Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Reaganwuzthebest
OK, reading some other boards, a poster has brought up an interesting thought as to why MG is pressing so hard on the Connor was born alive argument...now that we have heard the data about Laci's newfound wealth. Basically, what it boils down to is this, if Laci dies, and Connor was born, her estate passes on to him. Some states have laws in order for this to happen when there is a close time span for both deaths (Laci and Connor), such as Connor would have had to have survived Laci a certain number of days. Other states, and wills, have no such stipulations. Point being, if they can show Connor survived Laci, Connor therefore inherited her estate. When Connor died, guess who inherited his estate?

Is this the method to the madness? I am no estate planner, but could these people be this sick? I go back to their outrage about the jewelry, We want those back Jackie.

66 posted on 06/09/2004 9:51:14 PM PDT by Rusty Roberts (RB and RG have memories like elephants, thankfully for those of us who read but post infrequently)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]


To: Rusty Roberts

Excellent point, RR!!!

So, let's see. If Connor never makes it out of the womb b/f dying, then he doesn't inherit and no one can inherit from him.

If Connor DOES make it to birth b/f he dies, then... as you said, in this case, there is no way to tell if it was he or Laci who died first, and it appears they died in a "common disaster". In that case, I believe the legal presumption would be made that Connor predeceased Laci. So it all ends with: who is the heir of Laci's separate property(the inheritance)? (Dennis and Sharon, I think.)

So, as I think you are saying here, that legal PRESUMPTION that Connor died first must be overcome. So, they want to try to show that Connor lived some time after his birth, a fair time after his mother was dead. Then, as you said, when Connor died, SCOTT was his heir.


67 posted on 06/09/2004 9:59:00 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: Rusty Roberts

At first glance I figured Geragos was making this argument only with the specific intent of proving Peterson couldn't have murdered his wife. But if it's also being made underhandedly so that down the road if Peterson is found innocent he also claims his wife's estate then I'd say it borders on the sleazy, though some might call it good lawyering. ;^)


69 posted on 06/10/2004 5:24:42 AM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson