RANCH
United we stand, divided we fall.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 18,082
- Reaction score
- 37,812
They are after money. It's in their complaint.
Gabby Petito's parents file lawsuit against Laundries in Florida
Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #85
- Thread starter PommyMommy
- Start date
- Status
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,918
- Reaction score
- 24,769
I agree with you. In my opinion, there's no way that the Petito family settles. This isn't about money. It's about accountability.
I think the P’s lawsuit is frivolous, arbitrary, vexatious and just meant to harass the L’s and get them to spend what little money they probably have left on attorney’s fees. I don’t think the P’s are going to collect even a single penny from the L’s. And there won’t be any “plea”. For what?
If I were the L’s, I’d consider filing a counter suit against the P’s, seeking damages for character assassination, libel, slander (the letters, the public statements, etc), emotional distress, other unspecified damages, and reimbursement of all attorneys fees.
Furthermore, if it can be proved that the P’s somehow conspired with locals to “instigate” the 24 hr crowd / mob which surrounded the Laurie’s house and harassed them for three months, there could also be additional damages sought for that. I actually think there is a greater likelihood that the P’s will end up having to pay the L’s attorney’s fees than vice versa.
Imo, both families just need to stop the lawsuits. Go home and grieve. What is happening right now will only foster additional unhappiness, dissatisfaction, anger, and resentment. Other lives (or what’s left of them) are being ruined. There IS no good outcome to this that will ever fix anything. I think the Pettito’s are well aware of this. But grief makes people do crazy things. Imo they need to move on, and love and honor the memory of their daughter the best they can.
Jmo
If I were the L’s, I’d consider filing a counter suit against the P’s, seeking damages for character assassination, libel, slander (the letters, the public statements, etc), emotional distress, other unspecified damages, and reimbursement of all attorneys fees.
Furthermore, if it can be proved that the P’s somehow conspired with locals to “instigate” the 24 hr crowd / mob which surrounded the Laurie’s house and harassed them for three months, there could also be additional damages sought for that. I actually think there is a greater likelihood that the P’s will end up having to pay the L’s attorney’s fees than vice versa.
Imo, both families just need to stop the lawsuits. Go home and grieve. What is happening right now will only foster additional unhappiness, dissatisfaction, anger, and resentment. Other lives (or what’s left of them) are being ruined. There IS no good outcome to this that will ever fix anything. I think the Pettito’s are well aware of this. But grief makes people do crazy things. Imo they need to move on, and love and honor the memory of their daughter the best they can.
Jmo
Last edited:
LeBlack
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 1,214
- Reaction score
- 9,229
Do you really think they are after money? Do you think Ron Goldman's family was after money? They are seeking the only measure of justice they have against people that, at the very least, maliciously denied them answers. Even if it was, "we don't know"
RANCH
United we stand, divided we fall.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 18,082
- Reaction score
- 37,812
Yes I do. They could have asked for attorney fee's and others costs related to this lawsuit.
Instead they are asking for money beyond those costs. JMO.
Would/Did Bank Reverse Debits in GP's A/C?
Seems bbm ^ means bank reversed debits to GP's bank a/c for BL's transactions w GP's card, iiuc. Are you saying bank would reverse debits made before GP's death, or after, or both? If so, why?
Speaking generally now, not to the specifics of these circumstances: If a/c holder* did not dispute transactions as unauthorized and did not ask bank to reverse, she cannot do that now.**
Other than the a/c holder, who would bank recognize as having authority to dispute? Anyone other than an executor of a/c holder's probate estate?** Was probate opened for GP?*
I wonder if bank would/did reverse debits in GP's a/c and absorb the losses BL caused.
Could bank file suit/make a claim?
If aware of a/c holder's death, a person making purchases/creating debits would be doing so on an unauthorized basis, so then civilly liable (and subject to criminal prosecution on a theft charge) imo.
In this particular circumstance (regardless of whether GP did/did not name BL as an "Authorized User"), unlikely imo that bank would pursue a claim thru BL's probate estate.
Why? Two reasons or more. First, evidentiary issues of bank trying to prove BL was the person using card.
Second, altho I don't recall $ amts involved, practically speaking, $ amts may be too low for bank to try, i.e., legal fees & admin costs may be too high to try pursuing.
my2ct.
_________________________
* A few factors here are unknown to me here.
Was GP's debit card linked to checking a/c in her name only? For sake of discussion, I assume so.
Did GP did sign a bank form for BL to act as an "Authorized User" and return it to bank? IDK.
Or provide a power of atty document to the bank authorizing BL to use? IDK.
** W a quick search I did not locate info re GP's probate in FL or NY but could have missed it.
@NCWatcher sbm for focus. bbm. Agreeing w you about GP's parents' suit.
Seems bbm ^ means bank reversed debits to GP's bank a/c for BL's transactions w GP's card, iiuc. Are you saying bank would reverse debits made before GP's death, or after, or both? If so, why?
Speaking generally now, not to the specifics of these circumstances: If a/c holder* did not dispute transactions as unauthorized and did not ask bank to reverse, she cannot do that now.**
Other than the a/c holder, who would bank recognize as having authority to dispute? Anyone other than an executor of a/c holder's probate estate?** Was probate opened for GP?*
I wonder if bank would/did reverse debits in GP's a/c and absorb the losses BL caused.
Could bank file suit/make a claim?
If aware of a/c holder's death, a person making purchases/creating debits would be doing so on an unauthorized basis, so then civilly liable (and subject to criminal prosecution on a theft charge) imo.
In this particular circumstance (regardless of whether GP did/did not name BL as an "Authorized User"), unlikely imo that bank would pursue a claim thru BL's probate estate.
Why? Two reasons or more. First, evidentiary issues of bank trying to prove BL was the person using card.
Second, altho I don't recall $ amts involved, practically speaking, $ amts may be too low for bank to try, i.e., legal fees & admin costs may be too high to try pursuing.
my2ct.
_________________________
* A few factors here are unknown to me here.
Was GP's debit card linked to checking a/c in her name only? For sake of discussion, I assume so.
Did GP did sign a bank form for BL to act as an "Authorized User" and return it to bank? IDK.
Or provide a power of atty document to the bank authorizing BL to use? IDK.
** W a quick search I did not locate info re GP's probate in FL or NY but could have missed it.
I'm Nobody
Are you Nobody too?
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2021
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 3,638
<modsnip> Extreme intense feelings caused that angry mob outside the Laundries' house. Just like keeping quiet is a right, so is protesting and so is going to court. Right or wrong, the court of public opinion has already tried this case. The Laundries got a life sentence. Brian ruined the lives of two families; this lawsuit did not do that.
Yes, grief is <modsnip>. I still believe the lawsuit is a necessary part of the healing process for the Gabby's folks. If any money is "won" it will most likely end up in Gabby's Foundation so that perhaps one person will not end up like Gabby or one family will see signs to stop this violence. Here's a thought: The Laundries could just donate $100,000 to Gabby's Foundation, keep their silence, and the world might think better of them. I doubt it though, too little, too late, or maybe the Laundries don't get it yet--their son murdered Gabby.
MHO
Edited by me to add that bit at the end.
Last edited by a moderator:
Obviously I do not know nearly as much as you do about these sorts of crimes. But I'd think the bank would have had to cooperate with LE for the case to go to a grand jury in order for the warrant seeking BL to have been drawn. And since this case went to the grand jury after GP's body was found and about 3 weeks after the purported withdrawals occurred (also those allegedly occurred after her death), GP couldn't have been assumed to be a witness. Assuming the entire bank card case wasn't made up BS (and I admit we do NOT know the facts) IF the card usage was fraudulent, it would seem the bank would have to return the money to the account. The bank would take the loss unless restitution could be gotten from the fraudulent user. For example, say a bank accepts a fraudulent check drawn on an account. The bank can't say, "Yep that was fraud. Too bad!" And it seems the bank has admitted the card usage by BL was fraudulent.
When this card usage was discussed before on WS, many people stated the crime was against the bank and not against GP as the account-holder. Actually we don't even know if it was GP's account, the warrant doesn't say. But even if it wasn't her account but was, say, NS's account (she said she & JP regularly gave GP money for trip expenses) and say NS was a grand jury witness, she would not have a claim against the estate for the money as Gabby's administrator. If the bank had not returned the money, she might have a claim on her own behalf against his estate but not on behalf of GP's estate. So whatever that claim she's brought as an administrator is for, it's unlikely to be for the bank account money IMO.
That's my thinking anyway.
Kristin Esq.
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2021
- Messages
- 2,114
- Reaction score
- 17,883
You have to list damages in a complaint. Just because there's money listed there, doesn't mean that's their ultimate goal.
