A divorce would have been granted, IMO. And this is probably only because I am not a lawyer and thus missing something, but ...: I really don't understand why BC's attorney would even suggest that as an alternative (personally, I don't understand why what she did was necessary, either, and I will get to that in a minute). Here is what our VI said (RBBM):
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ounty-10-March-2017-1&p=13511076#post13511076
However, as many others have pointed out:
"If a Member, Pensioner or Qualified Survivor designates a Spouse to receive a payment and the parties are later divorced, the designation is void unless ratified in writing after the divorce.
-SBM for space-
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, if a Member or Pensioner has previously designated his Spouse as his beneficiary or co-beneficiary of his DROP account and such Member or Pensioner and such Spouse are subsequently divorced, such divorce shall automatically result in the invalidation of the designation of such Spouse as a beneficiary or co-beneficiary"
https://www.dpfp.org/images/PDFs/Plan/DPFP Plan Document_09082016.pdf
If there was a divorce, both regular pension and DROP payments would stop. Plus, no future death benefits. And BC would likely be ineligible for any other benefits (e.g., health insurance) she might have been receiving through PaPaw's employment with the Dallas Fire Department.
Our VI also said (RBBM):
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ounty-10-March-2017-2&p=13526202#post13526202
PaPaw's pension and DROP funds were definitely something BC was counting on, IMO, so whether "for emotional/sentimental reasons" or simply as a financial matter, I don't understand why her attorney would even consider this as a viable option. Or perhaps there was a miscommunication between the attorney and BC or the son.
So in my "quest" to try and understand why what BC did was indeed "what needed to happen," I came across this (BBM):
"FAMILY CODE; TITLE 1. THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP;
SUBTITLE B. PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES;
CHAPTER 3. MARITAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES;
SUBCHAPTER D. MANAGEMENT, CONTROL, AND DISPOSITION OF MARITAL PROPERTY
UNDER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES:
Sec. 3.301.
MISSING, ABANDONED, OR SEPARATED SPOUSE.
(a) A spouse may file a sworn petition
stating the facts that make it desirable for the petitioning spouse to manage, control, and dispose of community property described or defined in the petition that would otherwise be subject to the sole or joint management, control, and disposition of the other spouse if:
(1)
the other spouse has disappeared and that spouse's location remains unknown to the petitioning spouse, unless the spouse is reported to be a prisoner of war or missing on public service;
-SBM for space-
(b) The petition may be filed in a court in the county in which the petitioner resided at the time the separation began, or the abandonment or
disappearance occurred,
not earlier than the 60th day after the date of the occurrence of the event.
-SBM for space-
CHAPTER 5. HOMESTEAD RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER B. SALE OF HOMESTEAD
UNDER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES :
Sec. 5.102.
SALE OF COMMUNITY HOMESTEAD UNDER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. If the homestead is the community property of the spouses, one spouse may file a sworn petition that gives a description of the property,
states the facts that make it desirable for the petitioning spouse to sell, convey, or encumber the homestead without the joinder of the other spouse, and alleges that the other spouse: (1)
has disappeared and that the location of the spouse remains unknown to the petitioning spouse;
-SBM for space-
Sec. 5.103. TIME FOR FILING PETITION.
The petitioning spouse may file the petition in a court of the county in which any portion of the property is located
not earlier than the 60th day after the date of the occurrence of an event described by Sections 5.101(1)-(3) and 5.102(1)-(3)
-SBM for space-
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/SDocs/FAMILYCODE.pdf
Now I'm left wondering why something like the above wasn't considered because this seems like something BC could have done at least for the time-being. If I am understanding correctly, with a judge's order she would have even been allowed her to sell her and PaPaw's home, and all the while the pension and DROP payments would continue.
And now, BC does not have access to the estate for three more years: (
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ES/htm/ES.454.htm).
So trying to put myself in BC's shoes, why did she have to do what she did?
Despite what our VI has told us, perhaps BC needed -or needs- a
large amount of money
quickly? Not just for the bills?
According to the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System Combined Pension Plan Document (it says, "As Amended and Restated Through September 8, 2016," but this is the only version available on their website; BBM):
"A Member,
Pensioner or Qualified Survivor may at any time designate, in writing, one or more persons (a designee) to receive any lump sum payment due from the Pension System upon the death of the Member, Pensioner or Qualified Survivor. A designation under this Subsection of a person other than the Spouse must be made with the written consent of the Spouse if there is a Spouse. Any designation may be revoked or changed at any time. However, a designation shall become void if the person designated dies or goes out of existence before the payment is made."
https://www.dpfp.org/images/PDFs/Plan/DPFP Plan Document_09082016.pdf
So in her capacity as a "Qualified Survivor," BC could elect to receive a lump sum payment or even designate someone else -e.g. a family member- to receive a payment ..., correct?
The above applies to their regular pension only, and it appears that lump-sum withdrawals from DROP accounts were suspended last December.
And I am still wondering why the DROP/pension board letter wasn't returned in a timely manner .... :thinking:.