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

[lamlawindy]

@lamlawindy-- can you please offer more guidance on the Guardianship issue --specifically in the state of IN, as follows:

I getting the impression that the Court will not intervene to protect SM's rights and interest at her own hearing by appointing an attorney for her when she will not be present at her own hearing because she's believed ***^**.

But what if she's not? What if she is a captive and later released?

Right or wrong, I'm getting the impression that it's necessary for others (such as her birth family) to intervene on her behalf for representation, and I'm really perplexed by this requirement.

It's perplexing because it seems to me that a respondent that is present at her hearing and opposes her guardianship, can receive a court-appointed lawyer to represent her at her Guardianship hearing.

It also seems that a respondent that received Notice but cannot safely attend the hearing can also receive a lawyer or Guardian ad Litem to represent them at their hearing.

I see no requirement for the parties cited above to have a third party intervene for these respondents to receive protection of their rights.

It does not follow that SM is left hanging without representation unless it's initiated by others.

I'm referencing the facsimile Notice, required to be attached to the petition and quoted below, from the applicable linked Probate Code. The same served as my reference for court-appointed attorneys for respondents at their own Guardianship hearings.

What say you?

And thanks for your courtesy.

Unlike federal courts, there is no "case or controversy" requirement for probate matters. Historically, probate courts have acted as a tool to ensure that certain things could be done when the owner of property is deceased, incapacitated, etc. An important function they've played here in the Midwest is to ensure that property title passes smoothly & cleanly when a property owner dies; one chief
goal was to avoid lengthy, costly battles over farmland between heirs. Once a will was probated (or intestacy was found)
& title to property passed to an heir, creditors would be much more likely to provide the heir with seed, fertilizer etc. on credit because the heir's right to the land was established by a judicial order.

That being said, the law also has an important principle: judicial restraint. Briefly, it means that courts should limit their use of power and not interfere where unnecessary or unsought.

For example, let's say that two first cousins (each 25 years of age) marry
in Tennessee but then move to Indiana, which forbids such marriages unless both parties are 65. Now, let's say that the cousins file for divorce in Indiana but do not ask for an annulment. The court could, theoretically, find their marriage void because they're first cousins under 65. Under the principle of judicial restraint, though, the court will probably instead recognize their original marriage as valid because (a) it will give deference to the legislature of the state where they were married (Tennessee)* and (b) neither cousin asked for an annulment to begin with, so the court will not insert itself if not asked.

Here, judicial restraint would seem to militate against interference in the guardianship proceeding by the court when other persons -- namely, the Moormans -- refuse to become involved. Again, the thinking would be that the court should not insert itself if persons with possibly genuine concern for Suzanne's property will not become involved.

You're right that there's no statutory requirement that a family member intervene. A probate court also has wide discretion in what it can do, as IC § 29-3-6-1 shows. It could appoint Barry Morphew as guardian but forbid him from transferring any of Suzanne's property & order him to simply preserve it.

The court may even find -- because Barry and Suzanne are domiciled in Colorado -- that Indiana is not the proper venue for the guardianship proceeding and (a) dismiss the petition or (b) find only in rem venue and grant Barry powers only over property in Indiana.

If the Moormans asked me, I'd recommend that they intervene. Sure, it's possible that the judge will not give Barry all the powers of a guardian, but merely hoping for that outcome isn't a good strategy. At the very least -- if the Moormans want the best chance to avoid a guardianship -- they should attempt to intervene.

* Many Americans incorrectly assume that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution mandates that each state recognize marriages from all other states as valid. This is incorrect. Judgments and orders, such as adoption and divorce decrees, do have to be recognized as valid

 

[MadTing]

GPS doesn't depend on cellular.

That's why you can use Google maps off line and still see where you are, the little dot will move right along, pretty regularly. Google knows where you are, even if you don't.

Does GPS SmartPhone Use Data, Mobile Internet Plan? -

If you want new maps, you'll need data, but the GPS chip in the phone still knows where you are, because GPS satellite positioning is global - and free - and requires no data.

I used to be a delivery driver and used the googlemaps app on my phone, in some remote areas i would still lose my GPS signal, i would sometimes have to just head in the general direction i needed to go until i could pick up a GPS signal again.

 

[MrsWatson]

Thank you for that explanation, @lamlawindy , again.

It will be interesting to see how this progresses. And I wonder if there is not a lot going on behind the scenes regarding this.

moo

 

[KLM6]

I can understand not wanting to alienate their daughters, but they are also old enough to understand and question their father's financial maneuverings.

MOO

I agree. The big picture needs to be considered. Protecting their future is just as, if not more, important than protecting their immediate feelings. Sadly, it could even be what their mother was trying to do. Jmho.

 

[EggSalad]

I used to be a delivery driver and used the googlemaps app on my phone, in some remote areas i would still lose my GPS signal, i would sometimes have to just head in the general direction i needed to go until i could pick up a GPS signal again.

No, you lost your cell signal which was giving you internet access to use some type of map program.

Don’t confuse that with GPS tracking which is always on and linked via satellites.

 

[Megnut]

Thanks @Backstroke10, and I completely agree with you.

I just addressed the issue again in my post directed at lamlawindy, quoted below.

I'm very perplexed by what I see as an inequity in the Guardianship judicial process.

It certainly does not help that I'm not of the opinion that an adult should so easily lose her rights to a Guardian just because she is missing.

It's a big if, but what if SM returns, only to find the horses have all left the barn? Where was her protection at the hearing?

MOO

Yes, but what happens if next of kin, say an adult daughter, essentially waives those rights? She's been notified, she signs, court is satisfied. (Temporary) guardianship is granted. (Not an atty just my opinion)

Hoping against hope for a different outcome in September.

The person charged with looking out for another person's best interest should never be the person who eliminated all of that person's interests.

JMOJMOJMO

 

[Hatfield]

....snipped by me for focus....

Thankfully, most of us have no need for Google to help us find the house location now.

Ive looked at the house so much like others have, that all I have to do is find Salida and then go slightly west to hone in on the area around the home.

Its crazy to think of today's technology where we can be anywhere in the world and get an aerial view of the home in this case, and most any other home for that matter.

 

[Error505]

Yes, but what happens if next of kin, say an adult daughter, essentially waives those rights? She's been notified, she signs, court is satisfied. (Temporary) guardianship is granted. (Not an atty just my opinion)

Hoping against hope for a different outcome in September.

The person charged with looking out for another person's best interest should never be the person who eliminated all of that person's interests.

JMOJMOJMO

Agree 100%. MOO Adult children, the ages of SM’s daughters, probably have no education regarding legal maneuvers their dad is attempting or could attempt. Unless Moormans intervene in some respect, BM is going to look after his interests first. That’s a 100% given or we wouldn’t be here discussing this tragedy.

At that age, I had zero interaction regarding estates, inheritance, guardianships, etc. I’m sure they are typical in that regard as well.

Time to arrest the POI before he commits another unspeakable crime.

All MOO.

 

[Fireflize]

I agree. The big picture needs to be considered. Protecting their future is just as, if not more, important than protecting their immediate feelings. Sadly, it could even be what their mother was trying to do. Jmho.

I've had that thought as well. From the looks of it so far, BM was in charge of everything. So what if things got rough financially and he decided it was time to use assets that had been designated for the girls future, for other things new truck, new land.
What if, for the first time in their married life, Suzanne had to stand up to him and say NO? I don't think he ever liked to hear the word NO. Moo of course.

 

[Hatfield]

Unlike federal courts, there is no "case or controversy" requirement for probate matters. Historically, probate courts have acted as a tool to ensure that certain things could be done when the owner of property is deceased, incapacitated, etc. An important function they've played here in the Midwest is to ensure that property title passes smoothly & cleanly when a property owner dies; one chief
goal was to avoid lengthy, costly battles over farmland between heirs. Once a will was probated (or intestacy was found)
& title to property passed to an heir, creditors would be much more likely to provide the heir with seed, fertilizer etc. on credit because the heir's right to the land was established by a judicial order.

That being said, the law also has an important principle: judicial restraint. Briefly, it means that courts should limit their use of power and not interfere where unnecessary or unsought.

For example, let's say that two first cousins (each 25 years of age) marry
in Tennessee but then move to Indiana, which forbids such marriages unless both parties are 65. Now, let's say that the cousins file for divorce in Indiana but do not ask for an annulment. The court could, theoretically, find their marriage void because they're first cousins under 65. Under the principle of judicial restraint, though, the court will probably instead recognize their original marriage as valid because (a) it will give deference to the legislature of the state where they were married (Tennessee)* and (b) neither cousin asked for an annulment to begin with, so the court will not insert itself if not asked.

