September 28th, 2005

Previous Entry Next Entry
08:48 am - and this is what all the trouble is for?

(22 comments | Leave a comment)

and this is what all the trouble is for? - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile

Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at


[User Picture]From: limpingpigeon Date: September 28th, 2005 - 03:13 pm (Link)
I can only assume she wasn't explicitly written into his will (probably because it was assumed that the whole marriage thing would hold up when it came to inheritance). Let this be a lesson to future elderly billionaires with trophy wives: Make sure the chick is written clearly and solidly into the will. Play up the "It's my money and I'll leave it to whomever I damn well please!" angle.

It's like remembering to tip your waitress. It's just plain common courtesy.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 28th, 2005 - 03:27 pm (Link)
that is correct. She wasn't explicitly written into the will, though she was his legal wife, and stood with him til the day he died. It is apparently well accepted that the father WANTED to leave her the money, but the son's claim was that no matter what his dad wanted, she's a gold digger and doesn't deserve it.

There's also dispute as to what law to follow or something. I don't remember the particulars, and don't feel like looking it up right now, but its soemthing like in California she is entitled to at least half the estate no matter what the will says and in Texas she's entitled to nothing unless the will says so, and it was unclear which states laws to actually use or something like that.

I'm of the opiinion that he was 89, and smart enough to run his business. He knew he was dying sooner rather than later and he married her. He didn't just date her (he had been her sugar daddy for a few years apparently). He didn't just screw her. He married her. I think its pretty clear that his intentions were for her to get at least some of that money.

It should also be noted that original judgement was that she'd get $474million (about a 1/3 of the estate). That got dropped down to $88million. The son won't even allow her that. He is on record as saying she doesn't deserve a dime. Which is just greedy. $88million out of $1.4billion isn't even noticable.
[User Picture]From: limpingpigeon Date: September 28th, 2005 - 03:44 pm (Link)
With all the confusion over the inheritance laws, I think this just shows that legal marriage is pretty useless as a way of managing property and inheritance. Yet another argument for the government and the law to just stay out of marriage altogether.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 28th, 2005 - 03:49 pm (Link)
well yes, I have been advocating the abolishment of the legal concept of marriage for quite some time now. I actually commented much the same thing as you to ludimagist below.

• Go to Top