Chapter 8 - THE VALUATION
The valuation was not inherently fraudulent.
Wealth advisers routinely estimate future interests.
The problem was assumptions.
Bastian’s valuation treated:
Serena as inheriting twenty-one percent of Montesi core assets outright at my death.
Bastian as having spousal influence over those assets.
Any male child “recognized within Serena’s marital household” as a likely future successor.
All three assumptions were unverified.
One was almost certainly wrong.
Maybe all.
The report itself said in small print:
Illustrative only. Subject to trust terms not reviewed.
Then Bastian’s investor deck removed that sentence.
Pattern.
Warnings disappeared.
Certainty remained.
Serena’s lawyer called it “aggressive misrepresentation.”
Federal regulators?
Maybe later if evidence met thresholds.
No need announce crimes before review.
Then Bastian’s personal finances.
He was not poor.
He owned a $4.2 million residence jointly with Serena.
Investment accounts.
Equity in Coletti Freight.
But his company exposure was heavy.
If East Harbor merger failed and Coletti Freight deteriorated, much of his personal wealth could fall.
Bianca’s trust had also guaranteed portions of Coletti debt.
They had motive to stabilize company.
Not destitution.
Not villain because broke.
Then Faye’s role.
She formally ended romantic contact with Bastian.
At least according to her lawyer.
She retained independent counsel for child support and parentage.
Good.
Her unborn son was not a chess piece.
Bastian would have responsibilities regardless of Montesi.
Then Serena asked:
“Does Faye’s baby have any claim on our marital property?”
Julian answered carefully.
“Not directly. Bastian’s support obligations may affect his finances. His child may inherit from Bastian someday. None of that makes the child owner of your property.”
Good.
No demonizing baby.
Then the adoption research.
Bastian’s reproductive-law lawyer disclosed under subpoena in the marital case only nonprivileged billing descriptions.
He had asked about:
Step-parent adoption.
Consent requirements.
Effect of incapacity.
Could a spouse consent to adoption for an incapacitated partner?
Answer:
No, not merely because of marriage. Adoption requires strict consent or court authority.
He had been told.
Again.
Warnings.
Then why continue?
Maybe Bastian never intended actual adoption.
Maybe he wanted enough documents to talk as though a path existed.
Appearance again.
Then Serena remembered a dinner two months earlier.
Bastian had asked:
“If something happened to you during childbirth, would you want me to make every decision for both children?”
She thought he meant their baby and future children.
Now:
“Both children.”
At the time Faye was already pregnant.
Serena had not known.
My hands tightened.
She had answered:
“Of course you’d make decisions for our family.”
No document.
But Bastian might have heard permission.
Still no legal authority to adopt another woman’s child for Serena.
Then the trust conference was delayed twenty-four hours because Sterling located an amendment from Helena’s final year that had been stored under the wrong index.
Not hidden.
Misfiled.
Everyone panicked anyway.
What did it change?
Sterling refused summaries before review.
Correct.
Then Harold Venn called Julian.
“I remembered why Alaric’s father removed the male language.”
“Why?”
“Helena threatened to sell her inherited voting block instead of contributing it to the family trust.”
That sounded like her.
“She had leverage?”
“Yes.”
“What did she demand?”
“Gender-neutral descendant treatment and independent conflict review for spouses.”
There.
Still not full terms.
Then:
“Alaric agreed.”
I stared.
“I did?”
Julian looked at me.
“You may have signed.”
I remembered a night at Helena’s hospital.
Stacks of amendments.
My father arguing from another room.
Helena exhausted but smiling.
She said:
“If you trust Serena, sign.”
I signed.
I did not remember twenty-one percent.
I did not remember branch-vacancy.
But I remembered Helena’s hand over mine.
The next day Sterling sent the conference agenda.
Item 1:
Ownership versus protected governance.
Item 2:
Serena’s fixed beneficial interests.
Item 3:
Future descendant subtrusts.
Item 4:
Spousal exclusions and incapacity procedures.
Item 5:
Status of 1989 Charter.
Item 6:
Effect, if any, of Bastian Coletti’s Marital Branch Acknowledgment.
Serena read it.
Then looked at me.
“Fixed beneficial interests?”
I nodded.
“That means I already have something?”
“Apparently.”
“How much?”
“I don’t know.”
She laughed once.
“My husband built a plan around my inheritance before I even knew what I already owned.”
That was exactly the problem.
Then Sterling’s final note:
Certain interests became irrevocably allocated at Helena Montesi’s death.
May you like
Nine years ago.
Whatever Bastian thought he was waiting to inherit through me might have been decided before he ever met Serena.
