I thought I read where he wasn't coming back to the US..perhaps I misread it.
The will is confusing about whether a future child — Dannielynn — would also be a beneficiary of the trust. "I have intentionally omitted to provide for my spouse and other heirs, including future spouses and children and other descendants now living and those hereafter born or adopted," Smith says in the will.
Christopher Cline, an attorney at Holland & Knight, a major estate planning firm, says that paragraph is standard boilerplate language in wills, intended to fend off strangers popping up later claiming to be a long-lost child. More problematic, he says, is the section about who benefits from the trust.
"There's a conflict in the language — at first it refers to 'my child' and later (in the same sentence) it says 'my children,' so there's a question about whether a (post will) baby is a beneficiary," Cline says.
If the baby is disinherited by this will and because there are no other beneficiaries now that Daniel is dead, Ruckel says California intestate law (governing cases in which there is no will) holds that the baby would inherit everything. But this assumes that California was Smith's official domicile, another issue under dispute.
As an executor, Stern would be responsible for managing the trust and distributing the assets, Cline says. It does not mean he inherits anything from Smith's estate. Stern was not married to Smith and his claimed paternity of Dannielynn is in dispute.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-02-16-smith-will_x.htm