Former Playboy model, ecdysiast, and television personality, Anna Nicole Smith, now has what she wanted from the United States Supreme Court ...
June 14, 2006 (Press Release) --
Anna Nicole Smith and the Transfer of Wealth
By: Leslie Lenkowsky, 06/07/06
Former Playboy model, ecdysiast, and television personality, Anna Nicole Smith, now has what she wanted from the United States Supreme Court: a chance to get a portion of her late husband’s estate. But as a result, inheritances and bequests to charities expected to amount to trillions of dollars in coming decades as wealthy “baby boomers” pass from the scene are now likely to face new and unprecedented challenges.
Ms. Smith, whose legal name is Vickie Lynn Marshall, was contesting a decision by a state probate court in Texas depriving her of any money from the estate of her late husband, multi-millionaire oilman J. Howard Marshall II, whom she married a year before his death at the age of 90, even though she claimed he had promised to set up a trust fund for her.
However, her lawyers filed a bankruptcy claim on her behalf and successfully persuaded a Federal court in California to declare that her ex-husband’s son, E. Pierce Marshall, had improperly deprived her of her inheritance, blocking her ability to pay her creditors. These conflicting judgments created the basis for her appeal to the Supreme Court.
In 1946, the Supreme Court, citing precedents going back to English law, concluded that decisions by state probate courts (which have jurisdiction over the disposition of wills and bequests) were exempt from review in Federal courts.
That ruling still stands, but in this case, the Supreme Court decided that Federal judges had the authority to determine if the younger Marshall had interfered with Ms. Smith’s bankruptcy case a violation under Federal law by preventing her from claiming a portion of the estate.
The amount of money potentially involved is not small. The bankruptcy court had concluded Ms. Smith was entitled to $474 million, though another Federal court subsequently reduced the amount to $88 million.
Although the Marshalls will undoubtedly continue to battle over the amount in the courts, the Supreme Court’s decision opens the door to inventing new legal challenges to charitable bequests (as well as inheritances) where one or another party can claim to have been hindered in fulfilling obligations under Federal law by the actions of state probate courts.
Apart from the expenses and nastiness certain to be involved, the potential involvement of Federal courts in an arena in which state courts have long held sway adds a greater level of uncertainty to what many had hoped and expected would be a golden era of philanthropy.
By: Leslie Lenkowsky, 06/07/06
Former Playboy model, ecdysiast, and television personality, Anna Nicole Smith, now has what she wanted from the United States Supreme Court: a chance to get a portion of her late husband’s estate. But as a result, inheritances and bequests to charities expected to amount to trillions of dollars in coming decades as wealthy “baby boomers” pass from the scene are now likely to face new and unprecedented challenges.
Ms. Smith, whose legal name is Vickie Lynn Marshall, was contesting a decision by a state probate court in Texas depriving her of any money from the estate of her late husband, multi-millionaire oilman J. Howard Marshall II, whom she married a year before his death at the age of 90, even though she claimed he had promised to set up a trust fund for her.
However, her lawyers filed a bankruptcy claim on her behalf and successfully persuaded a Federal court in California to declare that her ex-husband’s son, E. Pierce Marshall, had improperly deprived her of her inheritance, blocking her ability to pay her creditors. These conflicting judgments created the basis for her appeal to the Supreme Court.
In 1946, the Supreme Court, citing precedents going back to English law, concluded that decisions by state probate courts (which have jurisdiction over the disposition of wills and bequests) were exempt from review in Federal courts.
That ruling still stands, but in this case, the Supreme Court decided that Federal judges had the authority to determine if the younger Marshall had interfered with Ms. Smith’s bankruptcy case a violation under Federal law by preventing her from claiming a portion of the estate.
The amount of money potentially involved is not small. The bankruptcy court had concluded Ms. Smith was entitled to $474 million, though another Federal court subsequently reduced the amount to $88 million.
Although the Marshalls will undoubtedly continue to battle over the amount in the courts, the Supreme Court’s decision opens the door to inventing new legal challenges to charitable bequests (as well as inheritances) where one or another party can claim to have been hindered in fulfilling obligations under Federal law by the actions of state probate courts.
Apart from the expenses and nastiness certain to be involved, the potential involvement of Federal courts in an arena in which state courts have long held sway adds a greater level of uncertainty to what many had hoped and expected would be a golden era of philanthropy.
Email
Print
SPAM
LEAVE A COMMENT
