Marshall v. Marshall
Encyclopedia
Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293
(2006), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court
held that a federal district court had equal or concurrent jurisdiction
with state probate
(Will) courts over tort
claims under state
common law
. The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the petitioner
was former Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith
(whose legal name was Vickie Lynn Marshall).
after his death. Smith had claimed that it was J. Howard's intention after marriage to set up a separate trust for her benefit, which would essentially leave her half the appreciation of the assets of the trust during the period of the marriage, but that his son Pierce had interfered with the formation of this separate trust. J. Howard Marshall neither set up a trust in Smith's favor, nor changed the terms of his will to provide for her after his death. However, he did make his existing trust irrevocable soon after his marriage to Smith. As a result, Smith was excluded from J. Howard's estate. She sued in Texas Probate Court for a share of the estate on several grounds, and her litigation was actively opposed by Marshall's son Pierce. The primary ground for the son's opposition was that his father had an extensive estate plan executed over many decades which expressed his clear wishes. Pierce also believed his father had already been quite generous to Smith during the marriage, providing Smith with both expensive gifts and monetary resources.
After receiving a default judgment against her for sexual harassment, Smith petitioned for bankruptcy in California. Pierce filed a non-dischargeability claim and proof of claim against Smith based on public statements her lawyers made to the media shortly after her husband died, accusing Pierce of frustrating J. Howard's intentions to set up a new trust for Smith and isolating his father. Pierce alleged these statements were libelous, and he successfully sued Smith's attorneys on the same grounds in Texas State Court. Smith opposed the claims and countersued Pierce on the basis her statements were true and on tort claims she was already persuing in Texas. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the libel claim on summary judgment and did not allow the claim to proceed to trial. After being released from bankruptcy, Smith prosecuted her counterclaim against Pierce for interfering with the father's intention to set up a trust in favor of Smith.
During the Texas Probate proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court awarded Smith $474 million on the basis of a sanction against the son and deemed the interference to have occurred. The Federal District court subsequently vacated the Bankruptcy award and reduced Smith's award to $88 million.
However, after a five month jury trial in Texas, the Probate Court entered a decision that J. Howard Marshall's will and trust were valid and that his son was the primary beneficiary, rejecting Smith's claim that the son had exerted undue influence on his father or interfered with any trust for Smith. When the matter came before the 9th Circuit appellate court, it rendered the District Court's decision invalid on jurisdictional grounds, declaring that only Texas's Probate Courts had jurisdiction over probate matters.
The Bush administration
, which wanted to limit exceptions to federal jurisdiction
in state probate related matters, instructed the United States Solicitor General
to submit a brief on the side of the petitioner.
to decide the remaining issues. On March 19, 2010, the same three-judge panel found in favor of E. Pierce Marshall holding that the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to decide the case and because the California federal district court should not have reviewed matters previously decided in the Texas probate court. Following the 9th Circuit's decision, lawyers for the estate of Anna Nicole Smith requested the appeal be heard before the entire circuit. However, on May 5, 2010, that request was denied. On September 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court again agreed to hear the case.
On January 18, 2011, the United States Supreme court re-heard heard oral arguments in the case (now styled Stern v. Marshall, no. 10-179). In this case, the Court was to consider, among other things, whether by enacting 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C), Congress can constitutionally authorize non-Article III bankruptcy judges to enter final judgments on all counterclaims to proofs of claim. On June 23, 2011, the United States Supreme court decided the case in a 5-4 decision. The majority of the Court decided Congress cannot constitutionally authorize non-Article III bankruptcy judges to enter final judgments on state law based counterclaims to proofs of claim which are not necessary to resolve the claim itself. The minority opinion expressed the view that such broad powers are necessary to implement legislative intent and authority under Article I and concerns about the reduced efficiency of the bankruptcy courts. This decision effectively ended the case, and let stand the decision that Smith's estate was not entitled to the money that had previously been awarded to her.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2006), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
held that a federal district court had equal or concurrent jurisdiction
Concurrent jurisdiction
Concurrent jurisdiction exists where two or more courts from different systems simultaneously have jurisdiction over a specific case. This situation leads to forum shopping, as parties will try to have their civil or criminal case heard in the court that they perceive will be most favorable to...
with state probate
Probate
Probate is the legal process of administering the estate of a deceased person by resolving all claims and distributing the deceased person's property under the valid will. A probate court decides the validity of a testator's will...
(Will) courts over tort
Tort
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...
claims under state
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
common law
Common law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
. The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the petitioner
Petitioner
A petitioner is a person who pleads with governmental institution for a legal remedy or a redress of grievances, through use of a petition.-In the courts:The petitioner may seek a legal remedy if the state or another private person has acted unlawfully...
was former Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith
Anna Nicole Smith
In 1992 Smith was chosen by Hugh Hefner to appear on the cover of the March issue of Playboy, where she was listed as Vickie Smith, wearing a low-cut evening gown. The centerfold was photographed by Stephen Wayda. Smith said she planned to be "the next Marilyn Monroe". Becoming one of Playboys...
