• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Supreme Court Turns Attention to Anna Nicole ; Probate Case Could Set Precedent

Posted on: Wednesday, 1 March 2006, 15:00 CST

By DAVE MONTGOMERY, KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON With dozens of photographers arrayed outside, a sedately attired Anna Nicole Smith had her day in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, drawing apparent support from several justices in her quest for the riches of her deceased billionaire husband.

The 38-year-old former Playmate of the Year sat at the rear of a packed chamber as attorneys argued a potentially precedent-setting legal dispute that could determine the ultimate beneficiary to the estate of the late J. Howard Marshall II.

Smith was 26 when she married the 89-year-old oil tycoon in 1994, three years after they met while she was performing as a topless dancer in Houston. Since Marshall's death the next year, Smith has been locked in a bitter estate dispute with her late husband's son, E. Pierce Marshall, who was also present for the hour-long arguments.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer seemingly expressed sympathy for Smith's claim, referring to a U.S. district court's finding that the younger Marshall had altered and destroyed documents to keep the fortune out of the young widow's hands. Breyer also cited evidence that detectives were employed to keep Smith away from her husband's bedside.

"What have I said that's not right?" Breyer challenged Marshall's attorney, G. Eric Brunstad Jr. "It's quite a story."

Chief Justice John Roberts said the case involved "a substantial amount of assets," referring to the fortune of Smith's husband of 14 months.

The court's other new member, Samuel Alito of West Caldwell, remained silent as did Justice Clarence Thomas.

Bitterness from the 10-year-old estate battle spilled onto the court steps after the hearing, as Marshall's spokesman, David Margulies, denied any wrongdoing by the son and portrayed Smith as a scheming gold-digger.

"She was abusive to him [the elder Marshall]. She was cruel to him," Margulies said. He also suggested that Smith is being manipulated by greedy attorneys, saying, "Anna Nicole Smith is not the brightest light bulb in the fixture."

"All the allegations of misconduct are simply untrue," added Brunstad, who said he was not worried about the sharp questions from Breyer and other justices. "In a case like this, the court asks a lot of rigorous questions," he said.

But Smith's attorney, Kent Richland, said statements from the bench raised his hopes of ultimately prevailing when the justices return a decision by June. He also defended his client, saying "there was genuine affection" between Smith and her elderly husband.

Prior to the hearing, Marshall, a 67-year-old Dallas businessman, said in a brief interview that "we're in it to win" and brushed aside questions about his world-famous legal adversary. "We're here to resolve the legal issue," he said. "It's been 11 years so it's become business as usual."

Smith, identified in the court case by her real name, Vickie Lynn Marshall, shunned reporters and kept an uncharacteristically low profile as she arrived nearly two hours before her case was called. The former reality-TV star wore a dark topcoat over a dark business- style dress with a scoop neckline.

With her 20-year-old son, Daniel, a college student, seated beside her, Smith sat through an unrelated hour-long argument on a campaign finance case before the justices turned to Marshall v. Marshall. Court artists on the other side of the chamber strained to catch glimpses of the blond celebrity plaintiff among the other spectators.

Afterward, Smith avoided a phalanx of photographers and camera crews by leaving the court from a side entrance and speeding away in a chauffeured SUV with darkened windows.

By agreeing to hear the case, the justices are the fifth court to hear the marathon dispute. A state probate court in Texas ruled against Smith, but a federal bankruptcy court awarded her $449 million. A federal district court reduced the amount to $88 million, and a federal appeals court subsequently overturned the award and sided with Marshall, saying the dispute should be resolved at the state level.

The issue centers on the so-called probate exception that limits if not prohibits federal jurisdiction over probate matters normally resolved by state courts. But several of the justices, in their questions to attorneys, suggested that the court may be inclined to reexamine the principle.

"There is vast confusion within the lower courts about the extent of the probate exception," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

* * *

(SIDEBAR)

Court, 8-0, backs abortion protesters

* A 20-year-old legal fight over protests outside abortion clinics ended Tuesday with the Supreme Court ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used against demonstrators.

The 8-0 decision was a setback for abortion clinics that were buoyed when the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals kept their case alive two years ago.

Antiabortion groups appealed after the lower court sought to determine whether the injunction could be supported by findings that protesters had made threats of violence.

In Tuesday's ruling, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that Congress addressed violence outside abortion clinics in 1994 by passing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which allows for court injunctions to set limits for such protests.

"This is a great day for pro-lifers," said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue.

Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said the decision was disappointing because the injunction had decreased violence outside clinics nationally.

She said the clinic access act is problematic because it requires abortion providers to try to anticipate the clinics that protesters planned to target next and then seek injunctions "city by city."

* Supreme Court justices also questioned whether a Vermont law that limits how much money can be spent on political campaigns unfairly curtails candidates' ability to speak freely to voters.

"You're constraining speech. ... That's very unusual," said Justice Antonin Scalia. "You're saying ... 'we, the state, will tell you how much campaigning is enough.' That's extraordinary."

The case could have a dramatic impact on how elections are financed and run across the country.

The dispute arose out of Vermont's landmark 1997 campaign finance law, which included a $300,000 spending cap for gubernatorial candidates and lesser limits for other state political contests.

Advocates contend that big-ticket contributors and unlimited campaign spending corrupt the political process.

* * *

Source: Record, The; Bergen County, N.J.

More News in this Category