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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
<modsnip>

7. I don't want to speak for PMerle but in my family our parents have had to routinely support one of my siblings over the years. My parents allocated their will accordingly so that this sibling will receive a smaller portion than other siblings as they sort of received part of their inheritance up front.no hard feelings either sibling agrees. This is what parents do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
TexKitten said:
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 . . . . .
Click to expand...

No that is not the way the credit life insurance works or it’s not the way it worked for My best friend, her husband died unexpectedly 2 years ago today (I had forgotten her car was paid off when he died until today when I talked to her) I asked her about this & she said when she received the title, only her name was listed on title. She then went down & transferred it into their daughters name. My friends name was left on the title but daughters was 1st since she was primary driver.


Just my random thoughts & opinions...
 
Sounds like this Texas law may be what allowed BC to manage estate in MC's absence. I believe it was the 60th day when she filed the papers. Here's the link to the whole thing. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.3.htm

Sec. 3.301. MISSING, ABANDONED, OR SEPARATED SPOUSE. (a) A spouse may file a sworn petition stating the facts that make it desirable for the petitioning spouse to manage, control, and dispose of community property described or defined in the petition that would otherwise be subject to the sole or joint management, control, and disposition of the other spouse if:
(1) the other spouse has disappeared and that spouse's location remains unknown to the petitioning spouse, unless the spouse is reported to be a prisoner of war or missing on public service;
(2) the other spouse has permanently abandoned the petitioning spouse; or
(3) the spouses are permanently separated.
(b) The petition may be filed in a court in the county in which the petitioner resided at the time the separation began, or the abandonment or disappearance occurred, not earlier than the 60th day after the date of the occurrence of the event. If both spouses are nonresidents of this state at the time the petition is filed, the petition may be filed in a court in a county in which any part of the described or defined community property is located.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
QueenBea13 said:
No that is not the way the credit life insurance works or it’s not the way it worked for My best friend, her husband died unexpectedly 2 years ago today (I had forgotten her car was paid off when he died until today when I talked to her) I asked her about this & she said when she received the title, only her name was listed on title. She then went down & transferred it into their daughters name. My friends name was left on the title but daughters was 1st since she was primary driver.


Just my random thoughts & opinions...
Click to expand...
I agree. To my way of thinking, the company has already received "proof" of death in order to pay off the lien. They aren't then going to turn around and title the vehicle in the name of the person they just confirmed has died in order to pay off the lien, etc... .

This is strictly MOO, however, and I could certainly be wrong.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 
I'm new to this case and have tried my best to read as much as I can but I NEED to go to bed(6hr drive with my 7month old tomorrow - eek!) Can someone answer some questions for me?

1. Regarding BC, when and how were the affairs confirmed? What is her relationship with the family like currently? How much of the family suspects she is involved? Has anyone confronted her? If many do suspect her, what initially got family members concerned?

2. Restraining order on Justin? What is this about?

3. What can I do besides sign the change.org petition to get TR involved?

4. Do we know if BC was having an affair when MC went missing?

5. Is there a general theory about what happened if BC was behind it? Is it likely she hired people? Im still bewildered re: the blood in the shop.

This case makes me so sad. It sounds like everyone in the family loved and trusted BC including Papaw.

Pmerle - thank you for sharing all of this information with us! I'm so sorry you and your family have had to go through this living nightmare.
 
