It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Robin Williams kids are fighting with his widow over the estate

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Children of Robin Williams are now fighting with his wife of 3 years over property




Robin Williams' widow is fighting his 3 children over property the kids say is clearly theirs ... and the dispute is so bad it has ended up in court.

Susan Schneider has filed legal docs complaining someone came into the house days after Robin's death and took some of the actor's belongings. But the kids tell a very different story.

Zak, Zelda and Cody Williams claim Susan is essentially attempting a money grab by ignoring the plain language of his will and trust and trying to redefine it to benefit her.

Sources connected with the kids tell TMZ ... Susan refused to let them in the house after Robin died. We're told before Robin met Susan -- he was very clear in the trust he created ... he left his personal effects, including his Oscar for the movie "Good Will Hunting", movie memorabilia, action figures, graphic novels, theater masks and other items to his 3 children.

Sources connected with the children say Susan can absolutely keep the items she accumulated with Robin while they were married, but they say she has gone way further. For example, they're indignant she is apparently trying to redefine the word "jewelry." We're told the kids are supposed to get all of it, but she's saying "jewelry" does not include his watch collection.



Sounds like she's trying to redefine the will. If the will if definitive, then what it states in there, is what you get. If it states the children get the jewelry, that includes watches. You don't find watches over by the knick knack section of a store, you find it in a jewelry department. I'm sorry to say this but IF he wanted her to have the watches, he would have defined the watches in the will to go to her, and not his children. I'm sure, even with 3 years of marriage, he left her well provided for. Barring the children from the home after his death, only makes her look suspicious.




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
More proof that money is the root of evil. Even a family, after loosing their father has enough to live ten lifetimes still wants more.

I'm not surprised, look at how everyone is about the money.

What ever happened to the days where you literally took care of your self and your own. Fish, hunt, trap, and make what you need to survive and barter the rest.

Ahh that's right Murrikaaa

Capitalist HQ.

Poor old funny man, probably spinning on his head over this.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: shaneslaughta
More proof that money is the root of evil. Even a family, after loosing their father has enough to live ten lifetimes still wants more.

I'm not surprised, look at how everyone is about the money.

What ever happened to the days where you literally took care of your self and your own. Fish, hunt, trap, and make what you need to survive and barter the rest.

Ahh that's right Murrikaaa

Capitalist HQ.

Poor old funny man, probably spinning on his head over this.



Sadly though, in this I'd have to side with the kids. If he left things to them, and she's trying to change the terms of the will to get it to be hers now, I'd be upset too. Let's be honest, if your father passed and left something to you, and he remarried 3 years ago, and now she's taking to take something that he left to you, wouldn't it upset you even a little? It's essentially theft.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Now both sides will end up with less. The lawyers will take them to the cleaners.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Anyafaj
There's no way to determine the truth of any of this at this point. It's coming from the media for one, and secondly, both sides are going to say whatever is necessary to make the other look bad. The courts will have to make a determination, whether it is fair and equitable, or not.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: shaneslaughta
More proof that money is the root of evil. Even a family, after loosing their father has enough to live ten lifetimes still wants more.

I'm not surprised, look at how everyone is about the money.

What ever happened to the days where you literally took care of your self and your own. Fish, hunt, trap, and make what you need to survive and barter the rest.

Ahh that's right Murrikaaa

Capitalist HQ.

Poor old funny man, probably spinning on his head over this.


Good post. There's more people like you than you think. We just don't hear their voice because there's no money in it.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I would refuse to agree to a settlement and keep the assets ties up in court till the gold digging monster drops dead.
Then there will be no one left to fight over it. Just my opinion.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
His life was a train wreck when he was alive, why would his death be any different?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
3 years and she thinks she owns the man hahahahhaha. 3 years isn't even enough to be declared a domestic couple.

Still missing 2 years honey to have any signifigance at all.

3 years is like. The time it takes for obama to walk in and out of Officer. Lol. She shall have nothing.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
3 years and she thinks she owns the man hahahahhaha. 3 years isn't even enough to be declared a domestic couple.

Still missing 2 years honey to have any signifigance at all.

3 years is like. The time it takes for obama to walk in and out of Officer. Lol. She shall have nothing.



I completely agree. The kids are willing to let her keep the things accumulated during the marriage. They have no issue with this. But it seems she wants more and is trying to change the will. To me, this spells greed. She claiming the kids shut services off to the house after he died, including the newspaper. If it was paid for her then yes, it's vindictive, but if it was paid for by the father, or the estate, or it's in the will to turn it off, then the kids have the right to turn it off and feel free to turn it back on in her name. Especially if bills were in Robin's name and weren't being paid. Then the bills would go to the estate. The executor of the estate would then shut those services off, yes, including the paper.




top topics



 
4

log in

join