Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #39

[squizzey1]

I missed this good news a couple of weeks ago that a new judge has been appointed to help the backload of criminal trials in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/14852755/new-judge-to-clear-qld-court-backlog/

and truly a good man too

 

[DrWatson]

Over the last few days, there has been a very large industrial skip outside the old BC house at Brookfield. It looks to be filling with garden stuff - tree clippings etc. But maybe the owners are having a major cleanout and perhaps some remodeling of the house and garden before putting the house to its next use?

It is right up the driveway just in front of the house.

Just curious....

 

[possumheart]

Over the last few days, there has been a very large industrial skip outside the old BC house at Brookfield. It looks to be filling with garden stuff - tree clippings etc. But maybe the owners are having a major cleanout and perhaps some remodeling of the house and garden before putting the house to its next use?

It is right up the driveway just in front of the house.

Just curious....

Hope they find the phone

 

[KG1]

Over the last few days, there has been a very large industrial skip outside the old BC house at Brookfield. It looks to be filling with garden stuff - tree clippings etc. But maybe the owners are having a major cleanout and perhaps some remodeling of the house and garden before putting the house to its next use?

It is right up the driveway just in front of the house.

Just curious....

They might find Allison's phone if the police don't already have it. Just a thought.

 

[STELLA85]

and i thought suicide as well ???????

I personally know of few suicides where insurance and superannuation were paid to noks.

 

[Blue Bottle]

and i thought suicide as well ???????

Depends on the 'small print' of the particular Life Policy.

In most Life Policies these days you have to have the policy for at least 13 months before you receive a payout for suicide. Meaning, if you commit suicide before the allotted 'small print' 13 months time span, no payout, after 13 months, no problem, they pay out.

Same goes for certain medical conditions. Time limits on how long you have to have the policy for a claim to be payable vary and depend on the type of Life Policy you have. I just went through all this about year and half ago.

Best to always be clear exactly what the 'small print' says in the particular type of Life Policy you have. For example, my husband had diabetes and his Life Policy stated that it would not pay out if he died because of his diabetes (whatever that meant exactly I have no clue). However, he died from cancer which was not related to him being a diabetic and they paid out.

In his case, though the life policy was in his name, I was also joint owner of his policy because that's the way he chose to have it set up. That meant the payout went straight to me in my name and not in his name, (which would have meant it would have to become a part of his Estate and used towards paying out all his outstanding debts.)

Having it go to my name was a bonus because it meant I could do with it as I liked because the money was mine personally, not his, thus not a part of his Estate. My only 'obligation' was to payout any outstanding debts which were joint debts, meaning, in both his and my name, which means those debts immediately upon his death all become my debt. Any debts in his name only (my name exluded) were to be paid out from his Estate money.

He had a lot of business debt and because I had no part in them in any way, I was not obliged to use any of my personal money from the Life Policy payout to pay his personal nor his business debts. The house mortage was in joint names, meaning, once he died the mortage debt became all mine. Also meant the house was all mine with no probate attached to his 'half'. So after paying that and a few other debts we had in joint names, the rest of the life insurance money was all mine personally and there was no obligation to use it for his name only debts.

There was also another Life Policy in his name but which was jointly owned by both him and the the work Company and I did not see a cent of that money because I had no part in the Company. Reason being, that because that Life Policy was owned jointly by the Business Company, the Company got the money.

In my case we were seperated but remained best of friends and never divorced, which meant that legally, I was still his wife and that made settlements all the more easier, even more so that there was no other 'interested' party to make claims on any of the assets.

It can be quite tricky. Superannuation claims can be a pain, especially if the person hasn't nominated anyone as beneficiary. Naming a beneficiary in your will for your superannuation doesn't mean that person necessarily gets the superannuation because Super payout is a law onto itself.

 

[alioop]

Depends on the 'small print' of the particular Life Policy.

In most Life Policies these days you have to have the policy for at least 13 months before you receive a payout for suicide. Meaning, if you commit suicide before the allotted 'small print' 13 months time span, no payout, after 13 months, no problem, they pay out.

Same goes for certain medical conditions. Time limits on how long you have to have the policy for a claim to be payable vary and depend on the type of Life Policy you have. I just went through all this about year and half ago.

Best to always be clear exactly what the 'small print' says in the particular type of Life Policy you have. For example, my husband had diabetes and his Life Policy stated that it would not pay out if he died because of his diabetes (whatever that meant exactly I have no clue). However, he died from cancer which was not related to him being a diabetic and they paid out.

In his case, though the life policy was in his name, I was also joint owner of his policy because that's the way he chose to have it set up. That meant the payout went straight to me in my name and not in his name, (which would have meant it would have to become a part of his Estate and used towards paying out all his outstanding debts.)

