Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #20

[al66pine]

Was Gdn'ship Necessary for BM to Complete Sale?

Would there have been any other way for BM to have executed the real estate deal without having Suzanne declared incapacitated?

@DizzyB You're referring to completing sale of his/their now-former IN property. Good question. W nearly any legal/property question, seems the answer is ---it depends.
Imo if either a power of atty or a trust agreement had been in place, then it's possible but not certain, that BM could have completed IN home sale, without petitioning for gdn'ship & being appt'ed as gdn.
A: Maybe, if prior to (contract for deed? in spg 2019 iirc) initial transaction, SM had executed a power of atty document, if it designated BM as her agent, and if it granted him power to sell r/est in her name, it's possible but not certain BM could have completed the IN prop sale w'out gdn'ship & being appted Gdn.
A: Maybe, if prior to initital transaction (contract for deed in spring 2019, iirc), BM & SM had established a typical self administered living trust/SALT, if they had appt'ed selves as trustees, and if as either trustee had power to sell real est, and if IN prop had been held in trust name (that is, if the deed from prior owner in chain of title had shown that trust as grantee, but based on what I saw online per county tax ofc, it was not titled that way), and if initial contract had named the trust as the owner/grantor.
Many i-dotting & t-crossing real est. documentation details are driven by title ins. co's and/or mortgage lenders, w some req'mts being imposed nationwide. My thoughts on necessity of gdn'ship could change, if -
--- a friend/family-type loan was made to buyers (IOW, if buyers' mortgage was not from a conventional lender & packaged for resale to/thru Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac, et al), and
--- the sale or loan was not contingent on issuance of owner's and lender's title ins policy.
But who would pay $ 700,000 + for home without being assured of good title? jm2cts.
{ETA: If BM & SM had executed either of these ^ two documents, and if buyers, title ins co. mortgage lender, et al had been found them acceptable, it's possible BM would not have been forced to seek appt'mt as G'dn thru the ct.}

I welcome comment, clarification, or correction, esp'ly from our professionals here, esp'ly attys, & title ins co employees.

 

[NoSI]

My brain says a raging BM murdered his wife.
My heart wants there’s to be more to the story.

My brain and heart say crime of passion/impulsive... but there is definitely indication that the one not to be named could have planned this/premeditation.

 

[NoSI]

Exactly. It’s deduction based on known facts, past experience following cases involving these agencies, the posture of law enforcement, what they have done, what they have not done, and the all but unprecedented behavior of a particular person.

Other than that, I’m just trying to massage my ego. Or something.

Massage your ego?!? You could always call the Ego Repair Hotline... It is staffed 24/7.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I agree with your post 1,000 % .

No one has made any accusations against BM.
Rather, we're looking at the totality of the available, factual evidence !

As well as what LE have and haven't done.
Some have made accusations against those who are on one side of the fence , and that's fine as we all have our opinions and are allowed to speculate on the available information including video evidence.

Imo the fact that BM seized Suzanne's assets while declaring her to be unable to make this choice to hold on to what belongs to her due to being declared "incapacitated" speaks volumes.
She is officially still "missing", not incapacitated, nor is she unable to make a conscious choice over her properties.
She is perfectly capable ... unless there's a reason she is not.
Or , is there someone out there who knows something we do not ?
Imo.

I totally made fun of his sleeveless tee.

 

[susiQ]

Ha! In all seriousness, I’d set the over/under for an arrest at 6 months.

I still think I’d take the over, only because we don’t have a damn clue where this investigation stands.

For the record, I’ll put my .02 on under six months. Just a feeling, and no, I’m not psychic .

 

[Ontario Mom]

Sad state of affairs that as a society we need that as a website! I have never heard of it and I’m actually glad that I haven’t!

I skimmed it earlier. From what I read, it's 100% bang on.
Don't ask me how I know this, after 22+ years of marriage.
I wish society didn't need this either, but it's good for folks to know they're not going through it alone, you know?

So when the question about BM hurting SM after 25+ years of marriage came up, the answer is yes, it can happen, and yes, it does.
Often, to the couple folks would never in a million years expect it to happen to.
Like, those modern day Little House on the Prairie couples.

jmo

 

[al66pine]

Was Gdn'ship Necessary for BM to Complete Sale? part 2.

Would there have been any other way for BM to have executed the real estate deal without having Suzanne declared incapacitated?

@DizzyB More thoughts about why BM went to ct.
Q: Why seek Gdn'ship?
Well, if BM unilaterally had tried to cancel the transaction & simply said to buyers* ~ nevermind, not selling after all, wife is missing, not closing the sale, or had said ~ you'll get your earnest money/deposit back, he could have faced buyers' lawsuit for specific performance under the contract and could have ended up in court w no plausible legal defense or excuse** for breach of contract, and then could been forced to seek gdn'ship anyway.

Q: Why not just sign SM's name (by BM) on deed to close the sale? Or if BM signs SM's name on deed & doc's at closing (w'out a doc authorizing it, such as Power of Attorney doc or Letter of Guardianship & Order & Letter Appointing Guardian), so what? If Buyers*** do not object, who cares?
Well, the title ins co, for one. 'Commitment for Title Insurance Policy' for Owner & Lender's **** policies is contingent on completion & signatures of doc's at closing. One required doc is the deed w prop owners' proper execution. A deed signed by Person H (purportedly) on behalf of Person W (even if husband & wife), w'out document authorizing it is not what a title ins co considers a properly executed deed, esp'ly for a $ 700,000+ property.
Q: If title ins co does not issue Owners or Lender's policies, so what, who cares?
Typically the title ins co's local branch/affiliate is responsible for having all -
--- the required doc's w I's dotted & T's crossed;
--- the required signatures***** on those doc's.
Sooo, if title co agency/affiliate makes boo-boo by failing to get all required docs properly executed, the transaction does not close (or is at the very least is postponed, perhaps w BM forced to got to ct). That's why BM seeking guardianship and apptmt as guardian made sense to me. my 2 cts.
As always, I welcome comment, clarification, or correction, esp'ly from our professionals here, whether atty, real est, or title ins co.

......................................................................................................................................
* Text of Footnotes/*'s can be seen at my post 31 in this thread.

 

[lamlawindy]

Just FYI and not at all pertinent to this case
"af" is an acre-foot, an amount of water, not the well depth.
EDIT: And I just realized that it might not common knowledge what a well looks like - it's not a big gaping hole in the ground. They are about as narrow as a pipe. Not something you'd put something in. Lassie would never need to rescue someone from this well.

Getting your well and septic (if necessary) locations in and permitted/approved is wise to do before you fully design your house and foundation location because there are lots of setback rules - distance they have to be from each other, distance from neighbors' wells and septic, distance from house, and so on. I don't read anything nefarious into this, if you're gonna do it, ya gotta do it.

Acre-foot (af):
* 1 acre = 43,560 square feet.
* 1 acre-foot = 43,560 cubic feet.
* 1 acre-foot = 325,851 gallons of water = 1233 cubic meters of water.
* 1 acre-foot = 0.504 cfs/ day.

Water Measurement - Basic Units of Water | Colorado River District

Thank you for this. Here in the Midwest, many states -- Indiana, for example -- employ the "common enemy" doctrine with respect to water. To my Midwestern legal eyes, the fact that Western states like Colorado have "water courts" and attorneys that specialize in "water rights" seems bizarre, though I'm sure the more arid climate necessitated such legal developments.

 

[BeckyF]

How do you explain the Heidi Brussard case then? Many posters accused her boyfriend/husband, criticized his mannerisms (although they didn't make fun of his shirt), and criticized his story. Even after we found out he wasn't involved, people on this thread still blamed him for their accusations.

What satisfaction did these people get by making the accusations? They were wrong and made the world a little bit worse. If they had been right, would they have gotten satisfaction about making the correct prediction? Are they so bored, they just have to tell their opinions which in the end may be wrong? I don't understand it.

No boredom here. In fact I’m so busy I’ll leave it at that.

 

[lamlawindy]

There are still some WS members who question whether he is guilty at all and those who truly believe in his innocence. I like that. It gives us all perspective.

I like how you put that: I wouldn't go so far as to say that I am truly convinced of Barry's innocence, but I question whether Barry is guilty at all and whether it can be proven.

