Florida Probate Attorney and Florida Inheritance Lawyer Florida Probate Attorney Blog

Will Contest - Undue Influence and lack of capacity alleged in change of Billionaire Melvin Simon's estate and trust.

Melvin Simon was around the top 300 richest people in the Forbes 400 (# 278 when he was 79 years old). He died around 82 years of age. His estate was worth around $1.3 billion dollars.  

Dana Hunsinger of the Indystar.com provided an update of the probate and trust litigation. The judge dismissed part of the case in which his daughter Deborah Simon stated fraud as the claim but was not specific enough in nature. It is allowed it to be refiled. The Probate court Judge failed to dismiss the estate dispute claims against her stepmom Bren Simon which argued undue influence and lack of mental capacity.

While I am not familar with Indiana Probate case law or statutes in Florida can't really merely rely on presumptions to prove an undue influence case against a spouse however she appears to be seeking to prove it directly and using evidence of lack of capacity or diminished capacity.

She indicates that not only were the documents changed just months before he died and was a significant change from prior wills which then gave her stepmom hundreds of millions more while vastly reducing what was going to charity or to herself and her siblings she also indicated that her father Billionaire Mel Simon was suffering from significant neurological problems at the time which impaired his memory, understanding and communication. It is undisputed that he had difficulty even signing the documents although his spouse Bren says that is from Parkinsons and that he signed freely, voluntarily and knowingly.

As I tell clients who inquire about Florida Probate Litigation Information a person can leave there property to anybody they want for any reason they want. However, that is subject to them having mental capacity and there not being evidence of undue influence that they were coerced into doing so and the result was the other persons influence and not their own. The article does not provide many details of undue influence although based on the time line and the capacity issue along with the large change in disposition it seems questionable that he even formed an intent to change the document and undue influence is often combined with diminished capacity which was clearly present here so this will be an interest case to see where it goes. When discussing a potential challenge to contest a will or trust and dispute the intent I do like to see some of the facts that Deborah appears to have here he had a previous plan which she was provided significantly more for, then there is the alegation of significant neuroglogical problems and he was not even able to sign and he was somewhat elderly as well as died just months after signing the document so the timeline looks good. The facts will need to be established to prove the case though was it his intent to provide more for his spouse and did he know what he was doing and act voluntarily will ultimately decide the issue. However with this much money involved and a reasonably good timeline but with it being the spouse and difficult to win unless they can do so on the capacity issue or have direct facts proving undue influence they should settle it would seem in both sides best interests. While sometimes principle is important and it may be worth fighting until the end in a case like this both sides can be sufficiently provided for in a settlement and factoring in the time and saved expense in court costs and attorneys fees it may be a smart move. Anna Nicole Smith estate suing the estate of her deceased billionaire husband and opposed by the estate of his son shows how extended cases of this size can become if each side has a fight to the death mentality. All the initial participants literally did in that case and it is still going on after 15+ years and numerous appearances in multiple different types of courts. She has been awarded $474.5 million around around 89 million and most recently nothing but her side has said they may seek to be heard a second time by the US Supreme Court on a different issue.

On a final note back to the Melvin Simon case it is best that his daughter brings the challenge regarding lack of capacity or diminished capacity and potential undue influence since frequently talking with and seeing her father she could likely present any facts which existed to the court more easily than a charity who may not have had much contact with him. However if a representative of the charity were to know of his condition at the time of execution and chose to join the suit they would be an interested party given the millions of dollars less they would be receiving under the revised will and trust.

Anna Nicole Smith Probate Litigation Video - Trust and Estate Litigation may continue.

Anna Nicole Smith Estate Litigation Video from the AP. 

Her Estate lost the latest round in the probate and trust fight but the estate dispute may continue as her probate litigation attorneys have said they may appeal back to the US Supreme Court on a different issue than was heard in 2006. 

Marshall Estate wins latest round of Litigation. Anna Nicole gets nothing. Probate Court had jurisdiction.

A federal Judge has denied the estate of Anna Nicole Smith $300 she claimed her ex husband who died at the age of 90 an oil billionaire had promised her. J. Howard Marshall who had a $1.6 billion dollar estate and gave her millions in gifts during his lifetime has been contested for 15 years. The trust and estate litigation has been disputed by each side in probate court, bankruptcy court, the Supreme Court and numerous venues with a series of conflicting results with a bankruptcy court awarding as much as $474.5 million another court cutting it back to $89.5 million. 

The federal judge essentially determined they had been wasting their time the past decade. He cited that a 2001 Texas jury verdict said that the money was not intended as a gift and there was no undue influence or fraud. During that court fight as both parties were present and had the opportunity to present their case then the jury spoke the district court should have held to the findings of the Texas Probate Court and that should have precluded other courts (such as the bankruptcy speaking to the factual findings or legal conclusions). Although the bankruptcy court had made their ruling first in 2000 and Anna Nicole's attorney sought to argue federal court should therefore control the courts found the case was initially in probate court and their was a full trial at the probate court level and the bankruptcy decision did not have jurisdiction but was merely an advisory opinion. 

In 2002 a district court cut back the 2000 bankruptcy verdict in favor of Anna Nicole but this federal court ruled that given the 2001 probate court case the 2002 judge should have dismissed the case instead of merely cutting the amount to $89.5 million. 

His family said that lies about E Pierce Marshall have finally been put to rest. 

In 2006 the US Supreme Court had ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling against Smith. 

It is an important decision from a jurisdictional issue. Had the bankruptcy court been able to prevail and take precedence over the probate court it would have provided a 2nd chance to rush off to another venue when it appeared a case was going poorly and create jurisdiction shopping. Here there was already a probate case going but then she went to a different jurisdiction and was able to get them to take the case on different grounds of a supposed bankruptcy but essentially just a tactic to retry the case in a different context and court. This decision sends the message to determine facts regarding the probate and trust issues in the probate court and to then go with the factual finds of that court and not drag it through to numerous other types of courts to get another shot on the same factual determinations. 

Anna Nicole was 26 when she married the 89 year old J. Howard Marshall who was 89 after meeting her a couple years earlier when she was a stripper. They were married for only 14 months.  

One of her attorneys Howard Stern who was also a past boyfriend was to be paid a contingency fee and will now also receive nothing absent another reversal. She had been his only client and he had made no money for years as mentioned during her estate. At this point the son of J. Howard Marshall who was initially litigating against Anna Nicole died and his estate continued to fight then she did as well and even her son died so the only heir was her daughter who is a minor but she will receive nothing based on the decision. The son's family hopes this finally concludes 15 years of disputes regarding the estate. It has been an interesting case to follow for jurisdictional and other reasons.  An article discussing his not receiving anything can be found here.  

James Brown Trusts and Estates Litigation Settled

After years of disputes and litigation regarding the terms his trusts and will contests a settlement to distribute the trust and estate assets was reached.

His charitable trust will receive 50% of the assets and help needy kids in South Carolina and Georgia.

Tomi Rae Hynie Brown was determined to be his wife which had itself been litigated since it was argued she had not been properly divorced from her prior husband so it was argued that the marriage with James Brown should have been invalid. She however received 25% share along with her son James Brown II who was a minor and there had been questions of whether that had even truly been James Brown son. Neither one had been provided for in prior wills and trusts which they contested and were disputing in the litigation. They had rights as pretermitted heirs since the marriage was after the will and so was the birth of the child. This would allow them to receive their intestate share. Even if the will had not provided for her and was done after the marriage she would have rights to his property as an elective share unless there had been a prenup she would have elective share rights as a spouse.

James Browns 6 adult children split the remaining 25%.

The estate reportedly has limited assets currently though and had held an auction which raised $850,000 in order to help pay debt of the trusts and estates.

There have been reports of breach of fiduciary duty by the trustees who reportedly have not given full accountings and are said to have mismanged the trust assets. They did not approve of the settlement and are appealing. 

His wife and her attorney mentioned that the family and charity were happy to move forward after the trust litigation battles of the past few years and just wanted to work together to continue to enhance his image. The image of the godfather of soul will likely be the most significant estate asset. The estate of his friend Elvis Presley for example earned $52 million last year despite his death decades ago. By contrast even some of the biggest celebrities who are alive and actively earning such as Justin Timberlake and Madonna made ten or more million less according to the annual list of top earning deceased celebrities in Forbes.  

