Susan Powell Husband Josh Powell Murders Kids Commits Suicide During Supervised Visitation
Joshua Powell, husband of missing and presumed deceased Utah woman Susan Powell, deliberately triggered an explosion Sunday afternoon killing himself and the couples two young sons Charles and Braden Powell.
A case worker arrived with the children for the court ordered supervised visitation was blocked entry by Powell, and shortly thereafter the home exploded.
Josh’s Father Steven is awaiting trial for various perv charges and all over creepiness, and Josh was just denied custody of the children in favor of them staying with Susan’s parents, The Cox’s.
www.blinkoncrime.com wishes to extend our sincere condolences to The Cox and members of the Powell Family who are not perverted freaks or murderers.
It would seem I recall expressing my concern this was a definite concern early on. I wish to commend all that recognized this and did everything in their power to give these beautiful little cherubs their best chance.
These little guys see their Mother today, and I pray that there is comfort in that reality for those dealing with this loss today.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
724 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
PS>
ATG~ Yes, those in the courtroom sorta “laughed/snickered w/ the Judge as he made the Q/comment to vic”.
@Sue says:
February 24, 2012 at 10:17 pm
It appears where you work every thing works … but over & over again we continue to see people just not carry thru w/their job … Charlie & Braden were failed * WA STATE is in all over CYA mode … which means NO one is learning anything … that all just want to say ….”I did my job -no my problem.”
@blink #43
that is the sickest part of these custody cases. good people try to do the “right thing”, foster relationships between children and parent, even when it goes against everything in their soul. and if they did not, they would be the ones held in contempt for violating the court order, while the freaks keep getting to play the victim and getting away with their BS.
@riverpearl, your story of what the judge said to that vic is another example. unbelievable how the real vics end up being revictimized and abused.
@Riverpearl – I have worked in the system for a long time. I have seen the changes in the system in order to make things work. It would be a ‘free for all’ everyday if we didn’t practice care, custody and control everyday. We are there to enforce rules and regulations, and ensure protection for every inmate in our care. One of the things people always want to see when a child molester enters the system is that they want to see the child molester put in general population so the other inmates can ‘take care of him/her.’ Well, we can’t do that. The child molester has to be protected, and is therefore put in protective custody. We have to protect the child molester from other inmates – period. The higher the risk, the higher the restrictions and the higher the supervision.
Well, in that regard, why is CPS NOT being held to the same level of protection when it comes to children? The children have to be protected from a parent who is questionable enough to warrant supervised visitation. The level of supervision should be more or less restricted according to an assessment. Same as in the prison system. The higher the risk, the higher the supervision. What I’m saying is that our assessment and risk evaluations work for us. We apply it and for the most part, it is a proven process that we continue to utilize and have a great deal of success with considering the number of inmates we deal with everyday.
JP should have had more restrictions on his visitations. He was able to wander about in his own territory, with little or no supervision from a lone visiting supervisor. His mental health evaluations had all kinds of red flags that should have made the shackles on the back of ‘someone’s’ head stand up and say – dangerous individual. Too dangerous to see his children until further evaluation. The responsibility of protecting these children seems to come from those who claim they have a say in granting visitation. (The courts and CPS). Okay – so they granted visitation – but they did nothing to protect them from a high risk parent. A child molester in prison gets more protection than Charlie and Braden. A proven risk assessment is in order to protect future children from dangerous parents.
@Sue says:
February 26, 2012 at 2:58 pm
IF something so simple as follow-thru action that you wrote…
“Well, in that regard, why is CPS NOT being held to the same level of protection when it comes to children? The children have to be protected from a parent who is questionable enough to warrant supervised visitation. The level of supervision should be more or less restricted according to an assessment. Same as in the prison system. The higher the risk, the higher the supervision.”
… had been done FOR Charlie & Braden, “level of supervision should be more or less restricted”, the boys would be alive today & w/their grandparents …
Over & over again we continue to see perps/pervs given MORE RIGHTS than ANY who they might/do injure/harm …
I will never forget seeing/hearing the “breaking news of fire @ POS’s house …”
I knew before it was ever reported that the boys were gone …
Charlie & Braden should NOT be gone … but here we are …
and the people responsible are NOT taking responsibility …
Riverpearl
Thanks for the additional information about the case. Sounds like the entire court needs a good shake up including the judge.
I would say the judge is lucky an old guy like me was not in the courtroom when he made his comment about the victim,. I would have called him out on it even if it meant that he could put me in jail for my comments.
I have to agree with Sue’s assesment of what little protection the court and CPS provided the boys. IMO this the great falicy that the courts perpertrate on the public. In addition, some CPS organizations hire third rate people and give them little support and training.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/22/steven-powell-was-involved-in-daughter-in-laws-disappearance-his-family-says/
Here is an idea, Ann Rule should donate money from the book to have 2 bronze sculptures of Charlie and Braden happy and at play to be put somewhere very near the courthouse where the decision to allow “at home (huh not really) supervised visits” which took away their right to do just that.
agreed
B
Ann Rule has her work on all this
It may be some time before the book comes out
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57374907/powell-father-kept-dozens-of-pics-of-sons-wife/
Link doesn’t work but it just more stuff about Steven
Powell BS
Good luck Ann Rule is all I can say
“Word Girl says:
February 22, 2012 at 12:00 pm
i’m glad to see the psychologist confirm what we saw (intuitively knew) about Josh Powell.
I wish Psychologist James Manley would have recommended visits in protected spaces with adequate supervision, due to his inability to contain himself. “Mr. Powell has very little capacity at this time to rein in his opinions and commentary for the sake of his children’s mental health,” the report states.”
>also:
“Noting that an earlier Social Worker saw the house as ‘staged’ and knowing JP could not live at his father’s house and still see the children, a whole lot of people failed here.”
____________________________________
Agreed, WG. That was a heartbreaking read, by Manley. The mere fact that jp was attempting to downplay so many things about his psyche, I donno. . . I would imagine that a large amount of people semi-successfully fade or dull themselves, and I can only imagine the difficulty one must encounter in order to get a good read on someone who can, often enough, wear just enough of a human suit to pass. I am thinking of someone at work right now, who bumbles into all the right places, by accident it would seem.
I duly noted that alina passed in and out of this house at least once, as documented. I wonder, what did she know, what did she see? Did she open any drawers? Did she know that everything was still at sp’s house? What was the explanation? did she care. I am terrified to know the extent of what Blink will find. Of what Ann Rule will find. Of what the years will uncover. Poor sweet babies, what they endured, I am not sure I ever want to know.
Also, I haven’t read of a SW who noted house as “staged”. Can you point me in the right direction? It’s even more disheartening.
“Ode says:
February 27, 2012 at 10:26 am
Here is an idea, Ann Rule should donate money from the book to have 2 bronze sculptures of Charlie and Braden happy and at play to be put somewhere very near the courthouse where the decision to allow “at home (huh not really) supervised visits” which took away their right to do just that.”
_______________________________
“agreed
B”
Perfect, and sad.
Been a long time since I’ve commented but I thought think this is typical of the Reunification practice within children’s services organizations…I have a niece with serious drug/alcohol addiction problems. 2 years ago she gave birth to a little boy who spent his first 2 months in neo-natal care due to her drug use during pregnancy. But she was allowed to take him home when he was released, with no requirement of drug treatment for her. Over the next 3 months, family members, friends, & strangers alerted dcf about incidents including leaving the baby in her car outside a bar, passing out while holding the baby, driving him around without being buckled into his car seat, etc. DCF checked the home & said everything a baby needs was there & mother has legal prescriptions for the drugs she takes. DCF agent pretty much told me to stop calling them & call the police if I think a crime is being committed “This mother has rights you know”. Baby was removed from her custody when she was convicted of retail theft & ordered to a detox center. However, this has turned into a repeating pattern of giving temporary custody to one of the grandmothers, then back to my niece until she does something serious enough to go to jail. I love this girl, she was always my favorite, but this little baby deserves better. I wish DCF had removed him from her custody at birth. The chances of him ever having a normal life are miniscule at best. It’s time to reassess the concept of what’s in the best interest of the child.
I so applaud this. Escalate the complaint to the supervisor of the DCF worker and someone needs to file for a tro and temporary custody. That is the only solution which will end up requiring your niece to hit benchmarks to get the child back and create a custodial record going forward for permanent custody.
B
B~ Thank you so much for your response ~ can you give me a layman’s explanation for “tro”
temporary restraining order. I do not know where you are located so it may be called something else, and may be a different process, but for the most part the assests at DCF could explain the process I am referring to- but honestly, I would work only through a family attorney.
It is not ideal, and I believe children belong with their parents- provided they are able to care for them and not compromise their safety. Many years ago, I had someone I am very close to in this situation.
Her parents and family intervened thus giving her the oppty to bottom out really, she did, and then completely turned her life around against the highest of odds.
As you point out, the child needs to come first especially if there are family members available to care for the baby- that is a blessing in itself.
B
Blink, I am in agreement with you regarding the need to agressively intervene when the well being of a child(ren) is being compromised. For several years I worked with women and children in the domestic violence/addiction field. A competent family service worker is able to (and is expected to) go beyond inspecting the quality of the home, discerning whether it is fully equipped for providing proper care for a child(ren). A competent worker utilizes whatever is at their disposal to also determine whether the parent/guardian is fully equipped to properly care for the child(ren). The competent worker intervenes in questionable situations “for the well-being of the child(ren).”
Your personal story gives hope for those of us involved with ill equipped parents who care more about themselves than their child(ren). I am saddened when the quality of care children recieve from ill equipped parents and/or social workers endangers and/or ends their lives. The system is damaged. How do we fix it?
Hi, Christy–thx for your words…I imagine I know the person at work who just barely passes in his human suit. (Anyone see Grimm?!)
The Social Worker who commented about the house looking staged said he found some of Josh’s and the boys’ comments a little strange and suspicious.
“In early November, when the boys visited Josh Powell’s new home in Graham, Wash., for the first time, they walked around with their dad, who had placed throughout the home photos of their mother, photos from the couple’s wedding and photos of them with the boys as babies. An accompanying social worker said the boys and Josh
Powell kept referring to it as being “just like Mommy’s house.”
The social worker noted the home seemed very “staged,” as if for his approval. Police later confirmed they believe Josh Powell did not live in that home and had staged it for visitation purposes.”
http://www.justice4caylee.org/t18115p15-charlie-braden-powell-6-yo-4-yo-graham-wa (staged comment on page two toward the bottom.)
OMG- blink hits like button for GRIMM.
B
Fixing a problem in any organization is predicated on the organization realizing it is operating on poor or broken proceedures.
There must be one or several people who desire change and improvement.
Those who see the need for improvement must find one another and agree to stand together to organize the changes.
If the person in charge of the program is fixed and will not be open to improvement, then he or she must be removed. In the case of government this is difficult. However, shedding the light of public disclosure creates a large incentive to correct bad proceedures. This is expecially true in the case of those who must stand for election.
Nothing fixes a problem like a good law suit. If the head of a department (usually a Commissioner) is not keeping up with current laws, training, education, services, constant communication with the courts, law-makers, complaints, violations, supervision etc. etc. for everyone in the department, then there’s a hole in the system. Everyday must be a CYA day. Reports, documentation, certification of training for all workers in the front lines. We can note that there is a hole in the system in JP’s jurisdiction that points to lack of communication somewhere along the line. Did one hand know what the other hand was doing? There was a break down somewhere that caused a disaster.
Off topic, but I am just thanking God that justice was served today for Michelle Young and her unborn baby boy. Her husband, Jason Young, was convicted of First Degree Murder for bludgeoning her and the baby she carried within to death.
This was one of those fastidiously investigated circumstantial evidence cases in which almost every piece falls beautifully into place. The jurors agreed.
What the soft-spoken Judge had to saw afterwards was one of the best statements I’ve ever heard.
Rest in peace, Michelle, with your sweet baby boy. May your darling daughter, Cassidy, your mom, your sister, your relatives and all your friends find at least some peace knowing that this murderous thug is forever out of your lives. God be with you.
Agreed totally
B
“Word Girl says:
March 1, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Hi, Christy–thx for your words…I imagine I know the person at work who just barely passes in his human suit. (Anyone see Grimm?!)
http://www.justice4caylee.org/t18115p15-charlie-braden-powell-6-yo-4-yo-graham-wa (staged comment on page two toward the bottom.)
OMG- blink hits like button for GRIMM.
B
——————–
Thanks WG.
Oh, the hindsight.
So many red flags. Damn the move to Washington. I think it made this easier for him to do.
