Found Deceased FL - Taylor Wright, 33, Pensacola, 8 Sept 2017 #1 *Arrest*

[JLD333]

I'm not saying one way or the other that it was the right thing to do morally-- I'm saying TW and her ex appear to still be fighting this out in court and I can't determine if her actions were illegal according to the court or not. I find it logical for her to take the money out after her accounts had been frozen, in order to control it. I don't know if we have enough info to say it was "against court orders" since they were still appealing. I find it mostly irrelevant to her being missing since she allegedly took the money out of her bank account back in June. If she wanted to disappear with the money she had several months to make a plan. Instead she left all these loose ends when she disappeared. The only way the money is relevant, IMO, is if she had it, she was in greater danger from anyone who knew she had it. JMO.

Then why did she file for a continuance for a fabricated reason? I can't imagine LE hasn't confirmed she went to the bank. I'd say they have which explains the "ruled out" foul play comment seen here: http://www.pnj.com/story/news/local...ate-investigator-missing-pensacola/676309001/

If LE did not confirm the story of the friend who said they went to the bank- how on earth could they make such a statement?

It also says in black and white the money was to be distributed. She filed an appeal that was dismissed the following month yet the money was still not put back. There was a motion for contempt/enforcement in July meaning she wasn't complying with something that was ordered by the court.

I know everyone is trying to give her the benefit of the doubt but when you put all the pieces together, these theories don't fit the facts IMO. It doesn't explain the fabricated reason for the continuance. It doesn't explain going to the bank. You'd have to make some big leaps to make these theories fit.

I'm not saying she didn't meet with foul play after the fact but the preponderance of evidence points to her trying to find a way to hide that money or at least avoid the legal consequences she was likely going to face.

People have voluntarily disappeared for a LOT less significant reasons than $100k and potential legal trouble.

MOO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[alexwood]

I wonder if TW had a life insurance policy?

 

[JLD333]

I wonder if TW had a life insurance policy?

It's possible she's required to in the custody agreement. My husband and his ex both have to carry 100k in the others name since they have joint custody and have 50/50 time. I think that's pretty common.

I'm guessing she didn't have any from an employer though since did most of her work as a contractor according to fleurde.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cluciano63]

I don't think it is okay to help yourself to money the courts designated elsewhere just because you filed an appeal. People file appeals for everything...but it does not negate the decision unless the appeal is heard and decision is altered by court. If she took the money, she went against a court order, as far as I can tell. I would be petrified to do that, no matter how much I thought the court was wrong.

Again, if the sexes in this case were reversed, people would be in a fury against a man who did the same to wife...but jmo.

 

[mst]

I wonder if TW had a life insurance policy?

possibly though didn't she have some issues with insurance fraud?

 

[Gardener1850]

Then why did she file for a continuance for a fabricated reason? I can't imagine LE hasn't confirmed she went to the bank. I'd say they have which explains the "ruled out" foul play comment seen here: http://www.pnj.com/story/news/local...ate-investigator-missing-pensacola/676309001/

If LE did not confirm the story of the friend who said they went to the bank- how on earth could they make such a statement?

It also says in black and white the money was to be distributed. She filed an appeal that was dismissed the following month yet the money was still not put back. There was a motion for contempt/enforcement in July meaning she wasn't complying with something that was ordered by the court.

I know everyone is trying to give her the benefit of the doubt but when you put all the pieces together, these theories don't fit the facts IMO. It doesn't explain the fabricated reason for the continuance. It doesn't explain going to the bank. You'd have to make some big leaps to make these theories fit.

I'm not saying she didn't meet with foul play after the fact but the preponderance of evidence points to her trying to find a way to hide that money or at least avoid the legal consequences she was likely going to face.

People have voluntarily disappeared for a LOT less significant reasons than $100k and potential legal trouble.

MOO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you a lawyer? I'm not. Frankly, I prefer not to argue anymore about her court battles with her ex as I find it impossible to know both sides from only the summary lines. You seem to be putting a lot of stock in what the ex has said. That's your prerogative to decide what you believe or don't believe. I find it a big leap to believe that just because she took out the money in June she would suddenly decide to disappear with it in Sept. We'll just have to agree to disagree at this point. I don't think arguing over the rightness or wrongness of her previous actions moves us in either way towards finding out what happened. JMO.

 

[Gardener1850]

I wonder if TW had a life insurance policy?

Good question.

 

[drjmcope06]

I wonder if TW had a life insurance policy?

Now that’s a damn good question and who was the beneficiary? I forgot to change my beneficiary for a few years after some life events and the money would not have gone to my nieces as intended.

I would assume if it was changed it would go to her son if it was originally her ex. Hmmmm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gardener1850]

I apologize if I've missed this, but is there any verification that TW went to the bank or is this all based on the 'friend's' account?

It is only the friend's word that she went to to withdraw money from the safe deposit box. I'm sure LE checked to see if the two of them went to the bank together but we don't know what they found in their investigation. Since a withdrawal from a Safe Deposit box would not be recorded by the bank it is hard to prove she actually took the money out or how much she took out. I previously suggested she might have gone to get the money from the box and found it was short. Another possibility is that she was only going to take part of the money out for something she needed. Maybe she only took some out. OR maybe she was actually there to ADD money to the box. We have no way of knowing how much she had on her when she disappeared. LE might have a better picture but since this was non-tracked money in a safe deposit box and not in an account it's hard to say how much she took out or if she took anything. JMO.

ETA: And sorry, after I wrote all this I realized you were only asking if she went to the bank or not. Short answer is: we don't know. Hopefully LE knows.

 

[JLD333]

Are you a lawyer? I'm not. Frankly, I prefer not to argue anymore about her court battles with her ex as I find it impossible to know both sides from only the summary lines. You seem to be putting a lot of stock in what the ex has said. That's your prerogative to decide what you believe or don't believe. I find it a big leap to believe that just because she took out the money in June she would suddenly decide to disappear with it in Sept. We'll just have to agree to disagree at this point. I don't think arguing over the rightness or wrongness of her previous actions moves us in either way towards finding out what happened. JMO.

No one is arguing about right vs. wrong. I've never once passed judgement on Taylor. Lots of people do out of character things during divorces and custody battles. However, I have no reason to question AbuDrake's statements as they match up precisely with what can be seen in the summary. He wrongly assumed we could see the full documents online and encouraged us all to read them until I informed that you had to pay(and someone tried to but still couldn't see them for pretty obvious reasons) so I don't see why he'd make this stuff up. The subjective stuff that was said is irrelevant to me, but the info he gave about the legal stuff is consistent with what can be found in the summary. I also believe she went to the bank or it would be very unlikely LE would make the statements they have. They can also see the full court documents, and I would expect they have read those. Fleurde also stated that TW was planning to go to the bank on 9/8 and saw friend pick her up. I personally cant discount this.

If you don't believe his version of events, that's fine, but the summary still tells enough to know that TW had done *something* that was in defiance of the court. And the disappearance date coincides very well with when she asked for the continuance. She had to know she couldn't keep getting it continued. We also know she at least told fleurde she planned to go to the bank with that friend and the friend said they did, in fact, go.

So if we accept she took out the money in June and was going to the bank to get the money, why was she going that day and what was she going to do with it? Im open minded about this if someone can theorize a realistic scenario that fits with the info that we have.

I'm not saying something couldn't have happened with the friend but it still doesn't explain why she went to the bank that day. I also think some of the cashiers checks were left behind - at fleurde's I think? Which says to me that she did make it back from the bank, unless maybe it was just the cash in the box.

This is just my opinion, as I've previously stated.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jethro4WS]

Can you explain how you know it was against court orders for Taylor to withdraw the money in June? I see the order to distribute, but could an appeal by her lawyer have made it so she no longer had to do that right away? (See NOTICE OF APPEAL EMAILED TO CLERK ON 06/22/17). I'm sorry, I'm probably missing it and I'm no legal expert. I just know appeals can go on for a while and just because there was an order doesn't mean it was the final ruling. If she really took the money out against court orders, then why isn't there a contempt charge after the June distribute order?

The appeal on the docket at that time was dismissed.

http://cases.justia.com/florida/first-district-court-of-appeal/2017-17-2547.pdf?ts=1503608812

 

[Jethro4WS]

I apologize if I've missed this, but is there any verification that TW went to the bank or is this all based on the 'friend's' account?

LE has not confirmed any of the whereabouts of Taylor on the 8th. Obviously, a bank has cameras inside and outside and, at a minimum, should show the friend entering and exiting the bank. Whether or not Taylor would be seen depends on if Taylor also went in or was seen on camera in a vehicle, etc.

But at this point, we only have Taylor's word to fleurde that she was going to go with the friend to the bank on the 8th and it is unknown whether the friend told fleurde that they did, in fact, go to the bank. Perhaps fleurde can offer if the friend told her that she did actually go to the bank with Taylor.

 

[iliketotalk15]

Thanks all for answering my question! I feel like most of TW's movement is based on VI info, and not otherwise verified by LE. Very interesting.

 

[Jethro4WS]

I'm not saying one way or the other that it was the right thing to do morally-- I'm saying TW and her ex appear to still be fighting this out in court and I can't determine if her actions were illegal according to the court or not. I find it logical for her to take the money out after her accounts had been frozen, in order to control it. I don't know if we have enough info to say it was "against court orders" since they were still appealing. I find it mostly irrelevant to her being missing since she allegedly took the money out of her bank account back in June. If she wanted to disappear with the money she had several months to make a plan. Instead she left all these loose ends when she disappeared. The only way the money is relevant, IMO, is if she had it, she was in greater danger from anyone who knew she had it. JMO.

