MR

Here's something you don't hear about every day. A woman missing for 11 years turns up alive and living homeless. I'd say the husband is damn lucky no one tried to put him away for her "speculated" murder. From the before and after pix, she definitely went through a very hard 11 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab7744QUIfo

This happened in the tiny little town of Lititz, PA where my brother lives. As soon as I saw this story earlier today, I called him to ask him if he'd heard of that case or if he remembered when it happened. That's when he told me he knows the family well and has been friends with them for over 20 years. Small world!
The most intriguing question asked at the press conference was the one regarding the life insurance he collected after she was finally declared dead 7 years into the ordeal. That's a good question. I wonder if he'll have to repay it or if it will be written off by the insurance company...

JRNYMAN wrote:This happened in the tiny little town of Lititz, PA where my brother lives. As soon as I saw this story earlier today, I called him to ask him if he'd heard of that case or if he remembered when it happened. That's when he told me he knows the family well and has been friends with them for over 20 years. Small world!
The most intriguing question asked at the press conference was the one regarding the life insurance he collected after she was finally declared dead 7 years into the ordeal. That's a good question. I wonder if he'll have to repay it or if it will be written off by the insurance company...

Under Pennsylvania law, the husband can be sued for "unjust enrichment" and forced to pay the money back.

Don wrote:

JRNYMAN wrote:This happened in the tiny little town of Lititz, PA where my brother lives. As soon as I saw this story earlier today, I called him to ask him if he'd heard of that case or if he remembered when it happened. That's when he told me he knows the family well and has been friends with them for over 20 years. Small world!
The most intriguing question asked at the press conference was the one regarding the life insurance he collected after she was finally declared dead 7 years into the ordeal. That's a good question. I wonder if he'll have to repay it or if it will be written off by the insurance company...

Under Pennsylvania law, the husband can be sued for "unjust enrichment" and forced to pay the money back.

Wouldn't he be indemnified from that due to the fact that the state officially declared her deceased? I would think that would take the burden off of him to repay should something like this happen.

JRNYMAN wrote:

Don wrote:

JRNYMAN wrote:This happened in the tiny little town of Lititz, PA where my brother lives. As soon as I saw this story earlier today, I called him to ask him if he'd heard of that case or if he remembered when it happened. That's when he told me he knows the family well and has been friends with them for over 20 years. Small world!
The most intriguing question asked at the press conference was the one regarding the life insurance he collected after she was finally declared dead 7 years into the ordeal. That's a good question. I wonder if he'll have to repay it or if it will be written off by the insurance company...

Under Pennsylvania law, the husband can be sued for "unjust enrichment" and forced to pay the money back.

Wouldn't he be indemnified from that due to the fact that the state officially declared her deceased? I would think that would take the burden off of him to repay should something like this happen.

No because of exactly what you said. The state declared her deceased, not a doctor. The husband also had to pay a bond on possessions that were hers and given away, sold, ect. She's entitled to anything that was hers before she disappeared.

So, even though she fucked up, jumped on a bandwagon of hippies, she can just conveniently waltz right back into her former digs? Even the Twilight Zone crew couldn't make this kind of shit up!

steveo777 wrote:So, even though she fucked up, jumped on a bandwagon of hippies, she can just conveniently waltz right back into her former digs? Even the Twilight Zone crew couldn't make this kind of shit up!

The guy lost the home they shared so there's nothing for her there. He gave her jewelry to her mom so that's cool as she'll going home to her anyway. The big issue is the life insurance. They can go after her but as she has no assets, they'll look at the beneficiary if they want to recover the money.

Don wrote:

steveo777 wrote:So, even though she fucked up, jumped on a bandwagon of hippies, she can just conveniently waltz right back into her former digs? Even the Twilight Zone crew couldn't make this kind of shit up!

The guy lost the home they shared so there's nothing for her there. He gave her jewelry to her mom so that's cool as she'll going home to her anyway. The big issue is the life insurance. They can go after her but as she has no assets, they'll look at the beneficiary if they want to recover the money.

I have to believe this scenario has happened before and if so, there's bound to be case law which set the precedent. And I can see a completely valid and viable argument for both sides of it.

After doing a little research on the subject, I didn't really find a clear cut answer but what I did find tends to lean in favor of the insurance companies. Something shocking I also learned as a result of the research is there are an estimated - ready for this? - 60-100,000 individuals whom the insurance industry calls "Living Dead", individuals who have simply vanished without a trace whose beneficiaries are somewhere in the midst of the mostly observed law requiring a 7 year wait before being declared legally dead.
It's a tedious and lengthy way to do it but apparently this scenario is a not-so-uncommon version of insurance fraud.

JRNYMAN wrote:

Don wrote:

steveo777 wrote:So, even though she fucked up, jumped on a bandwagon of hippies, she can just conveniently waltz right back into her former digs? Even the Twilight Zone crew couldn't make this kind of shit up!

The guy lost the home they shared so there's nothing for her there. He gave her jewelry to her mom so that's cool as she'll going home to her anyway. The big issue is the life insurance. They can go after her but as she has no assets, they'll look at the beneficiary if they want to recover the money.

I have to believe this scenario has happened before and if so, there's bound to be case law which set the precedent. And I can see a completely valid and viable argument for both sides of it.

After doing a little research on the subject, I didn't really find a clear cut answer but what I did find tends to lean in favor of the insurance companies. Something shocking I also learned as a result of the research is there are an estimated - ready for this? - 60-100,000 individuals whom the insurance industry calls "Living Dead", individuals who have simply vanished without a trace whose beneficiaries are somewhere in the midst of the mostly observed law requiring a 7 year wait before being declared legally dead.
It's a tedious and lengthy way to do it but apparently this scenario is a not-so-uncommon version of insurance fraud.

I think she should have to pay, after all her silence for 11 years caused this whole mess. Or at least they should split the cost and that should take away the fraud thing. It is not his fault she decided to take off and abandon her child, (you don't want to know the opinion I have of any mother who would do something so aweful to a child for any reason ) and if she was the sole person who decided to up and do this why does she get off Scott free? Shouldn't she be in trouble?

artist4perry wrote:
I think she should have to pay, after all her silence for 11 years caused this whole mess. Or at least they should split the cost and that should take away the fraud thing. It is not his fault she decided to take off and abandon her child, (you don't want to know the opinion I have of any mother who would do something so aweful to a child for any reason ) and if she was the sole person who decided to up and do this why does she get off Scott free? Shouldn't she be in trouble?

Ditto! The problem, at least for the husband anyway, is that:
A. He was the beneficiary and was the one awarded the insurance money exclusively and
B. She has no assets which the insurance company can appropriate to recoup their losses and since she was married, her spouse is responsible for her debts.
That just sucks completely that, like you said, she's going to get off scott-free after the heartache, financial devastation, and everything else her disappearance caused - for so many people.

That's the big problem. He wasn't forced to collect on the insurance. I'm sure when the court declared her deceased, they warned him that if she turned up later he might have to pay it back.

Don wrote:That's the big problem. He wasn't forced to collect on the insurance. I'm sure when the court declared her deceased, they warned him that if she turned up later he might have to pay it back.

I agree. And at that point who would ever imagine (aside from the insurance company) she would?
After reading about how somewhat-common that approach to insurance fraud is, I'm sure there's a lot of trepidation that exists in the insurance co's. when they have to make a payout in a "declared dead" situation. I never would have guessed this takes place as often as it does. Between 60,000 and 100,000 "living dead" cases at any given time! That's mind boggling!
Of those who receive the money and then the deceased shows up, I wonder how many the insurance co's. are actually able to recoup the monies.

There may be a statute of limitations which may have already passed. I could see that there would be a limit of time on such a thing, where one cannot be held subject to recourse indefinitely.

steveo777 wrote:There may be a statute of limitations which may have already passed. I could see that there would be a limit of time on such a thing, where one cannot be held subject to recourse indefinitely.

They just got the insurance settlement in 2010 when she was declared dead. I don't think SOL applies and definitely not for that short period.

Don wrote:

steveo777 wrote:There may be a statute of limitations which may have already passed. I could see that there would be a limit of time on such a thing, where one cannot be held subject to recourse indefinitely.

They just got the insurance settlement in 2010 when she was declared dead. I don't think SOL applies and definitely not for that short period.

You're probably correct. I know in most states debt collection reaches the SOL in 4-7 years, depending on the state. When I was in California, if someone defaulted on a loan, as an example, you could take them to court on the 49th month since last payment and a judge would declare the debt invalid, due to the SOL running out. So all a deadbeat needed to do was lay low and not pay for 4 years.
What if the guy doesn't have the money to repay what he received from the life insurance? I suppose he could just file for bankruptcy. I doubt he'll ever pay it back.

steveo777 wrote:

Don wrote:

steveo777 wrote:There may be a statute of limitations which may have already passed. I could see that there would be a limit of time on such a thing, where one cannot be held subject to recourse indefinitely.

They just got the insurance settlement in 2010 when she was declared dead. I don't think SOL applies and definitely not for that short period.

You're probably correct. I know in most states debt collection reaches the SOL in 4-7 years, depending on the state. When I was in California, if someone defaulted on a loan, as an example, you could take them to court on the 49th month since last payment and a judge would declare the debt invalid, due to the SOL running out. So all a deadbeat needed to do was lay low and not pay for 4 years.
What if the guy doesn't have the money to repay what he received from the life insurance? I suppose he could just file for bankruptcy. I doubt he'll ever pay it back.

I wish the insurance company would go after her. She has even less of a chance of paying it back, but none of this would have happened if she hadn't ran off like that. I know they were getting a divorce and all of that, which can be extremely stressful, but how can you leave your kids like that? I'm sure she's been riddled with guilt over it for years. Not a good way to live.

steveo777 wrote:

Don wrote:

steveo777 wrote:There may be a statute of limitations which may have already passed. I could see that there would be a limit of time on such a thing, where one cannot be held subject to recourse indefinitely.

They just got the insurance settlement in 2010 when she was declared dead. I don't think SOL applies and definitely not for that short period.

You're probably correct. I know in most states debt collection reaches the SOL in 4-7 years, depending on the state. When I was in California, if someone defaulted on a loan, as an example, you could take them to court on the 49th month since last payment and a judge would declare the debt invalid, due to the SOL running out. So all a deadbeat needed to do was lay low and not pay for 4 years.
What if the guy doesn't have the money to repay what he received from the life insurance? I suppose he could just file for bankruptcy. I doubt he'll ever pay it back.

After watching the entire press conference with the dad and the detective it's abundantly clear his love for his kids is beyond measure and would go to the ends of the Earth for them - especially after what they went through as very young children. I suspect he took the money and set it up in some kind of trust in one way or another for them.

Regarding the statute of limitations issue... from the insurance co's. standpoint, they weren't defrauded until she turned up alive - last Friday. So from that stand point, the clock on the SOL just began. Had she never turned up - ever, there would have been no fraud committed.

What is not clear to me is why she won't be arrested and charged with the crime she committed. Am I wrong to think she should be? Maybe the other shoe just hasn't dropped yet.

steveo777 wrote:What is not clear to me is why she won't be arrested and charged with the crime she committed. Am I wrong to think she should be? Maybe the other shoe just hasn't dropped yet.

It's not against the law to disappear in America. What crime did she commit?

steveo777 wrote:What is not clear to me is why she won't be arrested and charged with the crime she committed. Am I wrong to think she should be? Maybe the other shoe just hasn't dropped yet.

She will be charged for the crimes of identity theft.

She may get probation though.

JRNYMAN wrote:

steveo777 wrote:What is not clear to me is why she won't be arrested and charged with the crime she committed. Am I wrong to think she should be? Maybe the other shoe just hasn't dropped yet.

It's not against the law to disappear in America. What crime did she commit?

Child abandonment, maybe?

Rick wrote:

JRNYMAN wrote:

steveo777 wrote:What is not clear to me is why she won't be arrested and charged with the crime she committed. Am I wrong to think she should be? Maybe the other shoe just hasn't dropped yet.

It's not against the law to disappear in America. What crime did she commit?

Child abandonment, maybe?

What I was thinking too.

Rick wrote:

JRNYMAN wrote:

steveo777 wrote:What is not clear to me is why she won't be arrested and charged with the crime she committed. Am I wrong to think she should be? Maybe the other shoe just hasn't dropped yet.

It's not against the law to disappear in America. What crime did she commit?

Child abandonment, maybe?

No, I think that won't be a charge. She wasn't a single parent (yet).

Don wrote:

Rick wrote:Child abandonment, maybe?

No, I think that won't be a charge. She wasn't a single parent (yet).

She didn't abandon them - technically. She and her husband, the natural father of her children, shared equal custody and responsibility of them.

Don wrote:

steveo777 wrote:What is not clear to me is why she won't be arrested and charged with the crime she committed. Am I wrong to think she should be? Maybe the other shoe just hasn't dropped yet.

She will be charged for the crimes of identity theft.

She may get probation though.

I don't think it was identity theft. The way the detective explains it, it sounds more like she gave an officer a false name when she was asked.

Detective answers the question regarding what charges she is facing in Florida:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... UIfo#t=35s

And answers the question specifically about no charges in Penn.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... Ifo#t=636s

Is it just me or is this detective waaaaaay to nice of a guy to be in law enforcement>?

Daughter says, "I hope she rots in Hell"
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/201 ... peared.cnn

She did irreparable damage to her daughter's feelings...that is a crime within itself. Seems everyone has had to pay for her deception...except her. It is wrong. She should pay at least half of the financial uproar she caused.