*Hits like button for GRIMM.*
I wonder if the Powell’s were told that the money from the policy could not be claimed and distributed to them until Susan’s remains were found, as she is the legal (community property) beneficiary, if that would produce any new leads?
snip>
SEATTLE (AP) – A life insurance company has asked a judge to decide whether any of Josh Powell’s relatives are entitled to collect on a $1.5 million policy after he killed himself and his two sons in a Washington house fire last month.
In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, New York Life said that on Feb. 14, nine days after the deaths, it received inquiries from Powell’s sister Alina and brother Michael about how to make claims on the policy, which included $1 million for Josh Powell and $250,000 for each boy. The company sent them claim forms, but the complaint does not say that the siblings have actually filed them.
komonews.com
Damn the Powells and the handcart from hell they rode in on.
Nine days after the murder/suicide they filed claims for the 1.5 million life insurance. Josh had made changes to the policy , mainly in December 2011-removing Susan as beneficiary and naming his siblings instead (Michael-93%; Alina-4% and John 3%).
—————————–
“Court asked to decide on Powells’ insurance money”
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=19492545&title=court-asked-to-decide-on-powells-insurance-money&s_cid=featured-5
———————————-
I hope it is determined to be illegal to remove Susan (community property laws) and either not pay up at all, or pay the money in restitution to the Cox family for court costs, and to help future victims of crime.
I worry that if the Powell family gets their hands on this money, they will bail Steven out of jail and help him pay for legal costs to fight the charges he has against him.
How wrong that would be, using Charlie and Braden’s deaths to get their perverted Grandfather off scott free?
—————————————————-
Steven’s lawyer is trying to get evidence thrown out as we speak:
“Attorneys argue search of Steven Powell home was illegal”
“The search here was without probable cause, the warrant was illegal and all the evidence must be suppressed,” attorneys argued in court documents.”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865551607/Attorneys-argue-search-of-Steven-Powell-home-was-illegal.html
Zeus- put your head on the pillow tonight.
No chance of this having any legs at all
B
Thanks Blink-I needed that! You always know what to say!
It is wonderful that New York Life is seeking the U.S. District Court in Tacoma about ANY payout.
IF any money goes to POS’s “estate” it should be “frozen” by a wrongful death suit against the “estate” by the Cox & a claim of loss by the house property owners.
I would also hope those ‘claims’ are being considered anyway as POS had cash that he w/d &/or transfered the day before he committed the murders of Charlie & Braden.
“This question to New York Life” by POS’s ‘estate’ leads one to ask again … “How much pre-murders did perv father & siblings know of POSs intentions? Was the boys murders the end game to help secure funds to get perv out of jail & to mount a defense … the suicide of the 1 for the good of the many, so to speak?”
This whole “inquiry” by the siblings has one step back and ask (again)
“What was the real motive for all those calls to 911 from Alina? Was it to make sure the murders/suicide were well documented for claims of deaths pay out?” Adding in (after the murders/suicide) “family statement that LE/media were @ fault because of their campaign against POS.” Was this “part of their defense that there were -3- murders?”
-And-
@ zeus says:
March 7, 2012 at 6:54 pm
“Damn the Powells and the handcart from hell they rode in on.”
Agree w/you 100%
-and-
@Blink says:
March 7, 2012 at 6:54 pm ~
“No chance of this having any legs at all”
B
Do you see any CHANGES possible to “life insurance contracts (wording) of excluding, disclaimers etc when the court makes it decision?”
-or-
Is the deaths of Charlie & Braden @ the hands of the policy holder a condition that would exclude a payout from the get go?
Just when it appears things cannot go any lower … we find it actually can …
Prayers for the Cox’s …
It would surprise me. As you can see from the filing legislation does not really cover the specific contract underwriting issues per se.
In theory, no person has the right to benefit monetarily from their crime.
In this case, the way I see it is that Josh had no legal standing once the beneficiary was named “in trust” which is jointly held, with Susan as the sole trustee) Legally, one must remove (revoke) the trustee by court order, which in this case, would be very difficult if the standard would be to have Susan declared deceased.
My sense is that Josh was trying to hide the policy from LE and the Cox family in the first place, so even petitioning the court to declare the trustee unavailable to serve as a trustee and appointing him, would require declarations of her missing under nefarious circumstances so I doubt the court would have complied.
I don’t know what other clauses, if any, would be in play because only a partial page from the trust was submitted in the first place. I would seek to know for certain who notarized all the documents involved as a first step.
