LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — Is a newly-discovered will from former Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh legitimate?
That is still up in the air while the current administrators of Hsieh's estate go through the discovery process and investigate while the co-executors named in the new document figure out next steps.
WATCH: Attorneys investigating newly-discovered Tony Hsieh will
Court documents released in November 2022 state that Hsieh was misusing drugs, making bad business deals, and acting erratically before his death — including a growing obsession with fire and candles. Hsieh died in a house fire in Connecticut in November 2020. He was 46 years old.
Hsieh's estate is worth an estimated $513 million, and several parties have filed claims seeking a portion of that money over the past couple of years.
In previous court filings, Hsieh's family has maintained that he died without a will. However, in March, a man named Kashif Singh came forward stating Hsieh's will had been in the possession of his grandfather, Pir Muhammad. In a letter, Singh explained the will was among Muhammad's personal effects that were found after his death.
According to that document, the alleged will was originally filed on March 13, 2015, and signed by Hsieh and five witnesses, including Muhammad.
You can read the full document below:
A letter filed with the court did not provide any details about Muhammad's career or any possible associations with Hsieh.
Robert Armstrong and Mark Ferrario were named co-executors of the Hsieh estate, according to the will. However, the document states neither one had any personal or business dealings with Hsieh.
Attorneys for Armstrong and Ferrario asked the court for a status check to see how to proceed. On Thursday, they told Judge Gloria Sturman that making any progress in the case has been difficult.
"At the time a status conference was filed, co-executors requested this because a will had been lodged, but we didn't know what the next procedural steps would be," said attorney Leigh Goddard, who represents Armstrong. "Since then, we have been, how should I say, met with some hostility from the administrator and counsel in regards to subpoenas and requests for information. We thought we were just going to discuss procedural next steps, but things have changed."
According to a petition filed on Wednesday, Armstrong and Ferrario claim attorneys for the Hsieh estate have been uncooperative.
"The Administrator (Robert Hsieh, Tony's father) and his counsel have taken an aggressive posture, including serving Petitioners' law firms...seeking more than 70 requests for documents, in an apparent move to invalidate the Will," court documents read in part. "By all accounts, the Administrator and his counsel appear to be mounting a will contest utilizing Estate funds, when such a will contest would serve the Administrator's personal interests rather than the interests of the Estate and the wishes of the Decedent as set forth in the will."
However, attorneys for the Hsieh estate claim that's not true, and they are just doing their due diligence to make sure everything is in order before proceeding.
"Since Tony Hsieh's death, Richard Hsieh, as court-appointed representative, has duly managed his son's estate. He has pursued litigation on claims where appropriate and has resolved more claims than those that are outstanding," attorney Dara Goldsmith, who represents Richard, told the court. "Richard recognizes his duties as administrator of the estate and accepts those responsibilities...I think to jump to conclusions about our client's intent is inappropriate."
WATCH: Tony Hsieh: The Rise, the Fall, the Future
Judge Sturman clarified that the petition she received was to request instructions, not to validate or invalidate the alleged will.
"There's lots that could be done, but I don't know that anybody, at this point, knows how we're going to be proceeding. We have to see what the parties file, because the court can't do anything without a request for some relief," Sturman said. "We don't have anything on file that we can take action on. We can set a hearing. That will be our first step. Then we can proceed."
According to the court docket, the next hearing in this case has been scheduled for July 17 at 9:30 a.m.
