GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #3

[kittythehare]

I think this is good news . She will no longer be able to use the money. Its actually nearly unbelievable they paid out. I know that Tom said he was the one that hit Jason but it would still be classed as homicide and should have been investigated into before paying out. Unless they contacted police they wouldn't have known Tom admitted to it and I'm sure they would have also mentioned that his wife was also a person interest in the case. This has always puzzled me .

They definitely paid already??

 

[stephanddoody]

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-5cad-8e9b-ba7f55f4ccfc/56e1083eafd3c.pdf.pdf

That's what I read from it . Not sure if I'm right .

Paragraph 4 & 5

cease all use of any assets inherited from Jason Paul Corbett potentially payable to the estate , or potentially payable to Ms Corbett as a result of the death of Jason Paul Corbett

 

[Electric Sheep]

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-5cad-8e9b-ba7f55f4ccfc/56e1083eafd3c.pdf.pdf

That's what I read from it . Not sure if I'm right .

Paragraph 4 & 5

"Potentially payable". Maybe the judge is just trying to cover all the bases, even if the insurance hasn't paid out yet.

 

[stephanddoody]

"Potentially payable". Maybe the judge is just trying to cover all the bases, even if the insurance hasn't paid out yet.

Its the cease all use part that has me puzzled , he doesn't actually say she is using it but has said not to continue using it . That's what made me think she has been using it

 

[Hotchips]

Its the cease all use part that has me puzzled , he doesn't actually say she is using it but has said not to continue using it . That's what made me think she has been using it

I don't believe she had access to insurance funds unless her estate lawyers were giving her access to funds which would be completely negligible. The funds would have after a while been paid over to be held on trust by her estate lawyers. Once the insurance co seen the cause of death on the death certificate, it would have been red flagged immediately and more info sought from her lawyers and most probably the police as well. The reasoning IMO behind ordering the monies be paid to the court is to avoid any further potential arguments about the funds between the parties. Better for the funds to be held on neutral ground so to speak than with either party's lawyers.

 

[Hotchips]

Its the cease all use part that has me puzzled , he doesn't actually say she is using it but has said not to continue using it . That's what made me think she has been using it

It's the legalese wording that's confusing. Cease all use of any assets IMO refers to all cashable assets such as bank accounts, cash funds etc that she already had access to prior to his death. This means as of the date that order was made she could no longer use any funds held jointly by them or in jasons name only. Potentially payable to me reads as any assets payable after his death like insurance policies, death benefits etc , all of which are potentially payable to the estate or to molly depending on whether she is convicted or not. It is effectively freezing anything of any worth until it is decided who the beneficiary will be.

 

[kittythehare]

I don't believe she had access to insurance funds unless her estate lawyers were giving her access to funds which would be completely negligible. The funds would have after a while been paid over to be held on trust by her estate lawyers. Once the insurance co seen the cause of death on the death certificate, it would have been red flagged immediately and more info sought from her lawyers and most probably the police as well. The reasoning IMO behind ordering the monies be paid to the court is to avoid any further potential arguments about the funds between the parties. Better for the funds to be held on neutral ground so to speak than with either party's lawyers.

Page 13.
No1,- states 'including all insurance proceeds,

 

[Frizby]

I don't believe she had access to insurance funds unless her estate lawyers were giving her access to funds which would be completely negligible. The funds would have after a while been paid over to be held on trust by her estate lawyers. Once the insurance co seen the cause of death on the death certificate, it would have been red flagged immediately and more info sought from her lawyers and most probably the police as well. The reasoning IMO behind ordering the monies be paid to the court is to avoid any further potential arguments about the funds between the parties. Better for the funds to be held on neutral ground so to speak than with either party's lawyers.

Yeah, I would not suspect that she had access to it either. I suspect that it was paid out to the estate and held in trust by the lawyers. Even if this was a normal death case, she would only be entitled to any proceeds directly if she had been specifically nominated as a sole beneficiary.

 

[kittythehare]

Yeah, I would not suspect that she had access to it either. I suspect that it was paid out to the estate and held in trust by the lawyers. Even if this was a normal death case, she would only be entitled to any proceeds directly if she had been specifically nominated as a sole beneficiary.

But if it was held by lawyers, whose lawyers? Molly's lawyers would not have been entitle to draw it down, surely?

 

[Frizby]

But if it was held by lawyers, whose lawyers? Molly's lawyers would not have been entitle to draw it down, surely?

If it part of an estate, it cannot be paid out to any person until the estate is finalised covering all those who are to benefit. If, however, the beneficiary of a policy is one individual as nominated within the policy as either the owner of the policy (grantee) or nominated as a beneficiary under a trust attached to a policy or if the policy was legally assigned to them, then the money would pass directly to them. I am guess that in the US they have some form of probate. The lawyers, which would be estate lawyers, would be prohibited from touching any of the money, it is not theirs to touch.

 

[Hotchips]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/defense-lawyers-speak-father-daughter-nc-murder-case-38340402

Just found this interview on ABC

 

[kittythehare]

If it part of an estate, it cannot be paid out to any person until the estate is finalised covering all those who are to benefit. If, however, the beneficiary of a policy is one individual as nominated within the policy as either the owner of the policy (grantee) or nominated as a beneficiary under a trust attached to a policy or if the policy was legally assigned to them, then the money would pass directly to them. I am guess that in the US they have some form of probate. The lawyers, which would be estate lawyers, would be prohibited from touching any of the money, it is not theirs to touch.