 

[lamlawindy]

Exactly. It’s deduction based on known facts, past experience following cases involving these agencies, the posture of law enforcement, what they have done, what they have not done, and the all but unprecedented behavior of a particular person.

I may not agree with your deductions, @MassGuy, but I think your deductions are logical and coherent. I like the framework you just mentioned.

Five of the 6 factors you describe logically militate toward a belief that Barry Morphew may be involved in Suzanne's disappearance. The only factor I disagree with you about is the sixth one: the subject's behavior.

First, I simply don't think there is a "model behavior" that every person with a missing spouse will exhibit because humans are each so different. Just as each of us is influenced by genetics & environment, so is every other person. As much as we might presume that a person may react a "certain way" when a tragedy occurs, that doesn't mean our presumption is correct.

Second, I believe that humans may change their behavior based on external factors. Today, it is axiomatic that a missing person's spouse is the first person suspected. With that knowledge in mind, why would it be surprising that some spouses choose to exercise their rights to remain silent? They may fear that investigators want to ensure a swift end to a mystery & have tunnel vision. Is it unusual behavior? Yes. Is it unreasonable behavior? Absolutely not.

I agree that -- applying 5 of your 6 factors -- Barry may be involved in Suzanne's disappearance. However, I have yet to even see the search warrant probable cause affidavits, much less actual evidence linking Barry to her disappearance.

 

[J.M. Bee]

What satisfaction did these people get by making the accusations? They were wrong and made the world a little bit worse. If they had been right, would they have gotten satisfaction about making the correct prediction? Are they so bored, they just have to tell their opinions which in the end may be wrong? I don't understand it.

I don't understand what it is you think people should do on a discussion forum dealing with true crime. Are you saying that people shouldn't draw conclusions of one kind or another? That they shouldn't make inferences about this or that or shouldn't propose theories regarding what might have occurred? Are you saying they shouldn't conclude that so-and-so is the perp or that so-and-so is not the perp? Why? One, what is the point of discussing true crime aside from doing these things? What else is there to talk about? Two, who does this harm? Provided no one is misrepresenting the facts of the case --- something that is not allowed here --- and provided no one is simply saying horrible things about someone involved in the case --- something that is also not allowed here --- no one is harmed by my saying, "I think BM is responsible for SM's disappearance," nor is anyone harmed by Poster818987 saying, "I don't think BM is responsible," nor is anyone harmed from your saying, "I don't think we have enough facts in the case to say one way or another."

Many people here have concluded, for a variety of reasons, that BM is responsible for SM's disappearance. This seems to bother you, but I don't really understand why. No one is saying they know he is responsible, because no one can reasonably say that. No one is saying there's no chance they've misinterpreted this or that aspect of this case, because of course it's possible that people have misinterpreted this or that aspect of this case.

However, many here are of the opinion that BM is responsible for SM's disappearance, and again, many people here have come to this conclusion for a variety of reasons. No one is saying this simply because they don't "like the look of his eyes" and no one is ghoulishly wishing harm upon him or showering him with invective. People have simply assessed the facts of the case and determined that a variety of things point to BM. Why does this bother you so?

 

[lamlawindy]

This isn’t how LE handles abductions, especially when the CBI and FBI are involved. They know what they are doing.

LOL! To paraphrase Darth Vader, I find your unshakable faith in these agencies disturbing.

 

[J.M. Bee]

I may not agree with your deductions, @MassGuy, but I think your deductions are logical and coherent. I like the framework you just mentioned.

Five of the 6 factors you describe logically militate toward a belief that Barry Morphew may be involved in Suzanne's disappearance. The only factor I disagree with you about is the sixth one: the subject's behavior.

First, I simply don't think there is a "model behavior" that every person with a missing spouse will exhibit because humans are each so different. Just as each of us is influenced by genetics & environment, so is every other person. As much as we might presume that a person may react a "certain way" when a tragedy occurs, that doesn't mean our presumption is correct.

Second, I believe that humans may change their behavior based on external factors. Today, it is axiomatic that a missing person's spouse is the first person suspected. With that knowledge in mind, why would it be surprising that some spouses choose to exercise their rights to remain silent? They may fear that investigators want to ensure a swift end to a mystery & have tunnel vision. Is it unusual behavior? Yes. Is it unreasonable behavior? Absolutely not.

