The judge currently presiding over the mess that is Anna Nicole Smith’s aftermath has released her will, and it can be found both at TMZ and FindLaw. As expected, all of Anna’s prospective heirs will make it their goal to get the will thrown out of court because it names Anna’s late son Daniel as the sole beneficiary of her estate. The will was drafted in 2001 before Daniel died and also before her baby daughter was born. As irresponsibility would have it, Anna never amended her will by deed or otherwise.
A few interesting points to consider from my perspective not as a legal practitioner but only as my personal opinion:
(1) The validity of Anna Nicole’s will shall be governed by the laws of her domicile at death, which will likely be the Bahamas even though she died in Florida.
(2) Most of the time, wills are upheld unless fraud or coersion is involved. Courts don’t want to screw with family matters if they don’t absolutely have to. Then again, we are talking about Anna Nicole here, who managed to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse and remand her famous probate case, so anything could happen here.
(3) The will appears to have been properly executed with testator signature, proper witnessing/attestation, and all the usual “substantial compliance” requirements.
(4) The document nams Howard K. Stern as executor, who ideally would hold her estate in trust for her sole named beneficiary, son Daniel Smith. Unfortunately, he’s dead now.
(5) Article I states that “I have intentionally omitted to provide for my spouse and other heirs, including future spouses and children and other descendants now living and those hereafter born or adopted.” Ouch.
(6) Article VI, Section I states that “If any legal heir of mine, any person claiming under any such heir, or any other person, in any manner, directly or indirectly, contests or attacts this Will Or Trust or any of the provisions of said instruments,” they will effectively be disinherited. Pretty slick.
And aside from a bunch of tax-related crap, that’s all she wrote, folks. No one knows if Anna even has any assets to speak of, since she was still fighting over the half-billion-dollar fortune of her late husband since his passing in 1995. What money she did have likely went to splashing out on drugs, gaudy casino hotel suites, and legal fees to defend against recently filed lawsuits against her. Ahhh, but life insurance likely exists for the taking, and hopefully, the court will place said proceeds in an untouchable trust for the daughter.
6 comments
i heard a commentator say,today, that according to his sources, the will was filed in CA, and nowhere else, so only CA has jursidiction over its interpretation.
according to him: a judge will hold a hearing to determine just what her words meant, and what she most likely would have intended at the time of her death. he predicts the baby gets it all.
Multijurisdictional Wills:
“The concept of domicile is sometimes overlooked by estate planners. [D]omicile is defined as the place where an individual lives and intends to continue living indefinitely. But domicile is more than residency: it is fixed, permanent and exclusive. Residency may be temporary and can often be multiple.
“The purpose of domicile is to identify the law which should apply to the individual for a specific purpose.”
I have number 6 in mine too. Mwa ha ha.
According to the State Laws of Texas, Anna’s mother should at the very least be under investigation by CPS and Law Enforcement for her claimed criminal acts against Anna as a child. See definitions listed below for Child Abuse. Because her mother was a police officer, her awareness of the law makes this even worse, in my opinion. Further, those around Anna had to know something was going on, they to can be prosecuted for the failure to protect Anna from her mother.
We are all talking about HKS. Let’s talk about the criminal acts of her mother. These acts caused great emotional harm that had a deadly cause and effect to Anna. In a sense, her mother killed her, it just took 39 years to accomplish her goal.
http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/child_protection/about_child_protective_services/
FAMILY CODE
SUBTITLE E. PROTECTION OF THE CHILD
CHAPTER 261. INVESTIGATION OF REPORT OF CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
‘ 261.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) “Abuse” includes the following acts or omissions
by a person:
(A) mental or emotional injury to a child that
results in an observable and material impairment in the child’s
growth, development, or psychological functioning;
(B) causing or permitting the child to be in a
situation in which the child sustains a mental or emotional injury
that results in an observable and material impairment in the
child’s growth, development, or psychological functioning;
(C) physical injury that results in substantial
harm to the child, or the genuine threat of substantial harm from
physical injury to the child, including an injury that is at
variance with the history or explanation given and excluding an
accident or reasonable discipline by a parent, guardian, or
managing or possessory conservator that does not expose the child
to a substantial risk of harm;
(D) failure to make a reasonable effort to
prevent an action by another person that results in physical injury
that results in substantial harm to the child;
Interesting theory, but I think the causality element is missing in this instance as well as the depletion of any applicable statutes of limitation.
sadie, you’re a lawyer, and I’m not. But having been involved in lots of complex contract litigation, I have found judges to be bizarrely willing to try and divine what various parties were thinking when they wrote up contract language.
I’m guessing probate judges are little different, and in this case, he’s going to have to try – the sole beneficiary is deceased and therefore, to the extent that there are any monies to disburse once the lawyers have bled it dry, somebody has to decide what Anna would have wanted.
I think the lucky winner, if there is such a thing in this sorry tale, is whoever’s sperm created the baby.