Ledger's Estate Stirs Up Family Conflict

Uncles Claim Heath's Father, Kim, Has Track Record Of Financial Mismanagement

(CBS)  Although Heath Ledger's father Kim's intentions appeared honorable in his public statement saying that Heath's daughter Matilda and her mother Michelle Williams would be taken care of financially, his brothers aren't convinced.

Kim Ledger's brothers claim that his track record of mismanagement is something to be greatly taken into consideration.

According to People, Kim, who was in charge of Heath's great grandfather's estate 15 years ago in Australia, mismanaged the estate and therefore had to be removed as executor, the uncles claim.

---

Heath Ledger: 1979-2008

---

"It plunged into enormous debt," Mike Ledger told the magazine.

Heath's great grandfather, Sir Frank Ledger was a well-respected engineer in Perth, Australia and close friend of premier Charles Court whose estate was worth about $2 million in the 80s, according to The Australian newspaper.

---

Photos: Services For Heath Ledger

---

In 1986, Frank Ledger's health began deteriorating at age 87 and his grandson Kim moved in to help manage the estate and that's when things allegedly started going downhill.

According to The Australian, Frank Ledger was well off for decades when he sold his private company J&E Ledger in 1970, however, when he died in 1993, at age 93 he was broke.

---

Photos: On Losing Ledger

---

His house overlooking Freshwater Bay, on the Devil's Elbow of the Swan River, was auctioned for $1.2 million by his bank in 1994 to recover debts racked up after Kim was made attorney in 1986, the Australian reported.

According to court documents, there were accusations made by two of Frank's daughters that Kim had "placed his own interests before that of the trust, and used the trust assets in order to advance his own business interests," The Australian reported.

---

Photos: Ledger's Life Cut Short

---

Heath's other uncle, Hayden Ledger also spoke about the family conflict saying that Williams' father, Larry, asked him if Kim was capable of managing the actor's estate.

"I just said 'No, not if he handles it like ours,'" Hayden Ledger told People.

In 1997, Kim also went into business with Heath, then 17, as joint directors of Act 6 Pty Ltd; Kim was also the secretary and sole shareholder.

Although Heath left the company in 2002, the company remained in the family, but branched off to become HOKK Pty Ltd.

It has been suggested that the company's name stood for the initials of family members Heath, his sisters Olivia and Kate, and Kim.

The "Brokeback Mountain" star was 28 at the time of his death in January from an accidental overdose in his New York apartment.

In Ledger's will, he left everything to his parents and three sisters, which was dated two years before the birth of his child, Matilda.

"Matilda is our absolute priority and Michelle is an integral part of our family," Kim said in a statement, shortly after the terms of the will were revealed. "They will be taken care of and that's how Heath would want it to be."

[lil_d3vil]

Some out side trust should be set up as it would seem Kim Ledger looks to be untrustworthy and I have a feeling its the uncles money he used to help him set up his business dealings.With a bad track record of handling others money I wouldn''t put him in charge of another estate to see it be mismanaged again.

As to Matilda, the child has every right to a piece of her father estate and such moneys should be held in trust for her till she reaches a legal age.

[briansgirl2]

cuttlefish8, it was not Michelle''s money, but Matilda is entitled to her share of "her father''s" estate. He accepted the responsibility of having her as his daughter. His death should not stop obligations of financially supporting her. Michelle may very well not need his money, but the child should be taken care of. I hope Michelle does pursue it.

[docofthebay]

I hope Michelle doesn''''t contest the will; it''''s not HER money, and Matilda doesn''''t need it.
Posted by cuttlefish8

How the he11 do YOU know what ANYone needs???

[puzzler125]

Being an Academy Award nominee, or winner, is absolutely no indication of future learning power. Google past nominees and winners and you will see many names you do not recognize.

[klumifmt]

Why shouldn''t she be taken care of?

[bryantsgirl1]

I think that anyone who honestly believes that Michelle will abuse the financial apects of being Matilda''s mother is insane. Some people would say that Matilda will not remember her dad, however in the business I am in I know that is more than likely not the case! Children who have lived a life of priveledge do to their parents being in the public eye, will always remember their parents. You have to think about the fact that Heath was very famous, and his movies will live on, as will anything that the family chooses to tell that little girl. Reguardless of what his will says, it could be contested by Michelle that the bulk of the estate should go to their daughter. Any other person in that situation would do the same, whether or not they made a large income themselves. It should be what is in the best interest of Heath''s daughter that is the main consideration in this case. Anyone who thinks otherwise should think about what they would do if they were in Michelle and Matilda''s situation!!

[cuttlefish8]

It doesn''t matter if Matilda gets any of the money. Her mom has a good job and can get work; she''s an Oscar nominee for crying out loud. The reality is that Matilda won''t remember her dad (ask anyone whose parent died when he/she was under three years old), and her life will spin onto its own path, influenced by her mother and the people her mother knows. Heath''s family may (probably will) remain involved with her, but Heath will to her be the way Freddie Prinze Junior''s dad is to him...photographs, images, other people''s memories. I hope Michelle doesn''t contest the will; it''s not HER money, and Matilda doesn''t need it.