Robin Williams did not leave all his money to only his wife or only his children. His trust provided gifts for his three children—Zachary, Zelda and Cody—and created a separate trust for his wife, Susan Schneider Williams, including lifetime use of the couple’s Tiburon home and funds for costs tied to the residence. Their dispute centered on how the trust’s provisions applied to belongings and home expenses; the family settled in 2015, and the full terms were not made public.
Who inherited Robin Williams’s estate?
Williams’s estate passed into his trust, which provided for his children and his wife in different ways. Court-document reporting described gifts to the children that included his clothing, jewelry, personal photographs taken before his marriage to Schneider Williams, entertainment-industry memorabilia and awards, and property at his Napa home. The trust also established a separate Susan Trust, giving Schneider Williams lifetime use of the Tiburon residence and its furnishings and contents under the trust’s terms, as well as a fund for residence-related costs. The Los Angeles Times’s report on the trust described these provisions.
That means the question “Who did Robin Williams leave all his money to?” has no accurate single-beneficiary answer. The publicly reported terms do not establish a complete asset-by-asset division or dollar amount for each beneficiary.
What sparked the dispute?
In December 2014, Schneider Williams petitioned San Francisco Superior Court for instructions interpreting parts of the trust. Her filing asked how to classify and allocate particular belongings and how the residence-related fund should be handled. Those were requests for the court’s interpretation, not rulings that the trust meant what she argued or that the children’s interpretation was wrong. CBS News reported on the petition and its questions.
#1 Best Overall
Belongings and household contents
The disputed categories included entertainment-industry memorabilia, personal effects, household contents, watches and items associated with the Tiburon home. The trust’s gifts to the children included memorabilia and awards, while Schneider Williams’s trust covered use of the residence and its contents under its terms. Questions such as whether watches counted as jewelry, or which contents came within the home provision, made the boundary between these categories consequential.
Costs of maintaining the Tiburon home
Schneider Williams argued that the home-related provision should cover ordinary upkeep as well as unexpected renovations and improvements. She also questioned how the home’s value and related expenses had been calculated. In a later phase of the dispute, the children opposed her request for additional funds. These were opposing positions presented in the proceedings; the public record described here does not establish that either side acted in bad faith or was motivated by greed. The Los Angeles Times reported on the later arguments.
Rank #2
- A thoughtful look at the brilliant life and tragic death of a comedy icon
How did the estate dispute end?
The parties reached a settlement on September 25, 2015, and trustees asked the court to dismiss the petition. Contemporary reporting said Schneider Williams could remain in the Bay Area home, receive living expenses to maintain it, and keep certain sentimental items, including a watch, a honeymoon bicycle and wedding gifts. The settlement’s full terms and final financial allocations were not disclosed. The Associated Press reported the settlement.
The children’s court papers said they “are heartbroken” that Schneider Williams had “acted against his wishes by challenging the plans he so carefully made for his estate,” as The Irish Times reported. That statement reflects the children’s position in the legal dispute, not a neutral finding about Williams’s wishes or either party’s conduct.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →What is known about the estate’s value?
The Los Angeles Times reported in 2015 that the estate was estimated at more than $100 million, attributing the figure to James Wagstaffe, Schneider Williams’s attorney. It was an attorney’s estimate reported at the time, not a final probate accounting or a confirmed inheritance amount for any beneficiary. The settlement’s undisclosed terms do not support claims about exact payouts or which side received the larger share.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Why the public record does not establish a motive
The available accounts describe what the trust provided, what each side asked or argued in court, and the broad settlement outcome. They do not establish a neutral explanation for why Williams chose each provision. It would therefore be misleading to attribute the dispute to favoritism, estrangement or a court finding of wrongdoing.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