The docket entry of 6/12 and 6/19 both indicate

6/12/2017 ORDER VACATING EMERGENCY EX PARTE ORDER FREEZING BANK ACCOUNT AND ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO DISTRIBUTE THE BANK ACCOUNT AS ORDERED IN TEH SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

Not distributing the bank account as ordered would be "against court orders". The court said to do something specific. Something else happened instead.

 

[Gardener1850]

The appeal on the docket at that time was dismissed.

http://cases.justia.com/florida/first-district-court-of-appeal/2017-17-2547.pdf?ts=1503608812

Thank you.

Why does it say: "No Appearance for Appellee"?

The Appellee is TW's ex-husband. Does this mean neither he nor his lawyer appeared to argue the appeal? Were they required to appear of not? IDK.

It also says:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED


Does this mean the entire case is not final or just that the appeal dismissal is not final?

This is why I don't wish to argue about this anymore because I really don't know if I am understanding these court documents correctly... Is there a lawyer on the thread that can explain?

 

[FlossyMay]

Lord, y'all are giving me divorce flashbacks. :doorhide:

 

[Jethro4WS]

Thank you.

Why does it say: "No Appearance for Appellee"?

The Appellee is TW's ex-husband. Does this mean neither he nor his lawyer appeared to argue the appeal? Were they required to appear of not? IDK.

It also says:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED


Does this mean the entire case is not final or just that the appeal dismissal is not final?

This is why I don't wish to argue about this anymore because I really don't know if I am understanding these court documents correctly... Is there a lawyer on the thread that can explain?

It is quite possible that this appeal is unrelated to the orders about money. I have asked a specific question of AbuDrake related to custody in case this appeal pertains to that. It could also pertain to Child Support. Again, knowing what orders are final and which are temporary will explain why the Appeal was Dismissed on its face. I am not a lawyer but what this is saying is that the Appeals court will not entertain an appeal unless some other specific legal step occurred.

There is a reason for the question I asked AbuDrake and trying to understand what fleurde has said Taylor told her in relation to paying a retainer to an appellate attorney.

As to your other question, it does mean that neither the ex nor an attorney appeared. Unlike other courts, failure to appear does not come with default judgment unless the appellate court accepts to hear the appeal. My take is that the ex's attorney's did not bother since it was known that specific required steps prior to appeal had not occurred and the appeal would be dismissed immediately.

 

[Gardener1850]

The docket entry of 6/12 and 6/19 both indicate

6/12/2017 ORDER VACATING EMERGENCY EX PARTE ORDER FREEZING BANK ACCOUNT AND ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO DISTRIBUTE THE BANK ACCOUNT AS ORDERED IN TEH SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

Not distributing the bank account as ordered would be "against court orders". The court said to do something specific. Something else happened instead.

Text made red by me is the only unclear part, IMO-- what that something else was is open to interpretation/debate without more info. I'm going to take a page out of AbuDrake's playbook and assign this an F2 or F3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_code

I hope we can move on, thanks. :truce:

 

[JLD333]

Thank you.

Why does it say: "No Appearance for Appellee"?

The Appellee is TW's ex-husband. Does this mean neither he nor his lawyer appeared to argue the appeal? Were they required to appear of not? IDK.

It also says:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED


Does this mean the entire case is not final or just that the appeal dismissal is not final?

This is why I don't wish to argue about this anymore because I really don't know if I am understanding these court documents correctly... Is there a lawyer on the thread that can explain?

https://www.18884mydivorce.com/florida-divorce-steps/appeal-divorce-ruling-divorce-court-appeals/

This is helpful info re: appealing a divorce ruling in FL. The timing of when that appeal was filed suggests it was related to the divorce decree rather than custody or child support but it's possible it wasn't about that. Looks like if it was about the divorce then it's normally very difficult to get these decisions reversed. They'd basically have to prove the trial judge made a mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gardener1850]

It is quite possible that this appeal is unrelated to the orders about money. I have asked a specific question of AbuDrake related to custody in case this appeal pertains to that. It could also pertain to Child Support. Again, knowing what orders are final and which are temporary will explain why the Appeal was Dismissed on its face. I am not a lawyer but what this is saying is that the Appeals court will not entertain an appeal unless some other specific legal step occurred.

There is a reason for the question I asked AbuDrake and trying to understand what fleurde has said Taylor told her in relation to paying a retainer to an appellate attorney.

As to your other question, it does mean that neither the ex nor an attorney appeared. Unlike other courts, failure to appear does not come with default judgment unless the appellate court accepts to hear the appeal. My take is that the ex's attorney's did not bother since it was known that specific required steps prior to appeal had not occurred and the appeal would be dismissed immediately.

Thanks.