Who gets what from firefighters' benefits?

missattitude (anonymous) says...

Money money money. That is always a problem. widows and dependents come first before anyone else. When it comes to money so called love ones pops out of nowhere trying to claim rights. Live in girlfriends are not really considered family. Just a devoted friend as it would be in the obituary. I think that if any of the firefighters has dependents but is not married, Their dependents should be awarded. If there is no dependents or spouse, then there is no money. Sometimes the parent of the deceased comes in line for the benifits due to their child having no spouse or dependent. This is a very hard choice for anyone involved.

July 28, 2007 at 7:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Barbie793 (anonymous) says...

Legally speaking it is 1. the spouse, 2. the children, 3. the parents, 4. the siblings, 5. the nieces/nephews.

I am going thru the same thing right now and that is how it was explained to me from my lawyer.

July 28, 2007 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Charlestonman (anonymous) says...

Ah yes I wondered when this would start. just like with the 9/11 widows, there is so much money being thrown around we're talking about a lifestyle change for the people involved. I agree with the judge on this one: spouse and then children then parents. nothing for the girlfriend, i'm afraid

July 28, 2007 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

poorboy (anonymous) says...

Well I was waiting on this. That's why it's always good to let the dust settle before you donate money. I know Americans and Charlestonians alike are extremely generous in times of need BUT there is always people that will extort the generosity.Death always brings out the worst in people. P&C should investigate if there are any lawsuits coming. I'm sure there is, matter of fact I hear there is!
I'm all for taking care of the wife and kids. God knows this is something that will define these kids for the rest of their life. Any money should go to the executor of the will to distribute accordingly.

July 28, 2007 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wonderdog (anonymous) says...

Another good reason to HAVE A WILL.

July 28, 2007 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LI58 (anonymous) says...

Holly Cow!!! Girlfriends and ex-wives (no children involved) looking for cut of the pie? Don't let the door hit them on the way out of that meeting!

July 28, 2007 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

One girlfriend was actually a fiancee, due to be married the next MONTH..not year, not two or three...less than 30 days...comeon guys, this doesn't make them money grubbers. They are angry that their loved ones were ripped away like this...ESPECIALLY that we are looking at probably liability on the part of the city and the Chief here.

Before you shake fingers at them, think of what you would feel if it were your loved one...Let's be nice here..

With that said...hehehe the ex wives????? Nice...IF the ex wives feel they are entitled to anything, it hopefully is so they can place the funds in trust for their CHILDREN...

It's just money here people, hardly full compensation for what these people have lost...with the exception of the ex's, of course...

Peace

July 28, 2007 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

rjahopp (anonymous) says...

The barristers/lawyers/esquires etc. are groups that should not share in the death benefits that rightfully belong solely to the firemen's surviving beneficiaries?

Family lawsuits? - Forget it.

These were LODD - firemen fight fires and know/accept the risks. These men had a combined 132 man years of experience with the CFD and knew the CFD's firefighting protocols/practices and accepted the risks; two had even previously retired and then returned to duty; they were not forced to be CFD firemen; they wanted to be CFD firemen; others who have expressed past concerns have reported voluntarily leaving the organization.

Barring arson and a possible criminal conviction, it also irrelevant how the fire started, how the structure and/or its roof were constructed, if building additions were made without a permit, or what constituted the makeup of the contents of the building, particularly since the CFD had surveyed the buildings and their contents in the past and knew the landscape, etc. Although any of these may possibly be contributing factors, the final investigation likely will likely not identify any of them as the "major" cause for the loss of life.

Suing the City (i.e. the citizens of Charleton)? Forget that too.

In a perfect word, hindsight says the fire ground and incident command may have been managed better and maybe the training could be enhanced (hopefully this tragedy will lead to improved, updated fire fighting training, practices and techniques). But, fire backdrafts (likely the major cause of the loss of life barring any surprises - jury is still out) are known by firemen as one of the most deadly situations; they are freakish events and very hard to predict or even recognize since there is precious little time to react. It's equivalent to suing the City if a fireman were struck by lightening while standing in front of his fire station. (Lawyer's/union's perspectives: They should have been trained not to stand in the open under a cloudy sky? The station should have had this or that type of lightening arrestor installed? Totally unreasonable and irrelevant with probably no legal precedent.)

It might be considered an Act of God - unpredictable.

July 28, 2007 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

You might want to go back and look at when the last time any CFF went into that building on a pre-plan..I don't think one had been completed in quite a few years, since they would have caught the addition on in the back...

