Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #26

[ivegotthemic]

So Indiana and Colorado Handle it really differently, In Indiana "The court may remove a guardian on its own motion or on petition of the protected person or any person interested in the guardianship, after notice and hearing, on the same grounds and in the same manner as is provided by statute for the removal of a personal representative" so, The court has the description to end the Guardianship at any time if they find cause, or someone else could petition them to terminate it and they hold a formal hearing. Indiana maxes the length of guardianship at 1 year. Techinally theres follow up paperwork BM has to follow regularly to the court but it dosent really say whats required to prove the arrangement is still needed and I have no idea if the court even tries to follow up with these cases the law is very vague which is annoying

 

[Backstroke10]

People are judges and judges are people who have their own lives going on, not to mention a pandemic.
They may not be privy to what's going on unless there's an opposition to the case at hand.
Don't forget, this is IN and not CO, thus far, and I won't comment on other possibilities that could affect decisions.

Yes I understand all of that. It was just a question I had.

 

[PaulaDC]

No need to apologize @mom2chloe!

I believe your question was whether or not a man and woman were seen late at night during the loud, vibrating, equipment sounds reported by a neighbor, and OP replied seeing this on FB --which WS deems rumor and not allowed here.

I was also recalling another post here that included a completely unrelated YT featuring a man and woman demonstrating installation of radiant floor heat or insulation under concrete-- (I can't remember which) that only served to perpetuate the man and woman working at midnight that OP claimed a FB rumor.

I hope this clarifies my response to nipping the rumor especially by one that recalls reading it on FB (I don't read FB). MOO

Dave?

 

[Backstroke10]

So Indiana and Colorado Handle it really differently, In Indiana "The court may remove a guardian on its own motion or on petition of the protected person or any person interested in the guardianship, after notice and hearing, on the same grounds and in the same manner as is provided by statute for the removal of a personal representative" so, The court has the description to end the Guardianship at any time if they find cause, or someone else could petition them to terminate it and they hold a formal hearing. Indiana maxes the length of guardianship at 1 year. Techinally theres follow up paperwork BM has to follow regularly to the court but it dosent really say whats required to prove the arrangement is still needed and I have no idea if the court even tries to follow up with these cases the law is very vague which is annoying

Thank you! Great information.

 

[marylamby]

Yes I understand all of that. It was just a question I had.

It's a question I'm sure many of us have.

 

[lamlawindy]

sorry if that came off sassy, not my intent. because Im still in law school I feel obligated throw that out there in case i interpret something wrong. my word is definitely not law, i am wrong sometimes because the law is weird and i am surprised too...especially since her family wanst notified when it seems like the law required them to be... i was really curious about the process and usually theres a lot of opinions to help you frame what the court is looking for but I count find a single case with similar criteria, which was also surprising.

The law is weird! You're doing the right thing, though, in reading/posting on WS while in law school: As you can see, some cases "in real life" are not only criminal cases but also may contain aspects of probate and contract law.

While it certainly appears odd in this particular case, I'm not sure that Barry had to provide the Moormans with notice of the guardianship petition or the hearing. Indiana Code § 29-3-6-1(a)(4), seems to require only notice to Suzanne (if she could be located), Barry, and the adult Morphew daughter:

(4) If it is alleged that the person is an incapacitated person, notice of the petition and the hearing on the petition shall be given to the following persons whose whereabouts can be determined upon reasonable inquiry:

(A) The alleged incapacitated person, the alleged incapacitated person's spouse, and the alleged incapacitated person's adult children, or if none, the alleged incapacitated person's parents.

(B) Any person who is serving as a guardian for, or who has the care and custody of, the alleged incapacitated person.

(C) In case no person other than the incapacitated person is notified under clause (A), at least one (1) of the persons most closely related by blood or marriage to the alleged incapacitated person.

(D) Any person known to the petitioner to be serving as the alleged incapacitated person's attorney-in-fact under a durable power of attorney.

(E) Any other person that the court directs.

While I understand that not many posters on WS will know him professionally, I can state unequivocally that Judge Casati is an excellent judge with plenty of prior experience as a lawyer in private practice. I do think that -- if he believed that notice to the Moormans was appropriate -- he would've directed Barry to provide them notice.

 

[lamlawindy]

I hope so too. With all the media attention, I don’t see how the Judge wouldn’t know what’s going on. It would seem prudent for the Judge to simply delay the decision on the permanent guardianship. MOO

While Judge Casati could delay the proceedings, the media attention
issue cuts both ways. Yes, the judge may see that Suzanne is missing & keep track of the investigation, but he also would see that (a) investigators haven't charged Barry Morphew or even named him a POI or suspect and (b) nobody has filed to challenge the appointment of Barry as guardian.

