Pat Fancher, Alabama Mother Attempts To Deny Her Dead Son's Husband His Estate

  • metta

    Posts: 39075

    Sep 12, 2014 2:31 PM GMT
    ALABAMA MOTHER ATTEMPTS TO DENY HER DEAD SON'S HUSBAND HIS ESTATE


    6a00d8341c730253ef01b8d068365f970c-800wi
    (the photo is her. the link in the photo might be her...not sure. It is the only one with that name in Alabama listed under the whitepages)


    " Alabama man David Fancher was killed in an auto accident in 2011 and left his estate to his husband, Paul Hard. He and Hard were married in Massachusetts just three months earlier after having been a couple for over six years. However, Alabama’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment denies the validity of their marriage, so Hard is suing the state decrying the amendment as unconstitutional, and thus entitling Hard as Fancher's legal husband to half of his estate.

    Enter David Fancher's mother Pat Fancher, who has been granted the right to intervene in the case and does not want her son’s name used to advance the cause of same-sex marriage"

    http://www.towleroad.com/2014/09/alabama-mother-attempts-to-deny-her-dead-sons-husband-his-estate.html
  • metta

    Posts: 39075

    Sep 12, 2014 2:36 PM GMT
    Southern Poverty Law Center Defends Gay Widower From His Mother-In-Law

    "Hospital workers refused to provide a frantic Paul Hard any information about his husband's condition. A receptionist callously told Paul that he was not a member of Fancher's family because "gay marriages" are not recognized in Alabama. After an hour of pleading for information, Paul learned his beloved partner had died from a sympathetic hospital orderly. The following day, the funeral home director informed Paul that pursuant to Alabama law, David's death certificate would indicate he had never been married. The administrator of David's estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit, but again, because of Alabama law, ignored Paul's loss. David's mother would be the beneficiary of any award. Paul has no standing. Paul decided not to go away with his tail between his legs. He decided to sue Alabama."

    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/tags/pat_fancher
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Sep 12, 2014 4:45 PM GMT
    Article IV, Section 1:

    "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

    As usual, I have no idea why we are arguing this under the 14th Amendment and not the Article VI Full Faith and Credit Clause. Their marriage certificate from Massachusetts is a "public act and record" of that State, and must be recognized in every other State (do str8 couples have to get re-married each time they move states? No, and this is why).

    I am praying to god that when we finally get to SCOTUS, someone will argue from Art.VI and not 14th Amendment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2014 5:07 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy saidArticle IV, Section 1:

    "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

    As usual, I have no idea why we are arguing this under the 14th Amendment and not the Article VI Full Faith and Credit Clause. Their marriage certificate from Massachusetts is a "public act and record" of that State, and must be recognized in every other State (do str8 couples have to get re-married each time they move states? No, and this is why).

    I am praying to god that when we finally get to SCOTUS, someone will argue from Art.VI and not 14th Amendment.


    ^This. Definitely a full faith and credit issue which should be dispositive.
  • Muscles25

    Posts: 394

    Sep 12, 2014 6:16 PM GMT
    Full faith and credit clause doesn't apply when it conflicts with the law of another sovereign state. Any idiot knows that.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Sep 12, 2014 6:30 PM GMT
    Muscles25 saidFull faith and credit clause doesn't apply when it conflicts with the law of another sovereign state. Any idiot knows that.


    Then you've got two real idiot lawyers right above you disagreeing with you. The "law" doesn't disagree with the "law" of a state. "Vital Records" (births, marriages, and deaths) are all "public acts and records" under Article 6. California does not require me to present a "California" birth certificate, if I have one from New York; it doesn't require me to get a "California" death certificate, if I have one from New York; it doesn't require me to get a "California" marriage certificate, if I have one from New York.

    You're confusing a contract with a "public act and record." Back to "Wiki Law School" for you. Idiot.
  • Being

    Posts: 191

    Sep 12, 2014 6:58 PM GMT
    I think that they should have additional contracts and other protections instead of just relying on gay marriage. it isn't fair but it's better than in a situation like this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2014 7:49 PM GMT
    Being saidI think that they should have additional contracts and other protections instead of just relying on gay marriage. it isn't fair but it's better than in a situation like this.

    That what we've done, for our medical and property. Because we also live in a Red State that doesn't recognize gay marriage from any other States. So far it's worked well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2014 8:04 PM GMT
    If Mr. Fancher had written a will, or placed his worldly goods in a living trust for his partner (husband), would the mother be able to bring her action now?
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Sep 12, 2014 8:21 PM GMT
    Jockbod48 saidIf Mr. Fancher had written a will, or placed his worldly goods in a living trust for his partner (husband), would the mother be able to bring her action now?


    She could cause a stink in probate, but she wouldn't win!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2014 8:32 PM GMT
    Bitch.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2014 9:12 PM GMT
    What a hateful bitch.

    As I said many times, friend went through the same thing when his partner died. The family of the deceased said at the funeral they would honor their sons wishes. As soon as it was over, they went after the houses and his pension. My friend lost half because they did not have any legal documents.

    When will people learn? Death brings out the greedy assholes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2014 9:15 PM GMT
    Guy101 saidBitch.


    Exactly!

    Fritter away whatever assets on attorney fees, Mommy, the bottom line is that your son was GAY!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2014 9:44 PM GMT
    Very sad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2014 10:22 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy saidArticle IV, Section 1:

    "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

    As usual, I have no idea why we are arguing this under the 14th Amendment and not the Article VI Full Faith and Credit Clause. Their marriage certificate from Massachusetts is a "public act and record" of that State, and must be recognized in every other State (do str8 couples have to get re-married each time they move states? No, and this is why).

    I am praying to god that when we finally get to SCOTUS, someone will argue from Art.VI and not 14th Amendment.



    Is it possible for a gay man to divorce his hostile parents to keep this from happening?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2014 11:00 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidIs it possible for a gay man to divorce his hostile parents to keep this from happening?


    That's an interesting question. Legal emancipation for adult children from a homophobic family. Adult adoption maybe? I know of a couple who tried that back in the late 80s/early 90s but when the older partner died, his already aged partner, by then nearing retirement age himself, was left with nothing after more than 30 years together-and they had a very loving relationship--because the family attacked the adoption and won. They guy lost even their house.

    Maybe if they did it the other way around, had the younger adopted the older who had the trust fund, maybe that would have severed his family's rights? Curious.

    If homophobic parents can just throw their gay kids out onto the streets, we should be able to throw them away too. Fair is fair.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2014 11:06 PM GMT
    Power of attorney, people!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2014 11:33 PM GMT
    Jockbod48 saidIf Mr. Fancher had written a will, or placed his worldly goods in a living trust for his partner (husband), would the mother be able to bring her action now?

    The article reads, "Fancher was killed in an auto accident in 2011 and left his estate to his husband, Paul Hard." - which would imply that Francher had left a will stating his intentions - but then the article goes on to say, "Hard is suing the state decrying the amendment as unconstitutional, and thus entitling Hard as Fancher's legal husband to half of his estate." which implies that there was no will (otherwise Hard wouldn't have to sue). If Francher had written a will, he could have left his *entire* estate to Hard even if they were never married.

    I'm all for gay marriage, but the story here should be more about why it's important for everyone to have a will - whether you're str8 married, gay married, shacked up/domestically partnered or just plain single - than simply about why we need gay marriage.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Sep 12, 2014 11:40 PM GMT
    Six5Denver said
    Jockbod48 saidIf Mr. Fancher had written a will, or placed his worldly goods in a living trust for his partner (husband), would the mother be able to bring her action now?

    The article reads, "Hard is suing the state decrying the amendment as unconstitutional, and thus entitling Hard as Fancher's legal husband to half of his estate.", so yes if he had written a will, Fancher could have left his *entire* estate to Hard if that was his choice.

    I'm all for gay marriage, but the story here should be more about why it's important for everyone to have a will - whether you're str8 married, gay married, shacked up/domestically partnered or just plain single - than why we need gay marriage.


    He didn't have to "write a will", he WAS his "legal husband" under Art.VI of the Constitution. That's the "point". We needed a 14th Amendment argument to GET "legal marriage" as a "public act and record" of just ONE state. No state "recognizes" the public acts and records of others because they "want" to, "like" to, "think it's cool" to... they MUST, under Art.VI, "recognize" them.

    And that's where this (legal) argument is going: You're watching the transference from 14th Amendment pleading to Full Faith and Credit pleading; this case is actually a "good", even if it appears not to be, for Hard, at the moment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2014 4:54 AM GMT
    bon_pan saidPower of attorney, people!
    Establishing/assigning Power(s) of Attorney is an important safeguard for situations that occur when you're still alive - like if you become mentally or physically incapacitated and can't manage your own affairs or make healthcare decisions - but POA doesn't serve any purpose once you're dead.
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Sep 13, 2014 5:38 AM GMT
    bon_pan saidPower of attorney, people!

    How about a Will
    and to anyone contesting it, leave them a buck
  • metta

    Posts: 39075

    Sep 13, 2014 5:42 AM GMT
    AMoonHawk said
    bon_pan saidPower of attorney, people!

    How about a Will
    and to anyone contesting it, leave them a buck


    Why a buck?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2014 6:19 AM GMT
    Six5Denver said
    bon_pan saidPower of attorney, people!
    Establishing/assigning Power(s) of Attorney is an important safeguard for situations that occur when you're still alive - like if you become mentally or physically incapacitated and can't manage your own affairs or make healthcare decisions - but POA doesn't serve any purpose once you're dead.

    I failed to do that legal stuff with my late partner. We were living together 2 years, and I still keep procrastinating.

    "Are we gonna be permanent? Is this forever?"

    IDIOT!!! This is NOW. We're living under the same roof, sleeping in the same bed. What more do you need?

    Well, I was stupid. I should have acted sooner.

    And one morning, I woke up to find him in total dementia. I knew he had HIV, but now he had AIDS. And very seriously.

    I drove hime to the hospital. Tough getting him into the car, and then he kept trying to open the door while we were driving. If you've never dealt with someone who's suddenly out of their mind you can't imagine what that is. He's yelling and saying things that don't make any sense.

    I've never dealt with this before, I don't what to do. He's trying to open the car door, and I'm restraining him, while I'm still trying to drive.

    We get to the ER, and the screener there asks who I am. "His domestic partner." Meanwhile he's raving out of his mind.

    She initially says I can't go back into the treatment area, and I just ignored her. I'm not gonna leave my partner alone. I simply walked backed there with him, ignoring their objections - let them arrest me if they have a problem.

    The nurses & doctors in the ER were actually quite good. Perhaps a factor was that I knew his medical history that they needed, while he was largely incoherent at this point, just babbling nonsense. He thought he was in a hospital in Texas, some 5 years ago.

    He got admitted, but by the third day his doctors told me my status wouldn't allow me continued access. Up until that point they had been very accommodating, I was in his room 14 hours a day.

    I phoned my friend, who was the President of our State's Equaity organization. He gave me the name of an attorney. She immediately got an emergency court order what would ordinarily have taken 3 months.

    And In so doing established a precedent in that State, for gay couples. I was now my gay partner's legal guardian, a first in that State for a gay couple.

    From the hospital I put him in a home, after they told me he was terminal. Five weeks later he died, literally in my arms, with other gay friends around him. Naturally I'm glad that's the way he went.

    But it took a toll on me. And even after over 10 years ago it still haunts me. The first person with whom I experienced total love, absolute love. And to have him die in my arms, that rips your heart out. Can you even conceive what that's like? I doubt it.

    But today I have a another husband. Can you believe I was 58 at the time I met him? (I'm 65 now) So much for you guys who whine that you don't have a man at 20, or 30, or 40... or whenever.

    Age isn't the issue - your attitude is. You can find a guy at any age, young or old.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2014 11:16 AM GMT
    POA while you're alive and a Will for when you are not.

    I've been through the dementia thing with a loved one, AD...it is most disconcerting to put it mildly.

    You are lucky in love man, imagine your life now without C.

    Love your posts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2014 11:45 PM GMT
    Sulla said
    WrestlerBoy saidArticle IV, Section 1:

    "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

    As usual, I have no idea why we are arguing this under the 14th Amendment and not the Article VI Full Faith and Credit Clause. Their marriage certificate from Massachusetts is a "public act and record" of that State, and must be recognized in every other State (do str8 couples have to get re-married each time they move states? No, and this is why).

    I am praying to god that when we finally get to SCOTUS, someone will argue from Art.VI and not 14th Amendment.


    ^This. Definitely a full faith and credit issue which should be dispositive.

    I would guess that the lawyers probably did insert a full faith and credit argument into their briefs (or will, when they file them), as it's a good practice in this country to throw in every possible argument. However, the supreme court has found exceptions where the clause should not apply, and given the ultra right wing philosophies of a majority of justices now on the court, it is very possible that they will carve out another exception for same-sex marriage laws of a state not being entitled to full faith and credit in other states. So, not a legal doctrine to rely upon in this situation.

    It would be interesting to know what the will said, assuming there was one, and whether it was properly executed.