TP crashes in building, part 2

[LPC]

Stack probably had some sort of home owner's policy, generating some liability coverage, but that would ordinarily exclude intentional torts and would not cover the destroyed house; that's a more interesting issue, actually. Can the wife recover for the damage to the home even though intentionally caused by the other member of the community? I don't know.

It gets murkier. Stark purchased the home two months before they were married. His is the only name on the property records.

She would have a tiny community interest -- if any -- representing the increased value between marriage and destruction.

Residential property values have gone *up* in Texas in the last two years?

I don't think she could recover anything unless (a) she was an named insured under the homeowners policy and (b) she had a community interest in the property.

My guess is that she's SOL.

[Pottapaug1938]

I think this either is a classic case of an ambulance chaser taking advantage of a widow in her grief or an attorney hoping to get some publicity and reputation as an agressive successful litigator. Whatever the reason, this is a situation that is going to make Mrs. Hunter look to be more concerned with the bottom line rather than the loss of her husband.

Either way, this shyster must have had surgery to remove the part of his brain wherein his conscience is, because such a sociopath has no shame at all. He looks in the mirror and sees not a shyster but a Beautiful Person Who Deserves All He Can Get.

[LPC]

The widow of the Internal Revenue Service employee killed when a Texas man crashed his plane into the agency's Austin office is suing the pilot's widow.

Attorney Daniel Ross says the lawsuit against Sheryl Stack seeks to determine if the pilot left behind insurance policies or other assets.

[...]

The lawsuit filed Monday says Sheryl Stack should have warned others about her husband.

As described, this lawsuit is so wrong on so many levels, legal, moral, and ethical, that's difficult to know where to start.

First off, liability normally flows from the breach of a duty, and I'll be real curious to hear what duty the widow owed to anyone to do anything. At common law, there is no duty to rescue or help anyone, so you can stand on the shore of a lake and watch a swimmer drown and not be in any breach of any duty to anyone. Some states have changed those rules, but I wouldn't expect Texas to be among them. (In Texas, people standing on the shore probably have the right to *shoot* drowning swimmers.)

Secondly, most states recognize a spousal privilege that bars one spouse from testifying against another. So the lawsuit is alleging that the widow breached a duty by failing to disclose something that she could not legally be required to disclose?

And then there is the problem of causation, proximate or otherwise. Even if she had told someone something, do we have any reason to believe that anyone would have done anything? We know what would have happened if she had sent a memo to the President of the United States titled "Joseph Stack Determined to Attack Inside United States," and we know what would have happened if she had gone to the American embassy in Nigeria to disclose her concerns. The local police would have done more with a report of what looked like a domestic dispute?

And on what basis is this lawyer entitled to assume that the widow knew anything that was different from what the neighbors and co-workers knew (i.e., nothing)?

The final straw for me is the report of the lawyer's admission that the suit has no real merit, but "seeks to determine if the pilot left behind insurance policies or other assets." But why not just sue the deceased husband's estate? Why threaten the wife with legal liability?

They say that there is no such thing as bad publicity, but I hope that the publicity surrounding this lawsuit is the exception, and that there are court-imposed sanctions, ethical complaints, and a loss of other clients disgusted by his behavior.

[Noah]

Attorney Daniel Ross says the lawsuit against Sheryl Stack seeks to determine if the pilot left behind insurance policies or other assets.

[...]

The lawsuit filed Monday says Sheryl Stack should have warned others about her husband.

As described, this lawsuit is so wrong on so many levels, legal, moral, and ethical, that's difficult to know where to start.

I wonder if Bill Ross and Daniel Ross are related.

(In Texas, people standing on the shore probably have the right to *shoot* drowning swimmers.)

Now this made me laugh out loud when I read it.... Good one

[Demosthenes]

You all are focusing on the legal issues, but I'm far more concerned about the potential for future violence. The majority of TDs I watch have been struggling with the fact that while they respect Stack's act of defiance, they are morally opposed to the murder of a random IRS employee, a 68-year old Vietnam veteran who left behind a widow and six children.

When that victimized widow turns out to be money grubbing IRS agent who immediately attacks Mrs. Stark, an obviously sympathetic victim in this whole mess, the shift in the dynamic could have disasterous consequences.

The movement is a tinderbox right now. Mrs. Hunter's ugly lawsuit could very well provide the match.

[Famspear]

Stack probably had some sort of home owner's policy, generating some liability coverage, but that would ordinarily exclude intentional torts and would not cover the destroyed house; that's a more interesting issue, actually. Can the wife recover for the damage to the home even though intentionally caused by the other member of the community? I don't know.

It gets murkier. Stark purchased the home two months before they were married. His is the only name on the property records.

