Virginia Giuffre’s property battle: Sons, lawyer and carer face off amid disputed will and unfinished divorce with thousands and thousands at stake from Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew settlements

  • Sons, carer and lawyer in court fight
  • Estate linked to Epstein and Andrew payouts
  • Will claim faces challenge in court

The ugly row over Virginia Giuffre‘s multimillion-dollar fortune has erupted into a bitter legal battle, pitting her sons against the lawyer and carer who claim she entrusted them with her last wishes. 

But the Daily Mail can reveal the increasingly personal fight is not about carving up her millions – but who should be cut off entirely.

Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked as a teenager by Jeffrey Epstein, took her own life at her Western Australia farmhouse in Neergabby, 20km north of Perth, on April 25. 

Since 2009, she had received more than $25million in settlements from former prince Andrew, who she was famously photographed with as a teenager, Epstein, and his sidekick Ghislaine Maxwell

In the months before her death, she reportedly drafted a will but did not formally complete it, triggering the legal battle over control of her estate. 

At the time of her death, she was separated from her husband of 23 years, Robert Giuffre, and estranged from her three children. 

The couple were in the midst of finalising a messy divorce and Ms Giuffre’s closest confidantes are adamant she did not want her ex-husband to get a cent. 

‘They were not on good terms and he had a restraining order out on her which prevented her from making contact with her children,’ said a close friend. 

‘There is no way she would want him to have any money at all.’

At the time of her death Ms Giuffre was separated from Robert, her husband of 23 years, (pictured together)

The couple were in the midst of a messy divorce, the close friend revealed. Robert Giuffre is pictured

The couple’s son, Christian Giuffre (pictured), is named in court papers as a defendant 

In the current complex legal war over her estate, her sons, Christian, 19, and Noah, 18, are facing her former lawyer Karrie Louden and long-time carer, Cheryl Myers. 

The teenagers are listed as first plaintiffs in the main case and defendants in the counterclaim, while Ms Louden and Ms Myers are named as defendants and subsequently as plaintiffs in the counterclaim.

Ms Giuffre’s sons claim their mother died without a will and they are entitled to inherit and administer her estate, with the consent of their father. 

Ms Louden and Ms Myers insist they do not seek anything for themselves but want to ensure Mr Giuffre is specifically excluded from inheriting anything. 

Their counterclaim, supported by Ms Giuffre’s US-based brothers, aims to see them appointed as joint executors of Ms Giuffre’s informal will instead.

In reply, Ms Giuffre’s sons have claimed the lawyer and carer should have known their mother’s mental state meant she was incapable of making a valid will in the months leading up to her death.

They also claim the counterclaim would allow Ms Louden and Ms Myers to benefit financially from the informal will after assisting Ms Giuffre to create it while she was not mentally fit. 

But Ms Myers insists Ms Giuffre had finally found peace in the rural life at her farmhouse after years of intense public scrutiny.

Virginia Giuffre (pictured) had finally found peace in rural life after years of public scrutiny

 Her carer Cheryl Myers (pictured) considered herself a ‘mother figure,’ to Ms Giuffre

She previously told the Daily Mail that Ms Giuffre treated her like a mother figure, and the troubled Epstein victim dreamed of turning the farm into a sanctuary.

She paid tribute to Ms Giuffre’s ‘kindness and generosity’ and added: ‘She was happy on the farm.

‘It was her lifelong dream that abused women and animals would have somewhere to feel safe like she did.

‘It is what she would have wanted – there is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that.’

Ms Myers revealed the family rift triggered by the divorce proceedings had taken a heavy toll on Ms Giuffre in her final months.

Her children were unable to visit during her last hospital stay, and she was prohibited from even texting them because of court orders restricting contact. 

It meant she had not seen or heard from them for months before her death, Ms Myers said.

‘She was a really good mother – she was an exceptional mother and she loved her children,’ Ms Myers said. ‘Of course she found that separation so hard to deal with.’  

Robert Giuffre had taken a restraining order out on his wife (pictured together in Cairns in 2019)

Joining Ms Myers in the legal challenge against Ms Giuffre’s sons is Ms Louden, a criminal barrister who first met Ms Giuffre as a client while representing her in a restraining order dispute with her husband. 

She and Ms Giuffre quickly became close friends, and Ms Louden echoed the claim that Ms Giuffre’s final wish was to launch a survivors’ refuge in Australia.

‘This has been a complete shock to all of us,’ she said outside the farmhouse in the days after Ms Giuffre’s sudden death.

‘She wanted to renovate this place and she had plans for the future.’ 

Ms Louden said she had spoken to Ms Giuffre just days earlier and was due to meet her shortly after. 

‘Physically, she has been very unwell for a long time, but she is a very strong person. She has obviously been through hell.’

She added that Ms Giuffre ‘was in a lot of pain’ but was still looking forward to what was ahead.

It was Ms Louden and Ms Myers who rehomed Ms Giuffre’s horses and packed up the farm in the wake of her death.

Court documents reveal they claim Ms Giuffre ‘created an informal will in writing’ on February 27, and followed up with verbal instructions on April 2 to Ms Louden, witnessed by Ms Myers, to prepare a formal will.

However her sons reject claims that these documents represent their mother’s final intentions.

‘Such instructions were preliminary instructions in contemplation of preparing a will, which was not prepared,’ one of the court documents states.

‘The deceased did not intend for such instructions to constitute her will.’

Ms Louden echoed Ms Giuffre’s final wishes of launching a refuge in Australia

In June, the sons applied to become administrators of her estate, along with their father and their 15-year-old sister, who cannot be named for legal reasons.

Ms Giuffre’s family in the US fear Mr Giuffre, who had begun separation proceedings, could inherit a third of her estate, with the remainder shared between her children.

‘Virginia absolutely wanted to provide for her children, but also she wanted them to go to university and have careers, not just handouts,’ one friend told the Daily Mail.

‘Young people being handed millions of dollars doesn’t often end well and she would have wanted trusts with rules set up.’ 

Exactly how much remains of Ms Giuffre’s fortune is unclear, with some estimates placing the value of the estate at just $500,000

Former prince Andrew, now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, paid her a reported $24.5million without any admission of liability in 2022.

He has consistently denied all of the allegations she made about being sex trafficked to the royal when she was 17.

Giuffre had previously received $770,000 in 2009 from Epstein, who killed himself in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.

She also received an undisclosed sum from jailed sex trafficker and Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell in 2017 following a defamation suit.

Andrew Mounbatten-Windsor has denied all of the allegations she made about being sex trafficked to the royal when she was 17 years old

Profits from Giuffre’s memoir ‘Nobody’s Girl’ are included in the estate.

WA Supreme Court Registrar Danielle Davies last month recommended that Robert Giuffre join his sons in civil proceedings to administer his late wife’s estate. 

‘My understanding is that Robert’s consent was attached to an application for a non-contentious grant (from the will),’ Ms Davies told the court.

‘He would consent to the grant being made to his sons, but now there’s defence and counterclaims, which would remove his entitlement.’