Oh, it’s almost too easy… There’s just so much to report about Anna Nicole and the ironies of her appearing at a Supreme Court hearing… And in front of Justice Thomas? But I digress (yes, from the start).
As previously reported, Anna Nicole Smith is headed to the United States Supreme Court for a hearing tomorrow in what is one of the more unusual cases to hit the dockets this year.
Despite the cameras and the possibility of folks like Sam Rubin and Ryan Seacrest hanging around to get a statement from the former Playmate of the Year and reality TV participant (I’m sorry, I can’t bring myself to call her a star), the actual case isn’t the sort of material that usually draws ordinary citizens in… The crux of the case is jurisdiction, hardly exciting stuff. But if the previous court cases involving Ms. Smith are any taste of what’s to come, a circus (media or otherwise) can’t be far behind, even in a matter focusing on something as mundane as jurisdiction.
And yes, with this particular case, according to Kent Richland, Ms. Smith’s lawyer, "She is planning to attend."
You may recall that the stems from a dispute over a potential inheritance from Ms. Smith’s deceased husband, Howard Marshall. Ms. Smith married Mr. Marshall when she was 26 and he was 89. At the time, Ms. Smith was working at a night club as an exotic dancer (aka stripper). Mr. Marshall died just over a year later. Most of his assets had been placed in a trust for his oldest son, Pierce Marshall, who also ran the Marshalls’ multi-million dollar company, and his Will left nothing to Ms. Smith. Pierce Marshall alleged that the deceased Mr. Marshall had provided for Ms. Smith during his lifetime with gifts totalling more than $6 million. This is significant because, typically, you cannot disinherit your spouse at death. However, in most states, gifts made during lifetime can be considered when determining whether a spouse has been "disinherited."
After a series of legal maneuvers, a Texas probate court found in favor of Pierce Marshall, leaving Ms. Smith with no additional funds from the estate. However, while the trial in Texas was being heard, Ms. Smith filed for bankruptcy in federal court in California, alleging that Pierce Marshall had interfered with her potential inheritance. In California, a judgment of just under $90 million was awarded to Ms. Smith.
The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit threw out the award, claiming that the federal courts had no right to hear the matter since it had been previously decided in Texas state court. This makes sense since typically, probate matters are relegated to state courts. However, federal courts may hear matters which are considered matters of federal jurisdiction, including disputes involving large amounts of money or federal matters.
The matter has been appealed to the Supreme Court not on the merits of the individual evidence of the case, but on one simple issue: Are federal courts allowed to rule on matters that have already been decided in a state probate court? Or put another way, does federal court always trump state court?
The significance of the answer has serious consequences not just for Ms. Smith (oh come on, can’t I call her Anna Nicole now?) but for other potential probate matters between states, such as, for example, the Glasser case. However, I suspect that those consequences as reported on TV will pale in comparison to what Anna Nicole shows up wearing on tomorrow… Keep reading!
{ 0 comments }