RuthSleuth said:
Sounds like this Texas law may be what allowed BC to manage estate in MC's absence. I believe it was the 60th day when she filed the papers. Here's the link to the whole thing. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.3.htm

Sec. 3.301. MISSING, ABANDONED, OR SEPARATED SPOUSE. (a) A spouse may file a sworn petition stating the facts that make it desirable for the petitioning spouse to manage, control, and dispose of community property described or defined in the petition that would otherwise be subject to the sole or joint management, control, and disposition of the other spouse if:
(1) the other spouse has disappeared and that spouse's location remains unknown to the petitioning spouse, unless the spouse is reported to be a prisoner of war or missing on public service;
(2) the other spouse has permanently abandoned the petitioning spouse; or
(3) the spouses are permanently separated.
(b) The petition may be filed in a court in the county in which the petitioner resided at the time the separation began, or the abandonment or disappearance occurred, not earlier than the 60th day after the date of the occurrence of the event. If both spouses are nonresidents of this state at the time the petition is filed, the petition may be filed in a court in a county in which any part of the described or defined community property is located.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

But would this petition declare that missing person dead? Thanks for that information!
 
QueenBea13 said:
Maybe the balance or value of accounts/items is only MC’s portion, Idk but the values listed are less than garage sale prices. Smh


Just my random thoughts & opinions...
Click to expand...

I get that, but was trying to say that perhaps a joint checking acct. wouldn't necessarily be listed in that filing. Now, a checking or savings account in his name only WOULD have to be listed- even if Becca was named as the beneficiary of it, which she probably would have been. It would automatically become all Becca's at the time the death cert. was filed ( not sure) and not one of the assets to possibly be sold, or handled in the same manner, IOW, if my husband passed away, our joint account quickly becomes all mine, and vice versa. Now I'm confusing myself, lol.
 
RuthSleuth said:
Sounds like this Texas law may be what allowed BC to manage estate in MC's absence. I believe it was the 60th day when she filed the papers. Here's the link to the whole thing. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.3.htm

Sec. 3.301. MISSING, ABANDONED, OR SEPARATED SPOUSE. (a) A spouse may file a sworn petition stating the facts that make it desirable for the petitioning spouse to manage, control, and dispose of community property described or defined in the petition that would otherwise be subject to the sole or joint management, control, and disposition of the other spouse if:
(1) the other spouse has disappeared and that spouse's location remains unknown to the petitioning spouse, unless the spouse is reported to be a prisoner of war or missing on public service;
(2) the other spouse has permanently abandoned the petitioning spouse; or
(3) the spouses are permanently separated.
(b) The petition may be filed in a court in the county in which the petitioner resided at the time the separation began, or the abandonment or disappearance occurred, not earlier than the 60th day after the date of the occurrence of the event. If both spouses are nonresidents of this state at the time the petition is filed, the petition may be filed in a court in a county in which any part of the described or defined community property is located.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thank you, RuthSleuth, for bringing this up. It reminded me of something I posted about much earlier (apologies in advance for quoting my own post):

-SBM for focus-
So in my "quest" to try and understand why what BC did was indeed "what needed to happen," I came across this (BBM):

"FAMILY CODE; TITLE 1. THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP;
SUBTITLE B. PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES;
CHAPTER 3. MARITAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES;
SUBCHAPTER D. MANAGEMENT, CONTROL, AND DISPOSITION OF MARITAL PROPERTY UNDER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES:
Sec. 3.301. MISSING, ABANDONED, OR SEPARATED SPOUSE.
(a) A spouse may file a sworn petition stating the facts that make it desirable for the petitioning spouse to manage, control, and dispose of community property described or defined in the petition that would otherwise be subject to the sole or joint management, control, and disposition of the other spouse if:
(1) the other spouse has disappeared and that spouse's location remains unknown to the petitioning spouse, unless the spouse is reported to be a prisoner of war or missing on public service;
-SBM for space-
(b) The petition may be filed in a court in the county in which the petitioner resided at the time the separation began, or the abandonment or disappearance occurred, not earlier than the 60th day after the date of the occurrence of the event.
-SBM for space-
CHAPTER 5. HOMESTEAD RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER B. SALE OF HOMESTEAD UNDER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES :
Sec. 5.102. SALE OF COMMUNITY HOMESTEAD UNDER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. If the homestead is the community property of the spouses, one spouse may file a sworn petition that gives a description of the property, states the facts that make it desirable for the petitioning spouse to sell, convey, or encumber the homestead without the joinder of the other spouse, and alleges that the other spouse: (1) has disappeared and that the location of the spouse remains unknown to the petitioning spouse;
-SBM for space-
Sec. 5.103. TIME FOR FILING PETITION.
The petitioning spouse may file the petition in a court of the county in which any portion of the property is located not earlier than the 60th day after the date of the occurrence of an event described by Sections 5.101(1)-(3) and 5.102(1)-(3)
-SBM for space-
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/SDocs/FAMILYCODE.pdf

