Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #85

[Mike in WNY]

With the trial not scheduled for at least another 16 months, I wonder if both sides will be able to afford to keep this case going that long. I doubt the L's are going to give away much incriminating evidence, so the plaintiff's lawyers will need to spend a lot of hours searching through phone records to find a "smoking gun". Unless the L's give the case away, there will need to be some evidence that the L's knew Gabby was dead and that the L's tried to arrange for Brian to flee the country. Otherwise they may well face a counter-suit for slander. Since BL and GP are both dead, and the L's have no incentive to provide incriminating evidence, there needs to be some third party witness or evidence.

Hopefully at some point, whatever evidence the lawyers claim to have will be made known.

Generally agree. My opinion hasn't changed... I think this is a huge gamble for the plaintiffs. While there will always be die-hards that will never concede, I think there is a much larger population that would look negatively on the plaintiffs if they do not substantiate the (somewhat) ambiguous things they allege. A changing tide could very well bring a great(er) support for the defendants. Gamblers always think they can win. And do not overlook the fickleness of the media and general population... one can very easily be hated one day and loved the next... and vice versa. Folks in the public eye are one small step from changing opinion /cough/ will smith /cough/.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Still no Amended Complaint on the docket. The order was on April 13, and they have 20 days to file the Amended Complaint. That puts us at May 2. So it'll be filed soon.

 

[Curious_in_NC]

I posted earlier I didn't understand NS's claim against BL's estate and I still don't. It didn't make sense (to me) it was about the debit card use or about the few possessions GP likely left in Florida. (How much stuff would a 22-year old minimum wage worker who seemed to like "stylish" clothes and inexpensive silver rings and liked to travel have?) But I just came across this article:

Fight over Brian Laundrie's estate continues

It says the P's are convinced BL's estate is worth more than $20,000. I'm not sure why they care unless they want to file a wrongful death suit against the estate and want there to be lots of money to be able to get.

I'm also not sure what the P's think ought to be there. How would they know? It's possible they are doing this simply to hassle the L's. At this point I would believe that but that makes me sad. Hate eats up the hater faster than it does the hated.

Or it could be Gabby told them something about BL's assets that now aren't there. Personally I wouldn't have expected a 23-year old minimum wage worker who didn't own a house. or a car and who spent time traveling to leave an estate worth more than $20K. (I remember when that figure was first reported many on WS thought it was too high!) There's nothing to suggest BL had a trust fund (and I kind of doubt those can be hidden) but that might be the kind of thing a young woman would brag about to her family.

The article states: "During a probate hearing on Tuesday, Sarasota lawyer Barry Spivey was assigned as curator to Laundrie’s estate."

Not being an attorney I first thought to he person had been appointed to search for hidden assets. But I don't think that's exactly the case. Here is some info on curators in Florida.

What is a Florida Curator? | Florida Probate Lawyers | Pankauski Hauser Lazarus

So the L's still haven't been appointed as personal reps and estate funds will have to be used to pay this guy to administer the estate at least temporarily. Really does sound like the P's goals could be to delay, to cause pain and to keep any assets away from the L's. But the judge went along with it. I have no idea what sort of proof of additional assets NS had to supply. Do any legal folks here know?
JMO

It seems the legal costs here will likely exceed what is believed to be the estate's value. Could the real motive be to somehow set some legal precedent for whoever owns the rights to an inevitable book or movie deal in the future?

 

[NCWatcher]

It seems the legal costs here will likely exceed what is believed to be the estate's value. Could the real motive be to somehow set some legal precedent for whoever owns the rights to an inevitable book or movie deal in the future?

I don't know. I'm not an attorney so I don't know the ins and outs of lawsuits. The main lawsuit at this point though isn't against the estate.

I'd be extremely surprised if the L's had any intention of ever writing a book or getting involved in selling "movie rights." I'd also be surprised if permissions/movie rights were needed to make a movie about BL & GP anyway.

I could see the P's wanting to write a book though (to "keep GP's story alive."). But if the L's also wanted to write a book recounting their viewpoint I don't see what would stop them or what any legal claim now would have to do with that.

I may not be understanding your point but it seems that if the L's wanted to write a book and convinced a company to publish it (or self-published), the P's couldn't stop them. The L's didn't kill GP so even IF there was a Florida law preventing a killer from profiting (and there may not be) it wouldn't apply as the L's aren't killers. I suppose the P's could get a judgment against them (not against BL's estate) so that the P's would get the profit from any portrayal of GP's tragic story the L's sold. But that's an awful lots of ifs and would mean it is all about money and maybe it truly is.

