To anyone out there paying attention. I heartily congratulate the people who responded to the purposfully amibiguous quiz I sent out, regarding the will and estate of "Thomas Smith." It was sent to the following lists: 1. Germanna: FIVE Responses from (1) Cary Anderson (2) someone named cookerlp@aol.com, (3) Frances as kiwiskeeper@aol.com, who says she did not respond to the quiz, (4) Fran Russell and (5) Mary Ellis 2. Virginia "General" list,. No repsonses. 3. Southside Virginia List. No responses 4. Culpeper County List. No responses, but some personal correspondance came back. 5. St. Louis Metro List. Six responses. The first only said he'd have all four arrested for murder, which prompted a flame war with the 2nd response, and it went on from there. Discounting those two and all the subsequent flames, there were four real responses to the actual query. Total responses to five lists: 9 Now, let's review the actual query and quiz question, look at the responses, and then I will give the real story. To begin, everyone had a very good take on one or more aspects of the question, and given the vague nature of how I put it, this was impressive. OK. The original question was this: IF YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH THE FOLLOWING WILL, AND KNEW NOTHING ELSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAN WHAT THE WILL TOLD YOU, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR CONCLUSIONS? WILL OF "THOMAS SMITH" SIGNED 28 AUG 1987, PROVED SOMETIME IN 1996 THE WILL NAMES NO WIFE AND NO GRANDCHILDREN, BUT ONLY NAMES FOUR SONS, ALL TO SHARE EQUALLY. 1. KEVIN SMITH 2. CARY SMITH 3. TOMMY SMITH 4. MONTY SMITH ALL FOUR TO SERVE AS EXECUTORS IN THAT ORDER. THE OBITUARY SAYS THAT THOMAS SMITH DIED 24 JULY 1996, THAT HE WAS INTERRED IN MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY WITH NO SERVICES, AND WAS SURVIVED BY FOUR SONS AND FIVE GRANDCHILDREN. THE FIVE GRANDCHILDREN ARE NOT NAMED, BUT THE FOUR SONS ARE NAMED IN THIS ORDER: 1. KEVIN SMITH OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 2. MONTY SMITH OF HEIDLEBERG, GERMANY 3. CARY SMITH OF ST. LOUIS, MO 4. TOMMY SMITH OF DEFIANCE, MO ______________________________________ While this is deliberately vague, the respondents all picked up on different clues to help solve the riddle. Some just wrote to express interest in the responses. For those actually took up the gauntle, I sghall let them all speak for themselves (no names given as to who said what). Response #1: "I don't keep a data base so I would imput nothing. I would type the will exactly as I found [it] and save in Word as well as a printed copy for the file cabinet--the old fashioned four drawer, metal thing. I would also type the obituary as found and do the same." Response #2: "Notes: Will of Thomas Smith Signed 28 AUG 1987 Proved sometime in 1996 Mentions only son's [sic] Kevin, Monte [sic] Cary and Tommy. All four to serve as executors and to share in the estate equally. All information comes from Mr. Craig Kilby of Virginia (my email address included in the citation). This respondent is the only one who cited her references and what she was addressing. This is pretty good except for mispelling of the possessive "son's" instead of the plursal "sons", and misreading of Monte with an "e" when I wrote Monty with a "y". See how easy it is for tiny mistakes to creep in? Response #3. Original email quoted in advance, with the note "I think this covers all the information known at this time of this Thomas Smith. I would probably add the birth dates of the sex of children as male and birth dates prior to 8/8/87, since they were mentioned when the will was made." What this letter seems to want to suggest is that further research would be necessary before making any firm conclusions, but does make the good point of at least entering the sex of the four children, as all are called "sons" in both the will and obituary." Response #4 "In my files, wife would be listed as 'unknown???' I would list Kevin as the oldest, since he appears in both lists first. His 'born' would be 'ABT YYYY'. The other three, I would list them as born 'ABT YYY'. I would make a note in my file that no birth order was established in documentation that I had, and make a note to research it when I get to be old and grey, when that census comes out!" This writer is correct in determining that Kevin is the eldest for the reason he gave, though information we have does not explicityly tell us that. Kudo's for jumping out on a limb and running with a Hypothesis--which we must all do--and good