By holding the hearing on September 1, Judge Casati has essentially given investigators 60 days to provide information about Barry that may disqualify Barry as guardian. While this period of time seems short, Judge Casati also cannot delay the guardianship proceeding indefinitely. Additionally, Indiana's guardianship statute allows the Moormans -- or really any person who seeks to champion Suzanne's cause -- to appear in the proceedings (subject to the Court's permission). The law requires persons who would challenge Barry's petition to actually do something & not sit on their hands. I think that, from a legal perspective, either delaying or going forward is defensible.

 

[Ontario Mom]

So many threads and still no Suzanne.

 

[Lilypad13]

While Judge Casati could delay the proceedings, the media attention
issue cuts both ways. Yes, the judge may see that Suzanne is missing & keep track of the investigation, but he also would see that (a) investigators haven't charged Barry Morphew or even named him a POI or suspect and (b) nobody has filed to challenge the appointment of Barry as guardian.

By holding the hearing on September 1, Judge Casati has essentially given investigators 60 days to provide information about Barry that may disqualify Barry as guardian. While this period of time seems short, Judge Casati also cannot delay the guardianship proceeding indefinitely. Additionally, Indiana's guardianship statute allows the Moormans -- or really any person who seeks to champion Suzanne's cause -- to appear in the proceedings (subject to the Court's permission). The law requires persons who would challenge Barry's petition to actually do something & not sit on their hands. I think that, from a legal perspective, either delaying or going forward is defensible.

When you say the Judge has given investigators 60 days to provide information that may disqualify BM as a guardian do you mean investigators from LE working on SM’s case? Or does the Court have investigators that automatically background check people filing for guardianship? I’m just curious about this aspect of it because I would think being the possible POI in your missing wife’s investigation and your missing wife being the subject of the guardianship would be a conflict that would be cause for disqualification. When you say the law requires persons who challenge BM’s petition to do something who are you referring to? Also it seems to me (a non lawyer so there’s that) as a Mom that if I was missing and my husband used my daughter to approve a guardianship over me that would also be a conflict of interest. I would hope that another person, attorney or maybe the Judge himself would be allowed to speak with their daughter privately to make sure she isn’t feeling pressured to do so and make sure she understands what she is signing, etc. In other words could BM just put a document in front of her and say here I need you to sign this legal document for me and she doesn’t really know what it is? TIA!

Sorry one more question...if the law allows someone from the Moorman family to appear at the hearing, do they receive notice of all filings and hearings re the guardianship or would they need an attorney for that? Can someone just show up or do they have to make it known to the Court in advance that they want to attend? I believe I read one of the attorneys (sorry I’m not sure if it was you or not) that said no one from Moorman side of the family had given notice of appearing. Also, isn’t the hearing by videoconference?

Well that was 3 more question sorry. This whole thing just bugs me and I can’t figure out if it is protects their daughters or if it’s just a shady legal move that only benefits BM. I understand why the sale of the IN home which was already underway might have needed to go forward but from everything I’ve been reading about how the guardianship can transfer to CO and seeing that BM purchased that expensive lot. It seems like the original purpose would turn into blanket permission to control all of SM’s assets as he sees fit. And normally if a husband isn’t the one who caused his wife to be incapacitated and money is not considered a possible motive for her disappearance then I would agree that the husband should be the legal guardian. But this situation is not normal. IMO

Thank you for any further help with trying to understand this. I wonder what will happen on September 1st? I was hoping - we were all hoping Suzanne would be found by now and this guardianship would be the least of BM’s worries by then. I also hope that if BM ends up in jail that someone else along with Suzanne’s adult daughter will be the executor of her estate. We have no idea if she has a will but since she had cancer twice she might have. That’s a whole other issue though for further down the road...

 

[happyday]

When you say the Judge has given investigators 60 days to provide information that may disqualify BM as a guardian do you mean investigators from LE working on SM’s case? Or does the Court have investigators that automatically background check people filing for guardianship? I’m just curious about this aspect of it because I would think being the possible POI in your missing wife’s investigation and your missing wife being the subject of the guardianship would be a conflict that would be cause for disqualification. When you say the law requires persons who challenge BM’s petition to do something who are you referring to? Also it seems to me (a non lawyer so there’s that) as a Mom that if I was missing and my husband used my daughter to approve a guardianship over me that would also be a conflict of interest. I would hope that another person, attorney or maybe the Judge himself would be allowed to speak with their daughter privately to make sure she isn’t feeling pressured to do so and make sure she understands what she is signing, etc. In other words could BM just put a document in front of her and say here I need you to sign this legal document for me and she doesn’t really know what it is? TIA!

ITA
Maybe it’s just me being naive and idealistic, but it just seems if a woman goes missing under suspicious circumstances, husband is a POI, it’s a criminal investigation and nobody knows where the heck she is or what happened to her all business deals involving her assets should be put ON HOLD. No guardianship, no land transfers, no house sales, no quitclaims—nothing. It’s just not right. I didn’t even like the guardianship to continue the house sale in IN at all.

