Which situation? The one where, according to you, the kids once again aren't getting their exact way and so they're bribing everyone to orchestrate things so they get what they want?
Doesn't this seem to be a non-issue since it seems no matter how you look at it, the estate will have to be determined by the courts, if H has no Will?
And any person(s) claiming to be a beneficiary of H's Will would have to prove it, would they not? And good luck to them on that without H's Will.
- If B killed H, then B doesn't get to be a beneficiary of H's Will, and if H has no will... it would be determined by the courts?
- If H killed B, then H doesn't get to be a beneficiary of B's Will, but yet he left everything to H, and so .. it would be determined by the courts?
- If double murder, they need to know timing; if B went first and left everything to H, but then H doesn't have a Will, then... it gets determined by the courts?
- If double murder, and H went first and she has no Will, then it gets determined by the courts?
It is preposterous to think that H wouldn't have had a Will. She was 70 years old, had already had a bout with throat cancer in addition to numerous other ailments, and she was one half of one of Canada's wealthiest couples. That makes sense.
What am I missing? It's early and I was up late.
If it was a double murder and honey died first, then Barry’s will stipulated that the kids would inherit, as honey predeceased him. No confusion there, and no need for the courts to “decide” imo