CANADA Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #18

[FromGermany1]

Unless the NW somehow got his hands on the will before or after killing HS.

If the NW stole the LW of Honey - what benefit did he get from it, if he wasn't one of the heirs anyway?

 

[FromGermany1]

If children are born by a surrogate mother, the bio children of the father only - is there a possibility, Honey had legal rights to put 3 of the four children in disadvantage re inheritence, if she had survived and had a LW?

I just don't know, if my question makes sense, but I hope so.

 

[Window21]

If children are born by a surrogate mother, the bio children of the father only - is there a possibility, Honey had legal rights to put 3 of the four children in disadvantage re inheritence, if she had survived and had a LW?

When you create a will you can include or not include whomever you want. If you want to leave one child out you can, mind you a person can always contest a will.
In the eyes of the law a surrogate child is yours. Plain and simple. They have the same rights as your birth child. I have an adopted child and in the eyes of the law it's the same as if I were to have a birth child.
BUT, I am no lawyer, so there could be some loop hole I don't know about.

 

[juli99]

But a lawyer that helps a client draft a Will that is subsequently executed would have no idea whether the client subsequently drafted new Will and revoked that one. So the lawyer would not know if he/she had drafted the latest (and valid) Will.

I can only speak from my own experience. My husband's friend passed away, and we tracked down a will he had made 10 years earlier. The lawyer asked us twice whether we were aware of any more recent wills he had made. It was based on our verbal assertion that we knew of no other wills, that the 10-year-old will was accepted as the latest and valid. I'll be honest, the system for wills is completely broken if you ask me. It's a game of who knows what lawyer they used, and hoping that there isn't something that's being missed.

 

[WINDSOR]

RE: NW

First I want to point out the amount of work and "data" that TP LE has been sifting through is huge! We know it has been years and I can understand now why many months pass without much to share.

Can anyone help me to comprehend what Price was conveying here? I have missed the underlined part in all my past reviews on this subject.

Billionaire Couple Was Murdered in Toronto Mansion 4 Years Ago, Police Release Footage of Suspect

"It is our hope someone will come forward with a name when they recognize the individual's walk the way in which they kick up their right foot with every step knowing that the person was or is connected to the Sherman family or was in the area on that day at that time," Price said.


I have re-arranged Price's statement, hopefully it adds clarity what I think Price was trying to say:

"It is our hope someone will come forward with a name, when they recognize the individual
If that the person was or is connected to the Sherman family, or
Was in the area on that day at that time,

The mention of connection to the Sherman family, is most curious in my view.

 

[WINDSOR]

But a lawyer that helps a client draft a Will that is subsequently executed would have no idea whether the client subsequently drafted new Will and revoked that one. So the lawyer would not know if he/she had drafted the latest (and valid) Will.

Except, in this high profile case, the lawyer would know that no new will has been discovered, and the lawyer could assume fairly confidently no newer will exists.

 

[WINDSOR]

"It is our hope someone will come forward with a name when they recognize the individual's walk the way in which they kick up their right foot with every step knowing that the person was or is connected to the Sherman family or was in the area on that day at that time," Price said.


I have re-arranged Price's statement, hopefully it adds clarity what I think Price was trying to say:

"It is our hope someone will come forward with a name, when they recognize the individual
If that the person was or is connected to the Sherman family, or
Was in the area on that day at that time,

The mention of connection to the Sherman family, is most curious in my view.[/QUOTE]

 

[WINDSOR]

I have re-arranged Price's statement, hopefully it adds clarity what I think Price was trying to say:

"It is our hope someone will come forward with a name, when they recognize the individual
If that the person was or is connected to the Sherman family, or
Was in the area on that day at that time,

The mention of connection to the Sherman family, is most curious in my view.

 

[juli99]

I have re-arranged Price's statement, hopefully it adds clarity what I think Price was trying to say:

"It is our hope someone will come forward with a name, when they recognize the individual
If that the person was or is connected to the Sherman family, or
Was in the area on that day at that time,

The mention of connection to the Sherman family, is most curious in my view.

Interesting... I went back and listened. I think he's saying that they don't just want a bunch of tips of people with similar walks. They want people with that walk who have some connection to the Shermans or who were known to be in the area. Makes sense.

 

[Bobbi Pearl]

Interesting... I went back and listened. I think he's saying that they don't just want a bunch of tips of people with similar walks. They want people with that walk who have some connection to the Shermans or who were known to be in the area. Makes sense.

Yes, that is what I thought when I took my time to read each sentence, without punctuation it is difficult to follow, but understanding these are answers to posed questions

 

[ldlager]

Except, in this high profile case, the lawyer would know that no new will has been discovered, and the lawyer could assume fairly confidently no newer will exists.

I don't know why a lawyer would assume there couldn't be one or many newer Wills. In any event, no Will has evidently ever been located.
Assuming no lawyer has come forward to date, there are only 2 reasonable options that I can think of:
1) She had a Will that a lawyer helped draft, and the lawyer knows it was revoked and was not replaced with a Will that he/she prepared and had HS execute
2) HS had no Will

 

[newclues]

M

If the NW stole the LW of Honey - what benefit did he get from it, if he wasn't one of the heirs anyway?

In such a case only if he was hired by someone else who had an interest in the will.

 

[MistyWaters]

M

In such a case only if he was hired by someone else who had an interest in the will.

I have questions about the discussion of an alleged Will Honey had or hadn’t -
- If there was something undesired in Honey’s unknown-about Will, who would have actually known, given nobody seems to know for certain if she even had a Will. That she would only tell one person who became her killer would seem rather unusual.
- If she hadn’t been murdered, what’s in a Will remains meaningless until death so why would anyone hurry her demise? If they cared, why were both murdered and not just Honey? Or simply not murder Honey who could’ve lived for 10 years or more, no need to be concerned about her Will because people amend their Wills all the time.
- It was Barry who held the majority of the wealth, why murder Honey for anything in her Will as it only represented a small fraction of the entire Sherman estates?