This trust and estate settlement proposal had been worked out months ago and submitted to the probate  court for approval although the probate judge in South Carolina overseeing the case finally reviewed and approved it. Unless it is impacted by the appeal of the trustees all the litigation concerning the trust and estate can finally be put to rest. In this case as with some other large celebrity cases there had been numerous lawsuits which needed to be resolved as well as determining what the will and trust said then all the parties agreeing to settle the disputes.

As James Brown liked to say and those who have finally been able to settle the trust and estate litigation disputes that had been in probate court would likely have said "It feels good".

Probate and Trust Litigation Anna Nicole Smith

On Thursday November 17 Primetime Live the ABC news show discussed the Anna Nicole Smith Probate and Trust Litigation case, her relationship with her husband who was 63 years older than her (89 and 26) and showed some of the video from the court cases that have spanned from Texas to California bankruptcy court, probate court and federal court. Two of the aspects of the show that were particularly of interest were first that that J. Howard Marshall was not just an oilman who happened to get lucky and make billions of dollars but that he had been an attorney and not merely an attorney but a trusts and estates attorney as well as a professor. In fact he taught trusts and estates at Yale law school. With that being mentioned it is reasonable to assume that if he wanted to provide for her his documents would have done so. Although that further raises the question of the conflict in his failing to follow up with a post nuptial agreement or having done a prenuptial before they were married in order to avoid her right to an elective share and community property from the time they were married which she presumably has the right to in Texas. In Florida there is no community property but a surviving spouse would be entitled to an elective share which is basically 30% of the overall estate whether or not included in probate. During his lifetime he gave her gifts of around $6-$7 million dollars and they were married for just 14 months. His will and trust which Anna has challenged with a decade of litigation in probate court essentially left the same thing which she heard him intend to leave at the time he prepared the home video. The Supreme Court will next be deciding whether a federal judge has jurisdiction in a probate matter. The Supreme Court case will be Vickie Lynn Marshall (Anna Nicole's formal legal name) v. E. Pierce Marshall, (J. Howard Marshall's son who is the personal representative and trustee. The case number is 04-1544.

Rosa Parks Probate Litigation

A lawsuit filed about the Outkast song "Rosa Parks" publicly showed that Rosa Parks herself was suffering from Dementia and required a guardian. At the time their was litigation regarding who should serve as the guardian. Now that she has passed the litigation has resumed in a probate litigation context and likely a trust dispute.

A Nephew Cited failing health and undue Influence to challenge the will and seek to be named as the Personal Representative. 

The link to Article from the Detroit Free Press on November 16 setting out who the participants in the litigation are and the background of the case is here. An Article the next day from the Detroit News Online indicated an estate settlement was possible.

It also raises two interesting issue by stating: By law, Parks' relatives could stand to lose whatever she intended for them if they unsuccessfully  challenged her living trust. That's because such documents can include specific instructions to exclude beneficiaries if they contest the trust.

First being that Michigan must have a law which allows no contest provisions. In Florida a no contest provision is unenforceable by statute so an individual can challenge or dispute with will and trust litigation and not risk losing any property they are left. This is a matter of public policy which the legislature of Florida clearly has a different view than Michigan and could have a significant impact for the beneficiaries in this and other estates.

Also while most of the articles and coverage has been about a will contest and who is named the Personal Representative those issues may be of significantly less importance given that Ms Parks has a trust. Depending on how her property interests both tangible property and use of her name and likeness and any other property she may have owned or had a right to were titled it may be of little consequence who Personal Representative is if all her assets were properly titled in her name to avoid probate and she was determined to have had capacity and not been impacted by undue influence in the preparation of the trust. Given that all the will said is everything passes to the trust presumably the contest or litigation should be over who serves as the trustee of the trust given that is how the assets will pass or be controlled for the future. As the article also states this is not merely about the money but how her name and likeness will be used in the future. The person who is the trustee or has the rights to make those decisions will have a significant impact on how she is remembered.

An interesting audio tape in which she recounts what happened to make her famous and another recent song written to have others thank her can be heard by clicking on the link here.