As for how the fire started, there is such a thing called contributory negligence...the person smoking, IF that is what started the fire, can absolutely be held accountable for contributing to the deaths of these men.

As for suing the city...just because they CHOOSE to do that job for the city of Charleston, does not give carte blanc permission to the FD Heads to disregard training and safety precautions, hiding behind the lame excuse that they CHOSE the job...as for the opinions of former FF, so what? They left because they CHOSE to go elsewhere...how does that equate to the ones who stayed behind being responsible for their own safety when leadership may be the cause of these issues?

What are you a Defense attorney?????? Give me a break...LOL

Their combined experience is only as good as the training they received...if their training is laxed from day one, it doesn't matter how many years they combine to make, they are still as god as dead, now aren't they????

Act of God???? Oh brother...THAT might be so if LIGHTENING struck the building...

The families have a right to compensation, ESPECIALLY if it shows the city is culpable, but entitled nonetheless.

July 28, 2007 at 2:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Reader (anonymous) says...

A quick lesson in the law: A person can be held liable for injuries to others (1) if the injuries were the foreseeable (to a reasonable man) consequence of his actions and if he either (2a) had a duty to do that which he failed to do or (2b) he had a duty to refrain from doing that which he did. There is a lot more to it than that, but that is the law in a nutshell.

The fault of a worker throwing a cigarette in a trash bin is not contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is (overly simply) the theory that says that a person cannot blame someone else for his own injuries if he himself contributed to those same injuries. Was it actionable negligence? Well, it is for a jury to decide whether a reasonable person might appreciate the fact that his actions could lead to a deadly fire. I would say, "No." But, someone else might disagree. That's what makes a horse race.

Is the City liable? Would a reasonable man in the position of the City's rep (the Fire Chief) have taken the same course of action? Maybe. Maybe not. And, there are special rules about how this test applies in cases involving firemen. In fact, it is known as the "fireman's rule," and it changes the analysis to take into account that all conduct by firemen is inherently dangerous.

And the list goes on: Would a reasonable man in the position of the store owner have done XYZ and foreseen that XYZ could lead to these injuries? Would a reasonable man in the position of the furniture manufacturer recognized that ABC would lead to these deaths?

There is no real point in debating those questions other than just as an academic exercise. Ultimatley, those issues will be heard by juries I suspect.

July 28, 2007 at 3:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

NN (anonymous) says...

The girlfriend/fiancee' or whatever she is/was gets NOTHING. If they weren't already married...she is S.O.L. talk about greed! reminds me of the D'Amato family. Geezz.

July 28, 2007 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

Reader,

I stand corrected...I guess I need to pay more attention in class...So for the sake of an academic exercise, allow me to try to remove some of this egg from my face :-). I was actually trying to say that IF a smoker caused the fire, then that person was negligent, and said negligence contributed to the deaths of those firefighters. I would think it would get hairy from there, in that, FF ARE paid to do that job, and there is an inherent risk to them in that job, but the event was compounded by the negligence creating a fire, and the negligence(if found to be with investigations) of the Incident Command. Am I any closer?

As for the City...wouldn't a reasonable man require his employees to train and maintain a high standard of safety on the job to prevent injuries? Granted the Firemen's Rule changes the playing field a bit, but that doesn't excuse the negligence of supervisor's, does it?

Thanks for correcting me.

July 28, 2007 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

NN,

You may be correct that with the current applications she is entitled to nothing, but it hardly seems fair that an ex-wife can collect SS from her ex husband if they were married 10 years or more...I don't see it as greed, I see their pain and anguish that they were so in love with someone and then lost them. Doesn't matter if she was a month or a day or a year from her wedding. You call it greed if you want, I prefer to look with compassion...she lost just as much as if she had been married-both physically and emotionally..

I really hate to see people critical of these women(with the exception of the ex's), haven't they lost enough?

July 28, 2007 at 6:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Reader (anonymous) says...

I would still say that there was no actionable negligence in throwing a cigarette in a dumpster. As to the issue of the City's culpability, I just don't think there is nearly enough information to even speculate about whether anyone acted unreasonably. Maybe there will be. Maybe not.

As for the girlfriend issue, I disagree with NN that she should get anything. One of the wives was in the process of getting a divorce which would have been final in less than one month. How should that weigh into things? Would she have cancelled the divorce plans and fallen back in love on the courthouse steps? Maybe. Would the girlfriend has gotten cold feet and cancelled the wedding plans when the day arrived? Maybe.