Here, judicial restraint would seem to militate against interference in the guardianship proceeding by the court when other persons -- namely, the Moormans -- refuse to become involved. Again, the thinking would be that the court should not insert itself if persons with possibly genuine concern for Suzanne's property will not become involved.

You're right that there's no statutory requirement that a family member intervene. A probate court also has wide discretion in what it can do, as IC § 29-3-6-1 shows. It could appoint Barry Morphew as guardian but forbid him from transferring any of Suzanne's property & order him to simply preserve it.

The court may even find -- because Barry and Suzanne are domiciled in Colorado -- that Indiana is not the proper venue for the guardianship proceeding and (a) dismiss the petition or (b) find only in rem venue and grant Barry powers only over property in Indiana.

If the Moormans asked me, I'd recommend that they intervene. Sure, it's possible that the judge will not give Barry all the powers of a guardian, but merely hoping for that outcome isn't a good strategy. At the very least -- if the Moormans want the best chance to avoid a guardianship -- they should attempt to intervene.

* Many Americans incorrectly assume that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution mandates that each state recognize marriages from all other states as valid. This is incorrect. Judgments and orders, such as adoption and divorce decrees, do have to be recognized as valid

Great explanation.

When we first learned of the Guardianship I asked at the time if a member of the public could object on behalf of SM. The objection could be based on the fact that nobody knows where SM is and until that is resolved or enough time has gone by to officially declare her deceased in the eyes of the law, then SM's interest in the decision is not known.

If a close family member or relative did the formal objection, it would have much more weight and could have a chance of being successful.

The poor kids are between a rock and a hard place because in order to keep peace they may agree with the guardianship with BM if everything was presented to them as something SM wanted which they may not even know what SM wishes were regarding the Indiana property.

So another close relative would probably be the best way to file a formal objection to proceedings on behalf of SM. That is, if the children do not want to get in the middle of a dispute about it.
JMO

 

[Barry]

Is there any way to tell if this upcoming guardianship hearing is nothing more that just verifying that all of the transactions that required the first one were satisfied?

 

[happyday]

Great explanation.

When we first learned of the Guardianship I asked at the time if a member of the public could object on behalf of SM. The objection could be based on the fact that nobody knows where SM is and until that is resolved or enough time has gone by to officially declare her deceased in the eyes of the law, then SM's interest in the decision is not known.

If a close family member or relative did the formal objection, it would have much more weight and could have a chance of being successful.

The poor kids are between a rock and a hard place because in order to keep peace they may agree with the guardianship with BM if everything was presented to them as something SM wanted which they may not even know what SM wishes were regarding the Indiana property.

So another close relative would probably be the best way to file a formal objection to proceedings on behalf of SM. That is, if the children do not want to get in the middle of a dispute about it.
JMO

ITA
My girls are about the same ages, and I cannot imagine them having ANY idea of what to do in this situation. I would not expect them to stand up to their dad if they even did understand at all what was going on. One of them might technically be an adult, but in my mind she’s still a kid. College age just doesn’t have the life experience to put something this complicated and emotionally confusing together AND act on it. Older family members must stand up for them and their interests. I hope they do even it’s a hard thing to do.

 

[Backstroke10]

I can't get to most of the "comment" sections of the DM articles any more.

It's always interesting to read those.......

ITA. Many times, I go straight to the comments and read them first. MOO I can’t see the comments on the DM articles either.

 

[Lilypad13]

The person charged with looking out for another person's best interest should never be the person who eliminated all of that person's interests.

JMOJMOJMO

< rsbbm > Yes exactly! It’s like she is being violated all over again possibly by the same person. If the hearing goes forward on 9/1 and BM is granted guardianship for Suzanne and then arrested down the line, will the guardianship process be explained to a jury in the courtroom as evidence towards his motive?

 

[Hatfield]

ITA
My girls are about the same ages, and I cannot imagine them having ANY idea of what to do in this situation. I would not expect them to stand up to their dad if they even did understand at all what was going on. One of them might technically be an adult, but in my mind she’s still a kid. College age just doesn’t have the life experience to put something this complicated and emotionally confusing together AND act on it. Older family members must stand up for them and their interests. I hope they do even it’s a hard thing to do.

I totally agree. I do hope other close family members are reaching out to the children to give them support and advice.

 

[Backstroke10]

Thanks @Backstroke10, and I completely agree with you.

I just addressed the issue again in my post directed at lamlawindy, quoted below.

