Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #26

[Backstroke10]

I wouldn't find the guardianship nearly as sketchy and concerning IF it just dealt with the closing of the house in IN. If that was the sole thing it was used for. This blanket guardianship just doesn't sit right with me.

MOO

ITA MrsWatson. It doesn’t sit right with me either. If he has full control of all assets could this affect the daughters future inheritance? I’m not saying he would cut his daughters out of any inheritance but I’m assuming he could. MOO

 

[Fireflize]

ITA MrsWatson. It doesn’t sit right with me either. If he has full control of all assets could this affect the daughters future inheritance? I’m not saying he would cut his daughters out of any inheritance but I’m assuming he could. MOO

I'm afraid he would leave them without a cent if he needed their inheritance to pay his lawyer. Moo

 

[LietKynes]

Marking my spot.
Hoping for an arrest soon and closure for Suzanne's daughters and her side of the family who are without doubt in anguish and grieving with no answers.

About the abrupt ending of the text by Suzanne to the friend : Where was Suzanne sitting or standing while texting ?
As in at her kitchen counter island ?
On a sofa in the basement ?
In the living room ?

I'm curious as I'm thinking LE thoroughly examined the area where she would've been before Suzanne lost all contact with the world.

Was there evidence of a struggle ?
Was there an "emotional conversation" ?
These and many more questions.
Imo.

 

[Backstroke10]

I'm afraid he would leave them without a cent if he needed their inheritance to pay his lawyer. Moo

ITA. I think he would too. Hopefully Suzanne has a will. However, if he obtains all of the assets, would there be anything left in her will? I don’t understand how any of this works. I just don’t want the girls to be left with nothing. MOO

 

[Megnut]

In truth, we don't know WHERE Suzanne was while she was texting her friend. Could she have been accompanying Barry, Suzanne sitting in a truck texting away freely? Perhaps an argument ensued close to home.... an angry partner, chucking a cellphone out the window? Pure speculation.

JMOJMOJMOJMO

 

[Ashildir]

In truth, we don't know WHERE Suzanne was while she was texting her friend. Could she have been accompanying Barry, Suzanne sitting in a truck texting away freely? Perhaps an argument ensued close to home.... an angry partner, chucking a cellphone out the window? Pure speculation.

JMOJMOJMOJMO

personal item then later found?

 

[LietKynes]

In truth, we don't know WHERE Suzanne was while she was texting her friend. Could she have been accompanying Barry, Suzanne sitting in a truck texting away freely? Perhaps an argument ensued close to home.... an angry partner, chucking a cellphone out the window? Pure speculation.

JMOJMOJMOJMO

Exactly ! ^^^

Speculation : But... someone knows.
Grrr.
I'm just saying someone could answer many questions we've had in this case.
Imo.

I'm intrigued by the wording about a 'change' in the tone of the conversation.
Did someone pick up/take her phone and try to continue the text ?
Where the grammar or punctuation changed, and Suzanne's friend thought "That's odd, Suzanne doesn't text like that ?"

 

[LietKynes]

I'm afraid he would leave them without a cent if he needed their inheritance to pay his lawyer. Moo

It's hard to believe anyone could be that arrogant.

 

[Fireflize]

We don't know where she was during the conversation, but since PE says it was hours long, from afternoon to evening, I picture her with her feet up, sipping tea, at home, relaxing, until something happened. Moo

 

[NuttMegg]

In truth, we don't know WHERE Suzanne was while she was texting her friend. Could she have been accompanying Barry, Suzanne sitting in a truck texting away freely? Perhaps an argument ensued close to home.... an angry partner, chucking a cellphone out the window? Pure speculation.

JMOJMOJMOJMO

Why would she have hidden that from her friend? Sounded to me like the conversation took place on and off over the afternoon until it was cut short in the early evening. That's the part I wish they would disclose, PE keeps alluding to a conversation being cut off, not just unanswered. I believe, paraphrased, they said the friend was undergoing stress when the conversation was ended, at least that's how I interpreted their hints. So was it cut off in mid sentence? But I guess LE has the texts from the friend, and the answers.

 

[al66pine]

Forfeiture Rule. Slayer Statute?