Having it go to my name was a bonus because it meant I could do with it as I liked because the money was mine personally, not his, thus not a part of his Estate. My only 'obligation' was to payout any outstanding debts which were joint debts, meaning, in both his and my name, which means those debts immediately upon his death all become my debt. Any debts in his name only (my name exluded) were to be paid out from his Estate money.

He had a lot of business debt and because I had no part in them in any way, I was not obliged to use any of my personal money from the Life Policy payout to pay his personal nor his business debts. The house mortage was in joint names, meaning, once he died the mortage debt became all mine. Also meant the house was all mine with no probate attached to his 'half'. So after paying that and a few other debts we had in joint names, the rest of the life insurance money was all mine personally and there was no obligation to use it for his name only debts.

There was also another Life Policy in his name but which was jointly owned by both him and the the work Company and I did not see a cent of that money because I had no part in the Company. Reason being, that because that Life Policy was owned jointly by the Business Company, the Company got the money.

In my case we were seperated but remained best of friends and never divorced, which meant that legally, I was still his wife and that made settlements all the more easier, even more so that there was no other 'interested' party to make claims on any of the assets.

It can be quite tricky. Superannuation claims can be a pain, especially if the person hasn't nominated anyone as beneficiary. Naming a beneficiary in your will for your superannuation doesn't mean that person necessarily gets the superannuation because Super payout is a law onto itself.

Great post Bluebottle. The only comment I want to make is that insurance proceeds paid to a person's estate are exempt from paying that persons debts.

 

[Blue Bottle]

Great post Bluebottle. The only comment I want to make is that insurance proceeds paid to a person's estate are exempt from paying that persons debts.

Yikes, another long winded post by me... Not sure if it's as simple as that and I gather it depends not only on the type, but also how the Life Insurance policy is set up.... or if the Estate goes bankrupt and how a person's Will is worded. It does seem ambiguous when they say that Life Insurance does not go to pay out a person's debt....

However....

I'm thinking now that maybe in Allison's case, because of the way her Will is set up especially in that it was made before she had children, there was a valid reason the Insurance payout has not gone into her Estate directly. Meaning, that maybe there is action behind the 'scenes' to try to have that money go directly to the beneficiaries (thus avoid it going into her Estate and then becoming a part of the total monetary amount which to my understanding, then can be used for her debts).

Who will receive the proceeds from your policy?

If you take out life insurance an important consideration is who will receive the proceeds. There are some traps, which could mean the difference between the money going directly to your family, or being used to pay outstanding debts and obligations.

Holding the policy in your own name:

If you are the owner of the policy, the proceeds will go to your Estate and be dealt with under your Will. Accordingly, you must specify who is to receive those proceeds in your Will. If your Will is silent on the issue, the proceeds will form part of your "residual Estate" and be paid to your residual beneficiaries.

If you have outstanding debts or other claims against you at the time you die then your Estate assets (including the proceeds from the policy) may be used to pay these debts and obligations, which may mean that your dependents miss out.

Furthermore, a person who is not adequately provided for in your Will may challenge your Will, and thereby potentially take a larger portion of the insurance proceeds than you intended.

http://dnn.scla.com.au/YourInvestments/tabid/86/ArticleId/28/Life-Insurance-Proceeds.aspx


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1995144/s205.html

If you have outstanding debts or other claims against you at the time you die then your Estate assets (including the proceeds from the policy) may be used to pay these debts and obligations, which may mean that your dependents miss out.

If instead you name a beneficiary under the policy, the proceeds will not be paid to your Estate. Instead they will by-pass your Estate and go directly to the named beneficiary. For example, if your spouse owns the policy over your life, the proceeds will be paid directly to your spouse after your death.

If the proceeds go directly to a beneficiary, the beneficiary will receive the proceeds outright at that time. If beneficiary has unsatisfied debts or liabilities, the proceeds may be used to satisfy those claims. Furthermore, if the beneficiary is a child, they will be entitled to the full amount of those proceeds when they reach 18, which could be too early for them to properly handle the money.

http://dnn.scla.com.au/YourInvestme...fault.aspx?dnnprintmode=true&mid=502&SkinSrc=



http://www.findlaw.com.au/edocs/document.aspx?pcid=1848

 

[Makara]

I am speechless! :furious: Thank you GHS. :rocker:

Gerbil Hunting Season on October 8, 2012 at 5:32 pm said:

http://aussiecriminals.com.au/2012/...y-hearing-24th-september-2012/comment-page-1/

 

[AAAA]

I am speechless! :furious: Thank you GHS. :rocker:

Gerbil Hunting Season on October 8, 2012 at 5:32 pm said:

http://aussiecriminals.com.au/2012/...y-hearing-24th-september-2012/comment-page-1/

I've just been reading through those last few pages on aussiecrims. I want to say unbelievable but I'm not surprised. What does surprise me is that anybody can be so enterprising, especially from behind bars, if this is true. How can this be legal??? Alioop, thoughts????

