Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #12

[ldlager]

So evidently
-Hs had no will.
- Bs had, prior to his death, told several people that it was his intention to give away most of his money to charity; and $500 million to honey.
- barry’s Latest will (2013) did not reflect his stated intentions to give most of his money to charity. He had not yet evidently prepared a new will to include these intentions
- barrys 2013 will left his estate to his 4 children, with no mention of honey that we know about. If honey was not a beneficiary in his will, It may be logical to assume that honey would have requested that the children transfer significant $ out of their inheritances to her to fund her for the rest of her life. And to fund the 300 million that ms says she was promised from honey.

One could easily conclude that things were coming to a head around the time of their deaths. Barry was going to give most of his money to charity, and 500 million to honey, who would in turn give ms 300 million.

It seems to me that one could easily conclude that the children could be severely negatively financially impacted if this had happened. If just Barry died, honey would possibly demand most of the inheritance back from the kids, and give away a lot to her sister. If just honey died, Barry would continue in life and give away most of his money to charity. Both hs and bs dying resulted in the children inheriting everything, immediately.

I hate to consider this as a possibility, but following the money leads you to the children, or someone linked to the children who would benefit financially from both Sherman’s dying. I have to believe LE is pursuing this avenue of investigation.

All My opinion only; speculation on my part based on the info that is publicly available.

 

[casesensitive]

It makes more sense to me that Donovan's sources are correct, whereby BS's will leaves everything to HS if he predeceased her. So what were HS's intentions when she acquired the full estate? My guess is her (missing) will bequeathed enormous amounts to charities and causes that she was passionate about. HS was the driving force in their philanthropy and felt strongly about sharing their wealth and giving back to the community. The horror of being born in a concentration camp evolved into her intense commitment to generously fund Jewish causes. I don't think HS was the type to not have a will that outlined her specific bequests. They were too important to her and philanthropy had become a way of life for her.

I also don't think HS would leave her children enormous amounts of money due to her statement below:

Honey told Toronto Life magazine in 2008 the couple "live nice lives, not large lives" and worried about the influence of their wealth on their children, saying they worked hard to instill in them a "sense of reality".

With the Shermans dying at roughly the same time, the only sure way to guarantee that BS's will kicked in was to have HS's will go missing. That may have been done for purely financial gain, but doesn't necessarily make those who benefited the same people who committed the murders. HS's will could have disappeared immediately following the murders when an opportunity presented itself, for example, before LE were called to their home. Who knows-- it's all speculation.

The mystery of the strangled billionaires

 

[ldlager]

It makes more sense to me that Donovan's sources are correct, whereby BS's will leaves everything to HS if he predeceased her. So what were HS's intentions when she acquired the full estate? My guess is her (missing) will bequeathed enormous amounts to charities and causes that she was passionate about. HS was the driving force in their philanthropy and felt strongly about sharing their wealth and giving back to the community. The horror of being born in a concentration camp evolved into her intense commitment to generously fund Jewish causes. I don't think HS was the type to not have a will that outlined her specific bequests. They were too important to her and philanthropy had become a way of life for her.

I also don't think HS would leave her children enormous amounts of money due to her statement below:

Honey told Toronto Life magazine in 2008 the couple "live nice lives, not large lives" and worried about the influence of their wealth on their children, saying they worked hard to instill in them a "sense of reality".

With the Shermans dying at roughly the same time, the only sure way to guarantee that BS's will kicked in was to have HS's will go missing. That may have been done for purely financial gain, but doesn't necessarily make those who benefited the same people who committed the murders. HS's will could have disappeared immediately following the murders when an opportunity presented itself, for example, before LE were called to their home. Who knows-- it's all speculation.

The mystery of the strangled billionaires

RBBM- Casesensitive I think you are correct re what Honey's will would have contained.

I can't come up with a scenario where someone would steal Honey's will or ensure that it went missing, and not benefit from doing so. Why would they do this? Firstly, stealing the will would put the person at risk of discovery. Secondly, only an insider would know that the will was in the house and not in a locked safe, (presumably),or was not being held by a lawyer or in a safety deposit box somewhere.

If your scenario is accurate regarding the provisions that her will would have contained, the only parties that I can rationally see that would benefit from having the will "disappear" are the children. Either that, or she had no will.

 

[deugirtni]

So evidently
-Hs had no will.
- Bs had, prior to his death, told several people that it was his intention to give away most of his money to charity; and $500 million to honey.
- barry’s Latest will (2013) did not reflect his stated intentions to give most of his money to charity. He had not yet evidently prepared a new will to include these intentions
- barrys 2013 will left his estate to his 4 children, with no mention of honey that we know about. If honey was not a beneficiary in his will, It may be logical to assume that honey would have requested that the children transfer significant $ out of their inheritances to her to fund her for the rest of her life. And to fund the 300 million that ms says she was promised from honey.

One could easily conclude that things were coming to a head around the time of their deaths. Barry was going to give most of his money to charity, and 500 million to honey, who would in turn give ms 300 million.

....

RSBM

Interesting if B was going to 'give' his wife $500M, and that H was in turn, going to give her sister $300M, which would be more than she would have kept for her own uses??

I think there is no way that H was NOT mentioned in B's Will. I think it was not mentioned in MSM only because it was a moot point at time of writing, with her also being dead. jmo.

 

[deugirtni]

RBBM- Casesensitive I think you are correct re what Honey's will would have contained.

I can't come up with a scenario where someone would steal Honey's will or ensure that it went missing, and not benefit from doing so. Why would they do this? Firstly, stealing the will would put the person at risk of discovery. Secondly, only an insider would know that the will was in the house and not in a locked safe, (presumably),or was not being held by a lawyer or in a safety deposit box somewhere.

If your scenario is accurate regarding the provisions that her will would have contained, the only parties that I can rationally see that would benefit from having the will "disappear" are the children. Either that, or she had no will.

Wasn't it said that HS was first to die? However, in any obit or headstone, no mention was made of which one predeceased the other. (One might suppose the family would be making sure to specify that B was predeceased by his wife, if there was a reason they specifically wanted this to be the case, to ensure that B's Will was the one to be used after presumably receiving everything from H's estate?)

 

[WINDSOR]

Wasn't it said that HS was first to die? However, in any obit or headstone, no mention was made of which one predeceased the other. (One might suppose the family would be making sure to specify that B was predeceased by his wife, if there was a reason they specifically wanted this to be the case, to ensure that B's Will was the one to be used after presumably receiving everything from H's estate?)

Assuming both HS and BS had wills, they were both drawn up by lawyers, therefore the lawyers have copies. Even though we have been told Honey's is missing, I believe the TPS has access to her will, but does not want the public to know that at this time.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that, when a person A dies and their will specifies a distribution to another person B, who is also dead, the B's inheritance would be distributed according to B's will. So even if Honey died first, and Barry was leaving something to Honey, would it not then go to Honey's estate.

If someone who is mentioned in one of the wills, was involved in the murders, that would be astounding.

 

[Tighthead]

Wasn't it said that HS was first to die? However, in any obit or headstone, no mention was made of which one predeceased the other. (One might suppose the family would be making sure to specify that B was predeceased by his wife, if there was a reason they specifically wanted this to be the case, to ensure that B's Will was the one to be used after presumably receiving everything from H's estate?)

Any will I have ever seen that is professionally prepared has a 30 day survivorship clause so if Honey died hours after Barry she wouldn't inherit.

As odd as it may seem, it is completely possible Honey didn't prepare a will. Some people get weird about facing death. Had she prepared a will in the normal course, it is hard to imagine it wouldn't have been held in the law firm's safe. People like this tend not to be the type to store it at home or in a SDB.

 

[nuff]

As odd as it may seem, it is completely possible Honey didn't prepare a will. Some people get weird about facing death. Had she prepared a will in the normal course, it is hard to imagine it wouldn't have been held in the law firm's safe. People like this tend not to be the type to store it at home or in a SDB.

Under Ontario law, HS would have been entitled to half of her husband's property AFAIK. I just started wondering if she had avoided making a will because a) she assumed, being male, that BS would go first; and b) she would have wanted to distribute her inheritance from him in ways he would not have approved, so she waited. (And others in the family possibly knew this.)

 

[Tighthead]

Under Ontario law, HS would have been entitled to half of her husband's property AFAIK. I just started wondering if she had avoided making a will because a) she assumed, being male, that BS would go first; and b) she would have wanted to distribute her inheritance from him in ways he would not have approved, so she waited. (And others in the family possibly knew this.)

As to your second point there was nothing prohibiting her from seeking legal advice on her own and having a will prepared independently of Barry.

There is no legal requirement for Barry to approve of her will.

 

[rickcross]

RBBM- Casesensitive I think you are correct re what Honey's will would have contained.

I can't come up with a scenario where someone would steal Honey's will or ensure that it went missing, and not benefit from doing so. Why would they do this? Firstly, stealing the will would put the person at risk of discovery. Secondly, only an insider would know that the will was in the house and not in a locked safe, (presumably),or was not being held by a lawyer or in a safety deposit box somewhere.

If your scenario is accurate regarding the provisions that her will would have contained, the only parties that I can rationally see that would benefit from having the will "disappear" are the children. Either that, or she had no will.

Not sure what good it would do for Honey's will to go missing? Would there not be a copy on file with the lawyer that drew it up? Wouldn't the executor also know where her will would be located? It's a very bizarre situation to say the least. We know Barry had a will, you would think that as a couple they would have drawn up wills at the same time? But Honey's sister promising $300M? One can only guess that maybe Honey was just so certain that Barry would pass first, that she really didn't want to bother with facing her own mortality?

 

[Tighthead]

Not sure what good it would do for Honey's will to go missing? Would there not be a copy on file with the lawyer that drew it up? Wouldn't the executor also know where her will would be located? It's a very bizarre situation to say the least. We know Barry had a will, you would think that as a couple they would have drawn up wills at the same time? But Honey's sister promising $300M? One can only guess that maybe Honey was just so certain that Barry would pass first, that she really didn't want to bother with facing her own mortality?

As has been discussed, when the original is missing the presumption is that the testator destroyed it for the purpose of revocation. Copies obviously do not rebut the presumption.

I have had people commission wills and never sign them because it freaks them out. Ususally men. It is the mortality equivalent of not opening your Visa bill, as if that will actually change things.

 

[JDG]

Not sure what good it would do for Honey's will to go missing? Would there not be a copy on file with the lawyer that drew it up? Wouldn't the executor also know where her will would be located? It's a very bizarre situation to say the least. We know Barry had a will, you would think that as a couple they would have drawn up wills at the same time? But Honey's sister promising $300M? One can only guess that maybe Honey was just so certain that Barry would pass first, that she really didn't want to bother with facing her own mortality?

IMO, Honey would have been quite aware of her mortality. She had just had treatment for throat cancer. She had had numerous surgeries for hip/knee replacements (?), all have some amount of risk no matter who you are.

I do not believe she had no will, she had one with all those assets, even if they were in BSs name.

Where is it? Who knows?? Is it really missing or is that for public consumption to help solve the crime?? Who knows??

 

[JDG]

As has been discussed, when the original is missing the presumption is that the testator destroyed it for the purpose of revocation. Copies obviously do not rebut the presumption.

I have had people commission wills and never sign them because it freaks them out. Ususally men. It is the mortality equivalent of not opening your Visa bill, as if that will actually change things.

I hope they still pay their bill even if they don't sign it!! Seriously.

 

[rickcross]

As to your second point there was nothing prohibiting her from seeking legal advice on her own and having a will prepared independently of Barry.

There is no legal requirement for Barry to approve of her will.

I assume that it might have been difficult for her to draw up a will simply because she had absolutely no idea what she actually had. Older couples are like that, the man owns everything, the wife uses credit cards to buy what she needs. But very little information is known by the wife.

A personal example, a few years ago I had to put both my parents in a seniors facility. My dad was losing his faculties quickly, and my mother wasn't a lot better. My mother had expressed concern that they wouldn't be able to afford to live in the expensive home for very long. I sat her down and explained that they had several million dollars in investments and were still bringing in over $100K in income. She looked at me like she was in shock. She had absolutely no idea. She knew they had money to maintain there simple lifestyle, but she just had no clue. I see Honey as being in a similar situation. She obviously knew they were loaded, but she probably had no clue as to exactly how much money they had or where it all was. Likely she was being used as a tax loophole, things being in her name for tax reasons only. So how could she possibly make a will?

 

[Tighthead]

Didn't one article say that Barry's will created a spousal trust for Honey? Maybe he was worried about her gifting insane amounts to family.

I think it was in a Donovan article if anyone remembers.

 

[Tighthead]

I assume that it might have been difficult for her to draw up a will simply because she had absolutely no idea what she actually had. Older couples are like that, the man owns everything, the wife uses credit cards to buy what she needs. But very little information is known by the wife.

A personal example, a few years ago I had to put both my parents in a seniors facility. My dad was losing his faculties quickly, and my mother wasn't a lot better. My mother had expressed concern that they wouldn't be able to afford to live in the expensive home for very long. I sat her down and explained that they had several million dollars in investments and were still bringing in over $100K in income. She looked at me like she was in shock. She had absolutely no idea. She knew they had money to maintain there simple lifestyle, but she just had no clue. I see Honey as being in a similar situation. She obviously knew they were loaded, but she probably had no clue as to exactly how much money they had or where it all was. Likely she was being used as a tax loophole, things being in her name for tax reasons only. So how could she possibly make a will?

Most wills you just do residual shares to beneficiaries so an inventory of assets isn't needed. You may not own at death what you own at the time you make the will, so shares are the standard.

 

[JDG]

You can make a will without full knowledge of your assets at death.

If you own a car and some furniture, you can bequeath it to someone, die 50 years later when you have real estate, a hefty bank balance and maybe won the lottery. Or maybe you have nothing in 50 years but you still leave your car to someone in that first will.

 

[rickcross]

Most wills you just do residual shares to beneficiaries so an inventory of assets isn't needed. You may not own at death what you own at the time you make the will, so shares are the standard.

Got ya, that makes sense.

 

[rickcross]

You can make a will without full knowledge of your assets at death.

If you own a car and some furniture, you can bequeath it to someone, die 50 years later when you have real estate, a hefty bank balance and maybe won the lottery. Or maybe you have nothing in 50 years but you still leave your car to someone in that first will.

So lets say that Barry puts a company in Honey's name simply for tax purposes, but it is in fact Barry's company. Then Honey dies. Would that company be given to the people in her will (children) to be divided equally?

 

[Tighthead]

So lets say that Barry puts a company in Honey's name simply for tax purposes, but it is in fact Barry's company. Then Honey dies. Would that company be given to the people in her will (children) to be divided equally?

If she is the beneficial owner of the shares it forms part of her estate. If she is a trustee than they do not.

If the tax purposes are for income you would just give her a non-voting share that could receive dividends independent of the other classes.

They would both be in the same tax bracket so it doesn't seem like something they would do to begin with.

Barry would likely be her first beneficiary anyway.