andicus

^????

What do you mean, take it out on her kids? She caused this, and should be responsible for all of it. Her dying does not absolve her of that responsibility. The shitty thing was to get herself into the state she was in and drive into/destroy someone's home.

Brian T

Personally, I wouldn't drop a suit because of a perception like that, even though it must indeed be tough on them (not unlike living with her, I'd imagine). I"m sure they'll still be provided for.

Kurt D

She died without a will, which complicates things. And if the daily Mail is to be trusted her estate was only worth about $400,000 when she died.

Decker

Wouldn't the house damage be covered by her auto insurance?

Kurt D

Maybe? But does one need to sue an estate to get an insurance company to pay up?

movieguru

movieguru

Last time I checked most automobile insurance policies only cover $100K-$200K property damage liability. Rebuilding a house that someone burned down would easily cost more than that. In addition to the cost of rebuilding the house, the homeowner also lost all her personal property and possessions that were in the house, plus needs to pay for a temporary place to live while the home is being rebuilt. I would assume the homeowner still has to pay the mortgage on the home that they are no longer able to live in since it was burned down. The homeowners insurance would most likely cover the loss of the home, but not everyone insures the personal assets inside the home for anywhere near the value of what it would cost to replace everything. I would think the homeowners insurance company would also go after her estate to try and recover the money they had to pay out to the homeowner for any claimed losses.

movieguru

She's not taking money from her kids. Her children would only be entitled to whatever inheritance is left after all debts and expenses of the deceased are paid. If they debts and expenses exceed the value of the estate, her children would not be financially responsible for any amount that exceeded the estate value. They just wouldn't receive any inheritance since there would be none after all debts and expenses were paid out.

philo

There's also the additional mess of the ex-boyfriend James Tupper who is father of Heche's youngest son, fighting over control of the estate trying to block the eldest son from being executor.

Toddarino

Well, she’s dead. You can’t really make a corpse responsible. I don’t deny the shitty thing for her to do was to fuck up this lady’s home.
So by taking an inheritance from two kids who lost their mother and had nothing to do with her being a maniac, that’s really sticking it to her eh?

Toddarino

So by the homeowner filing suit, she is taking money from the kids.

Brian T

She's also getting restitution (hopefully), which she more than deserves. I doubt she's trying to "stick it" to anybody.

movieguru

Again, the inheritance is what is left after all debts and liabilities are paid. Her children's inheritance is whatever amount is left. If Heche owned a home that had some equity but also had a mortgage on the property, the inheritance would only be for the value of the equity (minus and type of selling expenses). They wouldn't be entitled to the full value of the home because a debt is owed to the bank that loaned her the money. No real difference with the woman whose house she destroyed. She owes a debt to the woman for the destruction of her property if she is at fault in the accident.

andicus

Who said anything about 'sticking it to her?' I have no idea why you feel the way you do about this.

Anne Heche fucked up, big time. It was 100% her fault. So this completely innocent woman should bear the responsibility of that?

As movieguru said, it's not taking money from the kids, it's taking money from the estate. The kids have no more right to it than creditors.

Abob Teff

Well, uh ... that's certainly a perspective ...

TGM

why should the homeowner be penalized at all? ridiculous thinking.

jjcool

Yeah. Guy can't be serious. can he?

jjcool

It seems kind of shitty to take this out on Lynne Mishele. She had nothing to do with Anne Heche getting drugged out of her gourd, speeding down residential streets, then crashing into and destroying a private home.

Josh-da-man

Really, if some washed-up actress hopped up on blow and fentanyl burns down my house, I'm going to sue her or her estate.

mndtrp

Our resident insurance agent might be able to answer better, but I would think that the insurance company would handle recouping the costs on their own. However, I seem to recall a situation years ago where a lady had to sue her child niece or something in order to get an insurance payout.

Toddarino

I’m serious I guess. I don’t agree with it.
It’s extremely unfortunate a crazy person drove into her house and died in the process. She got a gofundme, she can go after the insurance companies. I just think it’s shitty to go after the estate.
It’s just like, my opinion man.

rocket1312

Heche and the estate are functionally one and the same.

Now I'm imagining a scenario where Heche survived the crash and is in the hospital and just as it's clear she's about to lose the suit, her family pulls the plug and are like "ha ha, too late suckers!" And the whole thing has to get thrown out because it's shitty to sue someone's estate.

Timber

This thread has taken a very strange turn. A dead person should be absolved of any personal responsibilities, even to the innocent family that had their house burned down? It should be their responsibility to fight with the insurance company, when again they did nothing but live there.

jpcamb

https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...ction-accident

If you look at the article the woman's lawyers are suing the estate as her home was completely destroyed including all her worldly possessions aside from her pets and she has been suffering PTSD since the accident. Her mental health was destroyed by the reckless behavior of Heche. She is essentially homeless and in a very bad way suffering from insomnia, severe anxiety, and flashbacks. I really can't see a valid argument for her not seeking compensatory damages for having her life ruined just because the perpetrator died. The victim's pain and suffering are no less real than Heche's kids, in America the only way to be compensated fairly is litigation and we all know insurance companies do not like to pay what they are supposed to and they look out for their own bottom line.

Kurt D

Thought experiment: If Heche had survived the crash, had been sued and became destitute because of it, and thus the kids still had no inheritance to look forward to, would it still have been wrong to sue her for damages, in deference to the kids' potential inheritance?

Generational wealth is great, but it's not guaranteed.