TexasCHLforum.com

In Hancock County, Ohio, in 1986, a man faked his death and disappeared. At the time he had lost his job and had other personal problems.

In 1994 his wife had him declared dead. As a result, Social Security paid benefits to her and the children.

Fast-forward to the present day. He realized that being an "unperson" with no identity was inconvenient. For instance, he could not get a driver license or a job where he had to provide a Social Security number.

He appealed to the same court and judge that had declared him dead 19 years ago. The judge declined. The judge said that Ohio law prohibited a change to a declaration of death more than three years after the fact.

The not-quite-deceased man's ex-wife is opposed to resurrecting his legal status. She would have to repay the Social Security benefits that she received after he was declared dead.

http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2013/O ... Oct,08&c=n" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/10/oh ... ing-alive/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What do they say about eating jalapeños?

- Jim

You better believe SSA will come after her!

No, the "Deceased" is coming back because now he doesn't have to pay child support anymore.

Zombie

CHLLady wrote:You better believe SSA will come after her!

No, the "Deceased" is coming back because now he doesn't have to pay child support anymore.

If she had no knowledge of him faking his death, then SSA should go after him for paying back th benefits. She shouldn't be penalized for his fraud. Of course, we all know it won't work out that way.

seamusTX wrote:Fast-forward to the present day. He realized that being an "unperson" with no identity was inconvenient. For instance, he could not get a driver license or a job where he had to provide a Social Security number.

¿Porque no aprende se hablar Español? Entonces él no tiene problema.

He's reaping what he sowed. That seems fair to me.

The real question to me is:
If he is already dead could his ex be charged if she decided to kill him?

jmra wrote:The real question to me is:
If he is already dead could his ex be charged if she decided to kill him?

That's a legitimate question.

If I were him, I'd leave town while I still could.

If he were still "alive" technically speaking, the benefits would have been paid to him so I don't see what they (SSA) are upset about unless the spouse got paid more than what he would have received. It's not like they are out any money. But I'm not on SS. Maybe there is something about it that I'm unaware of.

tomtexan wrote:If he were still "alive" technically speaking, the benefits would have been paid to him so I don't see what they (SSA) are upset about unless the spouse got paid more than what he would have received. It's not like they are out any money. But I'm not on SS. Maybe there is something about it that I'm unaware of.

He "died" while his children were minors so they received survivors benefits. His ex wife received the funds as their guardian. she did not receive any funds for herself.
If he were not legally dead the funds would not have been paid. Now if he lives past 62 and SS does not have to pay his retirement benefits that may offset some of what was paid out.

tomtexan wrote:If he were still "alive" technically speaking, the benefits would have been paid to him so I don't see what they (SSA) are upset about unless the spouse got paid more than what he would have received.

If a person who was paying into Social Security dies, and he and his spouse have minor children, they get monthly payments until the children are 18, or maybe 21 if enrolled in school. It could well be more than the deceased parent paid in his lifetime.

These scenarios crop up at least once a year. There was a notorious one in Galveston in the 1990s: Tim Kingsbury—ironically also from Ohio.

- Jim

paperchunker wrote: He "died" while his children were minors so they received survivors benefits. His ex wife received the funds as their guardian. she did not receive any funds for herself.
If he were not legally dead the funds would not have been paid. Now if he lives past 62 and SS does not have to pay his retirement benefits that may offset some of what was paid out.

That makes sense. For some reason I was under the impression that he was already receiving benefits at the time of his disappearance.

I guess since he is not alive that the IRS couldn't go after him for back taxes, he could commit any crime and not be prosecuted and even better, he doesn't have to sign up for Obamacare. Apparently in cases like this ( reported on Fox news) you can only come back from being dead within three years. After that you are dead forever. Walking Dead starts tomorrow on AMC my wife says.

Chuck Amuck wrote: ¿Porque no aprende se hablar Español? Entonces él no tiene problema.

pretty much the first thing that came to my mind too.

but really how hard is it to become someone else, and live again?

Chuck Amuck wrote:¿Porque no aprende se hablar Español? Entonces él no tiene problema.

Heck, he'd get more rights than the rest of us.