Based on yesterday’s oral argument in Anna Nicole Smith’s appeal to the Supreme Court in regard to her claims against the estate of former Houston oilman J. Howard Marshall, the early speculation from the experts in such matters is that Anna Nicole is likely to win. Steve Jakubowski has a nice wrap-up of the argument here.
Despite all the hoopla of Anna Nicole barreling into the normally stuffy Supreme Court courtroom, the legal issue in the case is decidedly unsexy — Did the bankruptcy court have jurisdiction over a tort claim that Anna Nicole’s bankruptcy estate owned and asserted against against J. Howard’s son, who is the executor of J. Howard’s estate? My sense is that it’s not particularly surprising that the experts believe that Anna Nicole has a winner on that issue.
Anna Nicole’s appeal is based on what is called a ìrelated toî claim to a bankruptcy case, which simply means that it is a claim that could have some impact on the bankruptcy estate. Inasmuch as successful assertion of Anna Nicole’s claim against the younger Marshall could generate money for her estate, the claim is clearly a “related to” claim. Although a bankruptcy court has broad discretion to abstain from adjudicating such a claim, it is clear that such abstention is not mandatory, and the Anna Nicole bankruptcy court elected not to abstain from adjudicating her claim.
The younger Marshallís legal team asserts that there is a non-statutory ìprobate exceptionî to federal jurisdiction that applies in federal diversity cases and bankruptcy cases. But their legal authority for that proposition in the context of Anna Nicole’s case is pretty skimpy and distinguishable. As such, I too will be surprised if Anna Nicole doesn’t win.
In discussing my view that Anna Nicole is a winner with one of my teenage daughters, she asked: “Does that mean that she will get her television show back?” ;^)