She would have a tiny community interest -- if any -- representing the increased value between marriage and destruction. I don't know how casualty policies work if the property is titled as separte property of the husband but the wife has a minimal community interest because of increase in value after marriage.

Marital property rights are not my area of expertise and it's been a long time since law school, but my memory is that under Texas law, there would be generally no community interest in the husband's separate property (so to speak), even if the property increased in value during the marriage.

Indeed, one of the law school hypos (for Texas) that I seem to remember is pretty harsh:

1. Husband buys house one week before marriage, puts zero money down (100% financing).

2. Couple gets married, wife pays 100% of the debt over time. Hubby is a deadbeat, never works or brings any income in.

3. Wife files for divorce. She wants Texas Family Court to enter judgment giving her the house.

Result: Wife loses.

Texas follows Inception of Title rule. Despite the fact that wife paid 100% of the debt, the house is 100% separate property of husband. Under Texas law, payment of debt on house does not in and of itself transmute separate property into community property. Further, Texas Family Court has no power to enter judgment for outright transfer of separate property of one spouse to the other spouse. However, Wife who paid all the bills, etc., for deadbeat Hubby may have claim for economic contribution under Tex. Family Code sec. 3.402. But, under section 3.404, the claim for economic contribution does not modify the Inception of Title rule. The house is still 100% Hubby’s separate property. Wife theoretically has no “ownership interest” in the property – just a claim “against” the property, to use the verbiage of section 3.404(b). Buuuuut, Family Court can also recognize equitable lien under section 3.406 to secure payment of the claim for economic contribution (I would argue that the lien is obviously a “property right”, so the statutory language may be overly hair-splitting).

Is my memory of Texas law incorrect? Or, is my memory formerly correct (with Texas law having been changed since law school over 20 years ago)?

You all are focusing on the legal issues, but I'm far more concerned about the potential for future violence.

Good point.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Not to be redundant, but if he was current in his aircraft insurance and carried typical liability coverage, the insurance company is normally required to provide defense counsel for anything involving his operation of the plane. Finding the carrier is simple and doesn't require a suit.

Suing the wife is beyond obnoxious.

[bmielke]

The movement is a tinderbox right now. Mrs. Hunter's ugly lawsuit could very well provide the match.

Good point...

I really hope nothing happens, it could get really ugly and I would hate to see more Federal Employees hurt or killed over a stupid lawsuit that could have waited 6 months to a year.

I would especially like to note that it is a census year and there will be a lot of undertrained federal emplyees out and about.

[Pottapaug1938]

Suing the wife is beyond obnoxious.

I doubt that this lawyer cares what we think of him, as long as his bank account gets fattened.

[grixit]

Well first, i did predict this. Second, i'm pretty sure that the suit is against the estate, but that Stack's widow is responsible for overseeing that, assuming there's no will naming someone else as executor.

Third, doesn't the widow of the victim deserve some sort of compensation for her own losses?

[Cpt Banjo]

It's not possible that the widow has been appointed as executrix of the estate. Texas law requires a minimum of ten days between the posting of citation (which usually happens just after the will is filed for probate) and the hearing at which the executor is appointed. Like others have noted, this smells like a suit against the widow individually where the plaintiff's looking for insurance coverage. The suit against the estate will come later.

[Demosthenes]

Second, i'm pretty sure that the suit is against the estate

I doesn't sound that way to me.

Form the local Austin paper:

The widow of an Internal Revenue Service employee killed when authorities said Andrew Joseph Stack III flew his plane into an office building has sued Stack’s wife, saying she should have warned others about her husband.

According to the seven-page lawsuit filed in Travis County court, Sheryl Mann Stack had a duty to “avoid a foreseeable risk of injury to others,” including Vernon Hunter, who was killed Thursday.

“Stack was threatened enough by Joseph Stack that she took her daughter and stayed at a hotel the night before the plane crash,” the suit said.

[Demosthenes]

My guess is that Hunter's kids will also file suit. It's my understanding that the suing widow is their step-mother.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
Third, doesn't the widow of the victim deserve some sort of compensation for her own losses?

This is going to get worse. I'm sure some bright attorney will take victim's families' through the looking glass.

Did any of the families of victims of the Pentagon 9/11 attack prevail in a civil suit?

[LPC]

I doubt that this lawyer cares what we think of him, as long as his bank account gets fattened.

I doubt that this lawyer will ever get a dollar from this case, for the simple reason that there's no foreseeable defendant with any assets. All he's doing is costing the *other* widow legal fees and stress.

It's a combination of grandstanding and bottom-feeding.

(Which reminds me of a joke: What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?

Answer: One's a cold-blooded, slimy, bottom-feeder and the other is a fish.)

[LPC]

The suit against the estate will come later.

What estate?

