If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Miami Herald)   Woman researches the impact of prolonged exposure to Florida. Results aren't good   (miamiherald.com) divider line 69
    More: Florida, photos, Brenda Heist, Lititz Borough Police Department, Key Largo, Deputy Becky Herrin, classical conditions, Monroe County  
•       •       •

10011 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 May 2013 at 10:37 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-02 12:03:29 PM
You know she's going to be writing a book about this. I would. Then they'll make a romantic movie about it with some pretty hollywood actress all uglyied up for the role.
 
2013-05-02 12:07:35 PM

freewill: BarkingUnicorn: I don't think so. Hubby did nothing wrong but he still was enriched unjustly. She had no duty to keep the insurer informed that she was alive. Hubby is on the hook unless there's some law or contractual provision that there's no take-backs in case of mistaken death certificates. He would owe the insurer a refund and his recourse would be to sue her.

Interesting. If she had no duty to inform the insurer, does she have a duty to inform the beneficiary? How would he have recourse?


Negligence.  She was in a special relationship called marriage, with a higher duty to her husband than she had to a stranger in an insurance company.  It's similar to the "no duty to aid a stranger in peril" common law; parents still have a duty to aid their kids, among other special relationships.
 
2013-05-02 12:40:04 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Negligence. She was in a special relationship called marriage, with a higher duty to her husband than she had to a stranger in an insurance company. It's similar to the "no duty to aid a stranger in peril" common law; parents still have a duty to aid their kids, among other special relationships.


Fair enough, but the state issued a death certificate. If both the insurance company and the husband were acting in good faith and the insurance company considered the criteria for the claim to be satisfied, where do they get off demanding the money back? The husband made no error that he had the means to prevent.

All of this was a direct consequence of her decision to drop off the grid and abandon her responsibilities, a course that anybody would realize is going to lead to all sorts of blowback. She was presumably aware he husband had insured her life, and aware that they would think she was dead. He didn't defraud the insurance company, she did.
 
2013-05-02 12:42:28 PM
Well, to her credit she didn't murder "johns" she picked up on the Interstates.  I'd argue for dismissal of any charges that may be brought against her.

/Why, yes my name is "John," and I live in Florida.

//stop looking at me funny
 
2013-05-02 01:03:41 PM

freewill: BarkingUnicorn: Negligence. She was in a special relationship called marriage, with a higher duty to her husband than she had to a stranger in an insurance company. It's similar to the "no duty to aid a stranger in peril" common law; parents still have a duty to aid their kids, among other special relationships.

Fair enough, but the state issued a death certificate. If both the insurance company and the husband were acting in good faith and the insurance company considered the criteria for the claim to be satisfied, where do they get off demanding the money back? The husband made no error that he had the means to prevent.

All of this was a direct consequence of her decision to drop off the grid and abandon her responsibilities, a course that anybody would realize is going to lead to all sorts of blowback. She was presumably aware he husband had insured her life, and aware that they would think she was dead. He didn't defraud the insurance company, she did.


Interesting question, and the answer partly depends on the Florida statute of limitations, I'd think.
Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the insurance industry had some fine print allowing them recourse, somehow.

While I don't think the husband did anything wrong, and the insurance company should go after the wife...she doesn't have any money...
 
2013-05-02 01:09:11 PM
"She has a birth certificate and a death certificate, so she's got a long ways to make this right again," Schofield said. "She's got to take it slow with her family, I'm sure, and it's going to be a long process."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/02/3376125/woman-missing-since-200 2 -and-presumed.html#storylink=cpy

Long process my ass. My biological father abandoned me when I was an infant. I have heard through family members that he is interested in getting in touch with me. The process is simple, he is a stranger and I have no desire to meet him.
 
2013-05-02 01:10:08 PM

freewill: BarkingUnicorn: Negligence. She was in a special relationship called marriage, with a higher duty to her husband than she had to a stranger in an insurance company. It's similar to the "no duty to aid a stranger in peril" common law; parents still have a duty to aid their kids, among other special relationships.

Fair enough, but the state issued a death certificate. If both the insurance company and the husband were acting in good faith and the insurance company considered the criteria for the claim to be satisfied, where do they get off demanding the money back? The husband made no error that he had the means to prevent.

All of this was a direct consequence of her decision to drop off the grid and abandon her responsibilities, a course that anybody would realize is going to lead to all sorts of blowback. She was presumably aware he husband had insured her life, and aware that they would think she was dead. He didn't defraud the insurance company, she did.


I agree with you, but it still wouldn't surprise me if the insurance company tried to weasel out of it and demand the money back.
 
2013-05-02 01:43:39 PM

jst3p: "She has a birth certificate and a death certificate, so she's got a long ways to make this right again," Schofield said. "She's got to take it slow with her family, I'm sure, and it's going to be a long process."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/02/3376125/woman-missing-since-200 2 -and-presumed.html#storylink=cpy

Long process my ass. My biological father abandoned me when I was an infant. I have heard through family members that he is interested in getting in touch with me. The process is simple, he is a stranger and I have no desire to meet him.


Which I think is the same thing as what they meant by "long process".  Kind of like when you used to tell your parents something stupid that you wanted to do and they'd be like, "let's take this slow."
 
2013-05-02 02:59:25 PM

freewill: BarkingUnicorn: Negligence. She was in a special relationship called marriage, with a higher duty to her husband than she had to a stranger in an insurance company. It's similar to the "no duty to aid a stranger in peril" common law; parents still have a duty to aid their kids, among other special relationships.

Fair enough, but the state issued a death certificate. If both the insurance company and the husband were acting in good faith and the insurance company considered the criteria for the claim to be satisfied, where do they get off demanding the money back? The husband made no error that he had the means to prevent.

All of this was a direct consequence of her decision to drop off the grid and abandon her responsibilities, a course that anybody would realize is going to lead to all sorts of blowback. She was presumably aware he husband had insured her life, and aware that they would think she was dead. He didn't defraud the insurance company, she did.


unjust enrichment is where one person is unjustly or by chance enriched at the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises,
 
2013-05-02 03:06:57 PM

pyrotek85: freewill: BarkingUnicorn: Negligence. She was in a special relationship called marriage, with a higher duty to her husband than she had to a stranger in an insurance company. It's similar to the "no duty to aid a stranger in peril" common law; parents still have a duty to aid their kids, among other special relationships.

Fair enough, but the state issued a death certificate. If both the insurance company and the husband were acting in good faith and the insurance company considered the criteria for the claim to be satisfied, where do they get off demanding the money back? The husband made no error that he had the means to prevent.

All of this was a direct consequence of her decision to drop off the grid and abandon her responsibilities, a course that anybody would realize is going to lead to all sorts of blowback. She was presumably aware he husband had insured her life, and aware that they would think she was dead. He didn't defraud the insurance company, she did.

I agree with you, but it still wouldn't surprise me if the insurance company tried to weasel out of it and demand the money back.


Nobody defrauded the insurance company.  A mistake of fact occurred, resulting in one of the parties to the insurance contract being enriched unjustly.  That party must refund the money, unless there is some contractual provision or law that precludes equitable restitution if the State, rightly or in error, declares an insured party deceased.
 
2013-05-02 03:19:35 PM
Y yall be dissn on da flordy I woop yo ass an then yall aint all that yall then to the ill bite me yo
 
2013-05-02 04:01:27 PM
I don't think the insurance money is the biggest part of the story.

I think walking out on your husband and children is the biggest part of the story. I currently have a 12-year-old son and an 8-year-old daughter (which is exactly what she had when she bailed) and I cannot imagine, not for one second, turning my back on them and playing ding-dong-ditch for 11 years.

Missing Little League games, birthdays, holidays, piano recitals, lost teeth, first crushes, field trips, middle school dances, Sunday morning pancakes, hugs and kisses and memories...Unfathomable. It's unf... without fathom.

/also wouldn't be able to do a Megamind reference without the kids in my life

//slashies to the death. No, to the pain

///whoops, there's another one
 
2013-05-02 04:07:00 PM

BarkingUnicorn: unjust enrichment is where one person is unjustly or by chance enriched at the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises...A mistake of fact occurred


As I understand it, unjust enrichment occurs where there is no sound justification for the transfer. In this case, both sides had a perfect meeting of the minds about the situation and the insurance company wrote the check on the same understanding as the beneficiary, didn't they? Was there a mistake of fact about her actual death, or were they both simply in agreement that the circumstances which dictated paying the claim had been met? What I mean is, in the latter case, none of those circumstances are now invalidated by her actual life: she had been missing, she had been thought dead, a death certificate had been issued.

