Sheilas Alternate Beneficiaries
We havent seen Sheilas trust document, nor have we seen the text of any motions filed in Judge Cohens court which refer to this document. All our information (as I understand it) about alternate beneficiaries of Sheilas trust is either second-hand or implied.
An experienced lawyer, gitana1 tells us that typically people name alternate beneficiaries in trusts. This makes sense to me.
So, if Sheila did name alternate beneficiaries, who are they?
The Cook County Record reports that Anthony Scifo, Heathers attorney, filed a seven-page emergency motion on January 15. It resulted in a January 16 hearing in the court of Judge Neil Cohen to discuss releasing some of the funds from Sheilas trust to pay for Heathers defense. The article also says:
It [the motion] goes on to explain that Mack is the sole beneficiary of her mothers trust and Wiese, as its trustee, as well as next in line to inherit the funds about $1.56 million, as of Dec. 30 behind Mack and her unborn child. [BBM]
So Scifos motion claimed that Stella inherits before William Wiese.
http://cookcountyrecord.com/news/26...-county-seeking-trust-funds-to-pay-for-lawyer
Judge Cohen seems to accept that the beneficiary line runs from Heather first to Stella second to William Wiese third. The Chicago Tribune reported that in the hearing on January 16 Cohen said that Mack's uncle could receive proceeds from the trust if she [Heather] is executed
and her baby girl does not survive. [BBM]
http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-82554099/
Some questions:
1. I assume Scifo, as Heathers attorney, has read the trust document. Assuming the Cook County Record is accurately reporting Scifos motion, what do people here conclude about his claim that Heather and then Stella stand in line to inherit from Sheilas trust before William Wiese? Do you think this means Sheila made her grandchildren her first alternate beneficiaries? If not, why would Scifo name William Wiese as inheriting only after Stella?
2. Scifo's argument's against William Wiese controlling the trust
would have been even stronger if he had argued that WW would inherit
immediately after Heather (without the child intervening), yet he didn't advance that argument. What reason could there by except that Stella is named as alternate beneficiary first? (Obviously in general terms: "my grandchildren" or somesuch.)
3. Judge Cohen similarly puts both Heather and Stella in front of William Wiese as benefiting from Sheilas trust. Before the hearing commenced, would Judge Cohen have read the trust document? Would that be the usual course if he was being asked to rule on use of the trust? Or would he rely on representations by lawyers in submitted motions and claims made during the hearing as to what the trust said? Cohen explicitly quoted the provisions of the trust during that hearing, noting that it was for the "health, support, education and maintenance" of sole beneficiary Heather Mack. Was this because he read the document or only motions which selected bits and pieces to serve their own purposes?
Naturally, they could be mistaken or sloppy. What do others think?
Doesnt it seem possible (likely?) that Sheila made some provision, in the alternate for her grandchildren before she did for her brother? Why else would Heathers attorney and Judge Cohen say that Stella stands between William Wiese and Sheilas trust? Wouldn't a woman who was prepared to give all her money to a monster have no qualms about giving it, in the alternative, to the monster's children (who could well be be minors at her death) before giving it to a brother with a career and stability and who is relatively late and settled in life?
).
