Yes, I know this isn't political but I also know we have some very intelligent posters and I'm curious about who's right in the following scenario.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12829841/samantha-miller-aric-hutchinson-lisa-miller-folly-beach-wedding-crash.html

Quote:

---

The mother of a bride killed by a drunk driver on her wedding day is taking legal action against her son-in-law, accusing him of fraud and 'dishonoring my daughter' amid a row about insurance claims and settlement cash.

Samantha Miller, 34, was killed on April 28 while she was celebrating her wedding at Folly Beach in South Carolina.

Jamie Lee Komoroski, 26, was three times over the legal driving limit when she smashed her car into Miller's golf cart, which was carrying the bride and her new husband, Aric Hutchinson, 36. He was left severely injured.

Miller's mother Lisa was initially effusive in her praise of Hutchinson, saying he was like a son to her.

But she has now petitioned the court to remove him as executor of his late wife's estate - even claiming that their marriage was not legitimate.

At stake is a potentially large legal settlement.

---

Mother on the left

Quote:

---

In October, two South Carolina beach bars settled a wrongful-death lawsuit for allowing Komoroski to get 'visibly intoxicated' before she crashed. The Crab Shack and The Drop In Bar & Deli were among several companies which agreed to settle with Miller's estate, as did Progressive Northern Insurance Co.


The amounts of the settlements have not been made public and a judge still has to approve the petition of approval of the death settlement.

Lisa Miller has challenged the settlements in court - filing, then withdrawing, then refiling a motion to intervene in the case.

She told The Post and Courier that she felt Hutchinson was sidelining her from the payout, which is not what her daughter would have wanted.

---

Quote:

---

Miller's attorney, Jerry Meehan, accused Hutchinson of attempting to orchestrate a 'money grab', carried out in secret.

He said Lisa Miller's 'main reason to intervene is to protect the Estate of Samantha Miller and all of its rightful heirs.

He added: 'There is no reason to rush the process and cloak in secrecy. This was a money grab from minute one.'

Meehan has seized on the fact that the marriage was not registered until May 1, and the license signed by Hutchinson's aunt and uncle, as he remained in the hospital.

His aunt said she had known husband and wife for 36 years: Hutchinson was 36, but Miller was only 34 when she died.

The aunt and uncle also mistakenly said the couple had lived together after their wedding.

Hutchinson said that he was saddened by the turn of events, and he had offered his mother-in-law half of the cash.

---

Husband and wife before she died after the wedding reception.

Quote:

---

He insisted she was not being cut out.

'Aric has been more than generous with Lisa Miller offering her half of the money and she has repaid him by threatening to bring a frivolous challenge to the validity of his marriage to Sam,' said Hutchinson's attorney, Patrick Wooten.

---

My question is if they had a marriage license and it was after the ceremony and married, could his aunt and uncle signing off as witnesses after the fact and misremembering invalidate their marriage? If so, then couldn't this be used to invalidate a lot of marriages?

Who in your opinion has the high ground in this case, the mom or the widower?

TIA

I would say the husband of the dead chick has the high ground. I would much rather be him than be the pissed of mother trying to unwind a legitimate marriage certificate and wedding.

My question is, how is the husband even getting anything if she died on her wedding day? Surely she did not yet have a will leaving him all of her property, and everything she owned at that point would have been separate property, which would go to her siblings/parents if she had no kids. But that is under Texas law. I am pretty drunk and didn't pay attention to what state this is in.

It's my understanding in Texas that if they didn't already have wills then it automatically becomes the property of the widow/widower but that's why I'm asking the question.

heavily intoxtricated said:

---

I would say the husband of the dead chick has the high ground. I would much rather be him than be the pissed of mother trying to unwind a legitimate marriage certificate and wedding.

My question is, how is the husband even getting anything if she died on her wedding day? Surely she did not yet have a will leaving him all of her property, and everything she owned at that point would have been separate property, which would go to her siblings/parents if she had no kids. But that is under Texas law. I am pretty drunk and didn't pay attention to what state this is in.

---

It's not about what she had before the marriage. It's about the settlement due to her death.

South Carolina.

Husband is sole beneficiary with no will and no kids.

"Dying without a will is called dying "intestate." Roughly summarized: the intestacy law favors your relatives, the closer the relation the greater the share. Your husband or wife takes one-half of your property if you leave a spouse and children. If you leave a spouse and no children, your spouse takes all. If you leave no spouse, but children, then your children take your property."

Enviroag02 said:

---

heavily intoxtricated said:

---

I would say the husband of the dead chick has the high ground. I would much rather be him than be the pissed of mother trying to unwind a legitimate marriage certificate and wedding.

My question is, how is the husband even getting anything if she died on her wedding day? Surely she did not yet have a will leaving him all of her property, and everything she owned at that point would have been separate property, which would go to her siblings/parents if she had no kids. But that is under Texas law. I am pretty drunk and didn't pay attention to what state this is in.

---

It's not about what she had before the marriage. It's about the settlement due to her death.

---

Oh ok, I gotcha. Sirry, I'm in a whole bottle of wine right now.

If you're talking about a lawsuit settlement, I'd need to know who the plaintiffs are, what the claims are, who is assserting each claim, and and what the damage model is for each chain.

Wrongful death damages in SC are recoverable by spouse/children or, if no spouse/children, then the parents. (Different than Texas). So the mom wants there to be no marriage so that she becomes the one entitled to damages. Money often brings out the ugly in people.

https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t15c051.php


"While the executor of the state is required to initiate a wrongful death lawsuit, any resulting settlement will be paid to the family members the deceased party left behind. The specific people who receive the damages depends on how many family members the deceased had. People who can recover wrongful death damages include:

The spouse and children of the deceased
The parents of the deceased if they were childless and unmarried
Heirs of the deceased if there are no living parents, children, or spouse"

https://www.piercesloan.com/blog/2022/february/wrongful-death-claims-in-south-carolina/#:~:text=Many%20states%20allow%20a%20wrongful,are%20often%20names%20in%20wills.

heavily intoxtricated said:

---

I am pretty drunk and didn't pay attention to what state this is in.

---

One of the best username checks out I've ever seen.

Dude committed to a lifetime with the deceased bride that was taken. Mom's commitment ended @18yo.

A money grubbing ho is the legal term for Mom.

ProgN said:

---

It's my understanding in Texas that if they didn't already have wills then it automatically becomes the property of the widow/widower but that's why I'm asking the question.

---

That is correct under Texas law. If the same is true for SC and she didn't have a valid will, that's why she is trying to invalidate the marriage.

_mpaul said:

---

ProgN said:

---

It's my understanding in Texas that if they didn't already have wills then it automatically becomes the property of the widow/widower but that's why I'm asking the question.

---

That is correct under Texas law. If the same is true for SC and she didn't have a valid will, that's why she is trying to invalidate the marriage.

---

So would the witnesses not signing the paperwork in time open the door for a court to nullify the marriage?

ProgN said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

ProgN said:

---

It's my understanding in Texas that if they didn't already have wills then it automatically becomes the property of the widow/widower but that's why I'm asking the question.

---

That is correct under Texas law. If the same is true for SC and she didn't have a valid will, that's why she is trying to invalidate the marriage.

---

So would the witnesses not signing the paperwork in time open the door for a court to nullify the marriage?

---

Don't know. That would depend on state law. Nor sure how that part of it would play out in Texas. Gut feeling is that the witnesses don't have to sign contemporaneously at the ceremony, but I'm not sure.

In texas, i dont think it would matter as they'd be deemed common law marriage, wouldn't they?

heavily intoxtricated said:

---

I am pretty drunk and didn't pay attention to what state this is in.

---

Username is dead nuts on.

Seems pretty clear that with no will, the spouse gets the estate. It also seems pretty clear that they were married, having gotten a license, walked down the aisle, said "I do", etc. Maybe there's one final part they had gotten to yet, but still married.

I could see some ambiguity if they were shacking up or if it happened after the license but before the ceremony. But no, I don't think the mother has a case.

TRADUCTOR said:

---

Dude committed to a lifetime with the deceased bride that was taken. Mom's commitment ended @18yo.

A money grubbing ho is the legal term for Mom.

---

Sounds like the dude dodged a bullet with that MIL, unfortunately.

Sounds like the issue is how valid is the marriage license if the witnesses didn't sign until after the bride's death, and it doesn't appear anyone on here knows the for sure answer to that question in the state of jurisdiction.

Dude got pretty messed up from crash too, not sure why the mother thinks she should be paid.

Kozmozag said:

---

Dude got pretty messed up from crash too, not sure why the mother thinks she should be paid.

---

This.

Sad to see this turn even more uglier. The mom should be ashamed of herself.

I had a similar case. Lady married an illegal as he was about to be deported. She got hit by a Ryder Truck and knocked into a brick liquor store, killing her. The family, whom I represented, claimed it was a sham marriage just so he could stay in the country.

There was no will. I got the illegal to offer to split it with the family, but they wanted 100%. The court ruled the marriage was valid. It's a very low bar [in Georgia and elsewhere I would imagine]. The illegal guy's attorney found and produced the marriage certificate. They were married in an ICE facility. They never lived together and he had a wife or girlfriend down in Columbia. We couldn't prove he was married to the girlfriend or that it was a total sham. Good luck getting Columbian legal records.

GeorgiAg said:

---

I had a similar case. Lady married an illegal as he was about to be deported. She got hit by a Ryder Truck and knocked into a brick liquor store, killing her. The family, whom I represented, claimed it was a sham marriage just so he could stay in the country.

There was no will. I got the illegal to offer to split it with the family, but they wanted 100%. The court ruled the marriage was valid. It's a very low bar [in Georgia and elsewhere I would imagine]. The illegal guy's attorney found and produced the marriage certificate. They were married in an ICE facility. They never lived together and he had a wife or girlfriend down in Columbia. We couldn't prove he was married to the girlfriend or that it was a total sham. Good luck getting Columbian legal records.

---

Did you try requesting them from Colombia?

IMO the mom is bat**** crazy. hth.

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I had a similar case. Lady married an illegal as he was about to be deported. She got hit by a Ryder Truck and knocked into a brick liquor store, killing her. The family, whom I represented, claimed it was a sham marriage just so he could stay in the country.

There was no will. I got the illegal to offer to split it with the family, but they wanted 100%. The court ruled the marriage was valid. It's a very low bar [in Georgia and elsewhere I would imagine]. The illegal guy's attorney found and produced the marriage certificate. They were married in an ICE facility. They never lived together and he had a wife or girlfriend down in Columbia. We couldn't prove he was married to the girlfriend or that it was a total sham. Good luck getting Columbian legal records.

---

Did you try requesting them from Colombia?

---

it was a multiple car accident - we agreed on the couple's "stake" reserving the issue of marriage, I gave the issue of marriage to another attorney. He said he did - I didn't want to fool with it after I saw the marriage certificate and they wouldn't settle. I knew the case was likely a loser...

GeorgiAg said:

---

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I had a similar case. Lady married an illegal as he was about to be deported. She got hit by a Ryder Truck and knocked into a brick liquor store, killing her. The family, whom I represented, claimed it was a sham marriage just so he could stay in the country.

There was no will. I got the illegal to offer to split it with the family, but they wanted 100%. The court ruled the marriage was valid. It's a very low bar [in Georgia and elsewhere I would imagine]. The illegal guy's attorney found and produced the marriage certificate. They were married in an ICE facility. They never lived together and he had a wife or girlfriend down in Columbia. We couldn't prove he was married to the girlfriend or that it was a total sham. Good luck getting Columbian legal records.

---

Did you try requesting them from Colombia?

---

it was a multiple car accident - we agreed on the couple's "stake" reserving the issue of marriage, I gave the issue of marriage to another attorney. He said he did - I didn't want to fool with it after I saw the marriage certificate and they wouldn't settle. I knew the case was likely a loser...

---

Sarcasm
https://www.amazon.com/11-ounce-Mug-COLOMBIA-COLUMBIA/dp/B01B6M9XO4#immersive-view_1701873205086

BMX Bandit said:

---

In texas, i dont think it would matter as they'd be deemed common law marriage, wouldn't they?

---

Good question. Did they live together after the marriage as husband and wife? (which I think is an element) My understanding from the story was the accident happened at the wedding. They didn't have a chance.

Great point! Forgot that element!

South Carolina

I have been to that bar in Folly Beach, which is actually not a great beach destination but is the best in that area.

how many family scandals are there in South Carolina?!?!

_mpaul said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

In texas, i dont think it would matter as they'd be deemed common law marriage, wouldn't they?

---

Good question. Did they live together after the marriage as husband and wife? (which I think is an element) My understanding from the story was the accident happened at the wedding. They didn't have a chance.

---

Would it matter if they'd been living together before the wedding?

I have no clue, just seems likely that they would have been, and I wonder if it matters, legally.

This is a really good reminder for all of us to have a current will that reflects your wishes upon death. It doesn't matter how kumbaya everybody is before death. When money and things are involved, people change. In this story, they wouldn't have likely had wills for each other at that time. But the mother-in-laws attitude change when big money came in is not unusual. This is pretty common after somebody dies.

If you don't have a will, every single major city in Texas has attorneys that will get you set up much cheaper than you think. Lots of people believe their estate is or will be so small that it wont matter. But providing clear definitions of your intent, especially if you have kids, is so important.

Get started today.

IANAL but the OP did summon "very intelligent posters" so here I am.

As mentioned by apparent attorneys (I only say that as I have not vetted them personally), the couple seemed to have checked the boxes for a valid wedding if they had a public ceremony and were then in the process of celebrating.

There seems to be no intent to mislead people about their marriage and the accident did not seem to be planned, so there appears to be no fraud that would disqualify the widower. The marriage license seems to be a formality of little relevance and the "mistakes" on the license have nothing to do with whether the couple intended to be married or if it was a sham.

If I were a crafty lawyer, I would argue that them celebrating their marriage together and jointly riding in the golf cart would meet the "living together" post-marriage, unless the bar to meet is domiciled together.

Husband / widower has a solid case, made a reasonable offer, so at this point the bride's family at max gets the 50% offered. They seem like greedy people trying to score a buck whilst accusing the widower of being the greedy one. 10 to 1 the mom votes Democrat.

Greener Acres said:

---

This is a really good reminder for all of us to have a current will that reflects your wishes upon death. It doesn't matter how kumbaya everybody is before death. When money and things are involved, people change. In this story, they wouldn't have likely had wills for each other at that time. But the mother-in-laws attitude change when big money came in is not unusual. This is pretty common after somebody dies.

If you don't have a will, every single major city in Texas has attorneys that will get you set up much cheaper than you think. Lots of people believe their estate is or will be so small that it wont matter. But providing clear definitions of your intent, especially if you have kids, is so important.

Get started today.

---

The will aspect would help the survivor claim aspect. The bigger issue appears to relate to who can recover under the WD statute. If there is no spouse, then parents can. (Again, different than Texas). So the mom wants no spouse so she can recover the WD claim.

Edit: and as fka points out, the legal "issue" appears to become whether the certificate part is more like a formality and small mistakes would make it null. I suspect these folks marriage would hold up. And if husband did indeed offer 50%, then mom is even more gross.

I wonder if mom and dad also had an old life insurance policy on their daughter that was just never canceled and they're after that too. Adding $1M to whatever the settlement was could bring out the ugly in some poeple.

One would think the pre-existing policy with the parents as the beneficiary would clearly be paid to the parents. The widower would have no interest / rights to that payout unless the policy provided that a spouse becomes the beneficiary upon marriage.

The claims appear to be centered on the payouts from the WD claims. Just remember that although smart, IANAL.

fka ftc said:

---

One would think the pre-existing policy with the parents as the beneficiary would clearly be paid to the parents. The widower would have no interest / rights to that payout unless the policy provided that a spouse becomes the beneficiary upon marriage.

The claims appear to be centered on the payouts from the WD claims. Just remember that although smart, IANAL.

---

Yup. If she has named beneficiaries on a life policy those will get the life insurance proceeds. That does not change if she has gotten married and not yet named her husband as the primary beneficiary. I've seen cases where a 2nd spouse only learns after their spouse has passed that the prior spouse was listed on the life policy and it was never changed. There's nothing the life company can do at that point. The current spouse is out of the settlement, and the former spouse gets an unexpected windfall.

I did a quick look on whether South Carolina has a common law provision, and they eliminated it in 2019. So my guess it would boil down to what constitutes a valid marriage in South Carolina. Specifically, is it the issuance of a marriage license and the performing of a ceremony; or, is it perfection of the license by signatures of the witnesses and the officiant.

My guess is that's what the mom is litigating. Sad, because she's using the argument of "what her daughter would have wanted". I doubt seriously that her daughter would have wanted her mom to try to eliminate her new husband from any portion of the wrongful death settlement.