Found Deceased TX - Michael Chambers, 70, Hunt County, 10 March 2017 #4

Status
Not open for further replies.
advance apologies for yelling, but...

ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT IF THE TOOLS SELL FOR MORE, ONLY $70 GOES INTO THAT ACCOUNT?

We might be able to tell by how the truck sale was handled. She deposited $5000 for that. Was the truck sold for $5000 or $10,000 profit?
 
Pmerle, according to Becca she passed the lie detector the 2nd time she took it. Has anyone else confirmed as to whether or not she passed it? Or is Becca the only one speaking about her results?
 
Pmerle, according to Becca she passed the lie detector the 2nd time she took it. Has anyone else confirmed as to whether or not she passed it? Or is Becca the only one speaking about her results?

I am surprised they could give her a polygraph with her taking anxiety meds. I thought anything that could effect your body's response would be counter productive to the entire process.
 
I am surprised they could give her a polygraph with her taking anxiety meds. I thought anything that could effect your body's response would be counter productive to the entire process.
I was thinking the same thing. Of course, it could be an SSRI/SNRI, but I was thinking it's a benzo. I wasn't aware that one could pass while on benzos.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
I was thinking the same thing. Of course, it could be an SSRI/SNRI, but I was thinking it's a benzo. I wasn't aware that one could pass while on benzos.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I was thinking Benzos, also. I think people can pass on them and that is what makes the poly invalid. I think beta blockers do the same thing.
 
I am surprised they could give her a polygraph with her taking anxiety meds. I thought anything that could effect your body's response would be counter productive to the entire process.

Oh they definitely effect your body! Slow your heart rate and response time. If she in fact was on these medications during the polygraph then the results are completely invalid in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
advance apologies for yelling, but...

ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT IF THE TOOLS SELL FOR MORE, ONLY $70 GOES INTO THAT ACCOUNT?

Yes.


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*
 
Could someone PLEASE find out if this is true?????? Does she have to deposit half of the actual sale price? Or half of what's listed in Schedule F????

I will buy ALL the tools to keep ANYONE from profiting off of this if it's the latter. And I don't even have ROOM for that many tools. :-(

Yes. It's spelled out in the documents concerning the Will and Appraisment.


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*
 
I was thinking the same thing. Of course, it could be an SSRI/SNRI, but I was thinking it's a benzo. I wasn't aware that one could pass while on benzos.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You would be thinking right.


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*
 
Yessssss! This is exactly what I was thinking . . . . if their auto insurance policy was in both names (most likely, in fact, required, I believe in Texas) AND the auto insurance policy paid off the lien . . . it makes sense that the title was reissued in both of their names and that allowed her to sell the truck w/o him. Probably the new owner (buyerO hasn't changed the title into their own names yet . . . . . . (also just thinking out loud)

I'm wondering out loud here... if the loan were paid off on the truck and a bank or whoever issued a clean title, could they have issued it in both names if requested so Becca would then be able to sell it with her name on it? I don't know how any of that works...
 
I know a retired Dallas Firefighter who lives in Quinlan who, I'm 99% sure, would be more than happy to help you store those tools, free of cost, if you were to somehow come into possession of them . . . . . js :heartbeat:
Could someone PLEASE find out if this is true?????? Does she have to deposit half of the actual sale price? Or half of what's listed in Schedule F????

I will buy ALL the tools to keep ANYONE from profiting off of this if it's the latter. And I don't even have ROOM for that many tools. :-(
 
Yessssss! This is exactly what I was thinking . . . . if their auto insurance policy was in both names (most likely, in fact, required, I believe in Texas) AND the auto insurance policy paid off the lien . . . it makes sense that the title was reissued in both of their names and that allowed her to sell the truck w/o him. Probably the new owner (buyerO hasn't changed the title into their own names yet . . . . . . (also just thinking out loud)

That may be true, but it doesn’t take 3 months to transfer a title. And if they haven’t transferred the title, why haven’t they? I know I wouldn’t want to be responsible if the new owners got into a wreck & totaled the truck or God forbid, hurt or killed someone, not only could they sue the driver, but the owner of the vehicle as well.


Just my random thoughts & opinions...
 
