Comments on: Heath Ledger’s family feuding over management of his estate

By: journey

journey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:52:23 +0000

doesn’t sound like the uncles had anything to gain since they’re not inheriting under the will. and i admire them for stepping up to protect the wee one. kim seems like a very nice man. but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he has the skills to be executor of a large and complicated estate. and since he was requested to step down as executor once before . . .

and making nice-nice words about always looking after little dancing matilda would be a moot point if all the money disappears, as so often happens when an estate is mismanaged.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: anonyvent

anonyvent — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:55:51 +0000

In the case of Anna Nicole, who hadn’t make a new will after the baby was born, her little girl still inherited her estate.

I’m not certain, but I think in most Western countries, offspring take precedent, even in the case of a will being made before their birth.

Michelle should assert herself on behalf of her daughter. The whiff of impropriety on Mr. Ledgers part should be enough to convince her to do that. Any court would side with the child, no question.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: headache

headache — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:42:16 +0000

Bodil, now that I think I about it, I partically agree with you. Matilda is his heir and I’m sure had Heath thought about it, he would have left the bulk of his estate to her. Kim should put the money into trust for Matilda and leave it alone.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: bodil

bodil — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:35:03 +0000

It shouldn’t be up to Kim Ledger to “provide for Matilda”, it should be absolutely taken-for-granted that the child as a birth right inherits the biggest part of Heath Ledger’s estate. I don’t like the way that he’s been out talking in a paternalistic tone about how he will make sure that “Matilda will be looked after”. I’m deeply suspicious of this man – I mean, why was Heath so f*cked up in the first place? It surprises me that so few people try to connect this with Heath’s original family and how he fared there as a child, e.g. Going public about how much you love your son after he’s dead and you don’t have to take any emotional or other responsibilities anymore is one thing, being there for your hurting (and dying, as it were) son when he needs you the most, is another thing altogether. And no smoke without fire, the uncles may have a very good point. I hope Matilda’s guardians will fight for her birth right to Heath Ledger’s estate.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: headache

headache — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:11:16 +0000

I don’t know.

I mean it is bad form to go to the media but if it’s their only recourse right now, I can see their point. They don’t want to manage the estate for themselves only have an independant executor be named to keep what happened to Sir Frank’s estate from happening to Heath’s. We aren’t talking about grown children squabbling for part of an inheritance but a family trying to do right by a little girl who cannot speak for herself.

I am more than certain that Kim has every intention of providing Matilda with financial support but without proper management, that money might not be there, regardless of his good intentions.

The uncles are not out of line in what they’re asking, only in how they are going about it.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Bodhi

Bodhi — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:57:55 +0000

Thanks! x2

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Mairead

Mairead — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:31:05 +0000

Bodhi – you rock!

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Mairead

Mairead — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:31:05 +0000

Bodhi – you rock!

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: elisha

elisha — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:21:34 +0000

Those uncles sound like money grubbing freaks. It’s none of their business. If I was the media, I would just ignore them.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Bodhi

Bodhi — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:44:00 +0000

Mairead~ the inheritance laws vary from state to state, so it would depend on what New York’s laws are.

If Kim Ledger had such issues dealing with a previous estate that the courts removed him as executor, then maybe he shouldn’t take the job. It is pretty damn hard to be the executor of an estate, I’d think more so when it is a famous celeb.

I don’t know Australian inheritance laws (next on my list, I swear), so I don’t know how it all works, but I’d think that the courts would take past actions into consideration

Report this comment as spam or abuse