To: Twotone
I'm inclined to think banks so people could not crap out on paying house notes and loans. Seriously there are lots of interests that need to be resolved if someone is missing for a long period of time. Children, spouses need some sort of legal closure. I am not sure what will be done in this very odd case. I suggest he change his name and let the court take legal notice of his new name and consider it a new identity. Although there are legal problems there also.
What is while he was absent he killed someone. Can he be tried now?
5 posted on
10/11/2013 9:37:39 AM PDT by
prof.h.mandingo
(Buck v. Bell (1927) An idea whose time has come (for extreme liberalism))
To: prof.h.mandingo
It may have been something the banks requested, but it looks like the state passed legislation. It still makes no sense. People take off & go missing for years. Why declare them dead? Instead, they should’ve declared his wife & family abandoned. She could’ve declared bankruptcy & gone on with her life.
I certainly agree he should still be held accountable now that he’s re-appeared. But it’s a very odd way to handle the entire situation. And ABSURD to declare an obviously living person has to stay dead. Sheesh!
9 posted on
10/11/2013 10:00:50 AM PDT by
Twotone
(Marte Et Clypeo)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson