Sheri Coleman, sons Garett and Gavin murdered 5-5-09, Columbia, IL. Pt3

[RR0004]

I think it was reported on NG, that the Coleman's had little debt.

Yup...and something about "family planning". I got the impression that it was somehow church-related. Is there such a thing?

 

[analytical]

Yup...and something about "family planning". I got the impression that it was somehow church-related. Is there such a thing?

It was financial planning. They hosted a course in their home last November sponsored by their church.

Artie Gumshoe, a poster from the neighborhood, said it was believed Sheri was a big spender.

There could be a plausible non-sinister reason for the ownership transfer - it has been mentioned the Colemans tried to sell the house several times. If they were having trouble with the payments, re-fi might have been something they were looking into and Sheri's credit score or credit might have been a weight on the re-fi application.

I read somewhere last night that the Coleman's sold Amway before moving into the house. I also had read earlier on that they'd mowed the lawns of people around them when they lived in the house JMM supplied to him as part of his employment.

Maybe the house payments were too high and refinancing is what they were attempting.

 

[RR0004]

Hello All,

Has anyone seen anything anywhere that indicates that CC voluntarily submitted to questioning for approx. 7 hours on the day of the murders.

W

PS. Until I see proof of the above from a reliable source, I rather doubt it.

I looked for quite some time...and couldn't find anything. Going on to some of those news websites made my computer freeze so I quite after 30 minutes or so.

 

[RR0004]

It was financial planning. They hosted a course in their home last November sponsored by their church.

Artie Gumshoe, a poster from the neighborhood, said it was believed Sheri was a big spender.

There could be a plausible non-sinister reason for the ownership transfer - it has been mentioned the Colemans tried to sell the house several times. If they were having trouble with the payments, re-fi might have been something they were looking into and Sheri's credit score or credit might have been a weight on the re-fi application.

I read somewhere last night that the Coleman's sold Amway before moving into the house. I also had read earlier on that they'd mowed the lawns of people around them when they lived in the house JMM supplied to him as part of his employment.

Maybe the house payments were too high and refinancing is what they were attempting.

As they were married, even in a refinance her credit or lack thereof would come up.

 

[kiki the parrot]

The Colemans lived since spring 2005 in the Columbia Lakes subdivision, on the bluffs in the north end of Columbia.

In January 2008, the couple formed a business called Executive Innovations, specializing in video surveillance. A spokesman for the Illinois secretary of state's office said the corporation was no longer in good standing because no annual report had been filed by year's end.

The Colemans met at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio and were married while both were in the military as K-9 police officers -- he with the Marine Corps and she with the Air Force.

He grew up in Chester, Ill. She was born in Berwyn, Ill., a close suburb of Chicago, and attended high school in Largo, Fla., near Tampa Bay.

Evidently there was the couple's enterprise in video surveillance called Executive Innovations reported no longer "in good standing" but not specifying bankruptcy (sorry if this has been previously posted).

http://www.individual.com/story.php?story=100740367

 

[elle1919]

Not to mention compassionate...



That is not what I said or meant at all SS no need to take offense. I simply said others (not "everyone") here had expressed the same belief--that it takes living through this nightmare to comprehend how insular and closeted it often is yet right under the noses of the community and church. And that some here including myself feel there is enough knowledge of who held the financial reigns to raise some questions or warrant a discussion, that's all. But evidently there are others (WhoKnew, TexasMist, OLife, WaltzingMatilda, AfterSunset etc) whose similar experiences have raised the same concerns.

arrot:

Right as usual...in my meager opinion that is.:blowkiss:

 

[analytical]

As they were married, even in a refinance her credit or lack thereof would come up.

To my understanding, if application for re-fi, the application would only be in the name of the owner.

Here's an example.. with someone I know attempting to sell a home, the husband and wife tried to purchase the home by financing it through the wife's mother-in-law and the grown daughter as loan applicants. All four were going to live in the home.

The wife's credit was lousy .. probably so lousy she could not get a loan and the husband had an IRS lien against him.

In a community property state, as this was, the wife, even if her credit was spotless and she could have gotten the loan, would not have wanted to buy a home in her name because the IRS could then place a lien against the home.

My acquaintance did not sell the house to this family but was privy to these strange "workings" of loan applications and shared it with me.

Sounded like a soap opera and thing is, they held up his house for months trying to get into it and 2 years later still live in their old home.

He even lost his earnest money deposit. Bad thing all around ... this was back when mortgage brokers were "wheelin' and dealin'"

 

[Texas Mist]

I looked for quite some time...and couldn't find anything. Going on to some of those news websites made my computer freeze so I quite after 30 minutes or so.

IIRC, I saw it in some comments to an article @ one of the news websites...I've tried to find an 'official' media release but can't.

Maybe it's just one of those days for me.

 

[analytical]

The Colemans lived since spring 2005 in the Columbia Lakes subdivision, on the bluffs in the north end of Columbia.

In January 2008, the couple formed a business called Executive Innovations, specializing in video surveillance. A spokesman for the Illinois secretary of state's office said the corporation was no longer in good standing because no annual report had been filed by year's end.

The Colemans met at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio and were married while both were in the military as K-9 police officers -- he with the Marine Corps and she with the Air Force.

He grew up in Chester, Ill. She was born in Berwyn, Ill., a close suburb of Chicago, and attended high school in Largo, Fla., near Tampa Bay.

Evidently there was the couple's enterprise in video surveillance called Executive Innovations reported no longer "in good standing" but not specifying bankruptcy (sorry if this has been previously posted).

http://www.individual.com/story.php?story=100740367

I'd read early on somewhere the business was "not in good standing" because a licensing fee had not been paid.

 

[analytical]

Company Profile for Executive Innovations:

http://www.gobignetwork.com/profiles/Chris-Coleman2.aspx
-----------
no annual report had been filed by year-end so company was not in "good standing"

A spokesman for the Illinois secretary of state's office said the corporation was no longer in good standing because no annual report had been filed by year's end

http://individual.com/story.php?story=100740367

 

[Lovejac]

This is something I just found - not sure if it's been mentioned yet. On SC's brother's (Mario) MySpace she entered a comment on Apr 30 that said the song on her profile was by one of her good friends and it's her fav song. One of her friends is Steph Jones (SC is listed at the top of her friends list) and she has a playlist of her own songs on her MySpace. I just listened to two of them - Found You Out and Moving On...I wonder if either of these two songs were the one she was talking about.

Very interesting! Can you give me a link, please!

 

[kiki the parrot]

In neither report tho is it alleged that the business failed, collapsed or "went under" due to insolvency tho... and SuziQ heard there were in fact no significant debts. In addition, CC's salary has been reported to be considerable all of which appear to make the transferring of assets for exemption etc unlikely. Just sayin...

arrot:

 

[WestSideGal]

Very interesting! Can you give me a link, please!

Let's see how good I am at posting links - here's the brother's (and by his comments on his page, he's desperate and looking for answers - any answers

http://www.myspace.com/mariothesoxfan

Here's Steph's

http://www.myspace.com/stephjonesmusic

 

[chestergal]

To correct my previous post about the Coleman boys...

Brad Coleman is married.

 

[JBean]

It is possible that they planned to refinance the home and she did not have credit as good as his. I know many couples that qualify for better rates with one as opposed to both. So they purchase the home under one persons name and then just quitclaim over an interest to the other spouse after closing. IN the event of refinance, othey would have to quit claim her off title -refinance-and then quit claim her back on title after the transaction was completed.
It doesn't sound as though it applies here, but just want to mention that quitclaiming people on and off title is not uncommon

 

[JBean]

As they were married, even in a refinance her credit or lack thereof would come up.

Wouldn't come in to play if she wasn't on the loan app and they were not considering her income for repayment.
Couples buy property as their sole and separate all day long.

 

[JBean]

I've only owned property in "Community Property" (CP) states, and Illinois is not one, so with that disclaimer out of the way I'll throw this out.

I believe non CP states go by "equitable distribution", in which a judge looks at all the assets, liabilities and ongoing expenses and apportions them "equitably". Usually when judges divide things this way my experience has been they consider their job done well if both sides are equally unhappy with the results. They can use just about any criteria they want, but significantly the way title to things was held is not all that important - for instance, if the house was bought at the beginning of the marriage and only the husband was on the deed, and he was the only one that brought in an income, upon divorce the judge could very well give the house to the wife as part of an equitable settlement of the assets and, say, relieve the husband of alimony in exchange.

Now there are usually provisions for allowing one spouse to acquire or retain sole title to an asset and have it not divided, but generally there needs to be some compelling reason shown, and more importantly the agreement cannot be overtly or covertly entered just to deprive a financially unsophisticated spouse of their interest. One example that comes to mind is if two people who own their own small businesses get married and they both agree that the ownership of each one's business will remain their own through the marriage. But such a scenario is fact dependent. If after 10 years they change their minds and she becomes a stay at home mom, shuts down her business and devotes herself to the family therefore allowing the husband additional time to grow his, and 10 years later they divorce, the original agreement would probably be ignored by the judge and the wife would be awarded compensation for the husband's business. Probably. But in front of a judge nothing is guaranteed.

Now awaiting an Illinois lawyer to sign up and tell me I've got it all wrong due to applying general concepts to Illinois law.

I know an Illinois lawyer
I'll let ya know.


I don't know if this applies in Illinois, but here in Cali if either spouse buys the house BEFORE marriage, they are entitled to recoup 100% of the money they put down and don't have to split that in divorce. they would only have to split the appreciated portion of the equity that was acquired during the marriage as CP.

 

[summerlee]

I know I'm off track, Lovejac thats a cute pic. Can't find the deer video? Anyone have it to view? I

 

[summerlee]

ooops, Guess it was taken off youtube.

 

[JBean]

It was financial planning. They hosted a course in their home last November sponsored by their church.

Artie Gumshoe, a poster from the neighborhood, said it was believed Sheri was a big spender.

There could be a plausible non-sinister reason for the ownership transfer - it has been mentioned the Colemans tried to sell the house several times. If they were having trouble with the payments, re-fi might have been something they were looking into and Sheri's credit score or credit might have been a weight on the re-fi application.

I read somewhere last night that the Coleman's sold Amway before moving into the house. I also had read earlier on that they'd mowed the lawns of people around them when they lived in the house JMM supplied to him as part of his employment.

Maybe the house payments were too high and refinancing is what they were attempting.

oh here you go. Refinance makes perfect sense and quitclaiming off title is very common for this. If her credit is bad this is very likely what was going on.