<p>I doubt finances are the main concern for Mrs. Reeves right now. It appears about the only sizable asset the Reeves have is the equity in their home which I doubt can be touched by a judgment holder against them. If the homestead is titled jointly by entireties it should be safe for Mrs. Reeves.</p>
<p>If Chad’s widow and her attorneys are looking for money, the movie theater might have deeper pockets to go after.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless there’s something missing, I don’t see why Chad’s widow and her attorneys can’t do both. The defendant retired cop was directly responsible and it took place in the theater’s premises. </p>
<p>Whether this suit has a good chance of prevailing against both rather than one or the other is another matter. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I were a newly widowed young mother, the last thing I would do is try to take an elderly woman’s home from her just because her husband was an abusive murderer. Personally, I’d go for the theater and leave the elderly woman her little home where she would probably peacefully live out her remaining years with her idiot husband tucked away in jail. </p>
<p>But that’s just me. I’m sure there are others who would happily put an old woman on the streets because she had the poor judgment to stay married to an abusive authoritarian ex-cop.</p>
<p>I saw the “newly widowed young mother " on The View this morning. She basically said her whole life changed in an instant. She doesn’t seem vengeful , but is angry that her husband could be taken for " no reason.” I don’t see how the theater would have responsibility in this?</p>
<p>Even if the theater isnt directly culpable, sometimes the cost of litigation (assuming the judge doesnt throw out the suit on summary judgment) is more than the cost of settling it. Its usually a decision made by the insurance carrier, not the theter owners.</p>
<p>They could claim that the manager was unavailable, and if he/she had responded and addressed the guy with the cellphone the altercation would not have escalated. Am ot an attorney, but they could claim negligence. Who knows. From her attorney:
<a href=“Widow of theater shooting victim: Husband's death 'unbearable'”>http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/widow-of-theater-shooting-victim-expected-to-speak-at-news-conference/2162148</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nrdsb4,</p>
<p>That is a very noble sentiment and I say that without any hint of sarcasm. However, from the standpoint of safeguarding her future possible legal options and statute of limitations consideration, I wouldn’t be surprised if her civil attorney suggests suing both parties to see which suit(s) pan out and that it’s ill-advised to sue only one and not the other for various legal and logical consistency reasons. </p>
<p>Especially considering if she decides to only sue the theater, it is likely to prompt questions from the judge and theater attorney as to why the shooter’s not also being sued considering he’s directly responsible for her husband’s death, weaken her civil case, and enable the theater’s attorney to paint her in a much less sympathetic light of “doing it solely for the money” rather than holding the shooter and/or theater civilly accountable to get “justice”. </p>
<p>If this goes into mediation, there may be room for all parties to negotiate a settlement somewhere in the middle and for Chad’s widow to make a generous gesture to avoid putting the shooter’s wife in the street. </p>
<p>However, whether the shooter’s wife has a home/good financial security or not is NOT the responsibility of Chad’s widow…legally and IMO, morally. If anything, both types of responsibility belong to the shooter himself and possibly the theater if it was found they were somehow culpable. </p>
<p>“I doubt finances are the main concern for Mrs. Reeves right now. It appears about the only sizable asset the Reeves have is the equity in their home which I doubt can be touched by a judgment holder against them. If the homestead is titled jointly by entireties it should be safe for Mrs. Reeves.”</p>
<p>“If Chad’s widow and her attorneys are looking for money, the movie theater might have deeper pockets to go after.”</p>
<p>I’m not talking about civil lawsuits. That’s a whole 'nuther issue.</p>
<p>The shooter says that he can pay for his own attys. That doesn’t sound like the house is the only asset. I doubt he’s borrowing huge amounts against his home because how would they make future payments. </p>
<p>That said, even if he is using the home equity to pay for his attys, that would also motivate his wife to put the kabosh on that…because she could easily end up homeless. Her over-mortgaged home would be unaffordable. </p>
<p>I’m looking at this pragmatically from his wife’s viewpoint. She doesn’t think the shooting was justified. She’s likely been the victim of verbal abuse from her H (shut the F up…is not likely the first time he’s said such things). So, in such a situation, she’s not likely going to have the attitude of, “hey, let’s spend every last cent, lose our home, lose our savings, to save your tush.” Uh no. She’s likely going to want to cut her losses. </p>
<p>She’s got power now that she probably has never had before. I think she may use it…</p>
<p>Side question: I know a spouse cannot be compelled to testify but can he or she do so voluntarily? </p>
<p>"If I were a newly widowed young mother, the last thing I would do is try to take an elderly woman’s home from her just because her husband was an abusive murderer. Personally, I’d go for the theater and leave the elderly woman her little home where she would probably peacefully live out her remaining years with her idiot husband tucked away in jail.</p>
<p>But that’s just me. I’m sure there are others who would happily put an old woman on the streets because she had the poor judgment to stay married to an abusive authoritarian ex-cop."</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>But the widow isn’t the big problem here. The issue is the shooter. He’s going to try to DRAIN all their assets for HIS defense…(which will likely fail)…and THAT would leave his elderly wife homeless and without savings.</p>
<p>this reminds me somewhat of when Scott Peterson killed his wife Lacey. He used all the equity in their home for his defense. His wife’s family inherited nothing because he spent all of the equity on his defense. This elderly lady can’t really protect her half of the assets as long as her H is using them for his defense.</p>
<p>She needs to use her power now. She could go to his attys and say, “You better go for the cheap plea deal because my testimony is going to put my H behind bars forever.” I’m not going to let him drain everything to pay for a defense that will likely fail anyway, which will leave me homeless and w/o assets. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If she’s been abused for a while, it may not be as easy for her to suddenly switch gears and decide to walk off/separate her interests from his unless she’s already at that point mentally not too long before this happened. </p>
<p>There’s also possible local cultural/family dynamics where there may be strong pressure for her to “protect family unity” and whatever’s left of their image along with the fact the shooter himself may have a lot of friends in law enforcement circles considering he’s a retired cop. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know about Florida, but I’ve read of many other criminal cases in NY and other parts of the country where the spouse waived spousal privilege or the court found it didn’t apply in a given situation. </p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>A spouse CAN testify if she wants to. </p>
<p>And, in this particular case, she doesn’t have to talk about how he is at home, but since this happened in public, what he said to her is NOT privileged info since it was said within easy hearing distance of others. </p>
<p>Ah thanks m2ck</p>
<p>Am surprised that no one took out their cellphones to video/record it. Oh, wait…</p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>"If she’s been abused for a while, it may not be as easy for her to suddenly switch gears and decide to walk off/separate her interests from his unless she’s already at that point mentally not too long before this happened.</p>
<p>There’s also possible local cultural/family dynamics where there may be strong pressure for her to “protect family unity” and whatever’s left of their image along with the fact the shooter himself may have a lot of friends in law enforcement circles considering he’s a retired cop."</p>
<p>that’s a good point. </p>
<p>Either his D is a good actress or she (crazily) doesn’t believe her dad is guilty of anything. So, she may not be supportive of the idea that her mom “cut her dad loose.” However, she, too better think long and hard about the future. She and her brother may find themselves supporting their mother if all her assets go to dad’s defense. Maybe she should take a gander over to the Parent Cafe thread about “Parents Caring for Parents Support Thread” to see how that can play havoc with your own intermediate family’s life and lifestyle. </p>
<p>In any case, I hope that the wife is not so-battered and beaten-down that she can’t switch gears if necessary. I’m hoping that his control/abuse wasn’t so frequent or over-the-top that the wife would be w/o any self-esteem. I hope that her words at the time of the shooting are some indication that she does “speak up” at times. I would hope that if he had been “that bad” then his D wouldn’t be bawling over his circumstances now. IF I had a dad who routinely abused my mom, I wouldn’t be begging the courts to let him back home. </p>
<p>“Am surprised that no one took out their cellphones to video/record it. Oh, wait…”</p>
<p>lol…now that would be a hoot. Whenever he’s in court, everyone should pull out their cell phones and start texting in his clear view. I can imagine some jail guards have probably done that to him. lol</p>
<p>The widow is now a single parent with a small child to raise. Alone. That costs money. There is physical and emotional pain and suffering. There is loss of consortium. She may have additional medicals from her own hand injury. She deserves compensation. Question is from who.</p>
<p>Side note-- I would not be surprised if the shooter, a navy vet, has his insurance (ie if he has an umbrella policy) through USAA. USAA is the widow’s employer.</p>
<p>** clarified</p>
<p>The spouse (in this case, the wife) has to invoke the privilege. She doesn’t have to “invoke” the privilege if she doesn’t want to. </p>
<p>Florida law says that a spouse can refuse to disclose communications “which were intended to be made in confidence between the spouses while they were married. ” </p>
<p>part in quotes is from Florida Evidence Code</p>
<p>From a FL atty:
“The only time the Husband Wife privilege applies is when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy while speaking to each other.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would love to see the jury text their verdict to the court. </p>
<p>IF you go back through the thread, I covered spousal immunity in Florida in some detail. It doesn’t apply in this case except for any discussions held before they were in the theater - like in the car - or any afterwards in private, if those occurred. </p>