Like I said before, Alina is not parting with $7k ( if she was able to have it released to her which I doubt) to bury him, and they clearly knew about the policy. I certainly hope that was not a reason in and of itself to delay any sort of intervention on her part. I remain very uncomfortable with her characterizations of the reason Josh killed his children to “spare them”.
Now throw in probate.
I am making the assumption the Trust matches a will somewhere. If not, it is in a way a will on it’s own in terms of intestate value.
Susan is missing and not declared deceased so technically speaking, Susan, vis a vie the trust, is the beneficiary for the riders for Josh and her children.
The decision is going to made as to how the factor of Josh being a “slayer” who apparently also cannot change the beneficiaries of a trust he is not the trustee of effects a payout.
My guess- estate passes to the children, and with the slayer having no standing as a beneficiary, there would be no survivorship by his heir, or in this case, his parents so the entire estate would be inherited by the Cox family or held up in probate until a court order can be issued declaring Susan’s death.
That said, I fully expect the Powell’s to file a wrongful death suit on behalf of Susan and the children so none of this really matters except if anyone decides there is beneficiary entitlement to any of the Powell family as listed in the policy, at which time I am positive the Cox family would petition to keep the policy proceeds in escrow until the civil matter is resolved.
And make no mistake, the Powell family is going to fight for this cash- who thinks all of a sudden they will do something decent?
They will not get a cent of this money and go broke with legal fees. Not worried.
B
@ Blink says:
March 8, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Thanks for your reply
Have been spinning since this story broke yesterday.
Here’s some more of the “timeline of when POS did his changin’”
The insurance company is petitioning the court to decide who should receive the $2.5 million payout, since Powell is considered a “slayer” of his children and “person of interest” in his wife’s disappearance, terms that could disqualify him and his family as beneficiaries, they argue.
The insurance was first taken out during the summer of 2007, when Josh and Susan Powell took out $1 million policies each on themselves, and $250,000 riders on each of their children. At the time, they designated one another as the beneficiaries. The couple later set up a family trust, designating each of their fathers as beneficiaries of the trust, and naming the trust the beneficiary of the life insurance.
In October, 2011, just weeks after his father was arrested on charges of child porn and voyeurism, Josh Powell changed the beneficiary of the life insurance. No longer would the family trust receive the life insurance payouts; instead, Josh Powell’s siblings would become the beneficiaries, according to the court documents.
The changes resulted in Susan Powell’s father, Chuck Cox, losing his claim on the life insurance.
Two months later, Powell once again changed the beneficiary information, designating his brother, Michael Powell, as the beneficiary who would receive 93 percent of the pay out, while his sister Alina would receive 4 percent, and a third sibling would receive three percent. He designated his father Stephen as a secondary beneficiary.
Powell made the final beneficiary change on Dec. 3, less than two months before he killed himself and his children on Feb. 5, 2012.
Nine days later, both Michael and Alina Powell contacted New York Life Insurance Co. to make a claim on the policies.
The insurance company is asking the U.S. district court to decide whether the Powells have a rightful claim to the money, despite Josh Powell’s status as a “slayer” of the two boys and a “person of interest” in Susan’s disappearance, or whether Susan’s parents or other interested parties have a claim on the payout.
The filing also draws Josh Powell’s competency into question, asking the court to determine whether the murder-suicide affects the beneficiary changes.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/josh-powell-changed-life-insurance-policy-murder-suicide/story?id=15872199
I was not aware there was a $1000000 life insurance policy on Susan. It makes me wonder why these fine people didn’t try to collect on that somehow.
Whatever happens, none of the insurance money will go the estate to be available for wrongful death suits. One of the uses of life insurance in estate planning is to bypass probate and pass money directly to beneficiaries.
Hopefully the court will rule that the beneficiary change (at least the last one) was part of a scheme in which Josh Powell planned to murder his children, and disallow the beneficiary change. With $2.5M at stake, the legal actions may take a long time to work through the system (I’m sure NY Life is in no hurry to write a check).
Blink:
Under Washington law, a trust will bypass probate.
This is a revokable trust, which means no court order would be required to revoke it.
Both Utah and Washington state have slayer statutes. The Utah slayer statute has some interesting language that would apply, if the Utah court were to find Josh Powell responsible for Susan Cox Powell’s death.
Utah also has a procedure in its statutes for declaring a missing person dead.
You are of course exactly right, I appreciate the addition/correction.
I would only add as far as I know, there would be no way to legally charge Powell posthumously in Susan’s case to declare him a “slayer”, but admittedly I do not know the burden for the finding of fact as it relates to “voiding” him as a beneficiary.
B
The Washington slayer statute does not require a criminal finding of guilt. To to the contrary, the Washington slayer statute requires the plaintiff establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged slayer participated “either as a principal or an accessory before the fact, in the willful and unlawful killing of any other person.”
Washington case law says that you can have a defendant who was found not guilty by reason of insanity, but nonetheless is liable under the slayer statute for having willfully and unlawfully caused the the death of another. (The case I reference involved a son who killed his mother.)
The Utah slayer statute contains similar language requiring the plaintiff establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a disqualifying homicide occurred “that meets the elements of any felony homicide offense in Title 76, Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Person, except automobile homicide. . .”
http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE26/htm/26_02_001300.htm
In civil court, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence (50% plus something). This is far less than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” required for a criminal finding of guilt.
There is no criminal “charge” in either type of suit that would require living defendant.
Generally speaking, in a civil suit, the court could appoint someone to stand in the shoes of the deceased defendant for purposes of litigation (or appeal).
~~~~~~~~
Lea Conner says: March 9, 2012 at 9:08 pm
[post omitted]
Blink wrote in response:
You are of course exactly right, I appreciate the addition/correction.
I would only add as far as I know, there would be no way to legally charge Powell posthumously in Susan’s case to declare him a “slayer”, but admittedly I do not know the burden for the finding of fact as it relates to “voiding” him as a beneficiary.
B
See people- I always know where to lobb the tough pitches, lol. Thanks Counselor.
I baked you a delicious pie as your reward. Have at least two slices.
B
I had no idea that such an insurance policy existed. This is just another red flag to alert young women that there may be danger in the event of acquiring a policy in that amount. Especially is this true for non-wealthy people.
Anyone have the date that the policy went into effect? Josh Powell played the part of a concerned parent to get this done. Included himself to avoid suspicion.
zeus says:
March 7, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Damn the Powells and the handcart from hell they rode in on.
Nine days after the murder/suicide they filed claims for the 1.5 million life insurance. Josh had made changes to the policy , mainly in December 2011-removing Susan as beneficiary and naming his siblings instead (Michael-93%; Alina-4% and John 3%).
****
Just find it curious as to why the distribution was 93/4/3.
my 2 cents of ins proceeds analysis as a layperson.
This speaks to his life ins policy purchase only and any riders, not Susan’s purchase of ins.
First, I will assume a revocable trust did not make the purchase of his policy, he did. Whether purchased by a Revocable Trust in his name for which he was Trustee, or simply in his individual capacity, he could change beneficiaries of his policy at any time, and did.
But, he could only change the beneficiary of Susan’s policy if a Revocable Trust set up by Susan purchased the policy in the first place (abc does not say that) and he was the Trustee of Susan’s Trust. (I wouldn’t put it past him.) Her murder was probably contemplated when the insurance beneficiary changed to a family trust.)
He changed beneficiaries several times, as he could whether the policy was purchased by a revocable trust or himself.. First to Susan. Then to a revocable family trust benefitting their dads.
(imo guess whose idea that was). Then the sibs. Then to sibs. As to his payout, unless there was a clause by NY Life precluding payout for suicides, his sibs are home free. As to child riders, they’ve got that for his policy.
As to Susan’s policy, it depends on who purchased it, a revocable trust with him as trustee or in her individual capacity.
There are 2 other outs if there was not a policy suicide clause.
1. Undoubtedly in his final email of post death instructions for sibs, he disclosed these policies & how to claim.
Ins Co attorney, subpoena that email! Because she received it presuicide, and arguably had the power to stop his death, claiming the payout $ for deaths she could have stopped is arguably fraudulent. (That ins co did not think of this demonstrates their line lawyers’ laziness or actuarily they don’t care what they pay but want a Court to give them PR cover when they do it.)
