Home » LAW »» Wills & Trusts

Anna Nicole Smith wins ruling (Wills & Trusts)

Comments (9) | Promote | Bookmark |

• Leave a Comment Now.
• Comments
• Mon, 01 May 2006 19:58:00 GMT(1)
• On Mon, 01 May 2006 18:35:36 GMT, Agent Smith
  <agent-smith@lawknowledge.org.two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:
  "edonline" <edonlineSPAMOUT!@lawknowledge.org.comcast.net> wrote innews:0LOdnbhPPYHjg8vZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@lawknowledge.org.giganews.c om: http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID= 12025122&src=rss/Entertainment Anna Nicole Smith wins ruling Mon May 1, 2006 10:32 AM ET By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Playmate of the Year Anna Nicole Smith won from the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday a new chance to collect millions of dollars she claims her late Texas oil tycoon husband promised her. The justices unanimously overturned an appeals court ruling that the blond widow was entitled to nothing because federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims that are also involved in state probate hearings. The high court sent the case back to the federal appeals court in California for more proceedings in the long-running legal battle involving the former Playboy centerfold who also had her own reality television show. Smith was 26 when she married oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall in 1994. He was 89. They met three years earlier when she was working as a topless dancer in Houston. Marshall was one of the wealthiest men in Texas, worth more than an estimated $1.6 billion. His death in 1995, after 14 months of marriage, triggered a legal battle between Smith and his son, E. Pierce Marshall. She claimed that her husband promised her half of his estate. The son said the more than $6 million in gifts she received in 1994 was all his father wanted her to get. In Texas, a state probate court ruled that E. Pierce Marshall was entitled to his father's estate. But in California, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled for Smith and awarded her $474 million because of her claims the son had interfered with the inheritance she was supposed to receive. A federal district court judge then cut Smith's award to $88 million. But the appeals court ruled she was entitled to nothing because federal courts lack jurisdiction in probate disputes. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in the ruling for the Supreme Court that the appeals court was wrong and the district court properly asserted jurisdiction over Smith's claims against the son.Can anybody explain to me why this isn't just a power grab at thefederal court level? As I understand it, probate rulings areimplemented at the state level. Shouldn't that be the end of thelawsuits, even if the state courts rule incorrectly, as seems to havehappened in this case. Since when do federal coursts rule on probatecases?
  
  It's a bankruptcy case. Bankruptcy court jurisdiction stays and
  supersedes all pending state and federal cases. Under your reasoning,
  a creditor or other claimant against bankruptcy assets could continue
  to pursue his case against you after you file bankruptcy. That's the
  question before the Supreme Court, and they ruled correctly in
  accordance with a gazillion precedents.
  
  - Jon Beaver
• Mon, 01 May 2006 20:55:00 GMT(2)
• On Mon, 1 May 2006, Agent Smith wrote:
  Anna Nicole Smith wins ruling Mon May 1, 2006 10:32 AM ET By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Playmate of the Year Anna Nicole Smith won from the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday a new chance to collect millions of dollars she claims her late Texas oil tycoon husband promised her. The justices unanimously overturned an appeals court ruling that the blond widow was entitled to nothing because federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims that are also involved in state probate hearings. Can anybody explain to me why this isn't just a power grab at the federal court level? As I understand it, probate rulings are implemented at the state level. Shouldn't that be the end of the lawsuits, even if the state courts rule incorrectly, as seems to have happened in this case. Since when do federal coursts rule on probate cases?
  
  Why have you asked? What is your relation to the question?
• Wed, 24 May 2006 13:41:00 GMT(3)
• >> Federal courts rule on cases where states are in conflict (Texas and California, in this instance). There is no clonflict. The entire estate is in Texas. That would like California trying to perform emminent domain in Texas
  
  In Smith's case, the question was whether or not the bankruptcy court
  (federal) or the probate court (state) had primary jurisdiction over an
  overlapping issue.
  
  --
  "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
  District of PA Judge
  From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
• Tue, 02 May 2006 10:16:00 GMT(4)
• On 1 May 2006, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@lawknowledge.org.NO.com> wrote:
  Agent Smith <etc.> wrote: Anna Nicole Smith wins ruling * * * WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Playmate of the Year Anna Nicole Smith won from the U.S. Supreme Court . . . . The justices unanimously overturned an appeals court ruling that the blond widow was entitled to nothing because federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims that are also involved in state probate hearings. * * * She claimed that her husband promised her half of his estate. * * * [but i]n Texas, a state probate court ruled that [his son] was entitled to his father's estate. But in California, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled for Smith. * * * But the appeals court ruled she was entitled to nothing because federal courts lack jurisdiction in probate disputes. * * * Can anybody explain to me why this isn't just a power grab at the federal court level? As I understand it, probate rulings are implemented at the state level. Shouldn't that be the end of the lawsuits, even if the state courts rule incorrectly, as seems to have happened in this case. Since when do federal coursts rule on probate cases? It's a bankruptcy case. Bankruptcy court jurisdiction stays and supersedes all pending state and federal cases. Under your reasoning, a creditor or other claimant against bankruptcy assets could continue to pursue his case against you after you file bankruptcy. That's the question before the Supreme Court, and they ruled correctly in accordance with a gazillion precedents.
  
  I share Mr. Beaver's apparent agreement with the result and, I
  presume, what he would take to be the predominant reasoning in the
  Nicole Smith (Marshall) case, including that that ruling accords with
  lots of precedent. However (though also preferring that it was not
  necessary to do so), one might wonder whether his unqualifiedly broad
  second sentence above - that "Bankruptcy court jurisdiction stays and
  supersedes all pending state and federal cases" - may not fully accord
  with what appears to be more than just passing recent judicial hints
  to the effect that Bankruptcy Act jurisdiction may not be as extensive
  as such a general statements suggests.
  
  See, e.g., In re Mintze, 434 F.3d 222 (3d Cir. 2006), which held that
  a Bankruptcy Court doe not have the authority ("jurisdiction") to deny
  compelled arbitration of the bankrupt's contract dispute subject to a
  broad arbitration provision covered by the Federal Arbitration Act
  even if the claims/issues that would be determined in arbitration, if
  they were litigated judicially in the bankruptcy court, would
  constitute a "core proceeding" under the Bankruptcy Act (albeit Mintze
  hasn't been reviewed by the Supremes).
• Mon, 01 May 2006 17:08:00 GMT(5)
• In article <Xns97B6947A781ACagentsmithtwoblockso@lawknowledge.org.207.115.17.10 2>,
  agent-smith@lawknowledge.org.two-blocks-on-your-left.com says...Can anybody explain to me why this isn't just a power grab at thefederal court level? As I understand it, probate rulings areimplemented at the state level. Shouldn't that be the end of thelawsuits, even if the state courts rule incorrectly, as seems to havehappened in this case. Since when do federal coursts rule on probatecases?
  
  Federal courts rule on cases where states are in conflict (Texas and
  California, in this instance).
  
  --
  Visit my Iron Age Pages for technical and fun stuff (holiday specials,
  too)!
  http://pages.prodigy.net/feaudrey
• Fri, 05 May 2006 15:06:00 GMT(6)
• "Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@lawknowledge.org.NO.com> wrote in message
  news:9did5211iehqah0jaednagl734bt1h79kk@lawknowledge.org.4ax.com... On Mon, 01 May 2006 18:35:36 GMT, Agent Smith <agent-smith@lawknowledge.org.two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:"edonline" <edonlineSPAMOUT!@lawknowledge.org.comcast.net> wrote innews:0LOdnbhPPYHjg8vZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@lawknowledge.org.giganews.c om: http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID= 12025122&src=rss/Entertainment Anna Nicole Smith wins ruling Mon May 1, 2006 10:32 AM ET By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Playmate of the Year Anna Nicole Smith won from the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday a new chance to collect millions of dollars she claims her late Texas oil tycoon husband promised her. The justices unanimously overturned an appeals court ruling that the blond widow was entitled to nothing because federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims that are also involved in state probate hearings. The high court sent the case back to the federal appeals court in California for more proceedings in the long-running legal battle involving the former Playboy centerfold who also had her own reality television show. Smith was 26 when she married oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall in 1994. He was 89. They met three years earlier when she was working as a topless dancer in Houston. Marshall was one of the wealthiest men in Texas, worth more than an estimated $1.6 billion. His death in 1995, after 14 months of marriage, triggered a legal battle between Smith and his son, E. Pierce Marshall. She claimed that her husband promised her half of his estate. The son said the more than $6 million in gifts she received in 1994 was all his father wanted her to get. In Texas, a state probate court ruled that E. Pierce Marshall was entitled to his father's estate. But in California, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled for Smith and awarded her $474 million because of her claims the son had interfered with the inheritance she was supposed to receive. A federal district court judge then cut Smith's award to $88 million. But the appeals court ruled she was entitled to nothing because federal courts lack jurisdiction in probate disputes. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in the ruling for the Supreme Court that the appeals court was wrong and the district court properly asserted jurisdiction over Smith's claims against the son.Can anybody explain to me why this isn't just a power grab at thefederal court level? As I understand it, probate rulings areimplemented at the state level. Shouldn't that be the end of thelawsuits, even if the state courts rule incorrectly, as seems to havehappened in this case. Since when do federal coursts rule on probatecases? It's a bankruptcy case. Bankruptcy court jurisdiction stays and supersedes all pending state and federal cases. Under your reasoning, a creditor or other claimant against bankruptcy assets could continue to pursue his case against you after you file bankruptcy. That's the question before the Supreme Court, and they ruled correctly in accordance with a gazillion precedents.
  
  That would be like Chase Manhatten filing bankrupt then the court giving 454
  billion of Bank America funds to Chase Bank just because they made had an
  agreement to lets say share some banking locations. - Jon Beaver
• Fri, 05 May 2006 15:04:00 GMT(7)
• "FeAudrey" <feaudrey@lawknowledge.org.yah00.forspamhaters.c0m> wrote in message
  news:7qx5g.27037$NS6.14202@lawknowledge.org.newssvr30.news.prodigy. com... In article <Xns97B6947A781ACagentsmithtwoblockso@lawknowledge.org.207.115.17.10 2>, agent-smith@lawknowledge.org.two-blocks-on-your-left.com says...Can anybody explain to me why this isn't just a power grab at thefederal court level? As I understand it, probate rulings areimplemented at the state level. Shouldn't that be the end of thelawsuits, even if the state courts rule incorrectly, as seems to havehappened in this case. Since when do federal coursts rule on probatecases? Federal courts rule on cases where states are in conflict (Texas and California, in this instance).
  
  There is no clonflict. The entire estate is in Texas.
  That would like California trying to perform emminent domain in Texas
  -- Visit my Iron Age Pages for technical and fun stuff (holiday specials, too)! http://pages.prodigy.net/feaudrey
• Mon, 01 May 2006 16:40:00 GMT(8)
• Great for her.....what is between a husband and wife no one should
  interfere....she should a least get her half.......let the rest of the
  termites go after the rest.......k
  
