Containment What will happen when Barb dies?

[CWCissey]

Barb's final resting place (and I am willing to bet all my Dindus on this) is going to be in an urn, and kept in 14 Branchland Ct, and either the urn or the ashes will somehow find their way into the horde.

Barb's urn will end up in the locker with Bob.

All your Dindu's please!

 

[Plasmid Salamander]

You completely underestimate Cole's abandonment of that woman.

I think it's to think he would even answer the phone.

You'd have an easier time finding the holy grail than you would getting Cole to help Chris with Borb's debt.

 

[Yop Yop]

This only works for children over the age of 18, who live in the same state.

Once there are state lines involved, whatever one state states is negligible. At best a notice is set out, however there is no fiduciary responsibility whatsoever on Cole's end.

Now if he lived in Richmond...

Where are you getting the "live in the same state part"?

 

[Syaoran Li]

The only way Cole would get involved is if he either showed up to Barb's funeral solely for the purposes of emotional closure and Chris confronted him at the funeral, or if he was feeling really spiteful and decided to seize what few worthless assets Barb may have as a final "Fuck You" to Chris. The odds of either of these events happening are astronomically low.

In all honesty, I don't see either of those two scenarios happening at all. As much as Cole hates Chris and Barb, I doubt he'd waste the time and effort to acquire near-worthless property just to fuck over his brother regardless of how much he may hate him. Cole may be an asshole, but he's not that big of an asshole.

Chances are that if Cole is notified of Barb's death, he'll be joyful for a moment and then forget about it and move on with his life as usual. Chris probably won't even enter his mind when it happens.

There is a very, very slim chance Cole may show up to Barb's funeral. But even that is highly unlikely and even if he did show up, he'd keep Chris at a distance and try his best not to acknowledge him.

The most likely scenario is that he won't show up to the funeral at all, won't get involved in any of the aftermath, and just keep on living the shallow and pathetic life of a pretentious New York hipster douchebag.

 

[AnOminous]

Also. I never said there was a law requiring Cole to become and executor.

There's no law requiring Cole to do a single fucking thing. He can walk away without any obligations whatsoever. He has shown no interest in the estate at all and will probably allow Chris to muddle his way through the mess he will be in when Barb dies.

 

[Frozen Fishsticks]

Once Barb dies, Chris will turn 14 Branchland Court into a group home.

 

[AnOminous]

Once Barb dies, Chris will turn 14 Branchland Court into a group home.

Then he won't be put into a group home. He'll be running one.

 

[LocalFireDept]

Once the group home dies, Barb will become ward of the Chris and live in a state.

 

[Frozen Fishsticks]

Then he won't be put into a group home. He'll be running one.

Spoiler

 

[Yop Yop]

There's no law requiring Cole to do a single fucking thing. He can walk away without any obligations whatsoever. He has shown no interest in the estate at all and will probably allow Chris to muddle his way through the mess he will be in when Barb dies.

I'm not sure why you're throwing this strawman at me. I literally never said Cole would be forced into it.

 

[Philosophy Phil]

Where are you getting the "live in the same state part"?

Common legal sense.
This is a Virginia statute is it not?
Cole is a resident of New York, and thus is obligated under New York statutes; now if this was some type of branching federal statute, it would come into question however it is not, so it is not.

Example of State Statutes and the applicability across state lines:
"In Virginia, cars are taxed as personal property; if I purchase a car in Virginia and live there, I pay taxes on it. If I move to Tennessee with that car, I no longer have to pay taxes on it, as I am no longer a resident of Virginia, and thus are not held responsible for that statute, if I am a dual resident of the state, meaning that I still have a house in Virginia while living in Tennessee, then it comes down to "Time spent in state" whether or not I pay taxes on my car."

It is impossible for one state to enforce its own statutes on residents of other states, if the residents of other states have not lived or interacted with that state. That would be like California pushing things on Ohio residents, because there are blood line relatives involved. The system doesn't work like that, and to assume that it does shows a damning ignorance of how state statutes work.

I'm telling you this in multiple ways, so I'll tell you in the most blunt way I can to really get the point across.

Cole has no responsibility whatsoever; its obligated to Chris specifically, and the family members who live within Virginia to do something in the event of Barb's passing. Don't worry, if Chris cannot manage this relatively common practice, Barb will get the burial she deserves; quick and cheap on taxpayer's dime.

