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?” ;^)
Houston's Clear Thinkers
Longtime Houston attorney Tom Kirkendall's observations on developments in law, business, medicine, culture, sports, and other matters of general interest to the Houston business, professional, and academic communities.
Anna Nicole Smith Case Roundup – Vol. 2
In the movie business, the success of a movie is often defined by how good its “legs” are. One thing you have to say about Anna Nicole Smith’s case before the US Supreme Court, “It sure has great legs!” Here’s…
Tom,
Clearly, you either do not speacialize in Federal law or you need to research more. Tort claims are not simply so because it is labeled one. It has to be a valid cause of action and the substance of the claim controls, rather than the form. Further, Pierce Marshall was not the executor, he was a beneficiary.
Anna’s claim is also a compulsory Probate claim and is “related to” probate. Also an in rem proceeding. These claims are clearly core probate functions. It is not at all clear that abstention is not mandatory. If it were then the 9th would have refused to hear the case.
It also appears that you have neither read the authority nor understand the probate exception. Markham establishes that the exception exists. Harris establishes it applies to Bankruptcy. Sutton establishes that it applies to wills and trusts.
SCOTUS may decide in ANS’ favor and they may not. In either case, it is clear it is not your specialty.