I was thinking Benzos, also. I think people can pass on them and that is what makes the poly invalid. I think beta blockers do the same thing.
Right. So I'm surprised if they actually consider her to have passed the poly. So weird.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Yessssss! This is exactly what I was thinking . . . . if their auto insurance policy was in both names (most likely, in fact, required, I believe in Texas) AND the auto insurance policy paid off the lien . . . it makes sense that the title was reissued in both of their names and that allowed her to sell the truck w/o him. Probably the new owner (buyerO hasn't changed the title into their own names yet . . . . . . (also just thinking out loud)

There's no reason for his name to be on any new paperwork. He's legally dead. Dead people don't get their names put on assets. She had the Will by the time she changed the title. That gave her the authority to transact any business in his name. There's zero legal reason for his name to be on the new title. And why did the local tax accessor let that go through?


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*
 
There's no reason for his name to be on any new paperwork. He's legally dead. Dead people don't get their names put on assets. She had the Will by the time she changed the title. That gave her the authority to transact any business in his name. There's zero legal reason for his name to be on the new title. And why did the local tax accessor let that go through?


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*
So, what would the purpose be for her to re-title it in their names? There has to be an angle to this. How would it benefit BC?
 
That may be true, but it doesn’t take 3 months to transfer a title. And if they haven’t transferred the title, why haven’t they? I know I wouldn’t want to be responsible if the new owners got into a wreck & totaled the truck or God forbid, hurt or killed someone, not only could they sue the driver, but the owner of the vehicle as well.


Just my random thoughts & opinions...

It's up to the buyer to transfer the title. So, as for *why* someone would wait so long to transfer the title, I won't speculate, but I do have a couple of ideas about reasons for that.

As a seller, there is a form you can submit to the tax office that states you sold the vehicle, VIN and date of the transaction which releases you from any further liability if the buyer doesn't transfer the title promptly . . . . for exactly the reasons you mentioned: wreck, hurt, killed, damaged property, etc.
 
There's no reason for his name to be on any new paperwork. He's legally dead. Dead people don't get their names put on assets. She had the Will by the time she changed the title. That gave her the authority to transact any business in his name. There's zero legal reason for his name to be on the new title. And why did the local tax accessor let that go through?


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*


I think that I might not be doing a very good job of explaining my theory. Here's what I'm speculating: I believe that MC & BC had an auto insurance policy that included a "Credit Life" clause. And that once BC provided the insurance company with proof of his "death" that the insurance company then *automatically* pays off the balance owed, and also *automatically* reissues the a "free & clear" title to the (now paid off vehicle) owners of the insurance policy. Hence why the title transfer shows up with the names of both MC & BC.

See, I don't think it was anything BC did intentionally or really even had any say so in the matter. The policy paid off the truck. The new title was issued for both MC & BC. Then she sold it to (whoever?) a private buyer.

You're 100% correct STQ, she didn't need to do this in order to sell the truck, but I think it just happened that way.

It's my theory, anyhow, to explain why the title came back in their names . . . . .
 
So, what would the purpose be for her to re-title it in their names? There has to be an angle to this. How would it benefit BC?

That's a question we haven't quite figured out just yet.


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*
 
That may be true, but it doesn’t take 3 months to transfer a title. And if they haven’t transferred the title, why haven’t they? I know I wouldn’t want to be responsible if the new owners got into a wreck & totaled the truck or God forbid, hurt or killed someone, not only could they sue the driver, but the owner of the vehicle as well.


Just my random thoughts & opinions...

Texas law says you have 30 days to transfer it without being subjected to a monthly fine for each month it isn't transferred.


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*
 
I think that I might not be doing a very good job of explaining my theory. Here's what I'm speculating: I believe that MC & BC had an auto insurance policy that included a "Credit Life" clause. And that once BC provided the insurance company with proof of his "death" that the insurance company then *automatically* pays off the balance owed, and also *automatically* reissues the a "free & clear" title to the (now paid off vehicle) owners of the insurance policy. Hence why the title transfer shows up with the names of both MC & BC.

See, I don't think it was anything BC did intentionally or really even had any say so in the matter. The policy paid off the truck. The new title was issued for both MC & BC. Then she sold it to (whoever?) a private buyer.

You're 100% correct STQ, she didn't need to do this in order to sell the truck, but I think it just happened that way.

It's my theory, anyhow, to explain why the title came back in their names . . . . .

I gotcha now. But only his name was on the original title. Why hers then?

ETA: Keep in mind she has the Will so she shouldn't need her name on anything.


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
901
Total visitors
975

Forum statistics

Threads
589,923
Messages
17,927,726
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top