Kristin Esq.
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2021
- Messages
- 2,114
- Reaction score
- 17,883
Settlements can include anything.
Some of you are so helpful with legal matters here, so maybe you can explain something to me. Hopefully I don't sound stupid. 
My question is whether evidence gathered during a criminal investigation can be used in a civil case. For example, if LE has phone records, can they hand those over to the plaintiffs if the plaintiffs wouldn't otherwise have legal rights to them? Or is this part of the reason they might try to obtain them through a lawsuit?
My question is whether evidence gathered during a criminal investigation can be used in a civil case. For example, if LE has phone records, can they hand those over to the plaintiffs if the plaintiffs wouldn't otherwise have legal rights to them? Or is this part of the reason they might try to obtain them through a lawsuit?
Skigirl
Verified expert in neuroscience & psychology
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Messages
- 5,770
- Reaction score
- 15,626
Right. That's why I said "unless." That said, I also doubt that the Laundries will agree to settle by handing over all the information that the Petitos want.
Some of you are so helpful with legal matters here, so maybe you can explain something to me. Hopefully I don't sound stupid.
My question is whether evidence gathered during a criminal investigation can be used in a civil case. For example, if LE has phone records, can they hand those over to the plaintiffs if the plaintiffs wouldn't otherwise have legal rights to them? Or is this part of the reason they might try to obtain them through a lawsuit?
I believe they can use evidence gathered during a criminal investigation, but I don't believe this is why the P's filed the suit.
In the court of public opinion you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks the Laundries acted within acceptable rights, so I'm not at all surprised the parents of the victim feel the same.
The two cases are not comparable. The Goldman family was going after the perpetrator, O.J. Simpson, not his relatives.
I agree with your last line "their son murdered Gabby." They didn't. And public opinion doesn't matter. The L's have rights and they exercised them. And made personal choices on how to handle the situation that are outside of legal issues. I don't fault them for that. And they lost their child, also. It was Brian who committed the deed, not his parents.
Exactly. The Goldmans sued OJ for Ron's wrongful death after he was acquitted for murder in the "trial of the century." If the P's were doing what the Goldmans did, that would make some sense to me. Or even if they were suing BL's estate for wrongful death in lieu of a criminal trial that obviously can't happen, I could understand. But that's not what the P's are doing.
The Goldmans didn't sue OJ's family or his friends. They didn't sue Kato Kaelin, the houseguest or Al Cowlings, the driver of the Bronco. (Al was criminally charged with aiding a fugitive but was never prosecuted. He ended up taking the 5th during the civil trial.)
I do understand the P's have questions about what happened. I would too. But IF the L's know why BL said he did it (I don't think they do) are the P's sure they want to hear that? I doubt GP will be portrayed as blameless in that account. And other than that, what other info do they want? People keep saying they want answers, but what are the questions? Surely there's got to be more at stake than things like "Why did you block me on Facebook around Sept 10?" Others say they want "accountability." But BL is dead and it appears he's the one who is accountable for GP's death, not his parents.
I assume there has not been a wrongful death lawsuit filed because the value of the estate is so small--apparently around $20,000 and that's before allowable (and protected) estate expenses kick in. NS has filed some sort of sealed claim but I don't think a wrongful death suit would be sealed. I could be wrong though.
But if there's no wrongful death suit because there's no money to be gained there, then yeah, I do think the P's are after money with the suit against the L's. But they also want to punish the L's. And one way to punish a couple who are in their 50s and 60s is by taking away their retirement money or making them spend as much of it as possible defending themselves. (I know some here have argued the L's aren't elderly but the average age people retire in the US is 62.)
And last, it surely seems the P's want to limit everybody's Constitutional right to silence. NS has said several times in published interviews she thinks allowing people to have those rights is wrong and "laws" should be changed. But the saying "hard cases make bad law" is really true. Draconian solutions in the aftermath of a tragedy can cause more problems than they solve and may have to be undone after wreaking havoc. But I'm hopeful the 230+ year-old 5th Amendment will survive another assault.
JMO
In some ways it is comparable because it shows the difference between a civil and criminal case. In OJ's case, he was found not guilty at a criminal trial, but shown to be guilty in civil trial. Same here, while criminally the Laundries may not be guilty of any wrongdoing, they may be found guilty in a civil trial.
The Goldman family didn't go after OJ's family because they hadn't attempted to obstruct an investigation or help a known murderer escape capture, which is what Gabby's family are alleging.
Wallendo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 405
- Reaction score
- 4,319
The van was parked openly on the driveway for anyone to see.
LE has visited the home and knew BL was there and represented by counsel.
BL was not under indictment when he drove to the reserve. There is no evidence that he was disguised in any way when he drove off. It is not clear why LE chose not to follow him.
There is no evidence of obstruction of justice, and that is not what the suit is supposedly about. The purpose of the Fifth Amendment is so that persons would not be forced, coerced, or tortured into a potential false confession. The amendment exists because in the past people have been forced into false confessions. The idea the Petito family has that if the 5th amendment were eliminated, Brian would have told everything that happened is unrealistic. I seriously doubt BL told his parents the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If the L's knew that Brian had murdered GP, would they let him park the van in the driveway?
LE has visited the home and knew BL was there and represented by counsel.
BL was not under indictment when he drove to the reserve. There is no evidence that he was disguised in any way when he drove off. It is not clear why LE chose not to follow him.
There is no evidence of obstruction of justice, and that is not what the suit is supposedly about. The purpose of the Fifth Amendment is so that persons would not be forced, coerced, or tortured into a potential false confession. The amendment exists because in the past people have been forced into false confessions. The idea the Petito family has that if the 5th amendment were eliminated, Brian would have told everything that happened is unrealistic. I seriously doubt BL told his parents the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If the L's knew that Brian had murdered GP, would they let him park the van in the driveway?
RANCH
United we stand, divided we fall.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 18,082
- Reaction score
- 37,812
I'm sure they have multiple goals for this lawsuit. One of them is to extract a large amount of money from the Laundrie's.
In their civil cover sheet section II is titled "Amount Of Claim." There are several amount ranges starting at $8000 or less. They selected the largest amount possible, over $100,000. If money was not a goal they could have selected a lower amount. JMO.
READ: Gabby Petito's parents lawsuit against Brian Laundrie's parents - East Idaho News
I see what you're saying, if a criminal proceeding had been brought and had failed to find proof of wrongdoing, then it would be acceptable (even in the face of a not guilty verdict) to bring a civil case because there would be the underpinning of a legal issue. Without criminal charges, then you believe a civil case has no merit. Add right to silence and protection from self incrimination.
Here's where we disagree and why:
A civil action doesn't need to be illegal. It's not criminal to slander someone. Defamation is a civil tort, not a criminal offense. In fact, only 13 states still consider prosecuting defamation as a criminal offense, and even then it's very rare. Defamation Law Made Simple
So yes, the Laundries not telling Gabby's parents Brian had returned home without her and had killed her, even if they knew, may not be criminal which is why there are no criminal proceedings on that point. But like slander and libel isn't criminal it's not civilly right. The Laundries ignoring Gabby's family and withholding vital information did cause them pain and distress and may be civilly wrong.
Additionally there is evidence that the Laundries attempted to plan and help Brian escape, according to Gabby's family. If true, and if there is evidence of this, then a criminal charge could happen, but likely only on that issue.
Everyone agrees the Laundries actions were outside of the realm of what's acceptable, ethical or moral. We all sat with our mouths open when we found out that while the Petitos were worried that Brian and Gabby were missing, Gabby's van had been in the Laundrie's driveway for days and Brian had been home with his family. The country sat in stunned silence when it was days after Brian had run off before the Laundries alerted LE. It wasn't just Gabby's family who were astounded and appalled, everyone was, so much so that mobs formed outside the Laundrie's home in protest of their actions. We even say we understand why Gabby's parents are upset, that's because we believe the Laundries were civilly wrong.
In this civil proceeding Gabby's parents are asserting that the Laundries actions brought them pain and suffering. This isn't about what Brian did, it's about what his parents did. Again back to slander, is it normal, appropriate and civilized to cause pain to someone else and ruin their reputation under any circumstance? The Peititos are asking a jury to decide if it's morally, ethically and normal for the Laundries to have behaved as they did.
I applaud the Laundrie's attorney for making this about free speech and confusing this with a criminal trial, but this case is about feelings and pain and suffering as civil cases typically are, even while some of the Laundries actions were legal. The jury would only determine whether the Laundrie's actions were so abnormal and egregious that Gabby's family should be compensated for their pain and suffering.
- Status