I'm very perplexed by what I see as an inequity in the Guardianship judicial process.

It certainly does not help that I'm not of the opinion that an adult should so easily lose her rights to a Guardian just because she is missing.

It's a big if, but what if SM returns, only to find the horses have all left the barn? Where was her protection at the hearing?
MOO

Thanks Seattle! BBM Exactly! She’s only been missing a little over 3 months. That’s nothing! I think there should be a law that permanent guardianship will not be reviewed/considered until someone is missing, at the very least, 6 months. MOO

 

[Hatfield]

Thanks Seattle! BBM Exactly! She’s only been missing a little over 3 months. That’s nothing! I think there should be a law that permanent guardianship will not be reviewed/considered until someone is missing, at the very least, 6 months. MOO

I agree or at least until a person is officially declared deceased or the missing persons case is resolved in some fashion. Similar to how Life Insurance has to have formal recognition that the person is likely deceased before they will pay out life insurance monies.

The bad thing too with the term "Guardianship" is it sounds almost like a normal thing about a father being guardian over the kids but it has very serious ramifications involving property decisions. A typical person like a family member in Indiana may not even recognize what is happening unless it is brought to their attention. Hopefully they are aware of what is going on by now.

 

[EggSalad]

Nah, I’m sure with coordinates you can still map the area. For LE, they could still get the info to compare, if needed. I personally don’t think, if the address was intentionally removed, it was to stop Joe Public from looking for landscape variations. That’s just me but I also don’t think her remains are on the property either. IMO

I tend to agree with you on the google map address removal not being tied to joe public doing searches. But at the same time, it is pretty curious. I mean, if BM is not at fault and he is truly interested in finding SM (even if it is just remains for family closure) wouldn’t you want to be shining a light on anything that will get anyone to help? But at every opportunity he is choosing to ‘hide’.

As for a potential hiding spot for a body, I’m split on being near the property of far away. Either option seems just as possible. It would be really interesting to know what time SM’s friend went into panic mode during those texts and if GPS data places a M vehicle at that dig site the Evening of 5/9. It would certainly help narrow a time frame of how far anyone could go that evening or early AM.

 

[Lilypad13]

I'm afraid he would leave them without a cent if he needed their inheritance to pay his lawyer. Moo

Wow that’s a good point @Fireflize! How awful to have your mother’s life taken away by your own father who then turns around and uses your mom’s assets, including what might have been your inheritance, to pay for a lawyer to defend him for doing it! Paying for a good defense attorney with money that could have been used for college and securing their futures. I’ve said this before but if BM did it then he should do the right, just and best thing possible for their children... confess, preserve as many assets as possible, give or show LE the location of Suzanne’s body so the daughters & Suzanne’s family have closure and take his punishment like a man! Also maybe he could find it in his heart to apologize and beg for mercy & forgiveness? Suzanne was a Christian and likely raised her girls to be merciful and forgiving. If BM accidentally killed their mother during an argument or fit of rage and he shows true remorse there may come a time where they will be able to forgive their father. He is still their father that raised them and we can’t pick our parents. They might still love him even if they hate him. But if he confessed and was honest, as hard as that would be, maybe they might eventually be able to visit him, share what’s going on with their lives etc. But if he continues to lie to everyone and then he is suddenly arrested one day they might not ever be able to forgive such a betrayal. These young women will have so many milestones in their lives without their Mom there to help and share in their accomplishments & joy...graduations, careers, weddings, births, doting on grandchildren...it’s such a sad, tragic situation. Barry...do the right thing now before it’s too late!

 

[happyday]

I agree or at least until a person is officially declared deceased or the missing persons case is resolved in some fashion. Similar to how Life Insurance has to have formal recognition that the person is likely deceased before they will pay out life insurance monies.

The bad thing too with the term "Guardianship" is it sounds almost like a normal thing about a father being guardian over the kids but it has very serious ramifications involving property decisions. A typical person like a family member in Indiana may not even recognize what is happening unless it is brought to their attention. Hopefully they are aware of what is going on by now.

Right. I hope the family does understand what’s happening and what their options are. But it’s all so fast and they are probably concerned with the girls and grieving Suzanne, really. And there’s an ongoing criminal investigation to be concerned with. Anyone could be involved at this point.

This is why I don’t think something like a guardianship of Suzanne’s assets should even be allowed to get to court. It should be a non starter at this point IMO. There’s just too much that is unknown.