Slightly off topic - doesn't the US have a forfeiture rule or equivalent? Could similar legislation like that not be applied to a guardianship case where the 'ward' can't be located, in order to protect them or their family members?

@Ashildir By forfeiture rule, are you referring to English common law rule against slayers inheriting after causing death of another or United Kingdom's Forfeiture Act 1982? Yep, (all /virtually all?) U.S. states have legislation to this effect.*
But typically applies only after criminal homicide conviction or after wrongful death action in civil court. Sooooo afaik, not to guardianships where the protected person/ward is missing/absent/cannot be located, i.e., not known to be or declared dead.
Will post more later today re specifics for CO. my2cts.
_____________________
* "The slayer rule, in the common law of inheritance, stops a person inheriting property from a person they murder (e.g., a murderer does not inherit from parents or a spouse they killed). In figuring inheritance of the decedent's estate, the slayer is treated as though they had died before the person they murdered, hence the murderer's share of the estate would pass to their[clarification needed] issue.
While a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the slayer rule applies to civil law, not criminal law, so the prosecutor must only prove the murder by a preponderance of the evidence, as in a wrongful death claim. Hence, even a slayer who is acquitted of the crime of murder can lose the inheritance by the civil court running the estate."
Slayer rule - Wikipedia
See also Slayer Rule, cornell.edu/wex/slayer_rule

 

[Dylansmom08]

Going back to the beginning and what we know to be facts in this case.
Suzanne was last seen May 10th she was reported to have went on a bike ride in her neighborhood and did not return home. Later that same day her bike was found off the road by a bridge near her home. On May 14th a “personal item” belonging to Suzanne was found west of CR225 and Hwy 50 but it has not been released what the item was. A week after her disappearance her husband released a video to the public offering a reward for her safe return. Barry has twice refused polygraph tests and analysis tests as well as the data in his truck does not match the statements he gave LE. He is described by relatives as being some what controlling and manipulative and that he wants to be in charge of what happens. We also learned that Suzanne was not as enthusiastic as Barry about making the move to Colorado. I don’t know if this will help anyone but I just thought that going back to the basic facts of what little we do have and starting at square one maybe we can come up with some new ideas if I missed any big chunks of fact please feel free to fill me in. I’m trying to get a timeline worked out but I don’t know that the actual times of any of these events have been confirmed.
4 things to know about the Suzanne Morphew case in Colorado.
'Honey, I Love You': Suzanne Morphew's Husband Speaks Out For First Time In Wife's Disappearance
Husband of missing Suzanne Morphew refused polygraph test; truck data doesn’t line up with alibi, family member says
Family of missing Colorado mom Suzanne Morphew still holding out hope for her safe return | Daily Mail Online

 

[Knox]

ITA MrsWatson. It doesn’t sit right with me either. If he has full control of all assets could this affect the daughters future inheritance? I’m not saying he would cut his daughters out of any inheritance but I’m assuming he could. MOO

I'm concerned for the girls, but I'm even more concerned about this as it relates to motive. If BM had financial ideas which Suzanne did not agree with. Or worse, was unaware of. There is no denying the Guardianship, whether blanket or just for the sale of the home under contract, doesn't look good.

If it's a blanket order as you say, now he has full control of all assets. If it was only for the sale, he now has full control of the proceeds to do as he likes. I realize the existing contract made the Indiana matter timely, necessary even.

The Indiana temporary Guardianship was issued on 06/05/20, he purchased the new parcel in Colorado on 06/25/20. Was the new purchase necessary in the midst of Suzanne missing? For me it really speaks to state of mind.

Another question on the Guardianship; on 07/07/20 an inventory was filed with the court in Indiana. To me this would seem to be a complete list of Suzanne's assets, which Barry would gain control over if the ruling goes his way on September 1st. Is that correct? Then as another poster pointed out, he could petition the courts in Colorado to do the same thing?

