Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
What a bizarre -- this is eleven years after her disappearance Pennsylvania mom that's causing her family even more -- this morning.
That's because her ex husband may now be on the hook for 100000 dollars in insurance money he received when she vanished.
But should -- have to pay it back plus interest let's ask our legal Eagles this morning joining us now is trial attorney Remi Spencer.
If former prosecutor David Schwartz -- to see both -- good morning -- let me start with you.
This guy the husband.
Thinks that his wife is probably dead has to wait seven years to declare that she is legally dead that he gets -- insurance money.
And now he may have to pay it back is there any reason why he would have to pay faction was legally dead -- file the paperwork.
I do not believe he should have to pay this money back.
He did wait seven years as you said and now an additional four years later -- -- -- years after his wife went missing.
The wife re appears now of course -- life insurance policy only pays upon someone's death with a 100000 dollars in this case.
And the woman is not dead.
But if anyone should have to pay this policy back -- should be the wife she had ran away and abandoned her family David.
For all -- -- all intents and purposes she was dead.
She vanished she left her family and alert she was dead.
He filed legally that she was -- but you know the policy is a contract in the insurance company -- -- out a 100000 dollars through no fault of their own.
There was a mistake and he received the money by -- -- this two theories there's breach of contract which under that theory the insurance company could get the money back.
Let's read is correct that is also unjust enrichment where he was underwear heist was unjustly enriched he received this money in error.
-- and now the money should go back.
One exception here is that there's no evidence to suggest that this husband knew.
About his -- disappearing act -- he wasn't involved in a conspiracy to defraud the insurance company.
He was -- himself he believed his wife to be dead he was on government assistance because he was struggling financially.
He got a death certificate so there's no fault on the husband's -- ready.
Awful it -- -- -- about fraud and conspiracy or all these factors the bottom line is he receives the money.
It's an error the insurance companies -- the money and therefore.
Under this unjust enrichment.
He is unjustly enriched he now.
Is liable has to pay the money back why wouldn't she have to pay it back well that that's if I were the insurance company I would go after both of them she certainly has she may have some liability to under the contract.
And on to that theory -- so.
It's unlikely however that either of these two individuals are gonna have the money to pay back she was found in a homeless shelter in Florida and we know that.
This money he received -- forty years ago was subject to taxation and no doubt he spent it on his children's education on their home.
On their ability to survive I also think that an insurance company.
Would be wise for public relations reasons not to riders suited him.
Our angle of this you know why we're gonna go after her we're not gonna go -- I would I would pursue it I get the judgment and you know what she may write a book this is a pretty interesting story -- they have some money I think that's fine she.
Who want to read that book.
I certainly not a not her husband but David Schwartz and Remi Spencer great to see news thank you -- -- but it's.
Filter by section