March 19, 2010
.SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the estate of Anna Nicole Smith was not entitled to a single cent of the millions left behind by her late husband, oil magnate J. Howard Marshall.
.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal courts must honor a decision in which a probate court in Texas found that Marshall did not intend to leave her any money...
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal courts must honor a decision in which a probate court in Texas found that Marshall did not intend to leave her any money...
.
Howard Marshall had given Smith $6 million in gifts but didn't make additional provisions for her in his will. Smith claimed that Marshall's son, Pierce Marshall, improperly influenced him.
Howard Marshall had given Smith $6 million in gifts but didn't make additional provisions for her in his will. Smith claimed that Marshall's son, Pierce Marshall, improperly influenced him.
.
Texas probate court ruled against Smith after a five-month jury trial.
Texas probate court ruled against Smith after a five-month jury trial.
.
But Smith raised the issue again in a federal bankruptcy court in Los Angeles after she filed for bankruptcy in 1996. A bankruptcy judge awarded her $450 million, later reduced by a federal district judge to $88 million.
But Smith raised the issue again in a federal bankruptcy court in Los Angeles after she filed for bankruptcy in 1996. A bankruptcy judge awarded her $450 million, later reduced by a federal district judge to $88 million.
.
In Friday's ruling, the federal appeals court said the Texas probate court decision should be treated as the conclusive ruling in the dispute because "it is the earliest final judgment on matters relevant to this proceeding." That makes no sense. It most certainly was NOT the final judgment, and why would you use the earliest one?
In Friday's ruling, the federal appeals court said the Texas probate court decision should be treated as the conclusive ruling in the dispute because "it is the earliest final judgment on matters relevant to this proceeding." That makes no sense. It most certainly was NOT the final judgment, and why would you use the earliest one?
.
The decision could be appealed to an expanded 11-judge panel of the appeals court and to the U.S. Supreme Court. And you can bet the farm that unless the Bar boots Stern, he will appeal this to the very end of his life. He has put--what? 15 years into this case, counting on his big payout of 6%. Even though Anna and Pierce are both dead, he'll carry it on in the guise of doing it "for Dannielynn." And I find it extremely odd that Stern's name is nowhere to be found in the ktvu.com article.
The decision could be appealed to an expanded 11-judge panel of the appeals court and to the U.S. Supreme Court. And you can bet the farm that unless the Bar boots Stern, he will appeal this to the very end of his life. He has put--what? 15 years into this case, counting on his big payout of 6%. Even though Anna and Pierce are both dead, he'll carry it on in the guise of doing it "for Dannielynn." And I find it extremely odd that Stern's name is nowhere to be found in the ktvu.com article.
.
...lawyer for Smith's estate was not immediately available for comment.
...lawyer for Smith's estate was not immediately available for comment.
The only lawyer still working on it is Howard K Stern, who of course, is having legal problems of his own right now, so, no, he probably is not available for comment.
.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment