Found Deceased TX - Michael Chambers, 70, Hunt County, 10 March 2017 #3

[Pmerle00]

Regarding the Missing Persons Guide noted in Thread #2 - that is for Australia. I found this also when researching how to make estate decisions for someone missing a while back. I couldn't find a way to have it apply in Texas....

 

[Nosy88]

If she filed for the death certificate in order for her to continue to be able to pay bills and she now has less expenses without Papaw being there, do you know why she would have had to sell his truck also?

 

[perfectingpink]

ALL of this makes me choke up. Every time I get on here... Answering what I can... it's so surreal still. This is my Papaw. And I'm answering things like this? I wish it was all a dream. A nightmare.

:hug:

 

[Pmerle00]

From Thread #2:

I am so confused.

Pawpa must own real estate, his cars etc. Certainly everything is in both of their names. Yes, no?!

If that were the case, (ownership in both names) couldn't BC sell and do as she pleases, when and where she wants to? Ownership in Texas in BOTH names (John AND Jane) means that both signatures are required. When I sold a house purchased before I married my husband, he still had to sign because he lived there while we were married. The sale wouldn't have gone through without his signature - and he wasn't even on the deed. As a community property state, bigger things require two signatures, and if you purchase something usually both names go on it unless you sign something saying that you don't want your name on it. You can't sell something without both signatures unless it's only in one of your names (it's not John OR Jane, but AND).

Why did BC have to go to court and get a death certificate to sell a car that was given to her as a gift from MC? The car was sold prior to the letters of testamentary. Only because it was in her name only.

 

[Pmerle00]

If she filed for the death certificate in order for her to continue to be able to pay bills and she now has less expenses without Papaw being there, do you know why she would have had to sell his truck also?

Trucks come with large payments. She doesn't need two vehicles with payments. That's my guess, anyway.

 

[jellybean96]

From Thread #2:

I am so confused.

Pawpa must own real estate, his cars etc. Certainly everything is in both of their names. Yes, no?!

If that were the case, (ownership in both names) couldn't BC sell and do as she pleases, when and where she wants to? Ownership in Texas in BOTH names (John AND Jane) means that both signatures are required. When I sold a house purchased before I married my husband, he still had to sign because he lived there while we were married. The sale wouldn't have gone through without his signature - and he wasn't even on the deed. As a community property state, bigger things require two signatures, and if you purchase something usually both names go on it unless you sign something saying that you don't want your name on it. You can't sell something without both signatures unless it's only in one of your names (it's not John OR Jane, but AND).

Why did BC have to go to court and get a death certificate to sell a car that was given to her as a gift from MC? The car was sold prior to the letters of testamentary. Only because it was in her name only.

Has it always been in her name, or was it signed over to her by someone else?

 

[Hstevenson86]

From Thread #2:

I want to know if the workshop was ever treated as a crime scene, was it taped off and secured?

NO - it was NOT taped off, it was NOT secured. Which is one of our primary issues with HCSO -they seem to have mishandled this from the beginning and maintain their position that they won't call this a crime.

So if they won't call them a crime what do they think happened to him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[inmyhumbleopinion]

From Thread #2:

Was Michael aware of this DFD pension board letter? If so, was he contemplating sending back confirmation? If not, when was the confirmation letter due back to the pension board? He was aware of the letter, the confirmation was due back BEFORE he went missing; HOWEVER, from what I have been told, he didn't read the letter thoroughly, and assumed it was "if you want it to CHANGE, fill out this form." I understand that, because most of the time, letters I get about benefits are - "will stay the same unless you take action."

RBBM

Please know that I do not question your credibility or intentions at all, Pmerle00.

I found a document on DPFPS' website that I suspect is the letter in question:
"Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) Distribution Election Form"
https://www.dpfp.org/images/PDFs/Forms/DROP Distribution Election Form 2017.pdf

Previously, you posted:

"-RSBM for space-
From what I have been told, this is what was required by the pension board to make specific decisions in a timely manner so Papaw's pension and DROP fund would continue on a monthly basis. DFD pension board sent out a letter to members just prior to Papaw's disappearance requesting a confirmation that the payments should maintain as they had been - OR if they didn't respond, then it would go to semi-annual payments. The DROP fund payments stopped the same month Papaw went missing, so action had to be taken RIGHT AWAY so BC could continue to receive the funds that Papaw contributed to the DROP monthly instead of going to semi-annual."

