What is the ruling on preemption when a party admits purchasing an inherited share for an absent or minor third party after preemption was already claimed against them?

Primary text

If a party, against whom preemption is claimed on a share of property, states, "This belongs to so-and-so who is absent," or "This belongs to this minor child," and subsequently admits the purchase for that person, preemption is not established based on that admission alone. Preemption is only established if proven by evidence, or if the absent person arrives and the minor reaches maturity, allowing them to claim the right. This is because ownership is established for the absent/minor party by the initial admission; a subsequent admission of purchase is an admission regarding someone else's property and is thus invalid. This differs from when the admission of purchase is made initially, as in that case, the ownership and the preemption right are established simultaneously through that single admission.