 

[Ontario Mom]

Going back to the beginning and what we know to be facts in this case.
Suzanne was last seen May 10th she was reported to have went on a bike ride in her neighborhood and did not return home. Later that same day her bike was found off the road by a bridge near her home. On May 14th a “personal item” belonging to Suzanne was found west of CR225 and Hwy 50 but it has not been released what the item was. A week after her disappearance her husband released a video to the public offering a reward for her safe return. Barry has twice refused polygraph tests and analysis tests as well as the data in his truck does not match the statements he gave LE. He is described by relatives as being some what controlling and manipulative and that he wants to be in charge of what happens. We also learned that Suzanne was not as enthusiastic as Barry about making the move to Colorado. I don’t know if this will help anyone but I just thought that going back to the basic facts of what little we do have and starting at square one maybe we can come up with some new ideas if I missed any big chunks of fact please feel free to fill me in. I’m trying to get a timeline worked out but I don’t know that the actual times of any of these events have been confirmed.
4 things to know about the Suzanne Morphew case in Colorado.
'Honey, I Love You': Suzanne Morphew's Husband Speaks Out For First Time In Wife's Disappearance
Husband of missing Suzanne Morphew refused polygraph test; truck data doesn’t line up with alibi, family member says
Family of missing Colorado mom Suzanne Morphew still holding out hope for her safe return | Daily Mail Online

The only person who has ever reported seeing SM on 05.10 was BM, at 5am when he claims to have left, and didn't wake her.
No one actually saw her on her bike at all.
In addition, LE has never confirmed they found her bike.
I'm assuming they did but it's ironic they haven't even confirmed it.

 

[lamlawindy]

When you say the Judge has given investigators 60 days to provide information that may disqualify BM as a guardian do you mean investigators from LE working on SM’s case? Or does the Court have investigators that automatically background check people filing for guardianship? I’m just curious about this aspect of it because I would think being the possible POI in your missing wife’s investigation and your missing wife being the subject of the guardianship would be a conflict that would be cause for disqualification. When you say the law requires persons who challenge BM’s petition to do something who are you referring to? Also it seems to me (a non lawyer so there’s that) as a Mom that if I was missing and my husband used my daughter to approve a guardianship over me that would also be a conflict of interest. I would hope that another person, attorney or maybe the Judge himself would be allowed to speak with their daughter privately to make sure she isn’t feeling pressured to do so and make sure she understands what she is signing, etc. In other words could BM just put a document in front of her and say here I need you to sign this legal document for me and she doesn’t really know what it is? TIA!

Sorry one more question...if the law allows someone from the Moorman family to appear at the hearing, do they receive notice of all filings and hearings re the guardianship or would they need an attorney for that? Can someone just show up or do they have to make it known to the Court in advance that they want to attend? I believe I read one of the attorneys (sorry I’m not sure if it was you or not) that said no one from Moorman side of the family had given notice of appearing. Also, isn’t the hearing by videoconference?

Well that was 3 more question sorry. This whole thing just bugs me and I can’t figure out if it is protects their daughters or if it’s just a shady legal move that only benefits BM. I understand why the sale of the IN home which was already underway might have needed to go forward but from everything I’ve been reading about how the guardianship can transfer to CO and seeing that BM purchased that expensive lot. It seems like the original purpose would turn into blanket permission to control all of SM’s assets as he sees fit. And normally if a husband isn’t the one who caused his wife to be incapacitated and money is not considered a possible motive for her disappearance then I would agree that the husband should be the legal guardian. But this situation is not normal. IMO

Thank you for any further help with trying to understand this. I wonder what will happen on September 1st? I was hoping - we were all hoping Suzanne would be found by now and this guardianship would be the least of BM’s worries by then. I also hope that if BM ends up in jail that someone else along with Suzanne’s adult daughter will be the executor of her estate. We have no idea if she has a will but since she had cancer twice she might have. That’s a whole other issue though for further down the road...

Let me handle the questions one by one:

1. I wasn't clear, and I'm sorry about that. I meant that the police officers investigating Suzanne's disappearance -- if they had evidence linking Barry to that disappearance -- had about 60 days from the judge's last ruling (the order allowing the sale of the home to go forward) until the Sept-1 hearing. In essence, if Colorado police (specifically, CCSO) had anything they wanted to produce for the judge to review, then they've had that opportunity.

2. When I say that the law requires that those opposed to act, I mean that the law requires those who may disfavor the guardianship to do something & not just expect the judge to do something. In this case, the Moormans can take part, though they'd probably have to file with the court so that the court knows that they wish to take part.

3. The law considers the Morphews' adult daughter to be capable of making her own decisions. It is possible for the judge to question her if he believes that it's appropriate to do so, since the statute gives the judge quite a bit of latitude.

4. Technically, I believe that one of the Moormans could object and take part without an attorney -- they would probably have to notify the court beforehand -- but it's advisable to have counsel in these types of proceedings.

5. The hearing is by videoconference. I'm not 100% sure if this is for convenience (Barry lives in Colorado) or for safety due to Covid-19. Regardless, the Indiana Supreme Court's emergency orders allow for videoconference hearings during the pandemic.

 

[Seattle1]

By holding the hearing on September 1, Judge Casati has essentially given investigators 60 days to provide information about Barry that may disqualify Barry as guardian. While this period of time seems short, Judge Casati also cannot delay the guardianship proceeding indefinitely. Additionally, Indiana's guardianship statute allows the Moormans -- or really any person who seeks to champion Suzanne's cause -- to appear in the proceedings (subject to the Court's permission).

^^rsbbm

Actually, it seems to me that Judge Casati's has given investigators about 90 days after BM filed an emergency petition for guardianship (granted prior to the June 6 real estate closing date) to provide information to disqualify BM as guardian for SM.

Relative to notice, pursuant to IC 29-3-3-4(a), no guardian of an adult shall be appointed or protective order entered without notice except upon verified allegations that delay may result in immediate and irreparable injury to the person or loss or damage to the property.

Initially, I believed BM relied upon the exception in IC 29-3-3-4(a) to waive any notices required for his emergency petition for guardianship, and why the Moorman's were left in the dark about the petition for guardianship by BM.

Nonetheless, please take note IC § 29-3-6-1(a)(4) does provide for notice to the incapacitated person's parents --if BM and the adult Morphew daughter are not. SM's father, Mr. Moorman, is present to receive notice from the court.

Can the IN Judge on Sept 1st, not make a final ruling and postpone it for maybe 3 to 6 months? I’m sure the Judge knows what’s going on in the media so could this influence him/her to postpone the case or is it too late for that? Just curious how this works.

@lamlawindy provides that Judge Casati cannot delay the guardianship proceeding indefinitely. However, the required Notice pursuant to IC 29-3-3-4(a) also states:

The court may, on its own motion or on request of any interested person, postpone the hearing to another date and time.

At this time, I think it equally important that whenever the hearing held, SM should be represented by her own Attorney at her guardianship hearing held in her absence.

I presume the court would have to provide an attorney for SM in her absence, right? Appoint a guardian ad litem for the hearing?

We don't know if the prior notice waived for the guardianship petition but I want to believe that SM's daughter would support SM's interests protected at her guardianship hearing just as she confirmed BM as SM's guardian.

More specifically, from Sec. 2 . A copy of the petition shall be attached to the notice, and the notice must be in substantially the following form:

NOTICE

TO:  (name and address of person receiving notice)

On (date of hearing) at (time of hearing) in (place of hearing) at (city), Indiana, the (name and address of court) will hold a hearing to determine whether a guardian should be appointed or a protective order should be issued for (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).  A copy of the petition requesting appointment of a guardian or for the issuance of a protective order is attached to this notice.

At the hearing the court will determine whether (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) is an incapacitated person or minor under Indiana law.  This proceeding may substantially affect the rights of (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).

If the court finds that (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) is an incapacitated person or minor, the court at the hearing shall also consider whether (name of proposed guardian, if any) should be appointed as guardian of (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).  The court may, in its discretion, appoint some other qualified person as guardian.  The court may also, in its discretion, limit the powers and duties of the guardian to allow (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) to retain control over certain property and activities.  The court may also determine whether a protective order should be entered on behalf of (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor).

(Name of alleged incapacitated person) may attend the hearing and be represented by an attorney.  The petition may be heard and determined in the absence of (name of alleged incapacitated person) if the court determines that the presence of (name of alleged incapacitated person) is not required.  If (name of alleged incapacitated person) attends the hearing, opposes the petition, and is not represented by an attorney, the court may appoint an attorney to represent (name of alleged incapacitated person).  The court may, where required, appoint a guardian ad litem to represent (name of alleged incapacitated person or minor) at the hearing.

The court may, on its own motion or on request of any interested person, postpone the hearing to another date and time.

_________________________________
(signature of clerk of the court)


Probate Rules | Hamilton County, IN

Indiana Code Title 29. Probate § 29-3-6-2 | FindLaw

 

[MrsWatson]

Thank you for that clear explanation, @lamlawindy .

Here's a follow-up. Would it be public record if someone did file an objection? Could LE in Colorado request a halt because of an ongoing investigation? Without BM being arrested or named a POI?

TIA for your helpful input.

ETA: @Seattle1 answered that, I think. So, it is possible for the judge in IN to just put a hold on it, based on his own discretion. Would that be likely in this case?

 

[Dylansmom08]

I'm wondering since it looks like they already had plans in place to sell this property in Indiana if he had no choice but to file the paperwork that he did so that he could keep up his end of deal and meet a deadline that was put in place before she ever went missing. I would think that each state would have their own guidelines in place as to how those types of orders carry over but I'm no expert and I could be wrong. I hope there is no ill intent on his part in having these guardianship documents signed and put into effect.

 

[Knox]

Let me handle the questions one by one:

1. I wasn't clear, and I'm sorry about that. I meant that the police officers investigating Suzanne's disappearance -- if they had evidence linking Barry to that disappearance -- had about 60 days from the judge's last ruling (the order allowing the sale of the home to go forward) until the Sept-1 hearing. In essence, if Colorado police (specifically, CCSO) had anything they wanted to produce for the judge to review, then they've had that opportunity.

2. When I say that the law requires that those opposed to act, I mean that the law requires those who may disfavor the guardianship to do something & not just expect the judge to do something. In this case, the Moormans can take part, though they'd probably have to file with the court so that the court knows that they wish to take part.

3. The law considers the Morphews' adult daughter to be capable of making her own decisions. It is possible for the judge to question her if he believes that it's appropriate to do so, since the statute gives the judge quite a bit of latitude.

4. Technically, I believe that one of the Moormans could object and take part without an attorney -- they would probably have to notify the court beforehand -- but it's advisable to have counsel in these types of proceedings.

5. The hearing is by videoconference. I'm not 100% sure if this is for convenience (Barry lives in Colorado) or for safety due to Covid-19. Regardless, the Indiana Supreme Court's emergency orders allow for videoconference hearings during the pandemic.

Question: We know the CBI was recently in Indiana, per the Moorman family. If investigators met with or supplied the Judge sitting on this case with sealed information (from the Colorado investigation). Would that have to show up on the case docket?

 

[lamlawindy]

ITA
Maybe it’s just me being naive and idealistic, but it just seems if a woman goes missing under suspicious circumstances, husband is a POI, it’s a criminal investigation and nobody knows where the heck she is or what happened to her all business deals involving her assets should be put ON HOLD. No guardianship, no land transfers, no house sales, no quitclaims—nothing. It’s just not right. I didn’t even like the guardianship to continue the house sale in IN at all.

People keep saying life goes on, RE sales must go on or there’s breaches of contract, but I just say NO. There is a criminal investigation going on into what happened to Suzanne and IMO everything and I mean everything should be on hold until the investigation is concluded. I really don’t get how any of these guardianship shenanigans are even on the table. It’s gross.

Yes, what you are saying could happen. If the Moormans want things put on hold, they can file a request to take part in the hearing. Like I said in a post about a week ago, if they did that, then their attorney could also possibly call Barry as a witness and ask him questions under oath.

On the flip side -- as @Knox pointed out last week -- the Moormans may value their relationship with the Morphew daughters more than they value any property that may come under the control of Barry as guardian. They may reasonably fear that interference in the guardianship proceeding may disturb that relationship and -- as a result -- are willing to allow the guardianship to go ahead as long as their relationship with the daughters is preserved.