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

Discussion in 'Crimes in the News' started by dotr, Dec 15, 2017.

  1. ldlager

    ldlager Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    2,931
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.
     
    FromGermany, jennyjenny, nuff and 4 others like this.
  2. casesensitive

    casesensitive Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    4,162
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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
     
  3. ldlager

    ldlager Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    2,931
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.
     
  4. deugirtni

    deugirtni Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,561
    Likes Received:
    13,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  5. deugirtni

    deugirtni Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,561
    Likes Received:
    13,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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?)
     
    watcher9 and dotr like this.
  6. WINDSOR

    WINDSOR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    849
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.
     
    sceawian, ldlager and dotr like this.
  7. Tighthead

    Tighthead Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.
     
  8. nuff

    nuff Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    931
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.)
     
  9. Tighthead

    Tighthead Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.
     
    anonymess, ldlager, WINDSOR and 4 others like this.
  10. rickcross

    rickcross Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    1,377
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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?
     
    Kittybunny, watcher9 and dotr like this.
  11. Tighthead

    Tighthead Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.
     
    sceawian, ldlager, anonymess and 4 others like this.
  12. JDG

    JDG Websleuther

    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    18,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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??
     
  13. JDG

    JDG Websleuther

    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    18,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hope they still pay their bill even if they don't sign it!! Seriously.
     
    watcher9, dotr and Tighthead like this.
  14. rickcross

    rickcross Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    1,377
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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?
     
    nuff, watcher9, dotr and 1 other person like this.
  15. Tighthead

    Tighthead Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.
     
    watcher9 and dotr like this.
  16. Tighthead

    Tighthead Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.
     
  17. JDG

    JDG Websleuther

    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    18,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    watcher9, deugirtni and dotr like this.
  18. rickcross

    rickcross Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    1,377
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Got ya, that makes sense.
     
    watcher9 and dotr like this.
  19. rickcross

    rickcross Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    1,377
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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?
     
    watcher9 and dotr like this.
  20. Tighthead

    Tighthead Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.
     
    dotr and JDG like this.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice