More Louann Bowers stuff

It seems that Louann Bowers (whom I wrote about earlier) was declared legally dead in 2004, eleven years after her 1993 disappearance. Yet the woman is alive (if not well), and if she overturns her death decree she could claim some inheritance from her dead grandmother that was distributed among her family in 2008. (Her share comes to over $100,000.) I’ve always wondered what happens if a person is declared dead and later turn up alive and kicking.

It usually takes several years before an MP can be declared dead, but there are exceptions, as the article notes. The September 11 terrorist attacks being one. Also, if the death is witnessed — like, if the person fell into a river and was swept away and the body was never found. It’s my understanding that in most states, if someone wants to have an MP declared dead before 7 years have passed, they have to present compelling evidence that the MP is dead. But once 7 years have gone by, the burden of proof swings the other way — to prevent a death declaration, someone will have to present compelling evidence that the MP is NOT dead. I’m not 100% sure on this though, not being a probate lawyer.

10 thoughts on “More Louann Bowers stuff

  1. Princess Shantae November 21, 2010 / 9:10 am

    That’s an awful lot of money. I guess she’ll need it for her legal defense. Yuck. They ought to bypass her and give the money to her kids and their foster families, they’ll need every penny.
    You have a case on Charley from just the other day about a guy that went missing earlier this year and his wife is already trying to have him declared dead. He fell off a dock or something but I don’t think it said anybody actually saw him go in the water.
    Then there’s that guy they just arrested for killing two people that was declared dead like 15 years ago but he still kept using his right name and getting arrested and nobody knew he wasn’t supposed to be alive.

  2. J.A. Scrambles-Ashmole, Bart. November 21, 2010 / 11:47 am

    “Legally dead” could still fit. They were living like zombies.

  3. Princess Shantae November 21, 2010 / 6:55 pm

    No, living like animals.

    • Meaghan November 21, 2010 / 9:06 pm

      Animals typically live in better conditions than that. Most animals are actually quite clean.

  4. Kat November 21, 2010 / 11:09 pm

    My animals do for sure. They eat better than I do. have you seen the cat food out there? Shrimp, crab, tuna, filget mingon. Yeah, I should be so lucky. On the topic, I feel sorry for this lady to an extent. I always wondered what happened to her. She is a victim in some respects, but I STILL struggle with what she went through to have and keep her kids. A break from reality, maybe. But I could never live like that. No matter what. She needs real help, and he, well…….let’s just see. Those poor children.

  5. Kimberly Lanham November 28, 2010 / 10:20 pm

    I found another article about this case. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101128/ap_on_re_us/us_hidden_children

    What is truly more appalling than the case itself are the comments underneath the article. It seems that the MAJORITY of people thought this was perfectly okay behavior and blamed the government/social services for intervening!

    • Meaghan November 28, 2010 / 10:30 pm

      Whenever I read comments attached to internet articles, I am appalled more often than not.

  6. wyn November 29, 2010 / 11:30 am

    The article you point to does not give much for people to make a decision on.

    The house had no heat, water, or electricity, but they were not found at the house but at a hotel. How long had they been gone from the house?

    The children were not “up to level” as far as education, but they apparently did have education, and not a hint of how much below level.

    The children hadn’t had a bath and were “unkempt”. How long without a bath? “Unkempt” is hardly a sin when it comes to a child, look up the definition.

  7. Jen November 30, 2010 / 8:59 am

    CNN is reporting that she just gave birth to her 6th child this week.

Leave a comment