It's not clear what NS's claims re: the estate have actually involved. Maybe if we knew that we'd understand the motivation for those claims and for the general involvement in BL's estate issues. I know what various news stories have said but those stories have been contradictory at times and nonsensical at others. So I think we really don't know what's going on.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Here is the Amended Complaint

 

[NCWatcher]

Here is the Amended Complaint

How absolutely bizarre. Maybe that's what was meant by the need to legally separate the defendants-- not to say Defendant A did this Defendant B did that (as I had expected) but simply to say A should be found liable to each of the two plaintiffs and so should B. Weird.

I do see the suggestion the L's just had one cell phone between them. I also see the suggestion they shared a Facebook page. (Reference is made to "their cell phone and Facebook page") I find both fairly bizarre. I'm not a Facebook user but I thought those were not usually joint accts. And while a cell may be a sub for a landline, how could the L's communicate with each other if they had just one phone between them? Maybe they also had a business phone? If so did the P's call that? Surely if their had such a cordial relationship they would have known the name of the business. Odd.

 

[Wallendo]

The amended complaint is not much different from the original, although they now allege that the L's knew not only that BL "murdered" GP, but that the L's actually knew her location. They still allege that the L's hid BL's location, even though it was well-know that he was in their house for most of that time. They also allege that taking a family trip is a cause of action.

The complaint seems overly vague when I would expect specifics, but also adds details which seem unimportant.

For example, IF BL told his parents that GP was dead, does anyone think he would describe it as "murder" as opposed to "accidental" or "self-defense". Would he give them an exact location.

To me, it seems that they are trying to keep this case alive in the hopes that a smoking gun is found during discovery.

 

[Gemmie]

How absolutely bizarre. Maybe that's what was meant by the need to legally separate the defendants-- not to say Defendant A did this Defendant B did that (as I had expected) but simply to say A should be found liable to each of the two plaintiffs and so should B. Weird.

I do see the suggestion the L's just had one cell phone between them. I also see the suggestion they shared a Facebook page. (Reference is made to "their cell phone and Facebook page") I find both fairly bizarre. I'm not a Facebook user but I thought those were not usually joint accts. And while a cell may be a sub for a landline, how could the L's communicate with each other if they had just one phone between them? Maybe they also had a business phone? If so did the P's call that? Surely if their had such a cordial relationship they would have known the name of the business. Odd.

BBM.

Not everyone is into computers. My mother is really bad with computers, BUT she has a FB and email account. My father has neither as he has no interest in computers. Whenever he got an email, sent to her account (since he doesn't have one), she'd call him over to read it. He never sent them (although he'd reply to one with as few words as he could. lol). As I said, computers weren't his thing.

Neither has a cell phone but if they did, they'd have ONE that they shared. How do I know? I don't have a cell phone either (I know... "Gasp!" ) and my mother made recent comments that "we should get one" so she could borrow it when she goes out mushroom foraging. My mother and I aren't as close as her comment would suggest, so that would mean me taking the time out to drive over to drop it off, and drive back when she was done with it.

So, 1 cell and a shared FB page isn't at all bizarre to me.

 

[NCWatcher]

Interesting @Gemmie.

I agree not everyone is into computers or uses email. But the L's do run a business. In this day and age I'd think that would require some technology knowledge. And people would have to be able to reach them.

It may not be uncommon but no one I know shares a cell phone with a spouse. I do know people who don't use cells but I don't quite see how sharing could work unless 1) the couple also had a landline 2) the spouses never went anywhere except together or 3) the couple lived pretty much off the grid. I wouldn't have thought any of those things applied to the L's. And if they were frantically blocking numbers on their one cell, they knew a bit about how to use it.

 

[Gemmie]

Interesting.

I agree not everyone is into computers or uses email. But the L's do run a business. In this day and age I'd think that would require some technology knowledge. And people would have to be able to reach them.

It may not be uncommon but no one I know shares a cell phone with a spouse. I do know people who don't use cells but I don't quite see how sharing could work unless 1) the couple also had a landline 2) the spouses never went anywhere except together or 3) the couple lived pretty much off the grid. I wouldn't have thought any of those things applied to the L's. And if they were frantically blocking numbers on their one cell, they knew a bit about how to use it.

As for my parents... they wouldn't see the need for both to have one as they'd treat it like they do a landline. If you answer the phone and it's not for you, you simply yell out to the other person "Phone!" and go back to whatever it is you were doing.

Maybe the L's simply didn't feel the need to pay for 2 phones when 1 would suffice for a married couple.

 

[NCWatcher]

As for my parents... they wouldn't see the need for both to have one as they'd treat it like they do a landline. If you answer the phone and it's not for you, you simply yell out to the other person "Phone!" and go back to whatever it is you were doing.

Maybe the L's simply didn't feel the need to pay for 2 phones when 1 would suffice for a married couple.

I wasn't really thinking about that sort of usage. But if I go somewhere in the car alone, I'd want to be able to call home or call AAA if I break down. Payphones pretty much don't exist these days. Or if I'm at the grocery store and I want to call my spouse and ask about some sub if our planned list doesn't pan out. Pretty much I'd want the advantages of a mobile phone vs a landline. And sharing a mobile doesn't provide those unless I'm always with my spouse. Maybe the L's were always together but she did have an independent career in NY, I believe.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

How absolutely bizarre. Maybe that's what was meant by the need to legally separate the defendants-- not to say Defendant A did this Defendant B did that (as I had expected) but simply to say A should be found liable to each of the two plaintiffs and so should B. Weird.

I do see the suggestion the L's just had one cell phone between them. I also see the suggestion they shared a Facebook page. (Reference is made to "their cell phone and Facebook page") I find both fairly bizarre. I'm not a Facebook user but I thought those were not usually joint accts. And while a cell may be a sub for a landline, how could the L's communicate with each other if they had just one phone between them? Maybe they also had a business phone? If so did the P's call that? Surely if their had such a cordial relationship they would have known the name of the business. Odd.

The way that it was Amended was weird to me as well. I've never seen anything like it.

Usually, I see something like:

Count 1 - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
As to Defendants Christopher Laundrie and Roberta Laundrie

And then the count is Plead

Count 2 - Whatever the COA is
As to Whichever defendant it pertains to.. either one or both.

ETA: I'm not a FL attorney. I don't know what pleadings look like there, or in this particular Court. I will do google search later, but don't have the time right now.

 

[Mike in WNY]

Still don't see how the plaintiffs are going to demonstrate/prove most of the stuff they claim about the defendant's knowledge and behavior. The plaintiffs seem to me to think that they get to expect certain emotions and behavior(s) of the defendant's. Frankly, my opinion is that the defendants behavior as I know them don't come close to all this alleged "outrageousness" - no matter what they knew or didn't know. Ya know what, to my way of thinking, if you have such a "cordial" relationship with someone and you need to get ahold of them... and you can't get them by phone or text... you take a four hour drive to their house... if it's really important to you. My takeaway in probably an oversimplified summary thought is that the plaintiffs feel entitled to being coddled in their grief. It's a lot to prove, for sure.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Still don't see how the plaintiffs are going to demonstrate/prove most of the stuff they claim about the defendant's knowledge and behavior. The plaintiffs seem to me to think that they get to expect certain emotions and behavior(s) of the defendant's. Frankly, my opinion is that the defendants behavior as I know them don't come close to all this alleged "outrageousness" - no matter what they knew or didn't know. Ya know what, to my way of thinking, if you have such a "cordial" relationship with someone and you need to get ahold of them... and you can't get them by phone or text... you take a four hour drive to their house... if it's really important to you. My takeaway in probably an oversimplified summary thought is that the plaintiffs feel entitled to being coddled in their grief. It's a lot to prove, for sure.

I agree this is an uphill battle for the plaintiffs.

 

[tlcya]

FROM THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
para 18 It is believed, and therefore averred that on our about August 28, 2021 Brian Laundrie advised his parents, Christopher Laundrie and Roberta Laundrie, that he had murdered Gabrielle Petito.

para 23 While Gabrielle Petito's family was suffering, the Laundrie family went on vacation to Fort DeSoto Park on September 6-7, 2021. They went on vacation knowing that Brian Laundrie had murdered Gabrielle Petito, it is believed that they knew where her body was located, and further knew that Gabrielle Petito's parents were attempting to locate her.

para 25 On September 14, 2021, with full knowledge that Gabrielle Petito had been murdered by their son, and it is believed they knew the whereabouts of her body, Christopher Laundrie and Roberta Laundrie through their lawyer issued the following statement:
[snipped the statement]

para 26 For the Laundries to express their "hope" that Gabrielle Petito was located and reunited with her family, at a time when they knew she had been murdered by their son was beyond outrageous.

para 31 Christopher Laundrie and Roberta Laundrie knew of the mental suffering and anguish of Joseph Petito and Nichole Schmidt in not knowing the well being or location of their daughter, and further knew that such suffering and mental anguish increased each day that Gabrielle Petito was missing. Christopher Laundrie and Roberta Landrie further knew that the could prevent such additional mental suffering and anguish of Joseph Petito and Nichole Schmidt by disclosing what they knew about the well-being and location of the remains of Gabrielle Petito.

