I see her suit to get $150,000 as quite normal. As the widow, she's entitled to get a reasonable sum every so often for running expenses. Especially since she's the sole heir.
I believe the judge's ruling was wrong.
On another point, it's standard ruling, in every country, I believe to nullify every previous will on marriage. I'm assuming this will comes under the jurisdiction of the United States.
I can't see the family winning with a 1907 will, which probably dates from before Gatti and his wife even had met.
My feeling is, that unless they prove the will a forgery, or that Gatti was subject to "undue influence" or the wife was involved in a crime resulting in Gatti's death, she will win.
As Gatti was a mature adult, able to earn $6 mill, and sane, he had full freedom to make her his heir, regardless of what presure she is suposed to have put o him. He had the mind to make his own decisions, and "love" ons/or the losing of his wife if he didn't sign is not, repeat, not regarded as undue influence.
Certainly not sufficient to invalidate a legally drawn up will.
Just my opinion...no charge.
I believe the judge's ruling was wrong.
On another point, it's standard ruling, in every country, I believe to nullify every previous will on marriage. I'm assuming this will comes under the jurisdiction of the United States.
I can't see the family winning with a 1907 will, which probably dates from before Gatti and his wife even had met.
My feeling is, that unless they prove the will a forgery, or that Gatti was subject to "undue influence" or the wife was involved in a crime resulting in Gatti's death, she will win.
As Gatti was a mature adult, able to earn $6 mill, and sane, he had full freedom to make her his heir, regardless of what presure she is suposed to have put o him. He had the mind to make his own decisions, and "love" ons/or the losing of his wife if he didn't sign is not, repeat, not regarded as undue influence.
Certainly not sufficient to invalidate a legally drawn up will.
Just my opinion...no charge.
Comment