Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #44

[Nikynoo]

If FD committed another crime against the state (the people) then that would look bad for the state. IMO

The same could be said if the bond was valid though, no? If he committed another crime, his bond would have been revoked and he would be sent to jail. What we are talking about here is whether the state would be a victim because the bond was invalid. I say not, because the bond was still in force until the court revoked it.

 

[enelram]

the state would not be out 6 million though would it? Wouldn't the bond company need to pay? The Bond Company is the one that has made a promise to the court to pay if FD absconded. Of course, it could argue that the bond was not valid, but the point is, they (the bond company) have made a promise to the court. I cannot see how the State would be a victim? Can someone explain please?

I'll try. In order to allow an accused murderer to be out in public and on the street so to speak, the state wants some assurance that someone will guarantee that the accused will
show up in court to face his charges.
The bond is just such an assurance. If accused doesn't show up and flees instead, the state (LE) must go all out to find him and bring him in. That costs money. But the bond is like an
insurance policy from the bonding company that they are on top of this and believe the
accused won't abscond.
Most accused persons do show up in court.
But if they don't bond co. and LE must find him.
Enter 'Dog, the bounty Hunter".

 

[SkylarSid]

the state would not be out 6 million though would it? Wouldn't the bond company need to pay? The Bond Company is the one that has made a promise to the court to pay if FD absconded. Of course, it could argue that the bond was not valid, but the point is, they (the bond company) have made a promise to the court. I cannot see how the State would be a victim? Can someone explain please?

Because the bond company simply would not have the funds to pay the state of CT, so CT would lose.

 

[Nikynoo]

Because the bond company simply would not have the funds to pay the state of CT, so CT would lose.

If the bond company doesnt reinsure, then yes, I would agree (but surely they would for a bond this large)? In addition, this would be a civil matter between the court and the bond company (the State would need to sue the bond company) for recovery of their loss). If the whistleblower is correct and the bond company could only issue a bond for $400k (or there abouts) , the only way they could legally issue said bond would be if they reinsured it. Wasn't it the underwriters who found that the collateral was in foreclosure and refused to reinsure? If so, this would be why the Bond Company wanted to revoke it.

 

[Ruminations]

My understanding was that an insurance company underwrites the risk of the bail bond for a fee (very much like car or home insurance). In this case, it is also my understanding that the insurance compay when assessing that risk found that the collateral proposed by FD would not cover the risk and therefore the insurance company were unwilling to underwrite the bond. The bond company had no option but to revoke the bond. It is also my understanding that by revoking the bond, the bond is null and void - and the court would want a replacement bond. If the bond is null and void, I would imagine that AC would recover the majority of the fees that she paid out and would not be obliged to make further payments. IMO, this is why AC hired NP (for contract litigation).

I am guessing- and asking those who know-

I would think that the bail bond company had already promised CT to cover the bail. They couldn't be underwritten, but that doesn't erase their obligation, does it? I imagine, but am not sure, that the company WANTED to get out of its obligation to CT, hence the emergency hearing, but was not out of it yet when Dulos gassed himself.

If I promise to pay a mortgage, and obtain mortgage insurance which the insurance company decides to cancel because they discover I don't have the employment I claimed- I don't stop owing the mortgage. I just lose my underwriter, right?

The next day, another hearing was held. Did CT let the bond company off its obligation then?

 

[Boxer]

Dbm

I am guessing- and asking those who know-

I would think that the bail bond company had already promised CT to cover the bail. They couldn't be underwritten, but that doesn't erase their obligation, does it? I imagine, but am not sure, that the company WANTED to get out of its obligation to CT, hence the emergency hearing, but was not out of it yet when Dulos gassed himself.

If I promise to pay a mortgage, and obtain mortgage insurance which the insurance company decides to cancel because they discover I don't have the employment I claimed- I don't stop owing the mortgage. I just lose my underwriter, right?

The next day, another hearing was held. Did CT let the bond company off its obligation then?

MOO I believe it matters if the case is dismissed.

 

[Ruminations]

the state would not be out 6 million though would it? Wouldn't the bond company need to pay? The Bond Company is the one that has made a promise to the court to pay if FD absconded. Of course, it could argue that the bond was not valid, but the point is, they (the bond company) have made a promise to the court. I cannot see how the State would be a victim? Can someone explain please?

Not an expert, just trying to figure it out. I believe the state would be owed the money, but become a victim if unable to collect. A bill like that can cause a company to go out of business.

 

[Nikynoo]

I am guessing- and asking those who know-

I would think that the bail bond company had already promised CT to cover the bail. Correct They couldn't be underwritten, but that doesn't erase their obligation, does it? No, it does not. I imagine, but am not sure, that the company WANTED to get out of its obligation to CT, hence the emergency hearing, but was not out of it yet when Dulos gassed himself. Correct, my feeling is that they would have stated that the D provided false information in the application form and therefore they can no longer cover the bond.

If I promise to pay a mortgage, and obtain mortgage insurance which the insurance company decides to cancel because they discover I don't have the employment I claimed- I don't stop owing the mortgage. I just lose my underwriter, right? Correct, but is your mortgage insurance for if you lose your job and you cannot pay your mortgage, or for something else?

The next day, another hearing was held. Did CT let the bond company off its obligation then?I am not sure, but I do know that the judge said that if FD recovered, he would be rearrested. I take that to mean that the bail process would need to start again.

Please see my responses underlined above in purple.
ETA - the bond issue was put on hold at the hearing last wednesday. I do not know what this means for the actual bond though.
EATA link Agreement allows family to see Fotis Dulos at hospital amid 'dire' medical condition

 

[Ruminations]

Dbm


MOO I believe it matters if the case is dismissed.

The way I see it, if the bond is in effect when the case is dismissed, no problem even without underwriting. The state would return the bail if unless the defendant flees.

 

[Ruminations]

Please see my responses underlined above in purple.

Thank you!!!

I never had mortgage insurance, but it most commonly is part of the deal on a smaller down payment and/or down market. In that case, the ins. Company and lender are given the same set of facts, and if the borrower defrauded one, they defrauded both, but yes the insurance would likely be for loss of job. If one gets mortgage insurance later, such as a kind of life insurance, the insurance could be for loss of job, but you can't lie about employment status at application.

 

[sds71]

This notification is brought to you by Connecticut Statewide Automated Victim Information and Notification (SAVIN) Program.

This email is to inform you that MICHELLE TROCONIS, with docket number FST CR190167364T, has an upcoming court event.

A/An Plea Hearing has been scheduled for 02/07/2020. This will take place in Stamford-Norwalk JD Courthouse located at the following address: 123 Hoyt Street, Stamford, CT.

 

[dkryder]

W


Why didn’t the builder make the house all electric or at least heat by electricity? This is probably a dumb question, but I’ll ask it anyway. Wouldn’t propane cost more than electricity?

Why a builder does one thing or another is often times not based on what is best for the homeowner. Propane systems are expensive but are great in areas prone to power outages. FD impressed me as the kinda builder to install the cheapest system as far as his costs go.

 

[enelram]

nickynoo said- If the whistleblower is correct and the bond company could only issue a bond for $400k (or there abouts) , the only way they could legally issue said bond would be if they reinsured it. Wasn't it the underwriters who found that the collateral was in foreclosure and refused to reinsure? If so, this would be why the Bond Company wanted to revoke it.
--------------------------------------
there must be a state law that bond co. must have cash net worth to cover the bond. Doesn't matter if they reinsure. This company did not have proper cash reserves to guarantee bond.
No the underwriters pushed the approval through initially.
The whistleblower notified the state insurance regulators that the company was not in compliance with cash reserves AND that the
homes used as collateral were in default and in foreclosure.
So the whistleblower is the hero here.
The state had already notified the bond co, that they were in non-compliance and ordered them to correct the situation or revoke the bond. The bond co. had already notified FD
that his bond was revoked. So he placed a call that Tues. morning to a new bond co. to try and get a new bond. He probably knew he could not come up with adequate collateral so
he knew he was doomed to going back to jail.
Probably forever at this point because he would be held until trial, 1-2-3 yrs. and if found guilty
probably life in prison.