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ounty-10-March-2017-2&p=13526202#post13526202

Yet so far, I have not been able to find anything indicating that if they did not respond, the DROP payments would go from monthly to semi-annual. In fact, the form above (again, I am not 100% sure if the document is exactly the same one as the one PaPaw and BC received) states,
"Deadlines for Minimum Annual Distributions request are as follows:
>2017 monthly distributions – End of month prior to month of initial distribution
>2017 semi-annual distributions – February 28, 2017"

Also, another document I found on the DPFPS site says:
"Requests for the semi-annual payment are no longer being accepted as the deadline was February 28,
2017."
https://www.dpfp.org/images/PDFs/2017 Plan Changes/FAQs RetireesBenAPs ever in DROP final.pdf

So if PaPaw or BC had not submitted their distribution request at the time of PaPaw's disappearance, then the "monthly vs. semi-annual" portion of the discussion is moot, IMO.

However, the potential issue I see with the form not having been returned before PaPaw's disappearance is at least with DROP, payments would have stopped completely beginning at the end of March.

Also, if PaPaw hadn't started drawing his pension -as I understand, he was to turn 70½ at the end of May -, then that might have created an additional financial issue.

Everyone is different, and I also do not know BC personally. Even then, I am both astonished and heartbroken by the fact that the probate of the will was initiated a mere 40 calendar days (Apr. 20th) after PaPaw's disappearance, as well as the fact that the case was disposed in less than two months (June 7th). But then maybe I am just overly sentimental.

 

[Midge Montana]

Ok, I know, I know...we often wonder this in cases here, and it may have already been brought up in this case, but; could he possibly be in the Witness Protection Program?
I am not sure, even through google, how local law enforcement would handle a missing person that is in WPP. Are they informed about it and just let any investigation fizzle out (such as this one seems to have)?

I know that spouses and children usually go with, but maybe not always? Could this be why Meeks and BC are able to prove he is deceased? Would they keep that kind of thing from his adult children and the whole town/world?

I guess if this were the case, it would explain why his wife 'knows' he is never coming back, why it was ok to so quickly declare him deceased, get his pension stuff taken care of, sell his things, etc.
Poke holes in this theory, please.

 

[jellybean96]

Ok, I know, I know...we often wonder this in cases here, and it may have already been brought up in this case, but; could he possibly be in the Witness Protection Program?
I am not sure, even through google, how local law enforcement would handle a missing person that is in WPP. Are they informed about it and just let any investigation fizzle out (such as this one seems to have)?

I know that spouses and children usually go with, but maybe not always? Could this be why Meeks and BC are able to prove he is deceased? Would they keep that kind of thing from his adult children and the whole town/world?

I guess if this were the case, it would explain why his wife 'knows' he is never coming back, why it was ok to get his pension stuff taken care of, sell his things, etc.
Poke holes in this theory, please.

There is no chance in hell this is the case.

1. If MC left in the witness protection program I think he would take his wife. After all, he was supposedly happily married. Yes he would have to start a new life, but he would not have to leave his wife. If there were minor children they would go as well. While it is true he could not contact old friends, etc there is no expectation that he would be separated from his wife, she would go as well.

2. Someone in LE would know. The FBI has been involved and the Texas Rangers are still involved. They would not waste money and resources if they knew he was being protected. They might not exactly where he was placed, but they would know he was being protected.

3. Most in the witness protection program are criminals. Less than 5% are innocent of any crime. Nothing suggest that MC has ever committed a crime.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/77695/12-secrets-witness-protection-program

4. The Witness Protection people would for sure make it look like MC was dead. They want whoever would be after him to believe he was dead. Like with evidence. They would not half-a$$ it and leave room for speculation that he didn't die.

 

[inmyhumbleopinion]

From Thread #2:
-RSBM for focus-

I wasn't present when the dowel rod was found and was only given a second-hand description of it. My understanding is that it was leaning against one of the cars in the shop, the one closest to the pool of blood.

From Thread #2:
-RSBM for focus-

The car is the only thing I am aware of her selling thus far, though I would not be surprised if she sold his truck soon, as they have a payment on that.

Correction to myself, I've been told she has already sold the truck.

Trucks come with large payments. She doesn't need two vehicles with payments. That's my guess, anyway.

RBBM

I must be missing something, especially since I don't know anything about classic cars.

So there was more than one car being stored in PaPaw's shop. Maybe one was the Mustang. Perhaps another belonged to someone else, who had dropped it off, so that PaPaw could repair something for them.

So in addition to his truck and BC's vehicle (for everyday driving), how many cars did they own prior to PaPaw's disappearance?

I know different people do things differently, and I truly don't care what people do with their own money.

And this is purely my personal opinion: For myself, I cannot imagine making two car payments while owning multiple classic cars at the same time. I know many new car dealers offer interest-free car loans. Still, this just doesn't make much sense to me - especially for a couple in their 60s and 70s. Maybe PaPaw and BC saw the cars as investments, but if I were their age especially, I think I would prefer liquid assets, including cash in checking and savings accounts.

When I was married, I would buy myself a nice -somewhat pricey, at $100 to $125 ... ouch!- pair of running shoes every couple of years, and keep them in a locker at the Y (rather than at home), so that my ex-husband wouldn't find out ... . Was there something like that going on between PaPaw and BC, perhaps?

 

[inmyhumbleopinion]

Hi Pmerle00,

I was going through your posts the other night and came across this one:

-RSBM for focus-
The garage doors are a possibility for exit, but not likely given certain non-public details of the scene. (sorry, I'm as frustrated as y'all are with not being able to share info)
-RSBM for focus-

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ounty-10-March-2017-1&p=13306541#post13306541

RBBM

The post is from April 12th. Is there any additional info about this that you can share at this time?

 

[Hstevenson86]

Ok, I know, I know...we often wonder this in cases here, and it may have already been brought up in this case, but; could he possibly be in the Witness Protection Program?
I am not sure, even through google, how local law enforcement would handle a missing person that is in WPP. Are they informed about it and just let any investigation fizzle out (such as this one seems to have)?

I know that spouses and children usually go with, but maybe not always? Could this be why Meeks and BC are able to prove he is deceased? Would they keep that kind of thing from his adult children and the whole town/world?

I guess if this were the case, it would explain why his wife 'knows' he is never coming back, why it was ok to so quickly declare him deceased, get his pension stuff taken care of, sell his things, etc.
Poke holes in this theory, please.

Also goes with Meeks saying "maybe he was protecting his wife" in the press conference. I too wish this was the case it would be a lot better than my theory


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jellybean96]

Well, for me, short of LE stating in black and white that he is indeed alive and being protected, I am going to keep looking for MC. Once you begin digging and reading there is no way one could believe he was in the protection program.

IMHO there would be a better chance of him being abducted by aliens than him being in the witnesses protection program.

 

[SavetheQueen]

Well, for me, short of LE stating in black and white that he is indeed alive and being protected, I am going to keep looking for MC. Once you begin digging and reading there is no way one could believe he was in the protection program.

IMHO there would be a better chance of him being abducted by aliens than him being in the witnesses protection program.

Agreed. Witpro isn't anything like it's portrayed on TV. And it's not the great glamorous life that people perceive it is. He's probably anywhere but witpro.


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

 

[KeepTheLightOn]

I am curious. If BC has sold her car and the truck, what is she driving? Does she still have the classic cars?

 

[LayzeeDayzee]

Also, if PaPaw hadn't started drawing his pension -as I understand, he was to turn 70½ at the end of May -, then that might have created an additional financial issue.

Everyone is different, and I also do not know BC personally. Even then, I am both astonished and heartbroken by the fact that the probate of the will was initiated a mere 40 calendar days (Apr. 20th) after PaPaw's disappearance, as well as the fact that the case was disposed in less than two months (June 7th). But then maybe I am just overly sentimental.

This confuses me. If i understand correctly (maybe I am completely wrong?), I thought that MC had retired from DFD at age 55 (15 yrs ago). If he was only eligible to begin drawing a pension at age 70, did he have another job or source of income all of these past 15 yrs? Surely BC's income as a nurse wouldn't have been enough to support them given her need to very quickly liquidate assets (Mustang, his truck) and get the death certificate.

 

[Yvettea]

This confuses me. If i understand correctly (maybe I am completely wrong?), I thought that MC had retired from DFD at age 55 (15 yrs ago). If he was only eligible to begin drawing a pension at age 70, did he have another job or source of income all of these past 15 yrs? Surely BC's income as a nurse wouldn't have been enough to support them given her need to very quickly liquidate assets (Mustang, his truck) and get the death certificate.

He served 36 years as a member of the Dallas Fire Department before retiring in 2008.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/miss...-retired-firefighter-michael-chambers-n736021

 

[LayzeeDayzee]

He served 36 years as a member of the Dallas Fire Department before retiring in 2008.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/miss...-retired-firefighter-michael-chambers-n736021

Okay I was wrong about the # of years retired from DFD; he's been tired for 9 years - but my questions still stand. If only able to draw pension now, how did they do so well all of those years on ?only BC's income? Or did he still do firefighting but with a smaller/local FD?

 

[Yvettea]

I think was able to draw a pension all along. However, he stood to face significant penalties if he didn't ​begin withdrawing from his DROP account by 70 1/2.