Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TexasCajun

Agreed. But how on earth could a court grant her the entire family fortune after being married for just a year. Oh thats right it was a KALIFORNICA COURT! Where logic and sanity have no place.


27 posted on 02/08/2007 1:29:55 PM PST by Jazzman1 (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Jazzman1

If one gets married, why wouldn't the spouse inherit everything, unless each party made special provisions. If this man wanted to leave his estate to someone other than his spouse, he should have done so. By the way, I don't think the Courts involved here were in California. (Certainly not the Supreme Court)


43 posted on 02/08/2007 1:42:47 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Jazzman1

It's not at all clear that the old man didn't know what he was doing when he left his fortune to her. At least one of his two sons was a useless ne'er-do-well who was just living off daddy's money. Quite possibly both of them were just a little too eager for daddy to die. Best revenge for a billionaire in that situation is to marry some cute young thing and leave the fortune to her. It's also notable that the sons never challenged their father's mental competence before they discovered he'd left his fortune to Anna Nicole. Why weren't they concerned about his mental competence when he decided to marry? Why weren't they concerned about his competence to manage his own affairs? If he really wasn't mentally competent you'd think that his sons would 1) be aware of that, and 2) take legal measures to have a guardian appointed. The only reason I can think of that they wouldn't have done that is that they knew they wouldn't be able to must evidence of his incompetence in court; in other words, they knew he wasn't mentally incompetent.


45 posted on 02/08/2007 1:43:34 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Jazzman1

"Agreed. But how on earth could a court grant her the entire family fortune after being married for just a year."

Nothing in the law puts a time limit on a union for purpose of wills.


78 posted on 02/08/2007 2:13:25 PM PST by lawdude (2006: The elections we will live to die for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Jazzman1
Agreed. But how on earth could a court grant her the entire family fortune after being married for just a year. Oh thats right it was a KALIFORNICA COURT! Where logic and sanity have no place.

No court ever awarded her "the entire family fortune," or anything close to that.

140 posted on 02/08/2007 3:28:38 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson