The Dutch media feast on the legal wrangling between Rachel Hazes and her daughter Roxeanne. Rachel would not be an heiress of our folk hero André and would have wrongly paid millions of euros to herself.
But: the verdict of February 23 is crystal clear. Hereby an explanation in accordance with the ‘legal truth’. A tip of the veil: Rachel has behaved really nicely.
community of goods
Rachel and André Hazes were married in community of property. This means that half of all the assets that were there when André died in 2004, belong to Rachel anyway. So: André’s estate concerns only 50 percent of the matrimonial property.
The will
André was cunning: if there was a divorce between him and Rachel when he died, Rachel would not inherit his share. The judge provisionally established that divorce proceedings were indeed underway at the court at the time. For example, Rachel has no direct right under inheritance law to the other 50 percent of the matrimonial property.
The division
In May 2005, all parties sat down at the table. The children had an administrator, there was an executor and Rachel owned a top accounting firm – PriceWaterCoopers. At that time, it was agreed between mother and children that 50 percent of André Hazes’ marital property was also allocated to Rachel. There is a simple reason for this: the children were still much too young to become directors of the two companies; this became Rachel. The children have received an unknown amount due to Rachel’s over-allocation.
So why an urgent lawsuit?
Roxeanne Hazes has started summary proceedings. She claims: (a) Rachel must not call herself an heir, (b) Rachel must not enter into any agreements regarding André Hazes’ intellectual property rights, (c) Rachel must prepare a press statement, and (d) Rachel must provide copies of various papers .
The judge rules that in his view it is not at all clear whether or not Rachel may call herself an heir. The court also finds that claims a, b and c are not of urgent importance and that a new debate may have to take place in a case on the merits.
What is Roxeanne probably thinking?
She is of the opinion that her mother Rachel is not entitled to the intellectual property rights of André Hazes. So: entitled to his music, images, commercial merchandise, etc. Because: these would not be named in the deed of division. Rachel says PWC just appreciated this one.
What is Roxeanne assigned?
The verdict is crystal clear: Rachel has to give Roxeanne the bank statements of the two companies for the period 2004 to May 13, 2005, as well as the PWC share valuation report. But that’s all.
So?
In all kinds of talk shows, Rachel has been portrayed as a money-hungry monster who steals from her children. This image is really bullshit. Nonsense. But then what is going on? Guessing makes you miss: maybe suspicion? Suspicion and money form a mix that often unleashes the worst things in a person, perhaps also in Roxeanne.
Oscar van Oorschot is a lawyer at DBE Advocaten in Leeuwarden.