  "Agent Smith" <agent-smith@lawknowledge.org.two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote in message
  news:Xns97B6947A781ACagentsmithtwoblockso@lawknowledge.org.207.115. 17.102... "edonline" <edonlineSPAMOUT!@lawknowledge.org.comcast.net> wrote in news:0LOdnbhPPYHjg8vZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@lawknowledge.org.giganews.com : http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml? type=entertainmentNews&storyID= 12025122&src=rss/Entertainment Anna Nicole Smith wins ruling Mon May 1, 2006 10:32 AM ET By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Playmate of the Year Anna Nicole Smith won from the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday a new chance to collect millions of dollars she claims her late Texas oil tycoon husband promised her. The justices unanimously overturned an appeals court ruling that the blond widow was entitled to nothing because federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims that are also involved in state probate hearings. The high court sent the case back to the federal appeals court in California for more proceedings in the long-running legal battle involving the former Playboy centerfold who also had her own reality television show. Smith was 26 when she married oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall in 1994. He was 89. They met three years earlier when she was working as a topless dancer in Houston. Marshall was one of the wealthiest men in Texas, worth more than an estimated $1.6 billion. His death in 1995, after 14 months of marriage, triggered a legal battle between Smith and his son, E. Pierce Marshall. She claimed that her husband promised her half of his estate. The son said the more than $6 million in gifts she received in 1994 was all his father wanted her to get. In Texas, a state probate court ruled that E. Pierce Marshall was entitled to his father's estate. But in California, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled for Smith and awarded her $474 million because of her claims the son had interfered with the inheritance she was supposed to receive. A federal district court judge then cut Smith's award to $88 million. But the appeals court ruled she was entitled to nothing because federal courts lack jurisdiction in probate disputes. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in the ruling for the Supreme Court that the appeals court was wrong and the district court properly asserted jurisdiction over Smith's claims against the son. Can anybody explain to me why this isn't just a power grab at the federal court level? As I understand it, probate rulings are implemented at the state level. Shouldn't that be the end of the lawsuits, even if the state courts rule incorrectly, as seems to have happened in this case. Since when do federal coursts rule on probate cases?
• Wed, 03 May 2006 09:58:00 GMT(9)
• On Mon, 1 May 2006, Agent Smith wrote:
  Anna Nicole Smith wins ruling Mon May 1, 2006 10:32 AM ET By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Playmate of the Year Anna Nicole Smith won from the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday a new chance to collect millions of dollars she claims her late Texas oil tycoon husband promised her. The justices unanimously overturned an appeals court ruling that the blond widow was entitled to nothing because federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims that are also involved in state probate hearings. The high court sent the case back to the federal appeals court in California for more proceedings in the long-running legal battle Can anybody explain to me why this isn't just a power grab at the federal court level? As I understand it, probate rulings are implemented at the state level. Shouldn't that be the end of the lawsuits, even if the state courts rule incorrectly, as seems to have happened in this case. Since when do federal coursts rule on probate cases?
  
  If I were a federal judge, I would look for excuses not to take on a case
  that could be decided in a state court. One reason would be that anything
  I might do would have a preemptive effect on anything the state judges
  might want to do and I might screw things up to the point where I would
  have to take the whole case.
  
  So yes, there is a legitimate question of why a federal judge might want
  to make a power grab. But I've known of a situation where it was proper
  to seek federal intervention in a probate matter. Police and county
  agents were imprisoning and extorting an old lady into changing her
  testamentary plans.
  
  If anyone ever wants to learn how useless and unethical the attorneys
  were, I could tell you about their response in the situation.
• Leave a Comment Now.

Wills & Trusts Open Questions

California. I need to start an ancillary probate in California to process some real property. The will has already been probated in Virginia where the decedent lived. How does the process differ for an ancillary probate versus a regular one?...

My husband has inherited two parcels of land from his great aunt. One parcel is located in RI, the other in Massachusetts. His aunt resided in Massachusetts. She had a WILL. She willed additional properties to other relatives. Does each individual inheritor have to go through a separate......

What is the name of your state?undefinedWhat is the name of your state? Florida Dad resided and passed away in North Carolina and owned real estate in Florida. I am personal rep and live in North Carolina. Can anyone tell me how I file an ancillary estate in Florida without an attorney? Thank......

What is the name of your state?Florida Dad resided in and passed away in NC, but owned real estate in FL. I am personal rep and reside in NC. Can anyone tell me how I file an ancillary estate in FL without an attorney? Thanks...

The state is Pennsylvania. A couple lived together for no less than 20 years. Male died in March 2005. Male's family acknowledged her as male's common law wife as well as the community, or as they say - cohabitation. The female backed up and turned her back on everything instantly. Finally, a......

What is the name of your state? california , my daughters are to receive an inheritance from the death of their father who was murdered in northern ireland 3 months ago. at first the girls were to receive the money and now they are told that the 16 yr. olds money is to go into a trust account......

Illinois My step dad (not legally) is still married to his first wife, living with my mother for 35 years. He and I are in a business together. They just did a living trust. I have not seen it yet. My question; is the trust legal as he is still married to someone else? Would it be a legal......

My grandmother recently died. In her will she left a house in North Carolina to be divided 3 ways. One of the heirs, who is also the executor, wants to purchase the house. He is saying that he is dividing the monies based on the tax value of the house. The market value is about twice the tax......

4 months have passed since the death of a parent and as one of the beneficiarys named in the will have yet to get a copy of the will or a summary of the assets and liabilities from the will's executor and was told by said party when I requested this information I should contact their attorney. Do......

A good friend and I once vowed that whichever one of us died first, the other would get his skull as a keepsake. In all likelyhood, the skull would be encased in Lucite or some similar transparent medium, to protect it. Hopefully this would satisfy any health department concerns. Leaving aside......

Some questions maybe you're interest in...

[Employment & Labor Law] What is the name of your state? missouri I have recently been laid off with a tentive return date. When I left the office, I also took the business cards of contacts that I have acquired while with the company. The company is now stating that the cards are company property since I acquired them.........

[Intellectual Property] From Florida: I am interested in using some of the images from the photo essays on the White House web site (to be used in a video that will NOT be sold). However, I can't find any anything on the site that gives instructions on how to obtain a license for the use of these images. Are pictures.........

[Accidents & Personal Injury Law] What is the name of your state? MI Hi, I had two accidents at a night recently. I was driving in an apartment comlex. I stopped at a stop sign but I guess the road was a little icy and my car slided forward a little but then it fell down. I didn't know what happened until I went outside and saw.........

[BANKRUPTCY & CONSUMER CREDIT] What is the name of your state? Oklahoma I am in the Fen Phen lawsuit, and it appears I may get a settlement. If I have to file bankruptcy, the only debt I plan on charging off is my credit card debt. My question is this: If I get a settlement from the Fen Phen lawsuit somewhere down the road,.........

[Immigration Law] We are just about ready to file our I 751 here but would just like to clarify on thing. My oldest son came here on a K2 with me, he was under 21 when we got our greencards, hes now 22. So my question is do we file for him on the our form or will he have to fill in his own and what evidence will.........

[CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE] Can you plese tell me the statue of limitations on taking funds from a private company. My sister has been accussed of taking 250,000 from 11/93 to 6/01. No charges have been filed. Thank you......

[Intellectual Property] I live in Ohio and am in the midst of writing a book which is a collection of hilarious letters sent to newspapers and magazines, so I am curious on the how to go about obtaining letters that have been sent to newspapers and magazines without violating any laws, (please note that I am only.........

[BUSINESS & FINANCIAL & Corporate LAW] I am in Michigan and work for an LLC that owns property. When we go to tenant-landlord court, we always have a lawyer represent us, even though I have to go and commonly know more about the situation than the lawyer. My sister and I would like to start a business, we were considering an LLC.........

[Family Law] i am from ohio! this year in may, i received custody of my niece. we'll call her #2. her mother signed papers for consent. there is also another niece #1, who lives with my mother who was also given consent my her mother. i would like to get custody of niece #3. she is the youngest. thier mother.........

[Immigration Law] Hi My Case was filed in Canadian Embassy,Damascus in 1998.I attended interview in 2001August.Interview was successful.I undergone Medicals in August 2001.later My Medicals were expired.Again i went for ReMedicals in March,2003.one of friends telling that because i could not able to get Visa by.........