DeAngelo trial to cost upwards of $20 million.

[otis1]

Jan 12, 2019 16:01:33 GMT elir said:

Jan 12, 2019 15:59:48 GMT elir said:

This has come up before - the house is in a trust and likely his daughters are the trustees. . Elders are advised to do this for reasons of Medicare/ Medicaid eligibility and for estate planning as this means the house is not viewed as an asset therefore the elder doesn’t have to sell it and spend down in order to get benefits .
My parent was advised to do this as were her friends . When the time came when she could not live at home , we the trustees, sold the home and then used the proceeds to pay her monthly bills. As long as we did it without expressly making her a beneficiary of the trust she could still get her health needs covered by Medicare and we used to trust to supplement what wasn’t covered and any other bills.
The only nefarious thing here is that they had a good accountant and lawyer advising the family.

Point 1) "This has come up before - the house is in a trust"
It may or may not have come up before. I've never seen it, heard it, read it. Hence my query. Further, "come up before" is not a source. All I asked was for a source.

Point 2) "This has come up before - the house is in a trust"
Stating "the house is in a trust" is not evidence of the house being in a trust. All I asked was for a source, for evidence of such.

Point 3) "Elders are advised to do this for reasons of Medicare/ Medicaid eligibility and for estate planning as this means the house is not viewed as an asset therefore the elder doesn’t have to sell it and spend down in order to get benefits ."
I really do appreciate your explaining trusts to me but I don't know what this has to do with my question. This is common knowledge and it's is irrelevant. For example: elders are also counseled on funeral pre-planning, yet very few do it. Elders are advised to change the oil in their car every 3000 miles. Doesn't mean every elder does it.
In addition, do you posses insider knowledge of the date the house was placed in trust? Because you are assuming facts not in evidence: that the DeAngelos were elderly when the house was placed in trust.

Point 4) "The only nefarious thing here is that they had a good accountant and lawyer advising the family."
Unless you are privy to the private conversations of Joseph & Sharon DeAngelo, a married couple with shared assets, you shouldn't make or present this declarative statement, unless it's prefaced by the phrase "In my opinion", or some variation thereof.

Point 5) "The only nefarious thing here is that they had a good accountant and lawyer advising the family."
The lawyer is family. And apparently a very good one. Assets in California are shared. The lawyer in the family fully well understands the need to protect valuable assets which could possibly be seized at some future date by some government entity for some reason. Any California lawyer worth her salt would have planned for this if the need, theoretically, was present. And boy howdy it sure was!

So getting back to my original, simple request: is there a source for the belief that the house is in a trust?

[spodey]

Save Mart gave him a pension but I wonder if they matched a certain % of his contributions to an 401k IRA (Individual Retirement Account)?  

Anyway, if JJD contributed regularly in an employer matched 401k during all of the 27 years he worked for Save Mart, he would be sitting on a really nice nest egg and a reasonable pension as well!  (See US stock market history ). 

But not $20 million.
 

[elir]

Jan 12, 2019 16:45:26 GMT otis1 said:

Jan 12, 2019 16:01:33 GMT elir said:

Point 1) "This has come up before - the house is in a trust"
It may or may not have come up before. I've never seen it, heard it, read it. Hence my query. Further, "come up before" is not a source. All I asked was for a source.

Point 2) "This has come up before - the house is in a trust"
Stating "the house is in a trust" is not evidence of the house being in a trust. All I asked was for a source, for evidence of such.

Point 3) "Elders are advised to do this for reasons of Medicare/ Medicaid eligibility and for estate planning as this means the house is not viewed as an asset therefore the elder doesn’t have to sell it and spend down in order to get benefits ."
I really do appreciate your explaining trusts to me but I don't know what this has to do with my question. This is common knowledge and it's is irrelevant. For example: elders are also counseled on funeral pre-planning, yet very few do it. Elders are advised to change the oil in their car every 3000 miles. Doesn't mean every elder does it.
In addition, do you posses insider knowledge of the date the house was placed in trust? Because you are assuming facts not in evidence: that the DeAngelos were elderly when the house was placed in trust.

Point 4) "The only nefarious thing here is that they had a good accountant and lawyer advising the family."
Unless you are privy to the private conversations of Joseph & Sharon DeAngelo, a married couple with shared assets, you shouldn't make or present this declarative statement, unless it's prefaced by the phrase "In my opinion", or some variation thereof.

Point 5) "The only nefarious thing here is that they had a good accountant and lawyer advising the family."
The lawyer is family. And apparently a very good one. Assets in California are shared. The lawyer in the family fully well understands the need to protect valuable assets which could possibly be seized at some future date by some government entity for some reason. Any California lawyer worth her salt would have planned for this if the need, theoretically, was present. And boy howdy it sure was!

So getting back to my original, simple request: is there a source for the belief that the house is in a trust?

The original info I saw did not give a year to when the trust was formed, but this link has a date:

According to Capital Public Radio:

www.capradio.org/articles/2018/04/25/suspect-arrested-in-east-area-rapist-case-reports-say/

"The Sacramento County assessor’s office confirmed that the home where the FBI and law enforcement apprehended a suspect on Tuesday evening has been owned by the Joseph James DeAngelo Revocable Trust since 1993"'

DeAngelo and his wife separated in 1990, she filed for divorce in 1991, although she didn't follow through until after the arrest ,  when she filed again.  There is link in another thread to the 2018 divorce filing. 

Re: the timing of the revocable trust in the early 1990s , similar to how it is used to protect elders' assets, there is information online that suggests setting up a trust such as this could be used to block a spouse from getting a share of the house in a divorce.

[otis1]

Jan 15, 2019 23:32:07 GMT elir said:

Jan 12, 2019 16:45:26 GMT otis1 said:

Point 1) "This has come up before - the house is in a trust"
It may or may not have come up before. I've never seen it, heard it, read it. Hence my query. Further, "come up before" is not a source. All I asked was for a source.

Point 2) "This has come up before - the house is in a trust"
Stating "the house is in a trust" is not evidence of the house being in a trust. All I asked was for a source, for evidence of such.

Point 3) "Elders are advised to do this for reasons of Medicare/ Medicaid eligibility and for estate planning as this means the house is not viewed as an asset therefore the elder doesn’t have to sell it and spend down in order to get benefits ."
I really do appreciate your explaining trusts to me but I don't know what this has to do with my question. This is common knowledge and it's is irrelevant. For example: elders are also counseled on funeral pre-planning, yet very few do it. Elders are advised to change the oil in their car every 3000 miles. Doesn't mean every elder does it.
In addition, do you posses insider knowledge of the date the house was placed in trust? Because you are assuming facts not in evidence: that the DeAngelos were elderly when the house was placed in trust.

Point 4) "The only nefarious thing here is that they had a good accountant and lawyer advising the family."
Unless you are privy to the private conversations of Joseph & Sharon DeAngelo, a married couple with shared assets, you shouldn't make or present this declarative statement, unless it's prefaced by the phrase "In my opinion", or some variation thereof.

Point 5) "The only nefarious thing here is that they had a good accountant and lawyer advising the family."
The lawyer is family. And apparently a very good one. Assets in California are shared. The lawyer in the family fully well understands the need to protect valuable assets which could possibly be seized at some future date by some government entity for some reason. Any California lawyer worth her salt would have planned for this if the need, theoretically, was present. And boy howdy it sure was!

So getting back to my original, simple request: is there a source for the belief that the house is in a trust?

The original info I saw did not give a year to when the trust was formed, but this link has a date:

According to Capital Public Radio:

www.capradio.org/articles/2018/04/25/suspect-arrested-in-east-area-rapist-case-reports-say/

"The Sacramento County assessor’s office confirmed that the home where the FBI and law enforcement apprehended a suspect on Tuesday evening has been owned by the Joseph James DeAngelo Revocable Trust since 1993"'

DeAngelo and his wife separated in 1990, she filed for divorce in 1991, although she didn't follow through until after the arrest ,  when she filed again.  There is link in another thread to the 2018 divorce filing. 

Re: the timing of the revocable trust in the early 1990s , similar to how it is used to protect elders' assets, there is information online that suggests setting up a trust such as this could be used to block a spouse from getting a share of the house in a divorce.

Thank you for the link, I greatly appreciate it.

Being that the trust was formed in 1993, DeAngelo was a young man of 47. So personally I don't believe for a minute this was about estate planning.

California has community property laws governing divorce, meaning each spouse has a right to 1/2 of all property acquired during the marriage. It's not possible to "block" a spouse from their share of community property. California laws dictate what happens to a trust and the assets contained within it during a divorce.  

The court does something called "tracing" to determine the history of property, (like a trust), when the court is unsure of whether it's separate or community property. If community property was used to fund the trust, the law considers the trust to be community property and then divides it between the spouses. This home, acquired during DeAngelo's marriage, is community property. Makes no difference that it's legally held in trust.

The only aspect of California trust law with which I lack the knowledge to speak declaratively on is if this trust protects the house from seizure under criminal assets statutes. I believe it does. If that's the case, this as good as an admission of guilt by one party and knowledge by another. Twenty five years ago. Of course, I'm just speculating ...

[zoinkersscoob]

Given the timing of the separation, I don't think it unreasonable at all that SH set up the trust as an estate planning measure. She's an attorney and perhaps an expert in these things. Also keep in mind that she may have had an inkling JDD was doing things which easily could have gotten him killed. She would give the guy a place to live, but want to make sure the value of the house was passed along to her children.

California had the first real estate bubble in the early 1990s. This was a real cheap starter-type home, now probably worth a million dollars. Tax exposure was something to worry about even back then.

[walter]

I don't think anyone here, including myself, seems to know enough about why someone would have done this back then - let alone why this very specific couple did it. It's just a big question mark and we will never know why until someone from LE with the answer (if there even is one) comes forward.

[tomjones]

I’m quite sure ”investigating” him for 40 years costed more than $20mm, not to mention tangible and intangiboe costs outside of LE’s, up till an open source genealogy database, *ing away money,

[rgnnbld]

Jan 16, 2019 17:54:16 GMT zoinkersscoob said:

This was a real cheap starter-type home, now probably worth a million dollars. 

Not for nuthin, Zestimate says 8316 is worth less than 400k. 

[f1guyus]

Jan 16, 2019 19:35:42 GMT tomjones said:

I’m quite sure ”investigating” him for 40 years costed more than $20mm, not to mention tangible and intangiboe costs outside of LE’s, up till an open source genealogy database, *ing away money,

From what the Sac Sheriff’s said back in the day they spent a million chasing EAR in Sacramento during his 3 year spree. I don’t have any idea how much the SoCal guys spent but with 10 murders on the books I’ll bet it was more.

[ralphman]

Jan 17, 2019 1:23:51 GMT f1guyus said:

Jan 16, 2019 19:35:42 GMT tomjones said:

I’m quite sure ”investigating” him for 40 years costed more than $20mm, not to mention tangible and intangiboe costs outside of LE’s, up till an open source genealogy database, *ing away money,

From what the Sac Sheriff’s said back in the day they spent a million chasing EAR in Sacramento during his 3 year spree. I don’t have any idea how much the SoCal guys spent but with 10 murders on the books I’ll bet it was more.

$1,000,000 in 1979 is equivalent to $3,460,509.64 in 2019, a difference of $2,460,509.64 over 40 years.

[elir]

Jan 16, 2019 17:58:22 GMT walter said:

I don't think anyone here, including myself, seems to know enough about why someone would have done this back then - let alone why this very specific couple did it. It's just a big question mark and we will never know why until someone from LE with the answer (if there even is one) comes forward.

Yes, you are quite correct, either LE or it is possible at some point that his family may share info on points like the house or where he worked during the 1980s.

[goldcountry]

Jan 16, 2019 19:35:42 GMT tomjones said:

I’m quite sure ”investigating” him for 40 years costed more than $20mm, not to mention tangible and intangiboe costs outside of LE’s, up till an open source genealogy database, *ing away money,

*Other People's Money - California's long-suffering taxpayers'.