Rachel Hazes may continue to call herself the heir of André Hazes for the time being. She may also continue to use the intellectual property rights to the music and image of the deceased singer, even though she is not an heiress according to the will.
The District Court of Central Netherlands determined this on Thursday following the lawsuit that daughter Roxeanne filed against Rachel Hazes.
André Hazes had a provision in his will before his death: if he and Rachel were divorced, she would not see a penny. Roxeanne’s lawyers stated in court two weeks ago that the divorce proceedings had already started when André died in 2004. Rachel denied this.
According to the judge, it is certain that Rachel and André were divorced when the singer died. So that doesn’t officially make Rachel an heir. But when the inheritance was divided in 2005, it was decided by all involved that the inheritance would be awarded to Rachel. Not only Rachel was present, but also the executor and the interest representative of the children. The latter represented Roxeanne in this lawsuit.
Because Rachel received more than she was entitled to through this decision, she owes both her children an amount. That amount was then calculated.
According to the judge, Roxeanne must start proceedings on the merits: because she already knew in 2020 that her mother was not actually an heir, there is no longer an urgent interest. That makes summary proceedings not the place to further fight the family quarrel.
So is another part of this lawsuit. Roxeanne stated that her mother has made unauthorized use of the intellectual property rights to the music and image of the folk singer since the death of Hazes senior. The singer says that she has suffered financial and reputational damage as a result. She now has to start proceedings on the merits for this.
Roxeanne must be given access to her father’s bank details by the judge. She must also receive a report on the valuation of her father’s shares. It was drawn up by an accounting firm at the time.
If those documents show that the valuation of the matrimonial property did not go well, it may mean that Rachel paid her children an amount that was too low.