I agree that -- applying 5 of your 6 factors -- Barry may be involved in Suzanne's disappearance. However, I have yet to even see the search warrant probable cause affidavits, much less actual evidence linking Barry to her disappearance.

You make some good points, but I disagree with the idea that we cannot assess a person's behavior against what we regard as expected behavior for a person in their situation. For example, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to say that in the case of a missing beloved wife, an innocent loving husband will express some concern for his missing wife's well-being. If said husband does not express concern for his missing wife's well-being, it is perfectly reasonable for me to find this unusual and to conclude that there may be something not quite right about the husband. Now, it's obviously the case that I cannot from that fact alone conclude that the husband is the perpetrator or say that I know he is the perpetrator, but I do think we can say that certain kinds of behavior are to be expected, and I do think we can make judgments about people based on how their words and behavior compare to what we would expect. Investigators do this very thing all of the time.

 

[thaddeusjames80]

It’s also interesting to note that SM hasnt posted anything about her husband on Facebook since 2017 I believe. Might not mean anything but it’s odd that she did before and then nothing after. A news article quoting a friend or family member said Suzanne was hesitant about the move but did find positives about it. If true it just doesn’t seem like she was the one who initiated it. I don’t want to get too much into it though as I don’t have a link for it.

It's possible that if you're not friends with SM on Facebook that she could have posted about him and you couldn't see it. The privacy settings could be set to friends only, where in 2017 it could have been set to public

 

[Gamecockinnc]

I couldn’t agree more with your thoughtful post.

I posted before about why I don’t think BM would resort to murder, considering the length of his marriage and his age. By BM’s point in life, he’s seen friends and family divorce and move on. Lots of ended relationships would have been observed, and learned from.

I’ll ask the question. I’d like to hear the opinions of other Websleuthers who have been married 25+ years. Do those of you with long term marriages think BM would take the route of murder at this stage in the game?

Not only a 25+ year marriage but a wife that had been through more than one cancer battle. I hate to say it recently finishing breast cancer treatment myself but if he wanted to “move on” it may have been a matter of time in the event her cancer treatment wasn’t successful. It doesn’t make sense to me yet.

 

[BeachSky]

Different case. I never thought Heidi's boyfriend was guilty. It was sad the way he was treated.
I see too much that points to BM having a hand in Suzanne's disappearance to give him the benefit of doubt at this time. Others do. I listen carefully.
I'm not bored. The only satisfaction I want is justice for Suzanne.
I really wish it wasn't him. For the sake of his kids.
Moo

Love this post.
Websleuths is the best at keeping it real.

MOO

 

[Gigi3]

LOL! To paraphrase Darth Vader, I find your unshakable faith in these agencies disturbing.

I’m not MassGuy, but after following the Watts, Berreth, and Stauch cases, they’ve got a pretty damn good track record.

Do LE make mistakes? Of course, they’re human.
MOO

 

[lamlawindy]

You make some good points, but I disagree with the idea that we cannot assess a person's behavior against what we regard as expected behavior for a person in their situation. For example, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to say that in the case of a missing beloved wife, an innocent loving husband will express some concern for his missing wife's well-being. If said husband does not express concern for his missing wife's well-being, it is perfectly reasonable for me to find this unusual and to conclude that there may be something not quite right about the husband. Now, it's obviously the case that I cannot from that fact alone conclude that the husband is the perpetrator or say that I know he is the perpetrator, but I do think we can say there certain kinds of behavior are to be expected and I do think we can make judgments about people based on how their words and behavior compare to what we could expect. Investigators do this very thing all of the time.

That's the problem: one can't possibly see what a grieving spouse says or does in the privacy of his/her own home & among loved ones.

 

[J.M. Bee]

That's the problem: one can't possibly see what a grieving spouse says or does in the privacy of his/her own home & among loved ones.

OK, but we can see what they say and do in public, and we can draw conclusions from that based on what we would expect to see from a person in that situation. Yes, it's true that the husband I've seen on camera three times might be expressing concern for his wife's well-being in private, but that doesn't mean that I can't draw conclusions from what I am seeing from him in public. It just means that I have to acknowledge that I don't have all of the data.