings. If I were Kaine and Desiree, I would not leave that to chance, but would get my hands on my missing son's belongings UNLESS LE said, "No...as much as you want to do that, please don't."

 

[GrainneDhu]

Hmmmm...really? I can't imagine that (i.e. "although my husband purchased our house before we were married, the house is legally mine also in my state.") Which state is this if I might ask?

That is true in Iowa and Minnesota, which are both "no fault" divorce states with strong community property laws.

Where there is a disparity in income between two spouses, the partner with the higher income cannot claim a greater share of the marital assets simply by putting them or keeping them in their own name.

When it comes time to divvy up a house that was purchased before the marriage, the court figures out the equity accrued prior to the marriage and the equity accrued during the marriage. They subtract the prenuptial equity from the joint equity and voila! That's the lump sum that is then divided in half between the two partners.

There are some wrinkles and exceptions to the above but that's the gist of how it is decided.

 

[gwenabob]

BBM

Absolutely. That's what happens when you marry. Yours is his, and his is yours. It all becomes as one. I live in North Carolina.

Well, it might be that way in NC, but it is not that way in all states.

 

[carole]

Well, it might be that way in NC, but it is not that way in all states.

No, but it is that way in a lot of states. I don't know about Oregon.

 

[Wrinkles]

BBM

Absolutely. That's what happens when you marry. Yours is his, and his is yours. It all becomes as one. I live in North Carolina.

Hello Carole,

OT...but maybe important...

I just read something here:
http://www.divorcenet.com/states/north_carolina/ncfaq_09

It states:

"The first step in the process is 'identification'. The court must determine which property is marital and which is separate. Separate property is property owned before marriage, inherited property and gifts. Separate property used to purchase jointly held real estate becomes marital property."

The above is similar to the laws in our state. IF I buy a home before I marry, it is mine. IF I marry, it does NOT automatically become my husband's. IF I marry, then sell my home while I am married, AND THEN take the proceeds of the sale and put them into another home purchased by both my husband and myself, THEN my separate money has now become community property (to be split evenly if we ever divorce.) EVEN IF my husband didn't put one penny into the house we buy together, I must STILL count on splitting what "I owned separately and previously" with him later and the moment I put it into a community property. Now...I don't think I am wrong on this, but someone could sure check me on it.

Again...I don't know how this goes in Oregon.

 

[mtnone]

Good cop, bad cop.

Yes. And the LE could let the family say that with less possible trouble, then they continue toeing the line by saying as far as ... he has been advised of the investigation.... which further leaves their butts well covered.

Thus, they have it both ways.

And LE can advise the family, they can't stop them. LE weren't seen in that tape of the family's statement.

 

[gwenabob]

Hello Carole,

OT...but maybe important...

I just read something here:
http://www.divorcenet.com/states/north_carolina/ncfaq_09

It states:

"The first step in the process is 'identification'. The court must determine which property is marital and which is separate. Separate property is property owned before marriage, inherited property and gifts. Separate property used to purchase jointly held real estate becomes marital property."

The above is similar to the laws in our state. IF I buy a home before I marry, it is mine. IF I marry, it does NOT automatically become my husband's. IF I marry, then sell my home while I am married, AND THEN take the proceeds of the sale and put them into another home purchased by both my husband and myself, THEN my separate money has now become community property (to be split evenly if we ever divorce.) EVEN IF my husband didn't put one penny into the house we buy together, I must STILL count on splitting what "I owned separately and previously" with him later and the moment I put it into a community property. Now...I don't think I am wrong on this, but someone could sure check me on it.

Again...I don't know how this goes in Oregon.

This is closer to how I understand Oregon divorce laws. In addition to the above explanation, a judge may take into account where the money came from that went into buying the home. For example, if I sell my own home, put $50,000 into a new home with my new spouse on the title, then we divorce, and the home has increased in value by $10,000, we would only have to split that $10,000, not the entire equity which would include the money I gave of my own for the down payment. Make sense? It really is more fair.

 

[Wrinkles]

Well...

I guess we will see what happens with Terri staying or moving.

I hope that her attorney has advised her that the house could be bugged (IF that is legal.) They may not be able to use bugged information in court, but they may be able to use it to help locate Kyron or figure out other things that they can use (once they get them legally.)

Wuh oh...time for lights out here.

Good seeing you all tonight. Thanks to everyone who has shared their thoughts.

 

[Calliope]

Well...

I guess we will see what happens with Terri staying or moving.

I hope that her attorney has advised her that the house could be bugged (IF that is legal.) They may not be able to use bugged information in court, but they may be able to use it to help locate Kyron or figure out other things that they can use (once they get them legally.)

Wuh oh...time for lights out here.

Good seeing you all tonight. Thanks to everyone who has shared their thoughts.

bbm

If it's not legal, wouldn't this then apply?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fruit+of+the+poison+tree

 

[froginTtown]

Okay gang...was just thinking...

1. Your step son disappears
2. LE is reported to have stayed at your home 24/7 at one point in time
3. You seem to be in the spotlight
4. Your husband leaves and takes your little one, getting an RO

Now then... Curious question... Does anyone know "who" owns the KH and TH family home? I read elsewhere (I couldn't get into the records to prove it), that KH owns it, but I don't know if TH's name is also on the paperwork as owner. Even so...

So...you have had LE at your home. What are the chances of there being bugs in the house? (not talking spidies and things!) Is that legal?

IF it is, you are staying in the home, you could be recorded and heard by LE.

IF you leave the home, you are vacating the family premises and could end up homeless, so to speak. [In a divorce, the person who leaves the home could end up being the one out of it until the LONG divorce process ends.]

All of this in context with another thought... Do you ever talk to yourself (or outloud when you are by yourself)? I surely do... :biggrin: (I might shout at the TV if someone on it says nonsense, I might just say what I think of it and why! I might shout at the computer or LAUGH at it, if I am watching a particular video.) And assuming you have your parents staying with you, might you not talk to them and say your thoughts/feelings OR vent?

Bottom line, I don't know that IF there was a chance that my home was being bugged AND I was a possible suspect, that I would want to stay in my home. The whole thing would put just too much pressure on me, guilty or innocent. BUT...what if that home was where I wanted to live -- my only main means to have "my home" over my head, so that I didn't have to go live with my parents?

Oh...and I wonder if my car could be bugged too?

So, do I invite my parents to my home to give me emotional support, or do I go stay with them? If I leave my home, could it be invaded by my spouse -- they come in and strip me of whatever they want or move back in and I could be out -- afterall, they have an RO against me?

Catch 22?

hmmm... does anyone know her exact FB name??? I'm an avid Farmville player and in a very high level.... I would love to invite her as my neighbor...!! :angel: