Posted on 07/30/2007 8:23:46 AM PDT by Borges
Party princess Paris Hilton is $60 million out of pocket after her billionaire grandfather - appalled by her jail term for drink-driving offences - axed her inheritance.
Family patriarch Barron Hilton was already embarrassed by his granddaughter's wild behaviour - notably when her home sex video was leaked on the internet.
But the 79-year-old considered her 23-day sentence last month the last straw.
"He was, and is, extremely embarrassed by how the Hilton name has been sullied by Paris," says Jerry Oppenheimer, who wrote a biography of the clan called House Of Hilton.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Oooh, don’t forget Vick!! We must talk about Vick!
I heard THAT dog!
Now she will know what it’s like to be one of Bill Gate’s kids.
“Welcome to McDonalds; may I take your order?”
Paris: “Our burgers are really HOT.
Who blames him. What a disgrace she’s become for whomever. Instead of doing something good, she’s acted like a whatever. Guess she figured no matter how she conducted herself, it wouldn’t matter. The old school way of thinking appears to see it different. Even her Dad regarding her lifestyle, thought/thinks it’s ok. There will be a day of judgment whether here or there. gasp...
I appreciate a good leg pullin’ now and then!
“Welcome to McDonalds; may I take your order?”
Paris: “Our burgers are really HOT.
“Welcome to Carl’s Jr.; may I take your order?”
Paris: “Our burgers are really HOT.
There fixed it.
There isn't a judge in this country who would award her the money.
The difference is that Barron worked for the old man for years and helped the old man build/maintain his fortune, undoubtedly under an express or implied understanding that he would get it when the old man died. That's why the court ruled in favor of Barron's will contest but against his half-sister who had never worked for the company. Since Paris has never contributed anything to the business, she will not obtain the same result as Barron.
This may or may not be true but even if it is it doesn't necessarily mean she'd be out in the cold.If things play out the way I suggest that they might in post #59 she could still get some serious $$$ (serious by *my* standards,at least) and her lawyer(s) would profit handsomely in the process.
It's very, very difficult to win a will contest based on undue influence or mental incapacity. The threshold for testamentary capacity is extremely low in most states. I just did some research on this for a case I'm working in Virginia and the Virginia courts have held that a person can have capacity to make a valid will even if a court has appointed a guardian for him to manage his personal and financial affairs because he lacks the capacity to do so. In essence, all one needs is the capacity to recognize the natural objects of one's bounty. Barron runs a major corporation, so there is simply no argument that he lacks testamentary capacity. It's amazing how many people think family inheritance is a matter of entitlement. The reality is that only a spouse has a right to inherit.
Anyway, your post #59 was a good one and I agree that there might be some nuisance value; however, if Barron decides to stick to his guns it will go nowhere. Also, any lawyer who takes the case on Paris' behalf will have to be seriously concerned about having sanctions awarded against him since it could well be deemed frivolous.
You post suggests to me that a)you're a lawyer and b)your practice involves at least some litigation in probate courts.If that's true then you surely know a whole lot more about this stuff than do I.However,I know a little bit about such things..having been involved in such a matter (as a beneficiary...not as a challenger or executor).Our lawyer advised that we settle with the challenger *only* in order to avoid a bloody,drawn out and expensive fight.So the challenger wound up settling for about 10% of what she would have gotten had the deceased died intestate.
If I were a major (or even a minor) beneficiary of a billion dollar estate and someone like Paris came along to challenge I might support throwing her a small percentage of the pie (10...15...20 million) just to shut her up.Others surely may not.
Also, any lawyer who takes the case on Paris' behalf will have to be seriously concerned about having sanctions awarded against him since it could well be deemed frivolous.
How would such a challenge be deemed "frivolous"? It seems to me that Paris could perjure herself every time she moved her lips and unless convincing proof of perjury could be produced the worst result she could expect is a dismissal of her challenge.But then,I ain't no lawyer.
I would guess that in your personal situation there was at least a scintilla of a theory on which the challenger contested the will.
I do understand the idea of eliminating the nuisance, but it depends how steadfast the estate is. The Anna Nicole Smith case is a great example. The estate refused to play ball and it has dragged on for years without her or her estate yet seeing a dime - and Anna Nicole was in a much better position than Paris because she was a spouse.
Most states have rules providing that any attorney and client who bring a frivolous case can have sanctions awarded against them. These can be financial sanctions or, in the case of the attorney, bar sanctions. Paris would have nothing relevant to add to the proceeding. She may not even be permitted to testity. She would be claiming undue influence or lack of mental capacity and would try to support her claim through the testimony of medical professionals. I obviously don't know Barron Hilton, but I would suspect that any claim that he doesn't possess testamentary capacity would be laughable. Without any basis whatsoever for the will contest, it could be deemed frivolous. Judges don't often award sanctions, but I was just involved in a case where the judge did just that against the opponent.
Frivolous cases subvert the legal system and unnecessarily tie up limited judicial resources. In a high profile case such as this would be, I could see a judge awarding sanctions to publicly send the message that such nonsense will not be tolerated. Of course, it may be a Judge Ito or that idiot judge in the Anna Nicole case sitting on the bench so one never knows for sure what would happen.
We had the old wills (all of which disinherited her) and the testimony of physicians who had known the deceased for years and she had a well-credentialed physician lined up and an unlimited amount of chutzpah,greed and venom.All this caused us to cave to the tune of a relatively small sum just so that we could be rid of her.And we have no doubt that that was *completely* in keeping with her strategy.
I wonder if,in the end,cases like this are,particularly with enormous estates,often decided by which side is,as you put it,more "steadfast".
I have heard this creep Oppenheimer speak on Cable News-
he hates the Hiltons !
He is not a source of unbiased info on the Hilton family.
What about Britney ?
If she is not a bimbo, then what is ?
Mean remarks about this girl are not necessary She has been thru enough ! We Conservatives are supposed to be more civilized than the Libs and Harpies that dominate the MSM.
Paris Hilton is a busnisswoman, and a reality TV star.
She earns up to 7 million a year.
In that role, she was competent.
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.