 

[LocalFireDept]

I'm not sure why you're throwing this strawman at me. I literally never said Cole would be forced into it.

You said Cole wouldn't want Chris autistically bumbling through paperwork and signing off on something making Cole responsible for all the costs so the taxpayers of Virgina aren't responsible since Lesbian Soul has no money (except for more toys).

I guarantee he doesn't want Chris signing off on something that says Cole himself is responsible for all of Barbs medical debt.

Except Cole can't be held accountable because he's out of state statutes and further more he wants nothing to do with Barb and Chris. He's so bitter even Barb's death probably won't move him.

You're so fucking dumb you can't even comprehend your own argument.

 

[Yop Yop]

Common legal sense.
This is a Virginia statute is it not?
Cole is a resident of New York, and thus is obligated under New York statutes; now if this was some type of branching federal statute, it would come into question however it is not, so it is not.

Example of State Statutes and the applicability across state lines:
"In Virginia, cars are taxed as personal property; if I purchase a car in Virginia and live there, I pay taxes on it. If I move to Tennessee with that car, I no longer have to pay taxes on it, as I am no longer a resident of Virginia, and thus are not held responsible for that statute, if I am a dual resident of the state, meaning that I still have a house in Virginia while living in Tennessee, then it comes down to "Time spent in state" whether or not I pay taxes on my car."

It is impossible for one state to enforce its own statutes on residents of other states, if the residents of other states have not lived or interacted with that state. That would be like California pushing things on Ohio residents, because there are blood line relatives involved. The system doesn't work like that, and to assume that it does shows a damning ignorance of how state statutes work.

I'm telling you this in multiple ways, so I'll tell you in the most blunt way I can to really get the point across.

Cole has no responsibility whatsoever; its obligated to Chris specifically, and the family members who live within Virginia to do something in the event of Barb's passing. Don't worry, if Chris cannot manage this relatively common practice, Barb will get the burial she deserves; quick and cheap on taxpayer's dime.

This is fucking retarded. That's like saying you can knock up some bitch in Cali and escape the child support by moving to Colorado. I'm not sure where you're getting this bullshit but I actually cited the Virginia law on the matter. And no where is it written.

So to quote the dipshit before me "Cite it. Cite that law."

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

My prediction is that when Barb dies, Chris vanishes. Then he surfaces again some time in Los Angeles in 2021 with bulging muscles, calling himself "The Sonic Rocket" and does hardcore porn scenes that makes Max Hardcore's stuff look like a Nick Jr. show. With his newfound confidence, charisma, and good looks, he is finally able to market the Sonichu phenomenon and it blows up, leading the world by storm. He gets a guest spot on The View and later a permanent seat after Oprah Winfrey assassinates Whoopi Goldberg. After making millions off the hit cereal Sonichu Crunch, he retires and becomes a youtube philosopher, become so esteemed among the academic community that the philosophy community ranks him higher than David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and even Stephen Molyneux. He runs as vice-president on the Democratic ticket with Oprah Winfrey. A Duke Nukem style extradimensional invasion and subsequent escapade lands Chris as not only the leader of the USA, but as Grand Vizier of the Entire World. Earth itself becomes CWCville, and humanity is ushered into a new golden age.

 

[Yop Yop]

You said Cole wouldn't want Chris autistically bumbling through paperwork and signing off on something making Cole responsible for all the costs so the taxpayers of Virgina aren't responsible since Lesbian Soul has no money (except for more toys).


Except Cole can't be held accountable because he's out of state statutes and further more he wants nothing to do with Barb and Chris. He's so bitter even Barb's death probably won't move him.

You're so fucking dumb you can't even comprehend your own argument.

I think you fail to understand that the law really doesn't give a shit about what you want.

Here's a passage from a journal published by the university of Richmond saying its open to interpretation. Therefore, possible.



"First, unlike child support laws, where federal law re- quires enforcement in all fifty states,15 it is unclear whether an adult child living outside of Virginia would be liable—state courts conflict on whether other state filial responsibility laws apply to their citizens.16 Second, the law‘s language is open to interpreta- tion, leaving practitioners with little guidance.17 Third, with the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid in the last century, the statute‘s very purpose—to provide a safety net for the aging and indigent—no longer carries the same urgency, leaving the statute open to exploitation for matters of sibling rivalry or parent-child conflicts, rather than providing a social good. For these reasons, Virginia should act preemptively to either repeal or amend the statute. "

 

[Chopinpiano]

Cole has not had any connection with his mother since 2000. I doubt he will be liable for anything in the end. Chris is going to be in an astronomical amount of debt. In which, unless a miracle happens; he won't be able to pay off. Maybe if he sold all his legos and video games he'd have some money.