Now I'm left wondering why something like the above wasn't considered because this seems like something BC could have done at least for the time-being. If I am understanding correctly, with a judge's order she would have even been allowed her to sell her and PaPaw's home, and all the while the pension and DROP payments would continue.
-SBM for focus-
So trying to put myself in BC's shoes, why did she have to do what she did?
-SBM for focus-
Click to expand...
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ounty-10-March-2017-2&p=13539618#post13539618

It has been almost six weeks since I posted the above, and I still can't think of any reasonable explanation as to why BC didn't take advantage of the above statute, in which case BC wouldn't have to have had PaPaw declared deceased.

Instead, she proceeds to apply "for the grant of letters testamentary or of administration for (PaPaw's) estate," which are issued only "if the death of the person is proved by circumstantial evidence to the court's satisfaction," per Sec. 454.002. GRANT OF LETTERS ON PROOF OF DEATH (Sec. 454.004 -DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE- is actually cited in the "Order Directing County Clerk to Deposit Funds into the Registry of the Court"; https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1b1dgU_K9diOFlKa2JjM2RlQjA/view?usp=sharing).

Had PaPaw not been declared deceased, at least the traditional (non-DROP) portion of his pension would have continued. As to the DROP portion of his pension, I think it's entirely possible that the payments never stopped. At first, BC told Pmerle the distribution form was never mailed back, and therefore, the payments stopped entirely; then come to find out (I will find Pmerle's post), payments have indeed continued, but at 50%, indicating that the form had likely been returned prior to PaPaw's disappearance. With so many changing stories, however, I have no idea what is fact and what isn't any more.

It may also be noteworthy that nothing about DROP is mentioned in "Proof of Death and Facts," despite "the financial crisis that Applicant faces as a result of Decedent's disappearance" being cited as a reason for the Court to order the issuance of a delayed certificate of death:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1b1dgU_K9diTWJQRVBQTjM1Q00/view?usp=sharing

Also, one of the differences between the statutes cited by RuthSleuth and the ones cited in the estate proceedings in PaPaw's case is that the former states, "The petitioning spouse may file the petition ... not earlier than the 60th day after the date of the occurrence of an event described by Sections ...," while under the latter, "A death that occurred more than 10 days but less than one year before the date of an application for registration of death may be recorded on a death certificate and submitted for filing ..." (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.193.htm). (BBM)

PaPaw disappeared on March 10th. BC filed the papers on April 20th, or 40 days later. The delayed certificate of death was not granted until June 7th, but the date of death is May 26th, or just one day before his 70th "half-birthday."
 
RuthSleuth said:
Sounds like this Texas law may be what allowed BC to manage estate in MC's absence. I believe it was the 60th day when she filed the papers. Here's the link to the whole thing. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.3.htm

Sec. 3.301. MISSING, ABANDONED, OR SEPARATED SPOUSE. (a) A spouse may file a sworn petition stating the facts that make it desirable for the petitioning spouse to manage, control, and dispose of community property described or defined in the petition that would otherwise be subject to the sole or joint management, control, and disposition of the other spouse if:

-RSBM for space-

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

cnmccarthy said:
But would this petition declare that missing person dead? Thanks for that information!
Click to expand...
Excellent point. No, it does not.

This is something I have refrained from talking about per TOS -other than to say something to the effect of "There is more than money to BC having PaPaw declared deceased"-, but now that BC's multiple affairs have been confirmed by Pmerle00, I hope it's OK to state the obvious: She is a widow now ....
 
Gah. I have to go away until tomorrow. You guys either solve this or put everything on hold until I get back, ok? LOL. I'll have to be reading in my sleep to catch up with you all.
Seriously, keep up the good work. Maybe today will be the day someone can #BringPapawHome.
 
inmyhumbleopinion said:
Excellent point. No, it does not.

This is something I have refrained from talking about per TOS -other than to say something to the effect of "There is more than money to BC having PaPaw declared deceased"-, but now that BC's multiple affairs have been confirmed by Pmerle00, I hope it's OK to state the obvious: She is a widow now ....
Click to expand...
Better to be labeled a widow than
an abandoned spouse.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
 
inmyhumbleopinion said:
Personal opinion: She should be GIVING you those.
Click to expand...
Becca herself is not really benefiting from the sale of tools unless:

Evil Becca: She is "selling" them to someone she owes money to so they can turn around and sell it for what it is worth/or she is selling them cheaply to someone so she can later receive the actual worth of tools w/out having to claim it

OR/Possibly

Good Becca: The only way the tools can be distributed is by selling them so maybe she is "selling" the tools cheap to those who rightly should receive them:
ie: JCC, the 2 son's in laws, those who were close to MC, family etc

Since I'm a sometimes Pollyanna, I'm going with the "good Becca" until it's proved otherwise.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
 
Just popping on here for a moment, I have some dates for y'all:

[FONT=&quot][FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Justin&#8217;s phone cut off 3-28 (effective the 29th, I think)[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Papaw&#8217;s phone suspended 3-29[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Papaw&#8217;s phone taken off plan 8-11

[/FONT][/FONT]and yes, I have confirmed she did get a new phone recently after hers was water damaged, but it wasn't on the 28th/29th, and it's still the same number. [/FONT]
 
I read through this thread faithfully a couple of times per day, and pray daily that Papaw comes home safely.

However... On my way to work this morning, listing to 80's music on Sirius XM, could not help but notice the song and group playing.....image.jpg
 
As I stated before, in my opinion the 29th was when his phone was no longer with Verizon on that account. I don't believe the other VI ever said the entire account or phone numbers were changed, other than his own phone number. I don't even think it's really relevant. What is relevant in my own opinion is that someone "cancels," "suspends," "turns off," or "disconnects," etc.. someone's phone service when they are missing! You can re word it how ever you'd like, but if MC needed to use his phone he wouldn't have been able to as of March 29th. 19 days after he went missing. But this is all just my own opinion.
 
cchambers18 said:
As I stated before, in my opinion the 29th was when his phone was no longer with Verizon on that account. I don't believe the other VI ever said the entire account or phone numbers were changed, other than his own phone number. I don't even think it's really relevant. What is relevant in my own opinion is that someone "cancels," "suspends," "turns off," or "disconnects," etc.. someone's phone service when they are missing! You can re word it how ever you'd like, but if MC needed to use his phone he wouldn't have been able to as of March 29th. 19 days after he went missing. But this is all just my own opinion.
Click to expand...

I think many of us appreciate your opinion.

I am deeply sorry that Michael Chambers' family is enduring this nightmare. I would be all over people's faces. I would probably end up with a PO from some of the obvious players. If any of the family are feeling similar, I would be happy to stand in for them. IMO and all the usual disclaimers.
 
SavetheQueen said:
That's a question we haven't quite figured out just yet.


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

I am late catching up, but I am thinking the title stayed in the same names it originally was in because the "owners" did not change, it just doesn't have a lien against it. In other words, the new title is issued as it originally was just minus a lienholder. Does that make sense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 204 more.
Total: 3,270 (members: 205, guests: 3,065)

Online statistics

Members online
205
Guests online
3,065
Total visitors
3,270
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,228
Messages
17,965,443
Members
228,726
Latest member
jdward01
Back
Top