People keep saying life goes on, RE sales must go on or there’s breaches of contract, but I just say NO. There is a criminal investigation going on into what happened to Suzanne and IMO everything and I mean everything should be on hold until the investigation is concluded. I really don’t get how any of these guardianship shenanigans are even on the table. It’s gross.

 

[Birmingplumb]

ITA
Maybe it’s just me being naive and idealistic, but it just seems if a woman goes missing under suspicious circumstances, husband is a POI, it’s a criminal investigation and nobody knows where the heck she is or what happened to her all business deals involving her assets should be put ON HOLD. No guardianship, no land transfers, no house sales, no quitclaims—nothing. It’s just not right. I didn’t even like the guardianship to continue the house sale in IN at all.

People keep saying life goes on, RE sales must go on or there’s breaches of contract, but I just say NO. There is a criminal investigation going on into what happened to Suzanne and IMO everything and I mean everything should be on hold until the investigation is concluded. I really don’t get how any of these guardianship shenanigans are even on the table. It’s gross.

100% at least until waterboarding is legal again.

 

[Backstroke10]

While Judge Casati could delay the proceedings, the media attention
issue cuts both ways. Yes, the judge may see that Suzanne is missing & keep track of the investigation, but he also would see that (a) investigators haven't charged Barry Morphew or even named him a POI or suspect and (b) nobody has filed to challenge the appointment of Barry as guardian.

By holding the hearing on September 1, Judge Casati has essentially given investigators 60 days to provide information about Barry that may disqualify Barry as guardian. While this period of time seems short, Judge Casati also cannot delay the guardianship proceeding indefinitely. Additionally, Indiana's guardianship statute allows the Moormans -- or really any person who seeks to champion Suzanne's cause -- to appear in the proceedings (subject to the Court's permission). The law requires persons who would challenge Barry's petition to actually do something & not sit on their hands. I think that, from a legal perspective, either delaying or going forward is defensible.

Thank you for replying to my question. I appreciate your expertise and taking the time to reply. The whole thing bothers me. I think “it’s too soon” for a judge to grant him this. I guess we’ll find out what happens on Sept 1. MOO

When you say the Judge has given investigators 60 days to provide information that may disqualify BM as a guardian do you mean investigators from LE working on SM’s case? Or does the Court have investigators that automatically background check people filing for guardianship? I’m just curious about this aspect of it because I would think being the possible POI in your missing wife’s investigation and your missing wife being the subject of the guardianship would be a conflict that would be cause for disqualification. When you say the law requires persons who challenge BM’s petition to do something who are you referring to? Also it seems to me (a non lawyer so there’s that) as a Mom that if I was missing and my husband used my daughter to approve a guardianship over me that would also be a conflict of interest. I would hope that another person, attorney or maybe the Judge himself would be allowed to speak with their daughter privately to make sure she isn’t feeling pressured to do so and make sure she understands what she is signing, etc. In other words could BM just put a document in front of her and say here I need you to sign this legal document for me and she doesn’t really know what it is? TIA!

Sorry one more question...if the law allows someone from the Moorman family to appear at the hearing, do they receive notice of all filings and hearings re the guardianship or would they need an attorney for that? Can someone just show up or do they have to make it known to the Court in advance that they want to attend? I believe I read one of the attorneys (sorry I’m not sure if it was you or not) that said no one from Moorman side of the family had given notice of appearing. Also, isn’t the hearing by videoconference?

Well that was 3 more question sorry. This whole thing just bugs me and I can’t figure out if it is protects their daughters or if it’s just a shady legal move that only benefits BM. I understand why the sale of the IN home which was already underway might have needed to go forward but from everything I’ve been reading about how the guardianship can transfer to CO and seeing that BM purchased that expensive lot. It seems like the original purpose would turn into blanket permission to control all of SM’s assets as he sees fit. And normally if a husband isn’t the one who caused his wife to be incapacitated and money is not considered a possible motive for her disappearance then I would agree that the husband should be the legal guardian. But this situation is not normal. IMO

Thank you for any further help with trying to understand this. I wonder what will happen on September 1st? I was hoping - we were all hoping Suzanne would be found by now and this guardianship would be the least of BM’s worries by then. I also hope that if BM ends up in jail that someone else along with Suzanne’s adult daughter will be the executor of her estate. We have no idea if she has a will but since she had cancer twice she might have. That’s a whole other issue though for further down the road...

ITA Lilypad. You posed some great questions. I have many concerns as well.

 

[Lilypad13]

ITA
Maybe it’s just me being naive and idealistic, but it just seems if a woman goes missing under suspicious circumstances, husband is a POI, it’s a criminal investigation and nobody knows where the heck she is or what happened to her all business deals involving her assets should be put ON HOLD. No guardianship, no land transfers, no house sales, no quitclaims—nothing. It’s just not right. I didn’t even like the guardianship to continue the house sale in IN at all.

