Last week the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Stern v. Marshall.    Will this be the end of a 16 year old legal battle?  Only time will tell, as the decision is expected to be announced within a few months.  In the meantime, the High Court must decide some very technical issues that address bankruptcy jurisdiction. The case began when former reality TV star, Anna Nicole Smith, sued the son of her late husband, J. Howard Marshall II, for supposedly interfering with her ability to inherit half the Marshall estate.  A Texas Probate Court ruled that Marshall took the necessary steps to protect his estate and intentionally disinherited Smith.  Long story short, Smith filed bankruptcy in California during the Texas trial.  This forum shopping, or, looking for a court that might provide a more favorable outcome, was utilized by Smith and her legal team; they seemed to succeed when the bankruptcy court ruled in her favor.  Smith’s claim, however, (tortious interference with an expectancy of inheritance) is a personal injury tort.  Notably, the U.S. Code says personal injury torts are automatically considered non-core to bankruptcy proceedings. The fate of this case now rests with the Supreme Court Justices Read More …

The high-profile 16 year old Stern v. Marshall case is back at the United States Supreme Court.  Howard K. Stern, acting as the executor of the late Anna Nicole Smith’s estate, is attempting to secure a piece of the multimillion dollar estate owned by late J. Howard Marshall, who Anna Nicole Smith married for several months in 1994.  Smith’s legal team argued that an oral arrangement existed between her and Marshall, which went beyond the inheritance she was given after his passing.  As reported in The Examiner.com: While legal and casual observers often view Smith’s effort to use an unsubstantiated oral claim of entitlement as a money grab that violates Marshall’s carefully prepared and properly executed estate plan, years of litigation have made this case about much more.  In addition to being “about money,” this case will likely produce landmark decisions involving not only inheritance rights, but also determine potential handling for other civil and states’ rights matters.  Americans who believe this “celebrity” case has nothing to do with them are wrong.  The use of legal gamesmanship to assault a legitimate estate plan as orchestrated by Smith and her legal team violates American property rights and could impact Americans of Read More …