Silvio Berlusconi’s last will causes discussion, especially as regards the third document that makes up the will of the founder of Forza Italia. We are talking about the autograph sheet delivered on 5 July by Marta Fascina to the notary Arrigo Roveda and which provides for a bequest of 100 million euros to the same companion of the Cavaliere, a similar one to her brother Paolo Berlusconi, and one of 30 million to Marcello Dell’Utri. First Dagospia and then Corriere della Sera brought out some anomalies which, hypothetically, would make the document open to challenge. In short, it could be questioned. On Sunday 9 July, the Corriere also hosts the opinion of Giulio Biino, president of the Italian notaries to try to get to the bottom of the matter, despite the fact that we are talking about a hypothetical scenario: at the moment the family appears united and determined to respect the will of the father regardless from possible formal inaccuracies.
Read also: Berlusconi leaves control of Fininvest to Marina and Pier Silvio
Berlusconi writes in the document that the provisions are valid “if I don’t have to return” from the San Raffaele. But Cav overcame that hospitalization. “The wording ‘if I don’t come back’, if interpreted aseptically, can suggest a decisive condition, therefore destined to make the will fall, if the testator, as in our case, returns from the hospital”, explains the notary. However “it could also be assumed that that provision referred to any hospitalization subsequent to the dating of the card”. It should also be considered that “the use of the conditional ‘you should reserve these donations’ (…) can give rise to the doubt that it was a simple wish of the testator and not predictions of an imperative nature”. In short, formally the doubts are legitimate.
Read also: Berlusconi, 5 anomalies appear: “Act with 100 million in Fascina can be challenged”
Then there is the anomaly of the failure to mention Luigi Berlusconi, the youngest son of the Cav. Is that a problem? “Absolutely not, because the disposition in his favor of the legitimacy is contained in the first file which is not revoked by either the second or the third”. A new element in the interpretations of the will comes about who will have to pay the bequests for Marta Fascina, Paolo Berlusconi and Marcello Dell’Utri. Luigi will not have to do it, explains the notary, but “Barbara and Eleonora, although mentioned, are also excluded from this obligation since, like Luigi, they are beneficiaries of the legitimate only, and article 549 of the Civil Code provides that it is not possible to impose ‘peso’ (and the payment of a legacy constitutes a ‘peso’) on the legitimate”. In short, the “weight” appears to be exclusive to Marina and Pier Silvio.
Another doubt concerns the legacy in favor of Paul, already contained in other provisions. New legacy or willingness to reiterate the provisions? “Should a discussion arise, the correct intention could only be reconstructed on the basis of the testimonies of those directly involved or of friends and/or acquaintances to whom it had been expressed”, explains Biino. Finally, the fact that the document presented by Fascina was not kept by a notary unlike the others does not question its validity.