Anna Nicole Smith Inheritance Case Against Billionaire Husband's Estate Finally Over?

A federal judge in Santa Ana denied $44 million in sanctions sought by the executor of the estate of one-time “Playmate of the Year” Anna Nicole Smith, court papers obtained Tuesday show.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter on Monday rejected sanctions sought by Smith estate attorney Howard K. Stern, in a case that has dragged on for two decades. Carter noted in his ruling that he “is one of the few remaining observers still alive after years of litigation.”

The U.S. Supreme Court twice reviewed a “tortious interference claim” in the late model and reality star’s bid to win part of the estate of her ex- husband, oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall, Carter noted in his ruling.

“This is not the only iteration of the Marshall litigation to reach the appellate courts ... but it is the last surviving piece of decades of litigation,” Carter wrote.

The Marshall family’s attorney, G. Eric Brunstad Jr., told City News Service that his clients “are very pleased with the decision and are grateful that the litigation in federal court has finally come to an end.”

“Following a 5 1/2-month jury trial, the Texas Probate Court determined that the estate plan of J. Howard Marshall II was valid and reflected his true intentions, and that (son) E. Pierce Marshall had done nothing wrong,” Brunstad added.

“We are pleased that the District Court has likewise concluded that Stern is not entitled to anything from Pierce’s estate,” he said. “During his lifetime, J. Howard Marshall II gave Anna Nicole Smith various gifts worth approximately $8 million. With this final decision, the Texas Probate Court, the U.S. District Court, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court have all rejected the claims of Anna Nicole Smith against E. Pierce Marshall.”

Stern did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Smith, also known as Vickie Lynn Marshall, married Marshall in 1994. After he died the next year at the age of 90, she claimed he promised her $300 million.

Smith died of an accidental prescription drug overdose in Florida in February 2007 when she was 39 years old.

The oil tycoon’s son, E. Pierce Marshall, was declared the sole heir of his father’s $1.6 billion estate. He died in 2006 at age 67.

Smith filed for bankruptcy in California in January 1996 and won a judgment of $474 million in October 2000.

A Texas probate court, however, found that Pierce Marshall was the sole heir in March 2001. The Texas judgment is being appealed, Carter noted in his ruling.

“The litigation record in this court and the bankruptcy court reflects litigants with a distinct disinterest in rules or ethics,” Carter wrote, noting several instances in which false testimony was presented and documents were altered or destroyed.

Carter had been sympathetic to Smith’s claims in the past. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed his finding in 2011 that Marshall intended to give a gift to Smith.

Stern filed motions for sanctions against Pierce’s estate in December 2011. Stern accused the Pierce estate’s attorneys of delaying entry of a final court order allowing the Texas probate order to be issued first and deprive Smith of the award from Carter.

Carter agreed with Stern’s gripes with attorney Edwin Hunter, who represented the Marshall family, and noted he encouraged federal prosecutors to consider having Hunter indicted for perjury.

Carter said he “previously made extensive findings that Hunter’s conduct was perjurious, obfuscating, and execrable.”

The judge, however, noted that it has “come to the court’s attention” that Hunter and Smith entered into a confidential, binding settlement agreement, so Stern cannot seek sanctions against Hunter.

Carter found fault with Stern’s inability to detail why he would be owed $44 million in sanctions.

Even though Carter said he was sympathetic to Stern’s cause, he could not rule in his favor because the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to render a final judgment on Smith’s counterclaims. The appellate justices also found that Carter’s ruling that Marshall intended to give Smith a gift improperly contradicted the Texas probate court’s finding.

“There is simply no evidence before the court that justifies awarding sanctions against Pierce’s estate,” Carter wrote in his ruling. “It would be unlawful and repugnant for this court to issue an order designed to undermine or rewrite the (Ninth Circuit’s) precedent or the Texas judgment.”

Carter added, “It is tempting to invoke the broad doctrines of discretion, equity and inherent powers to follow the pull of one’s heart and one’s conscience. But the powers granted to the federal courts are not all- encompassing ...”

The judge also wrote that he had “very real concerns” about sanctioning the late Pierce Marshall, who cannot “answer for himself.”

“The instant case has been proceeding in the bankruptcy court, the district court, the appellate courts and the Supreme Court for nearly 20 years,” Carter wrote. “Time spent litigating the relationship between Vickie Lynn and J. Howard has extended for nearly five times the length of their relationship and nearly 20 times the length of their marriage. It is neither reasonable nor practical to go forward. The American taxpayer has supported the burden of this litigation for many years ...”

— City News Service