Stack setting fire to his own home might not have been an act of senseless rage, but an intentional (and literal) "scorched earth" tactic to make sure that "they" (the IRS, the banks, etc.) got nothing.

And he probably succeeded, leaving nothing but charred ruins now owned by the secured creditors, with no equity anywhere.

[Prof]

She would have a tiny community interest -- if any -- representing the increased value between marriage and destruction. I don't know how casualty policies work if the property is titled as separte property of the husband but the wife has a minimal community interest because of increase in value after marriage.

Marital property rights are not my area of expertise and it's been a long time since law school, but my memory is that under Texas law, there would be generally no community interest in the husband's separate property (so to speak), even if the property increased in value during the marriage.

Indeed, one of the law school hypos (for Texas) that I seem to remember is pretty harsh:

1. Husband buys house one week before marriage, puts zero money down (100% financing).

2. Couple gets married, wife pays 100% of the debt over time. Hubby is a deadbeat, never works or brings any income in.

3. Wife files for divorce. She wants Texas Family Court to enter judgment giving her the house.

Result: Wife loses.

Texas follows Inception of Title rule. Despite the fact that wife paid 100% of the debt, the house is 100% separate property of husband. Under Texas law, payment of debt on house does not in and of itself transmute separate property into community property. Further, Texas Family Court has no power to enter judgment for outright transfer of separate property of one spouse to the other spouse. However, Wife who paid all the bills, etc., for deadbeat Hubby may have claim for economic contribution under Tex. Family Code sec. 3.402. But, under section 3.404, the claim for economic contribution does not modify the Inception of Title rule. The house is still 100% Hubby’s separate property. Wife theoretically has no “ownership interest” in the property – just a claim “against” the property, to use the verbiage of section 3.404(b). Buuuuut, Family Court can also recognize equitable lien under section 3.406 to secure payment of the claim for economic contribution (I would argue that the lien is obviously a “property right”, so the statutory language may be overly hair-splitting).

Is my memory of Texas law incorrect? Or, is my memory formerly correct (with Texas law having been changed since law school over 20 years ago)

Mea culpa. I wrote too rapidly. The increase in value of separate property does not benefit the other spouse. Texas, for years, had a "contribution" statute -- contributions to separate by the other spouse were to be recovered; it recently changed the Family Code to a provision allowing a claim for reimbursement by the non-owner spouse, but reimbursement is subject to offsets for the use of the separate property by the other spouse.

As to LPC's question, in the last two years, even in many very desirable neighborhoods, there has been little or no appreciation in price-- although there are probably exceptions in some inburb neighborhoods with "private" school districts like Highland Park in Dallas and Alamo Heights in SA.

[Nikki]

Is the suit soeley against the widow, or are there other 'deep pocket' parties names -- such as the aircraft insuror?

I'm surprised the FAA or the airport wasn't named for allowing him to take off.

In any case, there's a long history of less than fully reputable attorneys trolling for cases where there's a chance to rack up some fees from a defendant who is willing to pay up to avoid court. All you need to do is erad the Parade magazine every third week to find some firm trolling for victims in a class-action suit or settlement.

Despite the above, although the widow and children could be reasonably entitled to compensation for wrongful death, it's quite a stretch to associate a specific intent to kill one specific person with an airplane crash into a building occupied by probably thousands.

Although Demo worries (not without some justification) that this suit will light the fuse of some people on the edge of violence, there's always the possibility that those few who still have a couple of functional neurons might consider the aftermath financial impact on their families before they go totally over the edge.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Is the suit soeley against the widow, or are there other 'deep pocket' parties names -- such as the aircraft insuror?

Assuming he was current.

I'm surprised the FAA or the airport wasn't named for allowing him to take off.

That's a blind alley, trust me. There's not a lot you can do at a small airport to stop someone even if you knew he was suicidal.

[LDE]

The attorney for Mrs. Hunter was on the local t.v. news last night. He claims the only reason for the suit is that the family seeks to block the release of the autopsy. The suit is solely because it's the only way to obtain a restraining order to prevent the autopsy results from being made public, which are said to be extremely horrifying and unsuitable for the grandchildren to hear of. The restraining order wouuld have to be attached to a case at law.

That said, not many people around here believe him.

Another angle is that Stack's daughter called her father a hero in an interview. When pressed, she admitted that his solution shouldn't have involved violence but she still considered him a hero. To which Hunter's son retorted that his dad had served two tours of duty in Vietnam, and he was the hero, not Stack.

So while the family is expressing sympathy for Mrs. Hunter, they may well want to keep the daughter from inheriting a cent of any insurance.

The best part: The daughter was interviewed in Norway, where she moved so she can get free government health care that was unavailable here in the States.

By the way, I've been in that Echelon building at least twice.