A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said that Anna Nicole Smith - former Playboy model, actress and all-around celebrity - can continue her battle for a share of the estate of her late, nonagenarian husband, settling a turf battle which had enveloped the courts of the sovereign state of Texas and the United States.
What the ruling means, according to legal analysts, is that Miss Smith (known in court documents as Vickie Lynn Marshall) will now get another chance to get a share of the millions she claims is hers; money that the son of tycoon J. Howard Marshall has been working for almost a decade to keep from her .
This whole case has received more publicity than it deserves, starting back in February when Anna Nicole attended the oral argument of the case. Although the U.S. Supreme Court is no stranger to cameras and crowds, the cases that mostly get attention involve issues of great social consequence, like abortion or prisoner rights. But when Anna Nicole showed up for her Constitutionally guaranteed day in court, the plaza around the venerable court building was swarming with celebrity seekers and Hollywood paparazzi, most of whom probably had no idea where the court building is, so used are they to hanging outside swanky Hollywood hotels and restaurants.
The publicity may not be deserved, but the legal issue at the core of the case is interesting - to what degree, if any, should federal courts become involved in probate matters? Although none of the media coverage of this case has looked at this issue (mostly the coverage has focused on the battle between Marshall's heirs) the court's ruling is worthy of some attention. As it turns out, the federal courts can overrule a state probate court's jurisdiction in extreme cases - and this case was one of those extremes.
When Anna was 26, she married the 89-year-old Mr. Marshall, whom she had met in the very romantic setting of the strip club at which Anna then worked. Although some people seem to doubt her, Anna has always claimed the relationship to be affectionate and nurturing; not the stereotypical union of golddigger and gold-diggee. However, the marriage was short and when Marshall went to his reward, Anna was left unrewarded for her affections in Marshall's will, which left the bulk of the Texas oilman's $1.6 billion estate to his son, E. Pierce Marshall. Anna claimed, however, that Marshall had intended to provide for her with a catch-all trust and both Pierce and his young step-mother exchanged nasty comments that found their way into the newspapers.
While Marshall's will was tied up in Texas probate courts, Anna Nicole - now living in California - filed for bankruptcy. Pierce involved himself in those procedings, accusing Anna Nicole of defeaming him with public accusations that he had resorted to forgery, fraud and other shenanigans to separate her from his father's money. Eventually, the bankruptcy court sided with Anna Nicole, awarding her $475 in compensatory and punitive damages; an amount later reduced the award to a total to about $44 million (plus an equal amount in punitive damages) by a federal district court.
But when the case made its way to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the appellate court overturned the lower courts' ruling, saying that the proper place for the case to be decided was in the state probate court. That court, by the way, had ruled in March 2001 that Anna Nicole was entitled to nothing.
In her majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged that the "probate exception" generally gives state probate courts sovereign authority to oversee wills and the administration of estates. However, Justice Ginsberg wrote, this case was different because of Anna Nicole's claim that Pierce had wronged her by trying to cheat her out of the old man's estate.
That kind of dispute, Justice Ginsburg said, better belongs in a federal or state trial court, since probate courts possess "no special proficiency" in handling issues like the ones raised here. So, the case is headed back to a federal court, where Anna Nicole has already provided evidence that her allegations of fraud are valid. Given the history of this long-lived case, however, the only thing we can be sure of is that the final resolution may be months, if not years, in coming.
|
|