Posted on 02/25/2006 12:43:08 PM PST by Tall_Texan
It's been a long and colorful journey for a girl from a small Texas town.
Anna Nicole Smith went to work in a Houston strip club and wound up as the trophy wife of an aging multimillionaire, setting up an 11-year-long legal war over his estate that now has traveled all the way to the highest court in the land.
The fight over the fortune of oil entrepreneur J. Howard Marshall II between the one-time Playboy Playmate of the Year and Marshall's youngest son, 67-year-old E. Pierce Marshall, goes before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.
(snip)
Since then, the case has been through a succession of courtrooms, starting with a state probate court jury in Houston, which ruled in 2001 that Marshall did not leave any of his estate to Smith. A federal bankruptcy judge sided with Smith, another federal judge reduced the award and a federal appeals court ruled that federal courts should never have gotten involved.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday focused solely on the narrow question of whether federal courts can decide cases involving state probate proceedings. The Bush administration has filed briefs favoring federal court jurisdiction.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
I don't really care for the classless, gold-digging tub of goo but what shocks me is how the Bush administration thinks there is a federal case here. Somebody explain to me how the federal government thinks they are all of the sudden probate lawyers. Don't they get their cut first, regardless how the money is split? I find this a really bad precedent if the courts approve this. I hope SCOTUS swats this down.
AMEN
I don't understand why the federal courts would have ever gotten involved. While the result is somewhat disgusting, I also don't understand why the divorced man shouldn't have the right to give his own money wherever he wants, what right does the court have to ignore and override his will?
The root issue is what to do when court from state 1 rules differently than court from state 2.
But there are not two states involved that I can tell. This trial started in Texas (where Smith worked and Marshall drooled) and went up through the line of state courts. Somebody (the younger Marshall judging by the quote) didn't like the ending so he got the feds involved. What second state are you referring to?
Why are two states involved? Maybe the feds could just establish consistent standards about which state courts should rule (perhaps based on residency of estate holder in question), instead of overriding the state and deciding the whole thing anew.
i don't understand myself, but a federal bankruptcy judge ruled in her favor. i think it was his ruling that was appealed all the way up to the Sup. Ct. Bankrutpcy is federal not state.
Article I, section 8, bankruptcy clause gives the Federal Government plenary power over bankruptcy issues. Smith filed bankruptcy and that's how it got into federal court. Actually she has a great case under federal BK law.
These able and learned men don't have the time or the patience to explain their reasoning to mere peasants like you and me.
Okay, I get it. She's saying she's bankrupt now because she can't get her hands on the estate money.
Tough (ample) salines. That's the way I see that.
If the State of Texas says the money isn't hers, why should some federal court override that just because she can't hold onto her money any better than she can hold her liquor?
Still don't agree with the Bushies adding another layer of creeping federalism. I guess it's not over til the TrimSpa spokesperson sings.
I don't understand why they don't settle with her and get on with their lives. I mean I know she may not deserve this money, but let's see spending money on lawyers or giving her another crum. Remember they are rich so they could afford to up the antie a bit. They are ruining the legal system by going federal. Just give her another 10 million and be done.
i don't know how the case involves bankruptcy, am certainly not advocating in her favor, but that is how it ended up in the Sup Ct and from where federal jurisdiction derives. i think the original bankruptcy judge was enamored of the ample saline sacs : )
Bankruptcy Courts have jurisdiction to determine the assets of an applicant in Bankruptcy. In Smith's case she indicated she had assets totalling one half of marshall Senior's estate ( $451 million). The California Bankruptcy trial court determined she did have such an asset:
******************************************************* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092700726.html
***************************************************
A bankruptcy court determined that she was entitled to $475 million, an award later reduced by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter to $88.5 million in damages from Pierce Marshall.
Carter, detailing the lavish gifts of cash, real estate and jewelry that Marshall had given Smith, found that the billionaire always intended to give Smith a huge amount of money from his estate, even though only Smith recalled ever hearing him say so.
"Their lives were intertwined in need, driven by greed and lust," Carter wrote. "Nevertheless, the Court is convinced of his love for her. J. Howard referred to Vickie as the 'light of my life,' and the lady that saved his life. His relationship with her provided the happiest moments of his last few years. . . . There is no question that he showered her with gifts, that he sought to protect her and provide for her."
Last year, however, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, threw out Carter's ruling, declaring that only Texas's courts have jurisdiction.
************************************************
Bankruptcy law at the federal level usually does have superior jurisdiction over any state law. It would not surprise me if Smith wins the SCOTUS case on the principle that the California Bankruptcy Court does have superior jurisdiction to the Texas Courts. That result may or may not leave Carter's decision in place or there may be a new trial ordered on a different question of fact.
There is federal jurisdiction in her case! She's a national asset, shortly to be unleashed upon wealthy Saudi Bachelors and Shi-ite Extremists ( LOL):
Thanks for the background.
So what you are saying is if I believe a dying person would have given me the money and am able to convince some bankruptcy judge in another state of that, then that can override the will and the courts of another state? That's what you're saying?
How con-veeeeeen-ient!
So if she doesn't get the money this way, can she just try other bankruptcy courts in other states until she can find another one that agrees with her?
Wow! For Pete's sake give her the money.
How do you put $85 million in somebody's g-string?
If she doesn't get the money this way, its a dead issue. No other courts will have jurisdiction either in bankruptcy PT probate. It wouldn't surprise me if the case was sent back to Carter to determine new questions of fact, determining her " ASSETS!" ( But then she will be in the court and who knows what result here wiles might work on SCOTUS? LOL!)
Or perhaps SCOTUS will limit how far federal bankruptcy courts can reach to determine an individuals assets and liabilities.
More recent photos that I have seen of her are not good. She has turned into a blimp.
Okay, don't give her the money.
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.