Didn’t Seidlin even make a comment about how many holes existed in her will?
Yes, he did.
Here's an excellent
review of the holes they're going to be dealing with posted at Concurring Opinions.
In short, Law Professor, Kaimipono D. Wenger analyzes the Will down to intestacy - meaning, without a valid Will.
He comes to this conclusion by taking each step of the Will and validating it against the law. He therefore, concludes:
"The lapsed gift would go first to Daniel's issue, but he has none. Next, it would go to the contingent taker, but there is none. Next, it would go to the residuary taker, but again, there is none.
So the most likely answer is, it falls into the estate. Nobody takes under the will, and the entire estate passes in intestacy. From there, we turn to the intestate statute (6401 and 6402). With no surviving spouse, the entire estate passes to the deceased's children. Which is, in this case, Dannielynn. (And any other children who may be discovered.) So while she doesn't take under the will (because of the exclusion clause), she stands to take in intestacy. Also, because the property passes in intestacy rather than under the will, the various trust provisions in the will (intended to keep Daniel from receiving all of the property at once) will be ineffective."
The legal arguments are probably going to be about what remains valid in the Will (Executors, appointments, trusts, especially) and what is deemed invalid due to events that have occurred.
Given the last report on the subject, it doesn't appear to me that Stern, even if he's not the father, intends to give up control of the estate, despite the fact that this would ultimately be up to the probate court. The way I read it, the TMZ and ET reports almost puts a barter out there as if to say, If we send Virgie back to Texas where she belongs, I'll make this easy on you.
One can only wonder what O'Quinn's take on that is right now, but I have a pretty good idea.