I don't think the Workers' Comp people should be in the business of making predictions about romantic issues or try to guess how these things would play out. It is preposterous to think that they could have any hope of accurately gauging the relative love of any of these people. The best we can know is that at the moment of their deaths, the one fireman was actually and presently married and the other was not. I think that is the only rational basis for awarding compensation.

July 28, 2007 at 9:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

Reader,

I certainly hope that throughout the course of this investigation the actual events are able to come out and not strong-armed into silence as seems to be typical for Charleston.

You think the GF should or should not receive benefits? I wasn't sure I followed you correctly.

July 28, 2007 at 9:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

NN (anonymous) says...

No, ex-wives shouldn't get anything. I agree with that. But you know what? Two people aren't divorced until the FINAL HEARING! Even if the final hearing was scheduled for the day after the fatal fire, the two are STILL married! There is a wife that is battling her mother-in-law over the benefits because she and her husband were still married when he was killed in the fire! How's that for ironic? Too bad for the mother-in-law. Doing crap like that is what gives Mothers-in-law a bad name!

Yes, I agree that the GF suffered a loss, but she will get nothing from the courts. Life isn't fair, is it? Get over the greed!

July 28, 2007 at 9:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

I have a feeling the courts will determine that since the divorce was filed, it is considered a legal separation and the money earned during that time, including his death benefits are not entitled to the soon to be ex. I will be curious to see how that works out...

Since I am not any of these women, how am I being greedy? Where is my benefit in all of this? I contributed too, and it certainly doesn't bother me to have a GF receive some compensation-not saying that she would get as much, but some compensation.

Greed is an intentional mindset and since none of us are in their minds we can neither confirm or refute their intent. Maybe they have an intention to donate that money...hence not making them greedy at all, now would it be?

And for the record, the ex wives DO get Social Security benefits IF they were married 10 years or more. That's a given, provided they meet criteria.

If the wife was married and living with her husband when he died, I can't see how his mother would be able to claim benefits...we shall see

July 28, 2007 at 10:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Reader (anonymous) says...

I maybe could have been clearer. I think that the only relationships that should be considered are those in existence at the time of death.

If someone was married at the time of death, then that is it regardless of whether they were happily married or not. What can be known without question is that they were, at that particular moment, married. If a piano fell on them just as they were getting ready to sign the divorce papers, they were still married at the time of death, and that should control the distribution of assets.

On the other hand, a girlfriend is girlfriend if they were not married. Period. Maybe they would have gotten married one day and maybe not. The only indisputable fact is that they were not married for some reason on the date of death. She should get nothing. And remember, it is not like his portion of the contributions will not benefit SOMEONE who loved him. It just means that someone with a blood relation will receive the money and not someone who perhaps might have married him one day.

It is just impossible to think that the Workers' Comp Commission could ever hear all of the competing claims of people who had various feelings for one of the decedents and assign relative weight to those relationships. You can imagine something like this as a result:

Fiancee = 40%
Mom = 30%
Brother = 20%
College roommate = 5%
Former girlfriend = 3%
Woman with undisclosed crush on him from the grocery store = 2%

There has to be a straightforward system to use. First, the money should pass according to their wills (if any are found). If not, the money should go to spouses, if any. If none, children. If none, parents. If none, more distant relations. And so on. I just don't think that the people in charge should be basing distributions on predictions about future developments in relationships.

July 28, 2007 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

chiefswife (anonymous) says...

I don't understand why the "live in" girlfriend should not be entitled to anything. She lost someone she shared her life with. The next thing we will be reading is that the firefighters families with children should receive more than those not including children. I agree with the others calling this whole thing GREED!

July 28, 2007 at 10:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

charleytowngirl (anonymous) says...

Reader:
Does that fact that the girlfriend lived with him make her a common-law wife and in that situation wouldn't she be entitled to something?
I could care less either way if she gets anything or not....just wondering how the common-law thing works in SC.

July 28, 2007 at 11:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BJKROPP (anonymous) says...

NN

just for your info the ex wife is the guardian of his minor son, and she is represent his case.

July 28, 2007 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

blazerbabe (anonymous) says...

The way I look at it.. the "girlfriend" is just that a friend. Granted they lived under the same roof and all. That doesn't mean she is entitled to a penny. I believe that the the Firefighter's child should get it all. Not the "girlfirend". The so called "girlfriend" can always find another "boyfriend or Roommate" as for the child... well they lost a parent... Yes it is possible to replace but not the same. I should know. It's totally different when it comes down to BLOOD.

