Posted on 04/10/2007 1:03:50 PM PDT by plewis1250
You think Larry Birkhead has a vacant look in his eyes?
You are dead wrong:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Actress and model Anna Nicole Smith can add another line to her colorful resume: a winner in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The justices Monday unanimously ruled Smith, who went by her real name — Vickie Lynn Marshall — in legal papers, can continue her fight to claim a large part of her late husband’s vast business holdings.
Smith, a former Playboy pinup and stripper, and one of the late oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall’s sons have been fighting in court for more than a decade over a fortune estimated as much as $1.6 billion.
The justices did not decide how much money Smith would get, if any. Her victory means the case is thrown back to a lower court. She has yet to collect on any part of the disputed estate.
Smith’s appellate attorney, Kent Richland, said his client was pleased with the outcome.
“Anna Nicole Smith’s claim existed years before her husband died and years before thoughts of probate even began,” he said in a written statement. “The court has ratified her position.”
“It’s quite a story,” remarked Justice Stephen Breyer when the case was argued in February. Smith’s appearance in court caused a minor media sensation, with cameras jockeying for position as she entered and left the building.
Despite the colorful details contained in the legal briefs, the issue for the Supreme Court was fairly pedestrian. The justices ruled that federal courts do have a role, however limited, when state probate courts are hearing the same case.
‘Probate exception’
State courts usually decide probate issues involving wills and trusts. Federal courts hear bankruptcy issues.
The so-called “probate exception” normally keeps federal courts from hearing such disputes, but there is no congressional law mandating the hands-off approach.
“The probate exception does not bar federal courts from adjudicating matters outside those confines and otherwise within federal jurisdiction,” wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the court. She concluded a federal appeals court improperly kept Smith from pursuing her case.
Smith, a model, reality TV star and diet company spokeswoman, went to both state and federal courts to press her claims.
The Supreme Court did not delve into matters raised in oral arguments: whether document tampering happened, whether Smith was kept from her husband’s bedside as he was dying, and how the money should be divided.
Smith’s attorneys claim that apart from the will and trust, Howard Marshall promised his young wife a share of assets earned while they were married.
The Yale-educated businessman was 89 in 1994 when he married the then-26-year-old Texan. They had met a few years earlier at a strip club where she worked.
Marshall died a year after the wedding, but Smith, according to legal briefs filed with the high court, was not given a share of the estate in the will or separate trust.
Courts have disagreed
“The problem is that the claim she is trying to pursue requires for its determination whether or not J. Howard intended to give her the assets,” said Eric Brunstad, attorney for E. Pierce Marshall, the tycoon’s son.
NOW THE FUN STARTS,
Birkhead may be the father but Stern is STILL the executor on the will.
It will be interesting to see if the will is in a jurisdiction that prohibits disinheriting minor children. (akin to a widows/ers share)
Not to sound rude, but you are indeed mistaken. Dannielynn will very likely get nothing out of the Marshall estate.
You got that right. An un-wed father just won the lottery.
Perhaps both are signs of the end of the world....
susie
Nope. Anna Nicole was not awarded any money by the Supremes - she only won the right to pursue a share of Marshall’s fortune in federal court.
Ten bucks says before this thread dies, someone who’s never seen the movie calls you out on your alleged historical inaccuracy.
Aren’t you cute! You cared enough to post on the thread, didn’t you?
ROFL!
Thanks for the laugh, I needed that!
susie
Money does not appear to be what is driving this guy.
Something to really be proud of, one each yard child.....
First of all, ANS was more than likely broke, so there's no lottery to win.
And he's been trying to get his baby for over a year.
Well...how about a guy that loves his kid?
The will will be thrown out; it left everything to Daniel and excluded any future children.
It’s not legal to do that in CA; he’s pretty much done.
Well...unless you have a crystal ball, you are. No one knows if the baby will collect a dime for any number of reasons, her collecting millions is far from a done deal.
I have heard and read from several sources that Anna Nicole turned down the 88 million settlement. And ended up with nothing. Crazy of her if this is true - which it well might not be. She had the right to refile, but now is dead. The other day one lawyer stated that the chances of the baby getting anything is practically zero. But who knows!
My life is complete now. I was a wreck with all the anticipation. All those sleepless nights.
God help the child. And I do mean that.
It's certainly not "rude" to disagree.But I suspect that we need a lawyer who's familiar with this case to wade in here.My understanding of the matter (gleaned mainly from Wikipedia) is 1)a Federal Court ruled that ANS was entitled to about $400 million,2)another Federal Court lowered that to $88 million,3)the US Ninth Circus threw out the $88 million,stating that the Federal Courts don't have jurisdiction,4)ANS appealed that ruling to the SCOTUS which unanimously ruled that the Federal Courts *do* have jurisdiction (in this particular case,at least).That ruling was handed down less than a year ago.
If I've missed or misinterpreted anything...or if something has happened after the SC's decision then anyone's free to let me know,but.......
I sit corrected.
I did not follow the news story all that closely ;-).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.