 

[spaz1959]

She truly might not know where JD is. At least when FD was alive, could have nailed him to the wall. Not an option anymore.

IMO both MT and KM knows where JD remains are. Someone hopefully rolls!

 

[spaz1959]

I agree. If that woman has one ounce of decency, reveal JD’s location. As a mother herself, she has to know how much GF and the children need to have that peace of mind. IMO

Well, time will tell what MT has remaining of a soul.

 

[Nikynoo]

nickynoo said- If the whistleblower is correct and the bond company could only issue a bond for $400k (or there abouts) , the only way they could legally issue said bond would be if they reinsured it. Wasn't it the underwriters who found that the collateral was in foreclosure and refused to reinsure? If so, this would be why the Bond Company wanted to revoke it.
--------------------------------------
there must be a state law that bond co. must have cash net worth to cover the bond. Doesn't matter if they reinsure. This company did not have proper cash reserves to guarantee bond.
No the underwriters pushed the approval through initially.
The whistleblower notified the state insurance regulators that the company was not in compliance with cash reserves AND that the
homes used as collateral were in default and in foreclosure.
So the whistleblower is the hero here.
The state had already notified the bond co, that they were in non-compliance and ordered them to correct the situation or revoke the bond. The bond co. had already notified FD
that his bond was revoked. So he placed a call that Tues. morning to a new bond co. to try and get a new bond. He probably knew he could not come up with adequate collateral so
he knew he was doomed to going back to jail.
Probably forever at this point because he would be held until trial, 1-2-3 yrs. and if found guilty
probably life in prison.

I agree, except for the bond was not revoked. The court has to agree to the revocation.

 

[afitzy]

why does this say The State of Florida vs Fotis Dulos?

Good catch!

IMO this looks to be an 'error' on the part of Palmetto. Palmetto here is referencing the INCORRECT State but the CORRECT County in CT. The action against Fd is in the State of CT in the COUNTY of Fairfield. NOT the State of FL in the COUNTY of Fairfield.

IMO this makes the fact that this error wasn't captured soon even more inexplicable!

Did Palmetto even know the were doing a bond for CT?

Would this very basic error void the bond immediately?

Why did the State of CT accept this certificate as it is presented in the Bond Package?

MOO

 

[afitzy]

One last question - does anyone have the page where the properties are listed for collateral ? I haven't found it yet, but it must be floating around somewhere.

@Nikynoo, Nope, you have to go through the documents page by page which is what I did last night and summarised the info in post 507.

The bond documents are now redacted and I did the best that I could with them. The information about prior liens on the real estate was nowhere to be found in the 50 pages that I could find unfortunately. But we know from public info elsewhere about the foreclosures.

4Jx (in foreclosure)
Sturbridge (in foreclosure)
80MS
84MS
585 DC

 

[SkylarSid]

the state would not be out 6 million though would it? Wouldn't the bond company need to pay? The Bond Company is the one that has made a promise to the court to pay if FD absconded. Of course, it could argue that the bond was not valid, but the point is, they (the bond company) have made a promise to the court. I cannot see how the State would be a victim? Can someone explain please?

Because the bond company simply would not have the funds to pay the state of CT, so CT would lose.

I agree, except for the bond was not revoked. The court has agree to the revocation.

But it most likely would have been at the emergency hearing that was scheduled the same day he attempted his suicide.

 

[pandaknows]

I agree - weird all round. I'm not familiar with bail bonds (we dont have them here). But this is rubbish and the court should not have accepted the bond/or should have a better system in place.

Rubbish is right! Attorney Pattis should be persona non grata in the court system moving forward. Anytime Attorney Pattis shows up in court with a bond package for a client it should be checked and double checked and triple checked and signed off by the CT Insurance Dept before Attorney Pattis' client is released. Cool your heels. End of the line. We will call you when the paperwork is in order, Attorney Pattis. MOO.