Maybe y'all need to look more closely at the so called "live-in girlfriend". Charity rides.....Hmmm doesn't sound like she is hurting for much when she has people helping her out with those now does it?

July 28, 2007 at 11:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

Reader,

I understand where you are coming from, thanks for clarifying. First, I never mentioned the college roommate, nor a FORMER girlfriend, nor someone with a "crush" as you put it. I said the FIANCEE..the one with the impending wedding date less than a month from the fire.

We aren't talking 343 men here, we are talking 9, and their from a small enough community that we knew who was living with and who was marrying and who was divorcing from...It isn't a puzzle that needs to be put together. I'm not quite sure why everyone is so protective over money we DONATED. It doesn't belong to us anymore, it belongs to the FF Fund. It no longer influences out bankbooks. As long as it is going to benefit the ones left behind what do we care???? None of them are going to get rich for life on this money, they are going to go through life paying bills just like the rest of us. We aren't moving them into political office because of their "new-found fame and fortune".

It seems to me the issue isn't greed, it's jealousy...well, I assure you, that any one of those families would trade you.

I'm not speaking as a Pre-law major, I'm speaking as someone who knew some of these men on some level. If you ask Brandon Thompson if he felt his fiancee deserves her share, what do you think he would say?

I disagree with your breakdown some...Mom=40%, Brother=30% and Fiancee=20%...

There is a great benefit in law when you are able to separate human emotion for legal logic....there is also an element of loss in that too...

I respect your legal aspect of this, however, respectfully disagree...

July 28, 2007 at 11:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

NN,

I believe I might have mentioned that if the ex wife is going to collect that it should probably be done with the stipulation that the money be placed in trust for the child.

July 28, 2007 at 11:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bickleseagrave (anonymous) says...

Thought you had taken the evening off Nickie!

July 28, 2007 at 11:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

Nah..I seem to have stirred up the wolves over here tho! LOL

Am I smoking crack here, or just too damned compassionate? I thought that was supposed to be a good trait...?

July 28, 2007 at 11:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bickleseagrave (anonymous) says...

Why would anyone really care, maybe it was an amicable split, maybe he would have wanted the mother of his child to benefit. like someone said lots of jealous people. Really it is none of the public's business.

The most important thing here is that the problem is identified and the CFD is brought up to todays standards of firefighting, both in knowledge and equipment.

If that were done, that one be the greatest tribute to those that gave their all!

July 28, 2007 at 11:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bickleseagrave (anonymous) says...

Not related to the dispersal of money but I posted this under the Internal investigation comments

This seems to be the document mandating the ICS or NIMS to all Fire Chiefs from the SC government. Interesting reading

http://www.sled.sc.gov/documents/HSGr...

Just posted it here as this seems to be the hot thread at the moment.

July 28, 2007 at 11:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

NN-disregard my last post, I misread it, thinking you wrote it and it was someone else writing to you..sorry

July 28, 2007 at 11:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

charleytowngirl (anonymous) says...

Amen, bickleseagrave! Where the money goes among the families is none of the public's business! I'm surprised that the P&C reported on it to begin with. I'm sure these families don't want their personal business discussed. But I am still interested to know how the common-law thing works. Think I'll try to look that one up.

July 28, 2007 at 11:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

Bickle,

I agree it is truly none of our business, but I was actually hoping that when the public saw that the benefits were actually not that much in comparison, they might see even more how public servants deserve better pay and benefits..I don't think it worked. I guess I am surprised by the reaction over the money...

~stunned

July 28, 2007 at 11:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MJLowery (anonymous) says...

We're talking legalities here ... man and woman bound by law - okay. Ex-wife with children - okay. Girlfriend? No legal binding here.
It absolutely mind-boggles me how greedy people can be when large sums of money are involved. One of the firefighters has a mother trying to get in on the cash? Geez. What's this world coming to?

July 28, 2007 at 11:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

Charleytowngirl,

If I remember correctly, I don't believe SC has common-law anymore...I'll see if I can find it in Lexis and let you know

July 28, 2007 at 11:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

charleytowngirl (anonymous) says...

Thanks, Nickie....I'd appreciate it since it would probably take me a week to find anything!

July 28, 2007 at 11:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bickleseagrave (anonymous) says...