2. An ultra vires, against public policy, argument.
keep in mind, if there’s no suicide clause, if the sibs don’t take the ins, the Dad’s do from
family trust. btw Blink, wills usually pour over into revocable trusts. ABC does not refer to individual revocable trusts for the two parents, which is the estate planning norm for small estates that want to avoid probate usually due to multistate land ownership, small business etc
Rose-
have you read Lea’s response?
B
disclaimer–not meaning to give legal advice. just lay opinion only based on a single press report.
yes.
I inferred Lea referred to the famiky beneficiary trust as a revocable trust (as it should be) and she was not commenting on the purchasing entities. Whoever did the purchasing (including the trustee of a revocable trust) can change the beneficiary. And I do not know enough about the slayer statutes of either State.
It seems to me such a statute would only impact the payout of some policies, not all, and is a separate issue ftom beneficiary changes. there are 4 covered persons,, hers, his, and each boy. Waiting more from Lea whose insights & legal advice I always appreciate.
PS It would be my ill-informed guess that beneficiary no. 2, the family trust, benefitted the boys with grandfathers as Co-Trustees only. and, since the boys predeceased Dad, Arguably, the legal question if the third beneficiary change to sibs is disallowed by the Court is who should take? at least the boys’ riders. Mom & Dad’s estates will imo. therefore, his will depend on his will.
imo at the time he changed beneficiary from family trust (which I think went to minor boys with granpas as trustees), to his sibs, he was planning the boys ‘ deaths. Otherwise, why change?
Again I think ins co has written this money off & seeks Court cover PRwise for payment to his heirs.
good prep on slayer statutes:
http://www.thefederation.org/documents/schuman.htm
My questions for Lea are does the washington or utah statute govern these ins contracts?
second, does the governing statute require a conviction?
as an aside, would love to know who Powell’s estate attorney was and if there’s a bar investigation.
a few more details
http://www.deseretnews.com/m/article/865551720
the ins co will pay out & it’s common procedure to file this type of case (interpleader) with all the possible payees & let the Court decide. Perhaps Lea can say if Wash or Utah law will be used?
the sibs seem to be following a checklist of instructions from the murderer sent via email.
hopefully those instructions may become part of the Court record
Yeah- you mean like instructions on how to turn off utilities? POS’s, all of them.
I appolly for my language.
B
POS: Urban Dictionary No 1 def (altho it means no. 2)
Rose says: March 11, 2012 at 11:44 pm
“good prep on slayer statutes:
http://www.thefederation.org/documents/schuman.htm
“My questions for Lea are does the washington or utah statute govern these ins contracts?
“second, does the governing statute require a conviction?
“as an aside, would love to know who Powell’s estate attorney was and if there’s a bar investigation.”
Rose:
I would be willing to bet that the parties will not agree as to which state’s laws will apply.
FYI: Utah is not a community property state.
The Utah slayer statute has some very specific provisions that are on-point to your question. Excerpt is below.
In short, the Utah slayer statute would revoke the transfer of property made by Susan Powell to her killer. It would also revoke Susan Powell’s appointment of her killer as a fiduciary or trustee, treating the killer as if he predeceased Susan. The slayer also forfeits any interest he has in Susan’s estate.
Another interesting item: New York Life’s complaint claims that Josh and Susan Powell provided only a portion of the Powell Trust on February 5, 2009. New York Life further asserts that it does not have “possession of the entire Powell Trust.”
The complaint says that “New York Life has been provided with a Declaration of Trust, which includes portions of the Powell Trust Attached.” What we don’t know is if the “Declaration of Trust” is the “portion of the Powell Trust” provided by Joshua Powell and Susan Powell on February 5, 2009.
As to who drafted the trust, given that the complaint alleges the Powells–not an attorney for the Powells–provided a copy of the trust, it’s possible that they drafted it themselves.
~~~~~~~~~
U.C.A. Sect. 75-2-803(3),(4),(5), and (6):
(3) The killing of the decedent by means of a disqualifying homicide:
(a) revokes any revocable:
(i) disposition or appointment of property made by the decedent to the killer in a governing instrument;
(ii) provision in a governing instrument conferring a general or nongeneral power of appointment on the killer; and
(iii) nomination of the killer in a governing instrument, nominating or appointing the killer to serve in any fiduciary or representative capacity, including a personal representative, executor, trustee, or agent; and
(b) severs the interests of the decedent and killer in property held by them at the time of the killing as joint tenants with the right of survivorship, transforming the interests of the decedent and killer into tenancies in common.
(4) A severance under Subsection (3)(b) does not affect any third-party interest in property acquired for value and in good faith reliance on an apparent title by survivorship in the killer unless a writing declaring the severance has been noted, registered, filed, or recorded in records appropriate to the kind and location of the property which are relied upon, in the ordinary course of transactions involving such property, as evidence of ownership.
(5) Provisions of a governing instrument are given effect as if the killer disclaimed all provisions revoked by this section or, in the case of a revoked nomination in a fiduciary or representative capacity, as if the killer predeceased the decedent.
(6) A wrongful acquisition of property or interest by one who kills another under circumstances not covered by this section shall be treated in accordance with the principle that one who kills cannot profit from his wrong.
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE75/htm/75_02_080300.htm
@Lea. Thank you!
Rose:
You are welcome!
FYI: The Washington slayer statute also contains most of the same provisions. The Utah slayer statute’s wording as to trusts may be preferable to Washington law in terms if effectuating the original wording of the Powell Trust that was approved by Susan Powell.
~~~~~~~~~~
Rose says: March 15, 2012 at 8:40 pm
@Lea. Thank you!
Correction: In terms *of*.
I still can’t believe this was the outcome of this case. Two dead children. Two dead adults. One evil bastard. Three innocent souls. Why?
@twinkletoes says:
March 16, 2012 at 1:58 pm
I still can’t believe this was the outcome of this case. Two dead children. Two dead adults. One evil bastard. Three innocent souls. Why?
———————————————
I’m right there w/you Twinkletoes … everyday …
From your mouth to God’s ear …. w h y ?
Genetically pre-disposed, psychopath is the reason. (Like father, like son in this case.) The criminal justice system and obviously CPS of every state in the union needs to do a better job at profiling them in order to protect innocents. The red flags were every where.
Sue,
I’ve been meaning to tell you how much I appreciate your comments. Your experience has taught you and those who work in your industry that the quacking animal is called a Duck.
In our politically correct culture, we see fearful professionals hesitate to make distinctions (judgements) about dangerous individuals. When that happens, other people get hurt.
An example of that sort of thinking is embodied in the CPS worker who coddled Josh Powell and drank his Kool-Aid–but not just her–it seems inherent in the system itself.
When the story broke and we had little information about that CPS worker, I was curious about the comment (was it from Rose?) that questioned this worker’s physical fitness level.
Why was that, I wondered? Is it a common stereotype that I hadn’t known? Are the workers perceived as older, slightly unprofessional, out-of-shape (yes, meaning fat) women?
Unfair to stereotype, but does this point to a lack of discipline at the core of most important agency dedicated to protecting children?
Yes. To Suw and Riverpearl and Lea Conner.
It might be suggested that there should be no visitation whatsoever in family situations in which one is in a position of accusation of killing the other. It is simply too volatile.
A “social worker” is a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW)- requiring a Masters degree and two years of supervised experience and passing a test to get licensed. Maintaining a licence is one aspect of professionalism. This is according to National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and followed by most state child protection agencies. If you are not a MSW & licensed (thus LCSW), then you are a “caseworker”. I am not sure if the women who supervised their visitations was a professional, or a “caseworker”, or a technition, or just a trained paraprofesional. If the state hired professional social workers rather than less qualified people- they would not have the problems or reputation they have. I still have trouble believing this is not a literal nightmare.
Here’s another great example of how CPS handles things in my state (Washington)….
Note: this isn’t the first time this “mother” has driven or had this child in a car, while drugged.
He was taken away when he was six months old and she still thinks it’s a great idea to smoke heroin etc. while in an enclosed place such as a car with the child.
From the looks of this case, CPS thinks that’s okay too.
What is it going to take to put children FIRST?
I have a question- is there any sort of CPS Federal watchgroup?
B
—————————————-
“Boy, 2, appears high on heroin during mom’s arrest”
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Boy-2-appears-high-on-heroin-during-moms-arrest-144036436.html
People who live in the world of drugs and extreme alcoholism are not above drugging a child to keep them quiet so they can persue their addiction. Can we say the C-word?
It appears to me that state legislators need to really take a hard look at the CPS systems they have created. The state of Texas is no better than others in this regard. Little people when given power, ofter abuse it.
I don’t like the idea of the feds getting into anything that the states create.