Who knows, maybe Chris won't even announce Barb's death and leave her corpse rotting.

 

[LocalFireDept]

I think you fail to understand that the law really doesn't give a shit about what you want.

Here's a passage from a journal published by the university of Richmond saying its open to interpretation. Therefore, possible.



"First, unlike child support laws, where federal law re- quires enforcement in all fifty states,15 it is unclear whether an adult child living outside of Virginia would be liable—state courts conflict on whether other state filial responsibility laws apply to their citizens.16 Second, the law‘s language is open to interpreta- tion, leaving practitioners with little guidance.17 Third, with the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid in the last century, the statute‘s very purpose—to provide a safety net for the aging and indigent—no longer carries the same urgency, leaving the statute open to exploitation for matters of sibling rivalry or parent-child conflicts, rather than providing a social good. For these reasons, Virginia should act preemptively to either repeal or amend the statute. "

Pretty sure that'll just end with it being an insolvent estate and Chris loses 14BC and get no inheritance at worst. You don't inherit debt like that.

The article you quoted is about filial responsibility which only covers an obligation to take care of a parent in destitute condition and it's debatable if a court will rule that Cole has to if Chris is deemed functional. Even then, it would be hard to force Cole in the age where medical insurance can cover her care if she doesn't kick the bucket first. Again, those debts won't be inherited. He doesn't have to take care of her funeral or it's costs if they can't be paid as they would come out of the assets of the estate.

 

[Angel Bob]

Re medical debt: In my experience when someone who's been in a nursing home dies, the state seizes their house (if their spouse is still living there, this happens after they die) and auctions it off. They write off whatever debt remains. I'm not sure what happens if you die in a hospital/hospice, but I imagine its not very different.

This is a powerlevel but I haven't seen my dad since I was 4 and have no idea where he lives. A few years ago he must have been in the hospital because I get calls every so often from a creditor looking for him and trying to get me to pay off his bill. It hasn't affected my credit so I seriously doubt they could actually make Cole take over any debt she leaves.

 

[JULAY]

I think you fail to understand that the law really doesn't give a shit about what you want.

Here's a passage from a journal published by the university of Richmond saying its open to interpretation. Therefore, possible.



"First, unlike child support laws, where federal law re- quires enforcement in all fifty states,15 it is unclear whether an adult child living outside of Virginia would be liable—state courts conflict on whether other state filial responsibility laws apply to their citizens.16 Second, the law‘s language is open to interpreta- tion, leaving practitioners with little guidance.17 Third, with the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid in the last century, the statute‘s very purpose—to provide a safety net for the aging and indigent—no longer carries the same urgency, leaving the statute open to exploitation for matters of sibling rivalry or parent-child conflicts, rather than providing a social good. For these reasons, Virginia should act preemptively to either repeal or amend the statute. "

You don't know what you're talking about, at all. Allow me to demonstrate.

The only possible way that Chris or Cole would inherit any debt of Barb's is under the Commonwealth of Virginia's Filial Responsibility Statute, which can be found here:

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title20/chapter5/section20-88/

I'll quote the relevant parts of the law, just to make it clear that you are 100% incorrect in your assertions, and just to make it easy since you seem to have some sort of intellectual disability, I'll bold the important parts:

"It shall be the joint and several duty of all persons eighteen years of age or over, of sufficient earning capacity or income, after reasonably providing for his or her own immediate family, to assist in providing for the support and maintenance of his or her mother or father, he or she being then and there in necessitous circumstances."

Chris doesn't have sufficient earning capacity or income, unless a bunch of faggots decide to start giving him literally thousands of dollars a month on Patreon or something.

"All proceedings under this section shall conform as nearly as possible to the proceedings under the other provisions of this chapter, and the other provisions of this chapter shall apply to cases arising under this section in like manner as though they were incorporated in this section. Prosecutions under this section shall be in the jurisdiction where the parent or parents reside."

In other words, action can only be brought against an individual under this statute in the state of Virginia. Cole doesn't live in Virginia. Also, this is a misdemeanor offense, and most jurisdictions won't extradite for a misdemeanor, especially when it's predicated on violation of an extremely rarely enforced law like this one.

"This section shall not apply if there is substantial evidence of desertion, neglect, abuse or willful failure to support any such child by the father or mother, as the case may be, prior to the child's emancipation or, except as provided hereafter in this section, if a parent is otherwise eligible for and is receiving public assistance or services under a federal or state program."

There is ample evidence that Barb and her various cohabitators abused the shit out of Cole in various ways when he was a kid. So again, the statute would not apply.

Finally, Virginia's filial responsibility law has only ever been applied to supporting an aged parent prior to their death, and case law in the past 50 years demonstrates that only has been applied by the court to medical debt. Chris gets a tugboat and basically nothing else, so he won't be held responsible even for those debts. Cole lives out of state and could make a very strong case that Barb was an abusive, abjectly unfit parent, so he won't be held responsible either.

Now, please stop embarrassing yourself by pretending to understand the law as it applies to estates and filial responsibility in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Chris and Cole won't be held responsible for shit. Chris will lose the house because it has a second (or third) mortgage, which is a secured debt, so the lender will put a lien on it and force a sale if they want to satisfy the balance of the mortgage. Aside from that, Chris will be free and clear of any of Barb's financial obligations once she dies.

 

[Philosophy Phil]

This is fucking exceptional. That's like saying you can knock up some bitch in Cali and escape the child support by moving to Colorado. I'm not sure where you're getting this bullshit but I actually cited the Virginia law on the matter. And no where is it written.

So to quote the dipshit before me "Cite it. Cite that law."

I normally don't get upset at users here for being exceptional, it is to be expected. This is how I view Chris as well, I don't get upset, it is to be expected. You however are being obstinate in your belief, which has been on multiple times been called incorrect, on an assertion you believe to be certain. This is either sheer exceptionalism, or you have a personal interest in seeing that your assertion holds true; in which we will perform this dissection of your motives live before the whole of the Farms. This is not because "I am a bully" but rather, "You have acted so exceptional, that you are essentially asking to be dissected."

But before that, let's rip the teeth out of your argument by addressing the strawman you've proposed. Child Support=Passing of a Family Member.

First off, there are federal statutes regarding Child Support, meaning that most states have some form of Generally Accepted Practice when it comes to this. This is because Child Support is an idea of "Maintaining Life." However, Child Support claims are specified directly within the state of the occurrence. Meaning that if you knock someone up, stay in the state long enough to be brought to court, (whether this be via free will or court ordered[bounty hunter]) then you pay child support according to that state's statutes. However, if you leave the state before doing this, then you can get away with it a bit. However, if the woman who is knocked up pursues the case, the attorneys of the state of conception will talk with the attorneys of the state of paternal reception, and then the case happens. However, this is only true BECAUSE each state has its own Generally Accepted Child Support methodology, and the process takes a long while; but this is okay because the child has plenty of years to grow and live. It's not like a rotting body.

So, let's simplify that down a little bit for your exceptional chimp like mind to understand. Child support cases are different because why? Because there is a generally accepted statute in each state and the period in which the main person of interest is concerned (the child) is 18 years. If Cole and Barb had an incest son under the age of 18, he could, and would be obligated to pay child support if the case was approached.

Now, when it comes to the Passing of Relatives, there is not a generally accepted statute across the 50 states, this falls more under the "Taxable Personal Property" example I had brought up to you before. This is because it is to be assumed (On a general population basis) that the immediate PROXIMITY of the deceased is to take care of arrangements, and not the immediate BLOODLINE of the deceased. The reason the case can't be opened as per funeral arrangements because the person of interest (the deceased) only has a week until something HAS to be done; whether this is by the local government (Cheapo Funeral on Tax payer's dime), the individual's PROXIMITY (Chandler family/friends in Virginia)[Due to Virginia statutes, as you quoted before, this means ALL FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF VIRGINIA HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY IF THE DIRECT CHAIN OF PROMIXITY IS UNABLE TO FULFILL THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES.] [Examples of Failure to Fulfill; Severe Mental Illness [As in needing to be held inpatient on a regular basis], Incarceration, Military Deployment, etc; any of which Chris cannot claim, [laziness and stress are not legal excusues]] by third party benefactor (Kiwifarms takes the body from the Morgue and jettisons it out of a cargo plane; their Church helps pay a part of the funeral.)

Let's simplify this for you though, because I don't believe your mind is able to process these concepts. Let's put it into a simple word problem for you.
"Null has a son named a semi autistic, but functioning son Bluespike whom he hasn't talked to in over 30 years and the two live in seperate states; and lives with his other son, Marvin who is very autistic but passes the bar for "fit for active member of society" for the past 15 years. Null passes away, who is to arrange his funeral? The Son who he hasn't talked to in over 30 years, or The Son who he has lived with for the past 15? The answer, is The Son who he has lived with for the past 15, because there is a timeline of a week for arrangements to be completed, or else the local government, Kiwifarms, will feed his rotting corpse to the pig pen at the personal cost expense of the users."

Now we can go into "But muh Virginia statutes say..." which is fine and dandy; if the person of interest did not have a deadline of a week. When it comes to things such as "Finances and debt of the deceased" this is a matter completely different all together, however this is usually done via an attorney of the family, or a state assigned one. That is where things can get a bit tricky, HOWEVER; to pursue the matter in civil court would end up in more debt for the plaintiff than the defendant will be obligated to help pay, and a ruling is NOT guarenteed, especially the relationship status of the defendent and the deceased. Most debt (unless it is substaintual ) [500,000K+] is usually written off by collectors, and the proximity usually never goes out of state, or beyond siblings/children/parents.

To put this into perspective:
A: Chris and his immediate Proximity circle HAS to financially be responsible to Barb's funeral/burial costs, or its left up to the local Government.
B: Chris CAN seek to pursue Cole if Barb's debts ARE pushed unto him, citing the statute you posted.
C: Chris WOULD pay personal attorney's cost to address the matter, which would not be resolved for at least a year (meaning that the attorney's cost [unless pro bono] will exceed the debts that COULD exist
D: A ruling COULD say, "Okay Cole, you are obligated to pay a certain percentage of the deceased debts because you are genetic blood" however, this would not be a full as Chris is the genetic blood of the deceased.
E: A Ruling COULD say "Wow, it sounds like she didn't care about you whatsoever, you are not obligated to pay any of her debts, as you are not a resident of the state of the deceased." Which means Chris still HAS to pay the deceased debt, his NEW attorney debt, AND the court costs.

Why B-E won't happen: The debt COULD be written off, and if it isn't then that takes actual work, and ALOT of money; something of which Chris would not do. He'll make angry Facebook posts and ask for money. Chris is going to have to "Adult it" and face reality. Cole has no ties [other than genetic] to Barb, which would mean that he'd be on the proximity IF he lived in Virginia, due to the statute.

Now that the teeth are out the your argument, let's dissect you, Yop Yop, member since Janurary 19th, from Mexico, not even a week old to Kiwifarms.

Why, [if you are really from Mexico] do you think you understand how the Republic of the United States functions? You wouldn't understand it, unless you are from the United States, and work specifically in a legal fashion. I do not know of Mexican statutes so I don't voice opinion on them if I had them. So, your argument when it comes to speaker relevance has no basis.

Secondly, why are you adamant on defending Chris' position in this situation? Either: You are a White Knight [in which you deserve to be ridiculed] or You don't like people disagreeing with your headcanon [in which you deserve to be ridiculed]. Since you are a new member as of Friday, however seem relatively knowledgable about Chris' situation, it would appear to me that you are a secondary/tetiarary account of a previous user, aka "A sockpuppet" in which you deserve to be ridiculed. On a personal character basis, your argument has no basis. If you are a sincere new user who has just been lurking, then I will offer you the same advice as I was when I first started posting "Look, don't speak, and learn the culture before offering up an opinion, or be ridiculed for having one"; if you fight back or get upset about this, you will be publicly ridiculed for it. If you do it to the VERY wrong people, you WILL be doxxed. This is not a place where you can take your personal ego and flaunt it off like its all that. We do not care what your opinion is or how strongly you believe in it. If forum users are telling you "You are wrong, that is incorrect" then you best better accept that your opinion is wrong and incorrect, if you try to defend yourself against this, this only fuels our fire, makes us mark your posts as "Autistic, Dumb, or A-Log."

If you are not a sincerely new poster, then please kindly fuck off right where you came from. Your argument has been publicly disassembled, if you defend it at this point, you are either an extreme fool who deserves to be ridiculed, or there's something deeper about your dedication to Chris' position, in which you deserve to be ridiculed.

Tl;Dr edition.
"You are wrong, there's the door. Either shut up or get out."