Nobody defrauded the insurance company.

I take issue with this either way. She had to be aware that she was insured and that she would be thought dead, and falsely represented herself to others as being another person under another name in order to avoid detection and perpetuate that falsehood.

Here's one of the Burney cases:

http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19840727_ 00 00023.EAR.htm/qx

For a period of over six years John Burney consistently lied about his identity and day after day misrepresented not only himself but all other facts about his background....He failed to file federal income tax returns and pay taxes to the United States Government....At trial John Burney testified that he left every aspect of his life in Helena, leaving the impression that he was deceased....The overwhelming weight of evidence, almost undisputed, shows that John Burney, a/k/a John Bruce, was guilty of fraud. As the court said in New York Life Insurance Co. v. Nashville Trust Co., 200 Tenn. 513, 292 S.W.2d 749, 754 (1956), about an insured who stayed hidden under very similar circumstances: "We cannot imagine how acts could be more fraudulent."....His fraud permeated the relationships of all of the parties to the degree that any payment or agreement accepted by the parties was a result of the deliberate deception practiced by him....Because of John Burney's fraud and deception, money was paid on the insurance policies and he is indebted to plaintiff...

The plaintiff being the insurance company.
 
2013-05-02 04:09:26 PM
...and apparently, local lawyers are of the mind that unless the insurance policy specifically contemplated this situation, the insurance company is up shiat creek:

http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/844798_Brenda-Heist-s--100- 00 0-insurance-policy--Will-ex-husband-have-to-pay-the-money-back-.html

To my mind, the judge's ruling that she was "legally dead" is the relevant fact to the payment on the claim. Neither the insurance company nor the beneficiary made any mistake about that.
 
2013-05-02 04:52:30 PM

freewill: ...and apparently, local lawyers are of the mind that unless the insurance policy specifically contemplated this situation, the insurance company is up shiat creek:

http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/844798_Brenda-Heist-s--100- 00 0-insurance-policy--Will-ex-husband-have-to-pay-the-money-back-.html

To my mind, the judge's ruling that she was "legally dead" is the relevant fact to the payment on the claim. Neither the insurance company nor the beneficiary made any mistake about that.


Screw the insurance company I say, screw them.
 
2013-05-02 09:53:04 PM
Now, will the feds require repayment of the ssi that the kids received?

/fark lawyers, hooooo
 
2013-05-03 12:29:28 AM
FTFA: Brenda Heist was released from police custody and will stay with a brother in North Florida for now, Jean Copenhaver, of Brenham, Texas, told The Associated Press.

WTF? Are they trying to finish her off? The only thing worse than being stuck in South Florida is being stuck in North Florida... or Central Florida. No. Wait. North is worst. Central is not as bad as North, but is worse than South. But North Florida absolutely sucks the worst.
 
2013-05-03 01:43:40 AM
<CSB Time>

Grew up in the Keys, met volumes of people over the years who were willful dropouts from society, many of whom I know by a 'nickname' as opposed to any birthname or legal name.

When I realized I was spinning my wheels and wanted to further my education after highschool, I also realized I would instantly be overqualified and likely underemployed the moment I attained one, had I decided to stay.

On the rare occasion, you'd meet and chance a conversation with someone in their sober hours and realize they were literate, possibly event lettered, but had left the mainland out of family discord or some bizarre Margaritaville fantasy of 'getting away from it all'.  Some of the conversations were amazing, many of them also would later end up in conspiracyville.

If they find Howard Hughes there one day, I won't even blink.

Others 24 years of pretty good (some pretty weird) memories, but happiness (and personal sanity) was definitely Monroe County in my rear-view mirror.

</CSB>


/Somewhere KeysDude and I have probably crossed paths
//MHS '87
 
2013-05-03 07:04:58 PM

Cheron: Over the last few years I've been growing a stash of cash and basics hidden about a hundred yards off a hiking trail.  I've worked out a fairly detailed plan of where to leave my car, what to do with my wallet and cell phone and how to melt into the background.  If you don't have an exit plan you're fooling yourself and you will regret it.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
Displayed 19 of 69 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report