Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #32

[Gigi3]

Thank you very much for the link and this information. If the kids are alive I fully expect to see this argued in a court of law as to why she should get the proceeds. Of course, that's if she even has a chance anymore of keeping custody of JJ. As I said in the last thread, it's ironic that her actions in and of themselves will probably make that impossible now.[/QUOTE
I totally get what you’re saying, but wouldn’t there be at least some type of evidence that Lori was pursing these proceeds? As much crazy information that has been dug up about these people, there would almost have to be something to indicate this, IMO.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I understood that. I meant did you sell insurance in a community property state?

Guess the important thing is that there are several issues with regard to this insurance policy benefit payout. And we need to wait and see what Ms. LVD comes up with for a reason to get her hands on any of the money.
I BET that she knew there was no life insurance money for her before the kids disappeared....no reason to keep the kids if there would be no money coming for them other than social security. What’s up with the SS money, anyway? Anyone know?

 

[Diddian]

Guess the important thing is that there are several issues with regard to this insurance policy benefit payout. And we need to wait and see what Ms. LVD comes up with for a reason to get her hands on any of the money.
I BET that she knew there was no life insurance money for her before the kids disappeared....no reason to keep the kids if there would be no money coming for them other than social security. What’s up with the SS money, anyway? Anyone know?

There is someone related on the potential witness list. Of the 47 names listed, his is #30:
Mark Saari, Social Security Investigator.

 

[Gigi3]

I completely screwed up my last post, so I’ll try again LOL.

I’m having a hard time believing Lori is hiding the kids due to threats over the insurance proceeds.

We have several examples of Lori going after exactly what she wants no matter the consequences, including court battles. If she had any claim to that insurance money, I feel like there would be some information leaked somewhere that she was trying to get access to it.
Instead, she gets rid of the kids, marries, and jets off to Kauai. Her actions certainly don’t look to be those of someone who’s being threatened IMO.

 

[tresir2012]

See 25-211 - Property acquired during marriage as community property; exceptions; effect of service of a petition (Arizona Revised Statutes 25-211). It defines community property. Life insurance policies are property. Filing for divorce doesn't change anything unless a divorce is actually granted and it was not for Charles and Lori.

It is very likely he had this insurance policy from well before he was married to Lori, as that was his profession, so I doubt he actually acquired it during the marriage to Lori and he probably had it from his previous marriage. Even assuming you are correct, contacting the new beneficiary is not the way to address the policy beneficiary change and payout but should have been addressed via contacting the insurance company. Certainly, hiding the kids is not the way forward either so I just cannot see how that could be her motive. I look forward to being wrong though and for the kids to be alive and unhurt.

 

[tresir2012]

When Charles filed for divorce on Feb 14, 2019 he had to swear under oath that he was an Arizona resident for the ast 90 days. Both parties would have been issued various court orders automatically. One of those would be not to transfer property or otherwise dispose of valuable property. Another would order them not to harass each other.

The timeline says they were separated but I don't recall seeing a separation order.

I guess it depends on the legal definition but they were estranged. He had broken the door on the property she was living in at one point and also stolen her purse which were both reported to the police. At the time of his death he was not an Arizona resident so Arizona law would not have been appropriate IMO.

 

[tresir2012]

Did you practice in a community property state? In Arizona you have to get permission to list anyone other than your spouse as a beneficiary if you are married. Arizona, Texas, and Idaho are all community property states. Each spouse can have separate property but it takes a lot of effort to do so. Any shared bank account or other comingling of funds can trip you up. Since we know Lori and Charles shared a bank account it is very hard to believe his insurance policy was separate property, especially if it was a term policy. He would have no way to pay for it because he had no sepaarate income.

A spouse s right to life insurance money

ETA: added a link

I believe they only shared a business account. Lori transfered money from the business account to another account to which Charles had no access.

 

[tresir2012]

I guess we should be prepared for a natural causes autopsy result in Tammy's case as well as a family statement too.
Then it would only be Charles' death and the children's whereabouts to be resolved. MOO.

 

[Ohmeohmy]

Eric Grossarth on Twitter
The @GilbertPolice tell me the investigation into Alex Cox's death is still "active." Investigators will review the medical examiner's report. While the death of Cox is now ruled as natural the big question still remains. #WhereAreTheKids? #FindJJandTylee

 

[CSIDreamer]

I understood that. I meant did you sell insurance in a community property state?

No, I didn't. But you're trying to argue a point I wasn't making. My point is, each state has their own department of insurance. And Arizona's dept of insurance says you can name anyone you want as a beneficiary. I linked it earlier.

 

[Onsdag]

I'm glad Alex' autopsy has come back clean. That's a great weight off a lot of people's minds and hearts. Hopefully the family can find some measure of peace and healing amidst the turmoil in their lives.

 

[bears10]

When Charles filed for divorce on Feb 14, 2019 he had to swear under oath that he was an Arizona resident for the ast 90 days. Both parties would have been issued various court orders automatically. One of those would be not to transfer property or otherwise dispose of valuable property. Another would order them not to harass each other.

The timeline says they were separated but I don't recall seeing a separation order.

Only one spouse needs to be a resident for 90 days. Since Charles was scared for his life, his lawyers advised him to get an order of protection and then change the beneficiary on the policy. His lawyers acknowledged its rare to change the beneficiary during divorce but due to the circumstances they told him to do it ASAP.

 

[Diddian]

I made an earlier post about “slayer laws,” which don't permit a person who participated in the murder of an insured to benefit from inheritance of the estate, INCLUDING proceeds paid to beneficiaries from life insurance policies on the insured. I made that post in relation to the homicide of Charles Vallow, which remains an open criminal investigation.

The same laws exist in Idaho, so would apply in the case of insurance proceeds paid from the death of Tammy Daybell, if her manner of death is ultimately determined to be Homicide. Parties who participated in her death by homicide would forfeit their rights as beneficiaries or heirs; those forfeited benefits or inheritances would instead pass to the next in line, as though the person(s) who participated in her death died before Tammy did. And since these are civil laws with respect to inheritance, the prosecution need only prove to the level of preponderance of the evidence to force that forfeiture.

These are independent of any criminal findings, so a person could be acquitted in the criminal case, but lose in the civil case.

Section 15-2-803 – Idaho State Legislature

 

[k-mac]

It would be another amazing coincidence though, wouldn't it - TD dying at home of natural causes within just a couple weeks of shots taken at her as she arrives home in her driveway (just like BB), LV buying a ring on Amazon and browsing wedding dresses online, and CD smacking LV's bottom in full view of the surveillance camera at the storage unit?

In TD's case, I could understand results that are indeterminate, but natural causes? I'd figure the conspirators just got away with it, wish them worse luck in arriving coroner next time, and I'd still be setting up appointments beyond July 22 on the calendar.

I don't think we have clarity yet if this is the first AR or recent Diddian.
still hope for further digging and findings.

moo

 

[b2alicia]

Shoots...I haven't checked on the kids here at WS since yesterday morning. And I was hoping there had been some new clue discovered about where JJ and Tylee were hidden away....

 

[AZlawyer]

I just scanned through like 15 pages, and didn’t stop to hit “quote” on anything... hope whoever needs to see this sees it.

The life insurance policy was probably but not definitely community property.

Assuming it was community property, though, it was not “illegal” under AZ law to name a non-spouse beneficiary. And if this was done after the filing of a divorce petition (which it was), and the divorce had actually gone through (which the lawyers presumably assumed it would), it would have worked out just as CV intended.

Because the divorce DIDN’T go through before CV died, it’s possible LV would have had a claim to nearly half of the life insurance proceeds. This would depend on how much other community property existed—she would have a claim to half of the total. THIS WOULD BE TRUE REGARDLESS OF ANY CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN—that’s a totally unrelated issue.

@KonaHonu is the only tag I know for sure I should include

 

[Alpha Bravo]

What else would it be? Anything that can be owned is property

Legal Definition of Property | UpCounsel 2019

"Property includes not only money and other tangible things of value, but also any intangible right considered as a source or element of income or wealth."

The right to benefit from the contract is property.

I think it’s been paid to Kay. She didn’t contest it? Haha. Having a record of locking CV out of the account didn’t help.

 

[KonaHonu]

Only one spouse needs to be a resident for 90 days. Since Charles was scared for his life, his lawyers advised him to get an order of protection and then change the beneficiary on the policy. His lawyers acknowledged its rare to change the beneficiary during divorce but due to the circumstances they told him to do it ASAP.

It's rare because it is barred by the standard court order!

Here is a link to the standard preliminary injunction issued in response to an Arizona divorce filing: https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/34/Forms/DR14F.doc

Here are some key excerps:

Your spouse has filed a “Petition for Dissolution” (Divorce) or “Petition for Annulment” or “Petition for Legal Separation” with the court. This Order is made at the direction of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Arizona in County. This Order has the same force and effect as any order signed by the judge. You and your spouse must obey this Order. This Order may be enforced by any remedy available under the law, including an “Order of Contempt of Court.” To help you understand this Order, we have provided this explanation.

1. ACTIONS FORBIDDEN BY THIS ORDER: From the time the “Petition for Dissolution” (Divorce) or “Petition for Annulment” or “Petition for Legal Separation” is filed with the court, until the judge signs the Decree, or until further order of the court, both the Petitioner and the Respondent shall not do any of the following things:


ü You may not hide earnings or community property from your spouse, AND

ü You may not take out a loan on the community property, AND

ü You may not sell the community property or give it away to someone, UNLESS you have the written permission of your spouse or written permission from the court. The law allows for situations in which you may need to transfer joint or community property as part of the everyday running of a business, or if the sale of community property is necessary to meet necessities of life, such as food, shelter, or clothing, or court fees and attorney fees associated with this action. If this applies to you, you should see a lawyer for help....

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: Arizona Law, A.R.S. §25-315(A) provides:

1(a). RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY OF THE MARRIAGE: That both parties are enjoined from transferring, encumbering, concealing, selling, or otherwise disposing of any of the joint, common or community property of the parties, except if related to the usual course of business, the necessities of life, or court fees and reasonable attorney fees associated with an action filed under this article, without the written consent of the parties or the permission of the court.

Changing the beneficiary of a life insurance policy would absolutely certainly violate the statute if done without court permission unless is was clearly separate property. That would be a transfer of Lori's interest in the community property as beneficiary. It is entirely possible that it was a whole life police taken out and fully paid for prior to Charles' and Lori's marriage in which case she had no claim. But if $0.01 had been paid into the during their marriage with community marital property, there would at best need to be a proration done prior to settlement.

Do we know if Charles's had a will and his estate went through probate? If so, Lori would get half of Charles's separate property, the three children (JJ, Zach, and Cole) would split the other half of Charles's separate property equally. Lori would get half of their community property and the other half would be split among the 3 kids.

Life insurance payouts are treated outside of a will in Arizona.

 

[KonaHonu]

Only one spouse needs to be a resident for 90 days. Since Charles was scared for his life, his lawyers advised him to get an order of protection and then change the beneficiary on the policy. His lawyers acknowledged its rare to change the beneficiary during divorce but due to the circumstances they told him to do it ASAP.

It's rare because it is barred by the standard court order!

Here is a link to the standard preliminary injunction issued in response to an Arizona divorce filing: https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/34/Forms/DR14F.doc

Here are some key excerps:

Your spouse has filed a “Petition for Dissolution” (Divorce) or “Petition for Annulment” or “Petition for Legal Separation” with the court. This Order is made at the direction of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Arizona in County. This Order has the same force and effect as any order signed by the judge. You and your spouse must obey this Order. This Order may be enforced by any remedy available under the law, including an “Order of Contempt of Court.” To help you understand this Order, we have provided this explanation.

1. ACTIONS FORBIDDEN BY THIS ORDER: From the time the “Petition for Dissolution” (Divorce) or “Petition for Annulment” or “Petition for Legal Separation” is filed with the court, until the judge signs the Decree, or until further order of the court, both the Petitioner and the Respondent shall not do any of the following things:


ü You may not hide earnings or community property from your spouse, AND

ü You may not take out a loan on the community property, AND

ü You may not sell the community property or give it away to someone, UNLESS you have the written permission of your spouse or written permission from the court. The law allows for situations in which you may need to transfer joint or community property as part of the everyday running of a business, or if the sale of community property is necessary to meet necessities of life, such as food, shelter, or clothing, or court fees and attorney fees associated with this action. If this applies to you, you should see a lawyer for help....

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: Arizona Law, A.R.S. §25-315(A) provides:

1(a). RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY OF THE MARRIAGE: That both parties are enjoined from transferring, encumbering, concealing, selling, or otherwise disposing of any of the joint, common or community property of the parties, except if related to the usual course of business, the necessities of life, or court fees and reasonable attorney fees associated with an action filed under this article, without the written consent of the parties or the permission of the court.

Changing the beneficiary of a life insurance policy would absolutely certainly violate the statute if done without court permission unless is was clearly separate property. That would be a transfer of Lori's interest in the community property as beneficiary. It is entirely possible that it was a whole life police taken out and fully paid for prior to Charles' and Lori's marriage in which case she had no claim. But if $0.01 had been paid into the during their marriage with community marital property, there would at best need to be a proration done prior to settlement.

Do we know if Charles's had a will and his estate went through probate? If so, Lori would get half of Charles's separate property, the three children (JJ, Zach, and Cole) would split the other half of Charles's separate property equally. Lori would get half of their community property and the other half would be split among the 3 kids.

Life insurance payouts are treated outside of a will in Arizona.

 

[spandangly]

Not sure they covered the basics:
COD
Bilateral Pulmonary Thromboemboli
Contributory cause of death -
Atherosclerotic and Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease
MOD
Natural

I have a feeling the family was informed prior to the release. Perhaps these results made them more comfortable speaking.

This COD has been floating around the internet for quite some time. I imagine the family has known, or at least suspected, for months.

I find the timing of his death extraordinary, to say the least. However, as I said at the beginning, I never expected his cause of death to be the same as Tammy's because that would have given investigators a heads up on what to look for with Tammy, being that if they did murder him with the ties to Lori they might have expected a very thorough investigation. In a way I think it's neutral news, because it doesn't take away from the investigation for innocent victims, IMO.

moo

It would have been too much to hope for but I certainly am disappointed that it lends no insight into Tammy's COD.

Thanks for transcribing (or posting) all that. I've snipped to get to this point:

Summer says she last spoke with JJ on October 1st and lasted texted with Tylee on Sept 24th.

Her comment that "the first time I talked to her, everything is recorded...." indicates that Summer didn't reach out to Lori/Lori's family again until after Lori was arrested on February 12th.

This became a national news story shortly before Christmas, so at the very least, Summer would have known about all of this on December 23rd. (And because of things the welfare check triggered, she almost certainly knew they were missing long before that....but I'm feeling generous today.)

Summer could have called Lori anytime between December 23rd and February 12th to ask Where Are The Children -- without anyone recording her.

So.....why is she so careful to attribute her lack of questions for Lori to the jailhouse recordings???

Lori seemingly cut her family off. Colby, her mom, SS. I imagine they all tried to get ahold of her, at least initially, but she wasn't responding, just as Colby has indicated.

If he had been complaining about chest pain and sob why didn't he see a doctor or why didn't his wife do something?

Some people never go to the doctor. It's also possible he was avoiding going anywhere where he'd have to give out his info (to avoid police). He's an adult, was his wife supposed to baby him? And let's not forget, they probably barely knew each other

Can caffeine overdose cause the pulmonary blood clots? Did the report say how high Alex's caffeine levels were? A friend's child overdosed on caffeine powder and he had clots in his autopsy. I have always worried that caffeine powder slipped into a drink would be how my husband would off me. He could say that as a night shift worker I must have had too much. Especially after I found a bottle of caffeine pulls in his car

I hope if you are genuinely afraid your husband will try to kill you, you are not currently allowing him into your life!

How do you figure a life insurance contract to be property?

If you Google it, it generally is considered such. But there seem to be so many variables I don't think we can make any guesses as to the beneficiary issue--i see both sides being firmly stated on the internet. It does seem she couldn't get more than half of it back. But since she has not made any claim to the money, I still see no evidence this is/was even on her radar.

Right. We don't know if the death benefit was paid do we?

The bottom line if if he had a fully paid whole life policy before the marriage then it could be separate property but this sounds like it was a term policy paid for using community income (all income if community income with only a few exceptions in the statute I posted). A term policy is community property that Lori should have been entitled to.

Kay has stated in interviews the money has been paid out to her. Larry and Kay have also stated they wish she had gotten the money so they could see JJ. So, I also don't see this as being a reasonable thing for any threats coming to Lori. Kay & Larry seem well enough off that I don't think they'd care so much about the money if Lori were willing to talk to them like an adult. And why would anyone threaten JJs safety? They have the money, so they don't need anything from JJ/Lori for leverage in that regard. They wouldn't want to harm him even if Lori did sue for half, so I don't think it's a physical threat. Would they threaten to try to get custody of him because they have the money? What sense does that make? Or try to get custody of him if she tries to get the money back? Either seems nonsensical.