 

[alioop]

I don't know what to make of this info re the sale of the house. Sounds totally bizarre to me. The Dickie's didn't try to stop the sale from what I have heard from MSM, just that the proceeds were to be held in a solicitor's trust account until Allison's entitlement could be ascertained. So I just don't know. But I will look into it for sure.

 

[Makara]

I've just been reading through those last few pages on aussiecrims. I want to say unbelievable but I'm not surprised. What does surprise me is that anybody can be so enterprising, especially from behind bars, if this is true. How can this be legal??? Alioop, thoughts????

IMO AAAA, it is illegal and I don't believe that this is a rumour. GBC is playing the system for all it's worth and is getting away with it. :furious: Similarly the realtor who handled the sale should be thoroughly investigated IMO. He must have known that the vendor and the buyer were they same entity. :furious:

 

[Makara]

I don't know what to make of this info re the sale of the house. Sounds totally bizarre to me. The Dickie's didn't try to stop the sale from what I have heard from MSM, just that the proceeds were to be held in a solicitor's trust account until Allison's entitlement could be ascertained. So I just don't know. But I will look into it for sure.

Thanks Ali. IMO the Dickies' wouldn't necessarily have been told who the buyer was until the contracts were exchanged. It wasn't their property to sell, it was WOTS P/L's property. I just don't understand how a company can list a property for sale and then in turn purchase that property. Surely the realtor would have known this? And GBC is orchestrating all of this from jail! WTF?

 

[AAAA]

Thanks Ali. IMO the Dickies' wouldn't necessarily have been told who the buyer was until the contracts were exchanged. It wasn't their property to sell, it was WOTS P/L's property. I just don't understand how a company can list a property for sale and then in turn purchase that property. Surely the realtor would have known this? And GBC is orchestrating all of this from jail! WTF?

I've just been speaking to my husband about this, he's fairly creative when it comes to saving tax etc. He thinks that if the house was bought by three people under the umbrella of a company whose directors were Gerard and Allison and then Allison was delisted after death then WOTS can buy the property if originally the names on the contract were the three people ( not Gerard) but WOTS was the guarantor. He does think that maybe the agent could be investigated but does think that the way it was done is possible. All surmising but it wouldn't be the first time the laws have been skirted. MOO. Certainly no experts here but will try and find out the info next weekend.

 

[Makara]

I've just been speaking to my husband about this, he's fairly creative when it comes to saving tax etc. He thinks that if the house was bought by three people under the umbrella of a company whose directors were Gerard and Allison and then Allison was delisted after death then WOTS can buy the property if originally the names on the contract were the three people ( not Gerard) but WOTS was the guarantor. He does think that maybe the agent could be investigated but does think that the way it was done is possible. All surmising but it wouldn't be the first time the laws have been skirted. MOO. Certainly no experts here but will try and find out the info next weekend.

Thanks AAAA and to Mr. AAAA. I think you've hit the nail on the head in that WOTS may have been a guarantor. IMO it's all very incestuous in that Nigelaine could possibly be beind this somewhere as a guarantor for WOTS or WOTS borrowed from Nigelaine, or Nigelaine borrowed from WOTS. I don't know but IMO it's all very hinky and the whole lot of them need to be investigated! I feel that this may boil down to a whole separate court case totally unrelated, but connected to by greed, to Allison's murder.

 

[Thinking]

Thanks AAAA and to Mr. AAAA. I think you've hit the nail on the head in that WOTS may have been a guarantor. IMO it's all very incestuous in that Nigelaine could possibly be beind this somewhere as a guarantor for WOTS or WOTS borrowed from Nigelaine, or Nigelaine borrowed from WOTS. I don't know but IMO it's all very hinky and the whole lot of them need to be investigated! I feel that this may boil down to a whole separate court case totally unrelated, but connected to by greed, to Allison's murder.

This is full on! Could someone explain though, what the benefit would be of gbc doing this? If the entity has no funds it has no funds - I don't get it how/why ? Sorry obviously this stuff confuses me a bit....

Also does anyone have access to rpdata or the like to confirm all this? Unfortunately my access is confined to Brisbane.

 

[they'll get you]

go to gaol

go straight to gaol

stay in gaol

rot forever in gaol

 

[aust amateur slueth]

I've just been reading through those last few pages on aussiecrims. I want to say unbelievable but I'm not surprised. What does surprise me is that anybody can be so enterprising, especially from behind bars, if this is true. How can this be legal??? Alioop, thoughts????

I don't get how it could be legal at all, it should be investigated fully and the real estate agent should be hauled over the coals too.

I'm thoroughly disgusted that GBC is allowed to make changes and run things while he is incarcerated.

His actions make him look even more guilty IMO

 

[possumheart]

Did GBC owe money to someone threatening and scary? Is this why he needed Alison's insurance? Is this the reason there was a bomb scare at the courts? Is this the reason he is still moving money around from behind bars?

 

[possumheart]

Was he playing at something like this? http://www.topsteptrader.com/