cover with the notation that further research that is needed to prove the theory. Response #5 This one is one of my favorites. This person picked up on two key facts that any of us could have easily overlooked, but also made an erroneous assumption about possibly other children. (There could have been other children, but to leave them out of a will would have invited court challenges). "Based on all material available to date - we've been busy with church services. (1) Thomas Smith the elder was probably married at least once. (2) Thomas Smith the elder was survived by four sons; there may have been more children who either pre-deceased him or were disinherited by the will. (2) Kevin Smith may be the oldest son (4) Monty Smith is probably a distinquished member of his country's miltary. (5) Which leads me to wonder - is there a Navy base in Virginia Beach? (6) Adding information about five nameless grandchildren makes me wonder about the possibility of a now-deceased former Miss Smith. (7) What else is in that obituary? This one does raise some thoughts. The writer infers that since Monty Smith is living in Heidleberg, Germany (according to the obituatary) he is probably a distinguised member of the military. Not the case. HOWEVER, son Kevin in Virginia Beach was a distinguished member of the US Navy Airforce. Though not connecting the right dots, this writer is certainly headed in the right direction and picking up on small clues. This writer also raises questions about the mother of the children, and the possibility that a former spouse (or spouses) may be dead. Read on. Response #6. "Thomas Smith signed Will August 28, 1987; died July 24, 1996. No wife named in will: assume divorced otherwise a deceased wife would have been so identified when the Will was drawn up. Will names four sons to be Executor in order named. An executor distributes the estate. "Proving" the will means the Will has been filed of record in the Probate Court. One one person is an Executor; the eldest living son. If decedent had an attorney handling his affairs, the attorney would file the Will of record in Probate, then proceed to locate the eldest living son who will become Executor. The attorney is an administrator, not the Executor unless the eldest living son is an attorney. The son's [plural] residence[s] at the time the Will is drawn up is stated to assist to locate the eldest living son at Testator's death. "A will always [CMK: "ALWAYS" IS ALWAYS A WRONG ANSWER ON A TEST] names children in birth order. Newspaper death notice names children in birth order. [CMK: will does not name children in birth order, but there is a reason for this. The obituary does name them in birth order. The writer here needs to decide which is ALWAYS right]. The fact that grandchildren are mentioned in the newspaper death notice is only relevent to distribution of the estate if one or more of the four sons are deceased and sired children. Then, one or more children of a deceased son would inherit his share of the estate, share and share alike, which the Will would state. "Birth order of sons: Kevin, Monty, [C]Gary, Tommy. Decedent was the natural or adoptive father of the four sons; otherwise one or more would have been identified as stepsons." Now this one really covers a lot of ground and a lot of possibilities. The only flaw is that the reasoning--while correct--is based on twowrong assumptions. An obituary naming "unnamed grandchildren" would not be a legal cause to establish heredity, let alone a share in the estate. Only the will can establish that. Second, a will names an exectutor, this is true, but it does not have to be the oldest child. The reason for giving places of residence is to put on record the last known place where an heir had lived, but not simply to find them to be an executor. Last, an attorney does not have to handle an estate, though this is often the case. An attorney is never the executor unless expressly named so in the will. This letter is taking up too much cyber space, so the "real" answer will be another post. BTW....nobody caught the part about where he was buried with no services. That will be in the answer of next post. Craig Kilby persisto@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You.

To Craig & Others involved in this discussion: I see no reason to discuss a will for a person who died in 1998, therefore, persons who persist in posts on this particular subject will be placed on Reject until further notice. List Administrator, VA-Southside List G. Lee Hearl Authentic Appalachian Storyteller Abingdon, Va.