Posted on 02/21/2014 5:47:37 AM PST by Uncle Chip
of her son Adam's 26 victims who hope to sue her estate
The estate of the mother of Newtown school shooter Adam Lanza is worth roughly $64,000, according to a Connecticut attorney who inventoried her finances, which is a devastating blow for victims of the massacre who are seeking damages over the shooting that left 27 people dead and a small town in shock.
Nancy Lanza, the mother of the disturbed shooter who bought him multiple firearms and taught him to shoot when he was just a small child, had five bank accounts worth a total of $60,000, according to an inventory of her finances filed in probate court earlier this month by attorney Samuel Starks.
The home Nancy Lanza shared with her son - where Adam Lanza fatally shot her as she was laying in her bed - has a fair market value of about $360,000. However, Lanza owes more than $400,000 on the mortgage of the home, so her estate is 'underwater' for about $40,000 on the Yogananda Street property.
Other than the home and bank accounts, Nancy Lanza's only other assets is a jewelery collection valued at about $5,000.
The inventory of Nancy Lanza's finances was first reported by the Hartford Courant. According to the paper, the 3,100-square-foot home - that has been vacant since the December 14, 2012, shooting - was appraised for more than $523,000.
However, real estate agents say it's unclear what the house could actually sell for once potential buyers realize it was the home of the man responsible for the second most-deadly mass-shooting in U.S. history....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I fear the Vampire Squid...irrationally perhaps...but...
Yes, i guess it might work that way. I know it does in Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting, but there you have to keep your guns and your ammo in (separate) safes at all times.
Do you happen to know what constitutes adequate gun storage in Connecticut? If she fulfilled all the requirements i don`t see how she or her estate could be liable for any damages. Or maybe she wasn`t even supposed to have guns at all under the circumstances?
I’m glad. Why should the victims be able to sue another victim? Her son was an adult. Sue HIS estate.
I certainly don’t expect to be held responsible for the actions of my adult children. Once they are 18, they are on their own.
Maybe Adam's attorneys have already cleaned out the family's savings accounts.
What we're talking about here isn't a criminal trial...it's a civil lawsuit seeking monetary damages.Given that,I think that it's the *jury* that decides what constitutes "adequate" security measures.If it can be proven,and I suspect it can,that the mother knew that her son had serious psychiatric,or neuropsychiatric,problems then the plaintiffs' lawyer will probably argue that she shouldn't have had *any* guns in the house lest that deeply disturbed son get hold of them.And as I suggested earlier,a jury in this part of the country is *very* likely to accept that argument 100%.So unless I'm badly mistaken (certainly possible) even if she was fulfilling the letter of any state and Federal laws that might have applied to her ownership,and storage,of firearms the jury could very well deem her to have been seriously negligent when it came to deny access to these firearms to her son.
Just speculation on my part, but I'd wager that at the time of the divorce, he titled the house to her free and clear..all the debt, SHE incurred...it was the era of easy and cheap home equity loans..you got the sense that she lived beyond her means...
You may be looking for the term “vicarious liability”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.