------------
This really isn't any better IMO. para 18 they believe and therefore allege the Laundries knew Brian had killed Gabby. By para 23 they went on vacation knowing Brian had murdered Gabby (btw ot they went away for the weekend. that isn't a vacation where I come from) and it is believed they knew the location of her body.

by para 25 the Ls are described as having full knowledge that BL murdered GP. Para 26 again restates the Ls knew GP was murdered. and by 31 the Ps allege the Ls knew she was murdered and where her body was and refused to disclose.

I guess we are gong with the ole say something enough and in enough different ways and maybe it will become the fact we want it to be tact.

I don't think this amended is any better really than the first.

 

[NCWatcher]

This link lays out the changes pretty clearly.

Petito vs. Laundrie lawsuit updates

 

[Shamrock1]

The complaint is borderline sanctionable. Taking a family vacation and “issuing a statement of hope” do not even approach the legal standard of extreme/outrageous behavior. JMO.

 

[Skigirl]

I don't blame them and I hope they are successful in getting the information they are seeking. I believe that some of their complaint is based on evidence that they have access to that has not been released to the public but has been shared with them by the FBI. JMO.

 

[NCWatcher]

I don't blame them and I hope they are successful in getting the information they are seeking. I believe that some of their complaint is based on evidence that they have access to that has not been released to the public but has been shared with them by the FBI. JMO.

Maybe.

I'm sure the P's know things we don't. They'd pretty much have to. But IF the FBI gave the P's info that's used in this suit, I'm pretty sure what was provided was not evidence that the L's knew exactly where GP's body was all along, or that BL said he "murdered" GP, or that the L's hid BL while trying to smuggle him out of the country (but the FBI remained fixated on searching the swamp where the L's said publicly BL went and where his remains were found.) I also doubt the FBI had any secret info about the 2-night, 3-day "vacation" the family took in a state park 75 miles away. Maybe the FBI gave the P's phone data? I'm not sure that blocking the P's numbers is worse than simply ignoring their calls and texts. (And neither seems especially outrageous to me. I don't always answer my phone!) So if the FBI did provide blocking data, I'm not sure how helpful that will be. And I strongly suspect both families already know what was written in the notebook.

IF the P's really know everything they claim to know in their lawsuit (I do not think they do), I don't see what else of substance there would be to find out. So the idea this lawsuit is just to get information falls flat IMO. Of course, I'm sure the P's would like to know why. But it seems extremely unlikely knowing why could come from a lawsuit. I really doubt the L's know why GP & BL's relationship came to such a tragic end and suspect they'd like to know too.

It seems to me the suit springs from hurt and anger and a desire to punish. BL is beyond worldly punishment. And so part of the punishment sought is forcing a couple close to normal retirement age to give up large sums of money.

What I don't understand is their attorney's motivation. Not so much his willingness to bring a suit since people bring all kinds of weird suits. But the Complaint and the Amended Complaint have such an emotional semi-hysterical tone, IMO. Usually experienced attorneys don't write that way.
JMO

 

[borndem]

Just saw this:
----------------------------
Suit Claims Laundries Knew Remains Location During Vacation: Report
Amended lawsuit says family knew where Gabby Petito was buried before they went on vacation, Newsday reports.

Peggy Spellman Hoey, Patch Staff
Posted Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 1:25 pm ET|Updated Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 2:05 pm ET
BLUE POINT, NY — The family of Gabby Petito have filed an amended lawsuit alleging Brian Laundrie's parents knew the location of her undiscovered remains when they left for vacation, according to a report in Newsday.
Florida attorney Patrick Reilly writes: "They went on vacation knowing that Brian Laundrie had murdered Gabrielle Petito, it is believed that they knew where her body was located, and further knew that Gabrielle Petito's parents were attempting to locate her," the outlet reports.
[...]
"Christopher and Roberta Laundrie exhibited extreme and outrageous conduct which constitutes behavior," that "goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is regarded as shocking, atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community," according to the lawsuit obtained by the outlet.
The lawsuit seeks at least $100,000, and states that Petito and Schmidt suffered pain and mental anguish as a result of the "willfulness and maliciousness" of the Laundries, WFLA.com reported.
----------------------------
Much more here along with related articles:
Suit Claims Laundries Knew Remains Location During Vacation: Report