Thanks Frizby.. but the documents Steven loaded stated proceeds to be returned.. which suggests they were cashed?
She was a named 'person of interest' from the outset, was she not? No way should any part of it have been cashed , in that case?

 

[Frizby]

Thanks Frizby.. but the documents Steven loaded stated proceeds to be returned.. which suggests they were cashed?
She was a named 'person of interest' from the outset, was she not? No way should any part of it have been cashed , in that case?

I suspect that a or maybe more than one policy was cashed, i.e. the insurance company paid out. Strictly speaking, it is not up to the insurance company to apply any "Slayer Status" law. Anyway, this law can only be applied upon conviction. They can only do what they are charged with, paying proceeds out upon death to either a named beneficiary or to the estate based upon the terms and conditions of the policy. The rest is up to the lawyers or the law.

 

[kittythehare]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/defense-lawyers-speak-father-daughter-nc-murder-case-38340402

Just found this interview on ABC

Saw it, Are we to expect a press event weekly from now on, complete with prettiest of pictures?
He contradicted last weeks press conference when he states 30 hrs post death blood was withdrawn..
The medical evidence is that alcohol increases actually after 24 hrs because bacterial activity commences. e discussd here in the past and links posted to reputable research.
When asked whether there was previous domestic physical violence, he responds by saying 'when a man chokes his wfe at 3am to the extent that it leads to a 911 call we can assume...
Well, in actual fact all we 'can assume' here from this cheapskate tactic is they he will stop at nothing to save his client.
The events that led to the 911 call was not evidence of domestic violence by jason, it was to report his death by the client of this unscrupulous man.

 

[Hotchips]

Thanks Frizby.. but the documents Steven loaded stated proceeds to be returned.. which suggests they were cashed?
She was a named 'person of interest' from the outset, was she not? No way should any part of it have been cashed , in that case?

Page 13 par.1 reads that funds including insurance proceeds ordered to be held by the respondents lawyers to be paid over to the county court... It must have been agreed that MMs lawyers were allowed to draw down these funds and hold them in trust. She is the next of kin so the lynchs would not have been legally entitled to apply for the funds. Her lawyers can hold the proceeds but they cannot spend or release them until estate is finalised, which in this case, won't be finalised until after the trial.

 

[kittythehare]

Page 13 par.1 reads that funds including insurance proceeds ordered to be held by the respondents lawyers to be paid over to the county court... It must have been agreed that MMs lawyers were allowed to draw down these funds and hold them in trust. She is the next of kin so the lynchs would not have been legally entitled to apply for the funds. Her lawyers can hold the proceeds but they cannot spend or release them until estate is finalised, which in this case, won't be finalised until after the trial.

Thanks Hotchips, but surely his children would have priority?

 

[Hotchips]

Thanks Hotchips, but surely his children would have priority?

If Jason had not remarried then yes his children would be his immediate next of kin and take priority in terms of assets but a spouse comes first. I'm sure he had something set up for the children alone to benefit from as well. Their guardians lawyers would most likely be in a position to deal with such. For her lawyers to be in a position to hold the funds means IMO that she is the beneficiary of them either nominated by Jason or automatically as his next of kin. As frizby stated above, it's not up the ins.co to apply the slayer statute. They simply pay it over to her lawyers most likely on a written undertaking from her lawyers that they will hold same in trust pending the outcome of the trial.

 

[searchinGirl]

Page 13 par.1 reads that funds including insurance proceeds ordered to be held by the respondents lawyers to be paid over to the county court... It must have been agreed that MMs lawyers were allowed to draw down these funds and hold them in trust. She is the next of kin so the lynchs would not have been legally entitled to apply for the funds. Her lawyers can hold the proceeds but they cannot spend or release them until estate is finalised, which in this case, won't be finalised until after the trial.

That they were life insurance proceeds means they are part of Jason's estate but they were probably payable to Molly and being kept in a trust account...the lawyer is often trustee and he cant draw on them but he can invest the $...the trustee reports to the clerk periodically...now the court will hold the funds ...I doubt the court can invest it...

 

[kittythehare]

Thanks Hotchips, but surely his children would have priority?

Also remember verified petition to recover property by petitioner dated August 8, 2015.
That suggests they were sealed on that date which should have prohibited the draw down of any and all until after the trial? I'm not sure I am reading it correctly, thats my understanding.
The entire document is loaded and needs lots of fresh eyes. It was dated March 7, in it she was given time frames in which to return different items including a cash lodgement. It appears as though today's hearings made that null and void except for the car proceedings and a sum of 600, 000..
The deadlines had well expired, possibly because she appealed and the appeal process took precedence?
there is more here, much more but again its the document dated March 7, we need exact wording of today's hearing in order to decipher full meaning and implications. Theres lots of work in it. My brain is now fried, sorry for the many posts but thanks for responding

 

[Frizby]

That they were life insurance proceeds means they are part of Jason's estate but they were probably payable to Molly and being kept in a trust account...the lawyer is often trustee and he cant draw on them but he can invest the $...the trustee reports to the clerk periodically...now the court will hold the funds ...I doubt the court can invest it...

The lawyers would only be allowed to invest them in so far as putting the money in say a bank account, he would not be allowed to play fast and loose with the money on the stock market. The courts would also be allowed to do this, in fact they would be required to do this. Any money earned on such money in a bank account would belong to the beneficiaries. Same as if you are buying a house and you lodge money with your lawyer, they must (well in Ireland anyway) set up a client bank account, and provide a statement of said account showing all interest accruing to the owner.