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

[Knox]

Has anyone noticed that 19057 Puma Path doesn't come up on Google maps anymore?

 

[oviedo]

I agree and not questioning your post. I'm coming from the position of one that was shocked and dismayed when Indiana deemed SM incapacitated based on just her absence. Then again, I've not been exposed to states governed under UGPPA.

Exactly! They can't determine capacity because she isn't there to be examined. So I guess if you go missing, your spouse can declare you incapacitated and take everything you own under guardianship? IMO that is just so wrong and I don't believe the UGPPA had this in mind when they added a person that could not be located ...
JMO

 

[MrsWatson]

Exactly! They can't determine capacity because she isn't there to be examined. So I guess if you go missing, your spouse can declare you incapacitate and take everything you own under guardianship? IMO that is just so wrong and I don't believe the UGPPA had this in mind when they added a person that could not be located ...
JMO

I'm think they added that for the long lost relative that no one has been touch with for thirty years and can't be located.

 

[oviedo]

In truth, we don't know WHERE Suzanne was while she was texting her friend. Could she have been accompanying Barry, Suzanne sitting in a truck texting away freely? Perhaps an argument ensued close to home.... an angry partner, chucking a cellphone out the window? Pure speculation.

JMOJMOJMOJMO

WE may not know where she was but surely the device left a nice little location for LE?
JMO

 

[NuttMegg]

The only person who has ever reported seeing SM on 05.10 was BM, at 5am when he claims to have left, and didn't wake her.
No one actually saw her on her bike at all.
In addition, LE has never confirmed they found her bike.
I'm assuming they did but it's ironic they haven't even confirmed it.

IIRC turning down polygraphs is not a known fact either. (?) Just because it was reported that someone (unnamed) said it doesn't make it a fact. Not that I don't believe it, just that I don't think that's a "fact".

 

[lamlawindy]

Question: We know the CBI was recently in Indiana, per the Moorman family. If investigators met with or supplied the Judge sitting on this case with sealed information (from the Colorado investigation). Would that have to show up on the case docket?

Good question. Two things:

1. As a general rule, ex parte communication (communication with the judge without knowledge of the other party) is frowned upon because it violates the other party's ability to be heard and participate meaningfully in the proceedings. This means that it would be extremely unlikely that CBI agents -- or a local attorney hired by CBI -- has provided any information at this time.

If the CBI wanted to share pertinent information with the court, a local attorney hired by CBI could theoretically file an Appearance and seek to take part in the proceedings. An Appearance is always public record and must state who the attorney is representing, so we'd all know if an attorney sought to represent the CBI in the guardianship.

2. Assuming that a local attorney did, in fact, file an Appearance on behalf of the CBI, then any evidence that they wish to present could potentially be kept confidential as to the public, but I cannot imagine a situation where Barry and his attorney wouldn't get to see the evidence first.

If the would-be CBI attorney sought to introduce any evidence at the guardianship hearing, then the CBI agents, deputies, and officers who collected the evidence will have to be ready to testify as to the authenticity of the evidence and they will be subject to cross examination.

One last thing: the would-be CBI attorney could seek to call Barry as a witness during the proceedings. Of course, Barry has the right to invoke his 5th Amendment right to remain silent, but invoking the 5th may cause the court to reconsider granting the guardianship order.

 

[DizzyB]

If the proceeds from the Indiana sale were held in an account (at least Suzanne’s 50%), I would think that the court was acting in her and her future heir’s best interests. However, if any of her money was utilized to buy the piece of land in Colorado exclusively in BM’s name, I believe that the guardianship has gone too far. Of course, I know zero about the law.

 

[LietKynes]

Has anyone noticed that 19057 Puma Path doesn't come up on Google maps anymore?

Hmmm.

 

[Seattle1]

I'm wondering since it looks like they already had plans in place to sell this property in Indiana if he had no choice but to file the paperwork that he did so that he could keep up his end of deal and meet a deadline that was put in place before she ever went missing. I would think that each state would have their own guidelines in place as to how those types of orders carry over but I'm no expert and I could be wrong. I hope there is no ill intent on his part in having these guardianship documents signed and put into effect.

It's true that most states have provisions in place exactly for things like this when you can't be in two places at the same time (or you're a missing person). It's called a Durable Power of Attorney -- and not nearly as dramatic as requiring court intervention to declare the respondent incapacitated, and appoint a legal guardian for them. It's over the top! MOO

 

[oviedo]

Has anyone noticed that 19057 Puma Path doesn't come up on Google maps anymore?

interesting it now just says Puma Path?

 

[lamlawindy]

Thank you for that clear explanation, @lamlawindy .

Here's a follow-up. Would it be public record if someone did file an objection? Could LE in Colorado request a halt because of an ongoing investigation? Without BM being arrested or named a POI?

TIA for your helpful input.

ETA: @Seattle1 answered that, I think. So, it is possible for the judge in IN to just put a hold on it, based on his own discretion. Would that be likely in this case?

To answer your first question, yes: if the CBI hired a local attorney to represent it in the guardianship proceeding, that attorney would have to file an Appearance, which must identify who the attorney is representing.

Probate law apparently gives the court quite a bit of discretion when it comes to conducting the proceedings. The judge could certainly delay the hearing if he wished to do so.

That being said, one glaring fact militates against delay:

The Moorman family -- who presumably love Suzanne -- have not yet chosen to participate in/raise an objection to the guardianship, even though the statute allows them to do so. The rationale would be humility on the part of the judiciary: If the family that loves Suzanne won't
interfere, then is it a good idea to substitute the court's judgment for theirs.

 

[Knox]

Exactly! They can't determine capacity because she isn't there to be examined. So I guess if you go missing, your spouse can declare you incapacitated and take everything you own under guardianship? IMO that is just so wrong and I don't believe the UGPPA had this in mind when they added a person that could not be located ...
JMO

In other missing person's cases I have watched over time here, it seems like it takes YEARS for a spouse or heir to do anything with assets. Matter of fact, I thought it was a seven year wait for a legal declaration of death. But I guess that's in probate court?

As I said, I was unaware of this seeming back door answer to gain control of a missing person's assets.

 

[lamlawindy]

^^rsbbm

Actually, it seems to me that Judge Casati's has given investigators about 90 days after BM filed an emergency petition for guardianship (granted prior to the June 6 real estate closing date) to provide information to disqualify BM as guardian for SM.

Relative to notice, pursuant to IC 29-3-3-4(a), no guardian of an adult shall be appointed or protective order entered without notice except upon verified allegations that delay may result in immediate and irreparable injury to the person or loss or damage to the property.

Initially, I believed BM relied upon the exception in IC 29-3-3-4(a) to waive any notices required for his emergency petition for guardianship, and why the Moorman's were left in the dark about the petition for guardianship by BM.

Nonetheless, please take note IC § 29-3-6-1(a)(4) does provide for notice to the incapacitated person's parents --if BM and the adult Morphew daughter are not. SM's father, Mr. Moorman, is present to receive notice from the court.



@lamlawindy provides that Judge Casati cannot delay the guardianship proceeding indefinitely. However, the required Notice pursuant to IC 29-3-3-4(a) also states:

The court may, on its own motion or on request of any interested person, postpone the hearing to another date and time.

At this time, I think it equally important that whenever the hearing held, SM should be represented by her own Attorney at her guardianship hearing held in her absence.

I presume the court would have to provide an attorney for SM in her absence, right? Appoint a guardian ad litem for the hearing?

We don't know if the prior notice waived for the guardianship petition but I want to believe that SM's daughter would support SM's interests protected at her guardianship hearing just as she confirmed BM as SM's guardian.

More specifically, from Sec. 2 . A copy of the petition shall be attached to the notice, and the notice must be in substantially the following form:

NOTICE

TO:  (name and address of person receiving notice)

On (date of hearing) at (time of hearing) in (place of hearing) at (city), Indiana, the (name and address of court) will hold a hearing to determine whether a guardian should be appointed or a protective order should be issued for (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).  A copy of the petition requesting appointment of a guardian or for the issuance of a protective order is attached to this notice.

At the hearing the court will determine whether (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) is an incapacitated person or minor under Indiana law.  This proceeding may substantially affect the rights of (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).

If the court finds that (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) is an incapacitated person or minor, the court at the hearing shall also consider whether (name of proposed guardian, if any) should be appointed as guardian of (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).  The court may, in its discretion, appoint some other qualified person as guardian.  The court may also, in its discretion, limit the powers and duties of the guardian to allow (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) to retain control over certain property and activities.  The court may also determine whether a protective order should be entered on behalf of (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).

(Name of alleged incapacitated person) may attend the hearing and be represented by an attorney.  The petition may be heard and determined in the absence of (name of alleged incapacitated person) if the court determines that the presence of (name of alleged incapacitated person) is not required.  If (name of alleged incapacitated person) attends the hearing, opposes the petition, and is not represented by an attorney, the court may appoint an attorney to represent (name of alleged incapacitated person).  The court may, where required, appoint a guardian ad litem to represent (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) at the hearing.

The court may, on its own motion or on request of any interested person, postpone the hearing to another date and time.

_________________________________
(signature of clerk of the court)


Probate Rules | Hamilton County, IN

Indiana Code Title 29. Probate § 29-3-6-2 | FindLaw

Right. If Suzanne's adult daughter cannot be found, then notice should be served on Suzanne's father. Here, though, the daughter can be located, so the statute wouldn't require service on Suzanne's father.

 

[Knox]

Good question. Two things:

1. As a general rule, ex parte communication (communication with the judge without knowledge of the other party) is frowned upon because it violates the other party's ability to be heard and participate meaningfully in the proceedings. This means that it would be extremely unlikely that CBI agents -- or a local attorney hired by CBI -- has provided any information at this time.

If the CBI wanted to share pertinent information with the court, a local attorney hired by CBI could theoretically file an Appearance and seek to take part in the proceedings. An Appearance is always public record and must state who the attorney is representing, so we'd all know if an attorney sought to represent the CBI in the guardianship.

2. Assuming that a local attorney did, in fact, file an Appearance on behalf of the CBI, then any evidence that they wish to present could potentially be kept confidential as to the public, but I cannot imagine a situation where Barry and his attorney wouldn't get to see the evidence first.

If the would-be CBI attorney sought to introduce any evidence at the guardianship hearing, then the CBI agents, deputies, and officers who collected the evidence will have to be ready to testify as to the authenticity of the evidence and they will be subject to cross examination.

One last thing: the would-be CBI attorney could seek to call Barry as a witness during the proceedings. Of course, Barry has the right to invoke his 5th Amendment right to remain silent, but invoking the 5th may cause the court to reconsider granting the guardianship order.

Thank you for answering.

So IMO the short answer is- LE involved in the Colorado investigation would not tip their hand to prevent action in the Indiana Guardianship case.

However, it might encourage an arrest before September 1st

 

[Boxer]

Has anyone noticed that 19057 Puma Path doesn't come up on Google maps anymore?

Yes. It was fairly quick, IIRC within two weeks. Of couse you can still zoom down.

 

[Goldenseal]

It's true that most states have provisions in place exactly for things like this when you can't be in two places at the same time (or you're a missing person). It's called a Durable Power of Attorney -- and not nearly as dramatic as requiring court intervention to declare the respondent incapacitated, and appoint a legal guardian for them. It's over the top! MOO

The Commonwealth of Virginia has a guardianship section in its laws, but nowhere is it said that a missing person can fall under the guidelines and be assigned a conservator. I'm assuming that Virginia uses a durable power of attorney (or something similar), as you stated, and only for very limited actions (like selling the Indiana property where the sale was already in progress) to help the missing person's family meet its obligations. IMO, turning around and buying more property to build on does NOT qualify.

I think that maybe, just maybe, the judge is going to deny a continuation of this conservatorship.
(edit: Not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV.)

 

[K9Enzo]

I believe you can request a delete of an address/location on google maps.

 

[Knox]

interesting it now just says Puma Path?

Not even, the Puma Path comes up in Manitou Springs, not Salida
Someone must have petitioned Google to remove it.

 

[Megnut]

Does Google Map remove a home address in advance of a property being assigned a new address?

We saw changes of address in JF's and AS's, prior to those homes being relisted for sale/rent.

Or maybe unpinning an address isn't complicated or indicative.

Google search has yet to supply an answer.

Just my opinion, just my questions

 

[Boxer]

Knox,
Yes. It was fairly quick, IIRC within two weeks. Of couse you can still zoom down.
Pretty savvy.

I think it's a private association road. So not too hard to get removed probably.