People keep saying life goes on, RE sales must go on or there’s breaches of contract, but I just say NO. There is a criminal investigation going on into what happened to Suzanne and IMO everything and I mean everything should be on hold until the investigation is concluded. I really don’t get how any of these guardianship shenanigans are even on the table. It’s gross.

ITA! It seems like there is a legal loophole allowing this because BM has not been officially named as a POI when he is obviously being investigated as one. Putting everything else re guardianship after the sale of the IN home on hold for the duration of the investigation would seem best. Maybe the Judge will do this on Sept. 1st if someone from LE or Suzanne’s family opposes the guardianship and intervenes.

And I don’t think we are naive but we are not attorneys. The law is the law and sometimes it doesn’t protect who it should. There has got to be a legal remedy for this but the people who might need to initiate it probably don’t really understand the laws either. That’s why we all need attorneys in certain situations and hopefully if they do oppose the guardianship and think it’s not right they will hire one to stand up for Suzanne. They may have and the attorney will be filing a notice to appear or do whatever they do to be added to the hearing. I would think there is a certain timeframe in which that needs to be done and it’s less than two weeks away now.

 

[Lilypad13]

100% at least until waterboarding is legal again.

I’m here for it in this case!

 

[Backstroke10]

ITA! It seems like there is a legal loophole allowing this because BM has not been officially named as a POI when he is obviously being investigated as one. Putting everything else re guardianship after the sale of the IN home on hold for the duration of the investigation would seem best. Maybe the Judge will do this on Sept. 1st if someone from LE or Suzanne’s family opposes the guardianship and intervenes.

BBM. I agree! I understood the temporary guardianship for the sale of the IN house but not permanent guardianship. I wish a few videos (PE, Lauren, TD) could be emailed to the judge. Just in case he doesn’t know what’s going on.

 

[Ashildir]

ITA! It seems like there is a legal loophole allowing this because BM has not been officially named as a POI when he is obviously being investigated as one. Putting everything else re guardianship after the sale of the IN home on hold for the duration of the investigation would seem best. Maybe the Judge will do this on Sept. 1st if someone from LE or Suzanne’s family opposes the guardianship and intervenes.

Slightly off topic - doesn't the US have a forfeiture rule or equivalent? Could similar legislation like that not be applied to a guardianship case where the 'ward' can't be located, in order to protect them or their family members?

 

[KLM6]

So many threads and still no Suzanne.

I think this every single time a new one starts, and hope that she is found before the next one.

Where are you Suzanne?

 

[Lilypad13]

Another thought re guardianship hearing...while IN courts may or may not be fully aware of what’s going on in CO, I feel certain LE investigating Suzanne’s “disappearance” are aware of what’s going on in IN court. So maybe LE WILL name BM as an official POI prior to the hearing date and shut it all down. With the way things seem to be heating up that could be a possibility...maybe even an arrest before September 1st right? Maybe Suzanne’s family was going to get involved in the guardianship and LE has told them privately not to worry about it because there will not be a hearing or if there is it will not necessarily be for the same purpose of making BM the permanent guardian because he will not be in attendance...due to his being detained elsewhere. All speculation...and hoping and wishful thinking and IMO of course.

 

[MrsWatson]

I wouldn't find the guardianship nearly as sketchy and concerning IF it just dealt with the closing of the house in IN. If that was the sole thing it was used for. This blanket guardianship just doesn't sit right with me.

MOO

 

[Lilypad13]

Slightly off topic - doesn't the US have a forfeiture rule or equivalent? Could similar legislation like that not be applied to a guardianship case where the 'ward' can't be located, in order to protect them or their family members?

That’s a good question. My DH is an attorney and I tried to ask him his opinion on this guardianship but he has no idea about this case and I think I lost him trying to give him all the background. But he did say if anyone opposes the guardianship they need to hire an attorney and he said something about case law. Apparently lawyers look up other cases that were ruled in favor of what they are arguing and that can be considered a precedent which helps their argument. He said there are several well known data bases where attorneys can research case law. I know the attorneys on here will be laughing at me because he said don’t say that or you will sound stupid. But hey I’m a nurse not an attorney so I don’t care. I usually gloss over the legal stuff because I don’t understand it but would like to. Apparently all the attorneys are busy this Monday morning doing real life attorney stuff that pay the bills. I’ve got to go do real life stuff now too that I don’t get paid for but I’ll check back later and hopefully Iamlawindy or Seattle or another of our other wonderfully brilliant legal minds will respond to our questions. I’m sure they will because they are nice like that. How lucky are we to have attorney experts working pro-bono for us? I think that means for free out of their goodwill. I’m sure they will correct me if I’m wrong.