I just can’t comprehend why the couple were ruthlessly killed over something in Honey’s Will. Can anyone outline a theory that meets the logic test?

 

[newclues]

I have questions about the discussion of an alleged Will Honey had or hadn’t -
- If there was something undesired in Honey’s unknown-about Will, who would have actually known, given nobody seems to know for certain if she even had a Will. That she would only tell one person who became her killer would seem rather unusual.
- If she hadn’t been murdered, what’s in a Will remains meaningless until death so why would anyone hurry her demise? If they cared, why were both murdered and not just Honey? Or simply not murder Honey who could’ve lived for 10 years or more, no need to be concerned about her Will because people amend their Wills all the time.
- It was Barry who held the majority of the wealth, why murder Honey for anything in her Will as it only represented a small fraction of the entire Sherman estates?

I just can’t comprehend why the couple were ruthlessly killed over something in Honey’s Will. Can anyone outline a theory that meets the logic test?

Wasn't it all about if BS died before HS then everything went to HS?

 

[newclues]

Wasn't it all about if BS died before HS then everything went to HS?

If HS survived BS then her will would prevail when she would die later. Unless mistaken, if HS would have survived BS, would their children have gotten anything? Since both died, their children got everything.

 

[MistyWaters]

Wasn't it all about if BS died before HS then everything went to HS?

Nothing points to BS dying first and considering the terms of his will, everything wouldn’t have went to her anyway as she would’ve only had income to support herself.

 

[MistyWaters]

If HS survived BS then her will would prevail when she would die later. Unless mistaken, if HS would have survived BS, would their children have gotten anything? Since both died, their children got everything.

Virtually all Wills drawn up by a lawyer include a standard 30-day Survivor Clause meaning if the spouse does not survive for 30 days, then the secondary designated beneficiaries kicks in, in this case the four children. The reason for that is there can be various circumstances such as a plane crash or car accident when it becomes impossible to determine who died first, and so it minimizes needless estate fees. We don’t know if Barry’s Will included such a clause but I’d be very surprised if it didn’t given the magnitude of his estate.

 

[FromGermany1]

I don't know why a lawyer would assume there couldn't be one or many newer Wills. In any event, no Will has evidently ever been located.
Assuming no lawyer has come forward to date, there are only 2 reasonable options that I can think of:
1) She had a Will that a lawyer helped draft, and the lawyer knows it was revoked and was not replaced with a Will that he/she prepared and had HS execute
2) HS had no Will

That HS just had consulted a lawyer for her will and then her LW wasn't found anywhere, can't be a coincidence at all, IMO.
That HS wanted to give her sister $ 500.000 (when?), can't be a coincidence also. Was there somebody, who didn't agree with this "give-away"? BUT: why did Barry have to die then? Because he would enable HS to give away this $ sum?

 

[Window21]

Nothing points to BS dying first and considering the terms of his will, everything wouldn’t have went to her anyway as she would’ve only had income to support herself.

If BS died and HS lived then his entire estate would be held in trust. So Yes, there was a point in killing her.

Slain billionaire Barry Sherman's will divided estate equally among four children

"Sherman also laid out instructions in the event that he died before his wife.
In that case, he asked that trustees hold his entire estate in trust and pay “the net annual income derived therefrom” to Honey Sherman “in quarterly installments.

He also gives his trustees “absolute and unfettered discretion” to provide Honey Sherman with additional payments from his estate to provide for her “comfortable maintenance and benefit” as they deem fit.

Interestingly, Sherman does not direct that any portion of his estate be donated to charity and instead states that his four children - Lauren, Jonathon, Alexandra and Kaelen - would split it evenly upon Honey’s death."

Also:
Unsealed estate files reveal Barry and Honey Sherman's plans for their fortune | National Post

"Upon their deaths, Barry Sherman held $67 million in personal property and $1.8 million in real estate. Honey Sherman had $45.9 million in personal property and $9.5 million in real estate, the documents say. This figure covered by the estate files, though, represents a fraction of their true wealth;"

 

[MistyWaters]

If BS died and HS lived then his entire estate would be held in trust. So Yes, there was a point in killing her.

Slain billionaire Barry Sherman's will divided estate equally among four children

"Sherman also laid out instructions in the event that he died before his wife.
In that case, he asked that trustees hold his entire estate in trust and pay “the net annual income derived therefrom” to Honey Sherman “in quarterly installments.

He also gives his trustees “absolute and unfettered discretion” to provide Honey Sherman with additional payments from his estate to provide for her “comfortable maintenance and benefit” as they deem fit.

Interestingly, Sherman does not direct that any portion of his estate be donated to charity and instead states that his four children - Lauren, Jonathon, Alexandra and Kaelen - would split it evenly upon Honey’s death."

Also:
Unsealed estate files reveal Barry and Honey Sherman's plans for their fortune | National Post

"Upon their deaths, Barry Sherman held $67 million in personal property and $1.8 million in real estate. Honey Sherman had $45.9 million in personal property and $9.5 million in real estate, the documents say. This figure covered by the estate files, though, represents a fraction of their true wealth;"

My earlier comment pertained to the unlikely motive for the Sherman murders was something in Honey’s Will, which was never found if she had one. We also have to keep in mind that the probated Estate files which became known publicly represented only a small part of the entire estate. As for the known beneficiaries, with certainty they’re always at the top of the list of whom LE investigate first but that doesn’t automatically rule out anyone else.