I’m surprised there hasn’t been a thread about the court’s recent reversal. I did search, if I’m mistaken, I apologize.
Let me say first and foremost that I’m no Anna Nicole fan. While she isn’t really deserving of any hate, she’s at best really annoying and and at worst pathetically drug addicted.
But I think the old guy really wanted her to have a share of the money.
I think the son is using unfair tactics and legal mambo jambo to screw her. He’s also not been exactly forthcoming with documents, and accused of outright destroying them.
I think she deserves the $80 million for no other reason than I think the old guy wanted her to have it. She made him happy for the last years of his life.
I agree somewhat.
I wouldn’t mind if they gave her a little less, but to reverse the old guy’s will, just seems evil.
The man was of sound mind when he made up his last will, so his sons will just have to deal with the fact that daddy didn’t like them as much as big bazoonka’s.
I agree with those who say her husband meant for her to have some of the money. The son just seems uber greedy to quibble over 80 million when he’s getting vastly more.
If Dear Hubby wanted Anna to have a share, he wouldn’t had made a will that excluded her from his estate. You have to remember that when Her Dear Husband lay dyeing, Anna couldn’t bother herself to visit him. If I recall correctly, she didn’t lay eyes on him the last three/four months of his life. Anna was in Hollywood, living the life of a spoiled pooch. She got more than she deserved, IMHO.
I mean, really, when your billionaire husband is breathing his last, you could at the very least make an appearance, let alone shop your ass off on Rodeo Drive. If she wanted the money bad enough, she could have shown up at her husband’s side wearing a french maid’s costume, if she found the Nursie Nightengale outfit so distastful…Jesus, for 45 million; I would have worn a mink thong, fer Chris’sakes!
What would the community property implications of the marriage be? Assuming they were domiciled in California, or in another community property state, wouldn’t she be entitled to half of whatever earnings his investments brought in during the time they were both alive and married? Or did she spend so much during the marriage that that was a moot point?