(whose legal name was Vickie Lynn Marshall).
Background
Twelve years prior to his marriage to Smith, J. Howard Marshall II had set up a trust which owned all of his assets and would pass them to various charities and his son E. Pierce MarshallE. Pierce Marshall
Everett Pierce Marshall was an American businessman and a son of J. Howard Marshall II.According to a Dallas Morning News article, he was a very private man, but became known due to defending the long-running legal dispute from his father's third wife, Anna Nicole Smith.Marshall attended...
after his death. Smith had claimed that it was J. Howard's intention after marriage to set up a separate trust for her benefit, which would essentially leave her half the appreciation of the assets of the trust during the period of the marriage, but that his son Pierce had interfered with the formation of this separate trust. J. Howard Marshall neither set up a trust in Smith's favor, nor changed the terms of his will to provide for her after his death. However, he did make his existing trust irrevocable soon after his marriage to Smith. As a result, Smith was excluded from J. Howard's estate. She sued in Texas Probate Court for a share of the estate on several grounds, and her litigation was actively opposed by Marshall's son Pierce. The primary ground for the son's opposition was that his father had an extensive estate plan executed over many decades which expressed his clear wishes. Pierce also believed his father had already been quite generous to Smith during the marriage, providing Smith with both expensive gifts and monetary resources.
After receiving a default judgment against her for sexual harassment, Smith petitioned for bankruptcy in California. Pierce filed a non-dischargeability claim and proof of claim against Smith based on public statements her lawyers made to the media shortly after her husband died, accusing Pierce of frustrating J. Howard's intentions to set up a new trust for Smith and isolating his father. Pierce alleged these statements were libelous, and he successfully sued Smith's attorneys on the same grounds in Texas State Court. Smith opposed the claims and countersued Pierce on the basis her statements were true and on tort claims she was already persuing in Texas. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the libel claim on summary judgment and did not allow the claim to proceed to trial. After being released from bankruptcy, Smith prosecuted her counterclaim against Pierce for interfering with the father's intention to set up a trust in favor of Smith.
During the Texas Probate proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court awarded Smith $474 million on the basis of a sanction against the son and deemed the interference to have occurred. The Federal District court subsequently vacated the Bankruptcy award and reduced Smith's award to $88 million.
However, after a five month jury trial in Texas, the Probate Court entered a decision that J. Howard Marshall's will and trust were valid and that his son was the primary beneficiary, rejecting Smith's claim that the son had exerted undue influence on his father or interfered with any trust for Smith. When the matter came before the 9th Circuit appellate court, it rendered the District Court's decision invalid on jurisdictional grounds, declaring that only Texas's Probate Courts had jurisdiction over probate matters.
The Bush administration
George W. Bush administration
The presidency of George W. Bush began on January 20, 2001, when he was inaugurated as the 43rd President of the United States of America. The oldest son of former president George H. W. Bush, George W...
, which wanted to limit exceptions to federal jurisdiction
Federal jurisdiction
The United States of America being a federal country is made up of many States and a central government. This central government may be known as the Union, the United States, or the Federal government...
in state probate related matters, instructed the United States Solicitor General
United States Solicitor General
The United States Solicitor General is the person appointed to represent the federal government of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States. The current Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 6, 2011 and sworn in on June...
to submit a brief on the side of the petitioner.
Decisions
On May 1, 2006, the United States Supreme Court unanimously decided the case in favor of Anna Nicole Smith on the question of federal jurisdiction. The case was sent back to the 9th Circuit Court of AppealsUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a U.S. federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Alaska* District of Arizona...
to decide the remaining issues. On March 19, 2010, the same three-judge panel found in favor of E. Pierce Marshall holding that the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to decide the case and because the California federal district court should not have reviewed matters previously decided in the Texas probate court. Following the 9th Circuit's decision, lawyers for the estate of Anna Nicole Smith requested the appeal be heard before the entire circuit. However, on May 5, 2010, that request was denied. On September 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court again agreed to hear the case.
On January 18, 2011, the United States Supreme court re-heard heard oral arguments in the case (now styled Stern v. Marshall, no. 10-179). In this case, the Court was to consider, among other things, whether by enacting 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C), Congress can constitutionally authorize non-Article III bankruptcy judges to enter final judgments on all counterclaims to proofs of claim. On June 23, 2011, the United States Supreme court decided the case in a 5-4 decision. The majority of the Court decided Congress cannot constitutionally authorize non-Article III bankruptcy judges to enter final judgments on state law based counterclaims to proofs of claim which are not necessary to resolve the claim itself. The minority opinion expressed the view that such broad powers are necessary to implement legislative intent and authority under Article I and concerns about the reduced efficiency of the bankruptcy courts. This decision effectively ended the case, and let stand the decision that Smith's estate was not entitled to the money that had previously been awarded to her.