I can tell you in Canada in my Province that if you cohabitate for a certain period of time even though it is common law the relationship is considered the same as a marriage. This is for everything, Income Taxes, spousal benefits, splitting up has the same consequences as a divorce, dividing of assets etc.

I believe the time period for cohabitation is one year!

July 28, 2007 at 11:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

What did the Post do, print names and stats of everyone trying to collect????? I must have missed that article...Goodness, the P&C is getting Jerry Springer-ish

July 28, 2007 at 11:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bickleseagrave (anonymous) says...

Agreed on that one, let's get back to coverage of the investigation and it's outcomes.

July 28, 2007 at 11:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

Bickle,

It used to be that way here as well, but I think I remember hearing that sometime in the last 5-10 years that it was changed...I'm looking it up now...

I do know that the law stipulates that you cannot co-habitate with a person of the opposite sex if there are minor children living in the home...no matter who the parents are...

July 28, 2007 at 11:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bickleseagrave (anonymous) says...

Anyway I will look in tomorrow, starting vacation tomorrow till Aug 28th
Maybe I should go to Myrtle Beach and stop in for a coffee (j/k Myrtle Beach is for when the weather gets nasty here)

July 28, 2007 at 11:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

Charleytowngirl,

I am still digging, but it appears that it may still exist in some form. If the common law wife uses the mans last name, if they cohabitated together for a specified period of time, lived as husband and wife, shared assets together..things like that...SC Statutes are a nightmare, so it may take me a while to find it definitively, if I am lucky enough to find it at all..I HATE family law...lol

July 29, 2007 at 12:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

LOL...If you want me to buy coffee Bickle, you better come to Charleston...I am not a fan of Myrtle Beach..LOL

You have a wonderful, restful vacation

July 29, 2007 at 12:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

charleytowngirl,

ok, I heard wrong...Common law marriage does exist IF both parties told people they were married...

SECTION 20-1-30. Cohabitation prior to emancipation as marriage.

All persons in this State who, previous to their actual emancipation, had undertaken and agreed to occupy the relation to each other of husband and wife and were cohabiting as such or in any way recognizing the relation as still existing on March 12, 1872, whether the rites of marriage have been celebrated or not, shall be deemed husband and wife, and be entitled to all the rights and privileges and be subject to all the duties and obligations of that relation, in like manner as if they had been duly married according to law.

But the provisions of this section shall not be deemed to extend to persons who have agreed to live in concubinage after their emancipation.

~I also misquoted the cohabitation laws..common law couples can cohabitate with THEIR children...if the couple is not common law, and the children don't belong to both adults in the home, that is when the State frowns

July 29, 2007 at 12:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

NN (anonymous) says...

Hey, no worries! =)

I agree that if the ex-spouse is rearing the minor child, then yes, that would be a bit different. I was mainly referring to the situation where the fireman was to be officially divorced the day AFTER the fire. They were still married and she's fighting the mother-in-law for the benefits. They had two minor daughters together and had been married for a long time. It's such a sad case for everyone involved, no doubt.

It's just sickening to see the family of the fallen Constable squabbling and whining in the newspaper that they didn't get the fund raisers (money) like the Chas. 9 did.

July 29, 2007 at 1:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bbranham (anonymous) says...

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

We have not seen all the evil people yet that will come forward to help themselves (either publicly or behind the scenes )it is the families that really need our help.

The money is for the families, is it to replace future wadges that was lost due to this horrible incident. Also to help the families.

I pray the money is used wisely.

July 29, 2007 at 6:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

charleytowngirl (anonymous) says...

Nickie,
Thanks for the info. I appreciate you looking that up!

July 29, 2007 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Reader (anonymous) says...

South Carolina continues to recognize common law marriage. A marriage is, technically, nothing more than a contract between two parties. The existence of that mutual understanding is most frequently proved with a marriage ceremony or civil service. In South Carolina, however, the mutual understanding of the parties can still be proved based on any other sort of evidence: use of last names, filing joint taxes, living together, taking family vacations, etc. There is no limit on what can be used. The only test is whether the couple intended to be married and held themselves out to the public as married.

Almost every other state has abolished the concept of common law marriage and decided that the only method of establishing that relationship in through an official register of marriages. The problem crops up in cases when someone who is admittedly not married through an official service comes up after a "spouse's" death and claims to have been in a common law marriage. The fact is that proving those sorts of things is hard and not the sort of thing that is suitable to a trial.

This same reasoning is why I don't believe the girlfriend should get anything. There are no claims that she was a wife by common law. Indeed, the fact that she was talking about getting married in the near future is conclusive proof that she did not hold herself out as a wife now.

I understood that Nickiegarbeil was not suggesting that people like roommates should get money, and I didn't mean for my hypothetical break-down to suggest otherwise. I was just making the point that, if you don't draw the line at clear points like spouses, then where DO you draw the line? How is a best friend really different for this purpose than a girlfriend? Both might have loved the decedent and even relied upon him for financial support at times. And once you open the door to people basing claims on how much they loved someone, you are opening the door to unsolvable claims that are unseemly.

July 29, 2007 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

Reader-"How is a best friend really different for this purpose than a girlfriend? Both might have loved the decedent and even relied upon him for financial support at times."

Answer- Do you REALLY need to have that pointed out to you? I have lots of friends..a few of them I consider best friends-I DON'T have sex with them...we aren't speaking of a one night stand, or even a newbie gf..I was referring to the fiancee.

There are two FF girlfriends in this scenario...one a live-in girlfriend of many years(Kelsey), the other is a fiancee(Brandon Thompson's). I am referring to Brandon Thompson's fiancee...not Kelsey's girlfriend...although I have no problem with her receiving some benefits as well...Here is a question....was Kelsey's girlfriend on his insurance(health)? Some companies here allow you to do that...I'm curious.

Btw...I wasn't offended by your correction or anything else...I'm pretty used to it by now-being a pre-law major..I'm practicing my court room offensive :-)

July 29, 2007 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Reader (anonymous) says...

Ahh! Both the question was: How are a girlfriend and best friend different FOR THIS PURPOSE? The point of the money was to compensate the families of the firemen; the point was not to compensate people for the loss of sex.

A sound position might be to define family by blood relations and legal relations (adopted children and spouses). Those are easy to apply. One might also legitimately argue, as you do, that finacees should be included in the definition of "family." That is at least a status that is usually more easily proved with objective evidence than "loved one," but not always. Certainly "girlfriend" and "boyfriend" are not easy statuses to prove or disprove (even with some that I have had!).

In the end, there is a range of categories: spouse, fiancee, girlfriend, friend, acquaintance, and stranger. Only the first one is almost always clearly proved. I would simply say that, for purposes of awarding compensation to family members, a fiancee is closer to a girlfriend than a spouse. There is no obligation of support, for example (which is one of the goals of the compensation). Knowing how many weddings never take place, I just think that being a fiancee is too perilous a status.

Could you convinve me on the fiancee matter? Maybe. On the girlfriend status? Nope.

As to the insurance, I have no idea. I would be surprised that a life insurance policy named her, but only because I know that most people don't even take care of wills, much less life insurance.

July 29, 2007 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

My point of expressing the sexual aspect is that it separates the girlfriend from the best friend...thus bringing them to a higher level on the totem pole, so to speak...What was the status of their wedding plans, receipts, reservations, etc...even fiancees and live ins have won palimony cases in the past, so there has to be some change in status there.

With what I have HEARD on the girlfriend status...she might fall closer to the common law wife than we know...dependent on how long they lived together, did he ever refer to her as his wife, or "ole lady" to his peers, friends, felling riding club, etc...it is a long shot but with interviews, you might find something tangible.

Regardless, the federal benefits are different from the donated ones...as far as the donated one's go, who cares if the girlfriend and the fiancee get any? They are donated monies, not social security...You could probably get me to back down on the governmental benefits( even though I rarely back down, regardless of whether or not I know I am wrong :-)), but not the donated funds...I think we need to take into consideration what the two men would have wanted to the best of "our" knowledge.

I'm sure they have life insurance, through the city at least, that part is a given when they are first hired...the beneficiary of course has to be updated by the FF himself..that takes effort, so it could be overlooked easily...I was referring to HEALTH insurance..for the live-in..some companies allow it..not sure if theirs does.

July 29, 2007 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

NN (anonymous) says...

Separated or not, the divorce is NOT final until the judge holds the final hearing and signs the order. THAT case is a no-brainer. They are still married until it is finalized. The fireman died the DAY BEFORE the hearing. (damn the bad luck, eh?) AND they have two minor daughters together. The "soon-to-be-ex" will still probably in all likelihood, receive the benefits as she should.

Just like the "wedding being 30 days away" doesn't entitle the live-in concubine to ANYTHING. Fair is fair, people! Whether or not you like it!

July 29, 2007 at 5:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

NN

There is no reason to call anyone a concubine just because she may or may not have lived with someone. First, Kelsey's GIRLFRIEND lived with him...I do not know if Thompson's FIANCEE lived with him or not...either way, neither of them bore, nor deserve, the title concubine...to insult them in that fashion is uncalled for, really...They have names, and faces, and emotions the same as everyone else..they are HUMAN beings, who suffered a loss unimaginable to most of us.

Speaking from an ex-wife point of view, my children should certainly benefit should be "soon to be ex" keel over(hypothetical), but I would /should not...

The law may state she does, but she could always put it in trust for her kids...which I am sure she will do. I am well aware that wives, until the finalization, are able to collect...I know a woman who went to her divorce proceeding and when her husband didn't show, she was so angry...then the news came in that he had been hit and killed on his way to the hearing, and she collected handsomely...I didn't think it was right then, and I don't think it is right now...it's an opinion...

July 29, 2007 at 7:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

NN (anonymous) says...

If the shoe fits.

AND there are other titles they will get if they are, indeed, trying to get a cut of the pie. Unless it was in his Will, that's just too bad. People cause their own problems. It just looks very bad to the public that these outsiders are trying to cash in.

Yes, the soon-to-be ex WILL collect handsomely. It may not be fair but then again, life ain't fair! The rules and laws are what stands, not the gold diggers trifling attempts to get to the almighty dollar.

July 29, 2007 at 7:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

Careful....your 'wife-beater' is showing...

You obviously didn't know or even meet any of these people...

July 29, 2007 at 8:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

NN (anonymous) says...

noun Concubine (from the dictionary)
1. a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, esp. one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress.

And I AM a female, since you care to think I'm a man. I don't take the side of a woman JUST because I am of the same sex.

July 29, 2007 at 8:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Re2 (anonymous) says...

NN,
Why should firemen or their families expect anything other than someone to make an issue out of them suing for the wrongful deaths of their loved ones, married or not. After all it is people like you that piss and moan about having to pay taxes only so that firemen can " get payed to lay around the fire station all day." If you really appreciate the jobs these men and women do for you in CFD, let the families mourn in their own way, without being called gold diggers. READ, LISTEN.. These guys were killed because of negligence. If your family member died because the fire department took too long to get there or, wasnt properly equipped to save them I am quite sure you would probably try to sue the hell out of CFD..

July 29, 2007 at 8:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bigpappapump77 (anonymous) says...

"For the love of money is the root of all evil..."
(1st Timothy 6:10)

Money exposes people's TRUE self! I am sick of all the people laying claim to the money raised for the 9. I almost regret donating.

July 29, 2007 at 8:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

NN,

I didn't assume you are a man, I knew otherwise...but your comments are chauvinistic, nonetheless...and the term concubine is used as a degrading term...and not since the 1800's have women been THAT subservient...Their sex has nothing to do with my opinion...I would feel the same if they were men.

July 29, 2007 at 8:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

Well stated Re2..

July 29, 2007 at 8:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

Quote Timothy all you want...here's one for ya...

He who cast the first stone be without sin...

OR

Judge not lest ye shall be judged....

Passages can be twisted to fit any number of self serving ideas...

You have no personal knowledge of what these people want to do with their money, maybe they want to donate it themselves...maybe they want to use that money to ensure that no other family ever has to go through what they did..

Ask the city, I'm sure they will give you back your pennies....and from your username, I certainly HOPE you aren't a FF...

July 29, 2007 at 8:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Re2 (anonymous) says...

Fact: 9 men died serving YOUR community
Fact: 9 families now have an empty chair at the dinner table
Fact: ALL of these men would be here today if it werent for faulty leadership
Fact: Obviously none of you who are complaining care about the first three facts, only about your own money.. Now thats GREED

If you have any respect for the men who died DROP IT...

July 29, 2007 at 8:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Re2 (anonymous) says...

Oh and as far as the comment about making you wish you hadnt donated.. I wouldnt care if they burned my money in their fire places at night, if thats what it takes to bring comfort back to their lives.. Thats the meaning in charity and donations...

July 29, 2007 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

Amen Re2...

July 29, 2007 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

charleytowngirl (anonymous) says...

Here I go contradicting myself on earlier post because where this money goes is NONE of my business. However, I was once a divorced mother raising a son and could not have kept up the lifestyle or anything close to what my son had when I was still married to his father without child support.

Same thing applies to the soon to be ex-wife. She is still raising two daughters and if this money all went into a trust fund for the daughters and she has nothing, how can she support these two girls in the way the father would have wanted them to be raised? There is still rent/mortgage, insurance premiums (auto, life, health, home), clothing, food, entertainment.....you get the picture (I hope)

Yep, I think she is entitled to it because she ALONE is now responsible for the welfare of their children.

July 29, 2007 at 8:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

I absolutely said the money should go to the children...I had THREE children, with no child support for over a year, working a $7 job and going to college...the money I get for my children ($159/week for ALL three, not each) is not mine, it is theirs, to be used to raise them...if that is what she is doing fine...in that respect, she is deserving...

In addition: someone else posted earlier that she is suing as a representative of her child...that is something different altogether...

The money or how it is split is none of our business, and I certainly didn't intend to get sucked into an unintelligent(NOT you Charley)conversation with people who think that money is footed on their backs alone.All of a sudden public opinion for these women went from poor dears to people 'picketing' their right to existence...

Now who's greedy?

July 29, 2007 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Re2 (anonymous) says...

thank you.. How quickly the tides turned when money was brought up.. But once again, I cant expect much more from people who dont appreciate their public servants anyways..

July 29, 2007 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Chaskev (anonymous) says...

In SC a live in girlfriend can be considered a wife. It is a common law state.

July 29, 2007 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

ChasKev,

Agreed, but only if the criteria are met...according to the law...I tried that one earlier...they have to live as a married couple, cohabitate assets, and identify themselves as a married couple in order to qualify

July 29, 2007 at 9:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

NN (anonymous) says...

I deeply respect ALL public servants and I don't "piss and moan" about paying taxes. I just think it's awful how this very sad and very unfortunate situation is bringing out the greed in people that have no lawful right to collect benefits. The gf is at the mercy of whatever lawyer she hires (the lawyer will take most of (if any) she gets anyway) and she's also at the mercy of whomever the fireman left his estate to in his will. No will? well then, she'll be at the mercy of whomever receives the benefits. Just maybe they'll throw her a bone or two.

July 30, 2007 at 3:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

easy (anonymous) says...

Hey (NN) numb nuts, you are just starting to see what the public servants have had to put up with all these years. And the CAT is just sticking it's head out of the bag.

July 31, 2007 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Ana (anonymous) says...

I would just like to clarify a few things to all of you. 1. The ex-wife was "representing" Mark Kelsey's only heir. 2. Mark and the GF officially moved in together 3 months before his death. 3. Mark and the GF was never engaged. The GF stated in court that they only discussed it, getting engage that is. 4. Mark and the GF didn't own anything (not even a toaster) together, she was never in his health or dental insurance (the son was) and they didn't even share a bank account together (Mark and the ex-wife did 'till the day he died. Last, the ex-wife is not after any money, she has re-married (5 yrs ago) and doing very well. She was appointed guardian and conservator of the under age son she shared with Mark Kelsey. I know, because I am that ex-wife. Shame on the reporter who did not make it clear that I was dragged into that court room (protecting my son's interest) only because the GF is claiming that she is entitled to all benefits. Thank you for all your overwhelming support!

August 1, 2007 at 11:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nickiegarbeil (anonymous) says...

Ana,

You are right to be angry...This kind of story should have never been printed without clearly stating what was going on-frankly maybe not printed at all. When I made reference to Marks GF, I didn't say he DID have her on his insurance, etc., I gave it as a hypothetical, only for the purpose that we do not know the extent of these families(nor is it our business). That just because a family isn't what is traditionally seen doesn't make it less of a family.

I feel terrible for you and your son, as well as the rest of the family members and hope you find comfort in knowing that not everyone is against you.

This is a lesson to us all that the stories we read here are only as accurate as the facts they choose to place in them.

Ana, I apologize if anything I said offended you. It sincerely was not meant to.

Nickie Garbeil
Summerville

August 1, 2007 at 11:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

charleytowngirl (anonymous) says...

Ana,

Thanks for clarifying things. I'm sure that all of the money will be awarded to your son. He is entitled to it. I'm glad to see your son's grandmother is fighting for him to get it as well. To me, that shows real love of a grandmother for her grandson and her son.

I hope that your son will be able to find peace at some point with all of this. All of the families of these 9 men are in my daily prayers.

August 2, 2007 at 6:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

NN (anonymous) says...

easy, I have quite a few family members in public service in the Tri-county area. And you would be VERY surprised to know who my husband is....therefore I have no 'nuts', like your highly intelligent comment suggested.

August 3, 2007 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )