| |
|
Anna Nicole Smith, probably a domiciliary of California, resident in the Bahamas, died in a Broward County, Florida hospital.
To begin with, though the Broward Circuit Court had jurisdiction over the remains, it ignored a conflict-of-laws issue. Which State statute(s) should they apply? Then, without considering the issue, they simply applied the wrong Florida statute.
Anna Nicole left a will, facially valid, which in a badly drafted paragraph, "left" her corpse to her executor, Mr. Stern. She had been estranged from her mother, Vergie Arthur, for twelve years.
The will, of course, if valid, trumps either Florida statute. The holding, implicitly at least, voided the clause in the will which, inelegantly worded, "left" disposition of the body to the executor, Mr. Stern on the grounds that a body is not property. Instead, in order to "reach," it applied the statute of intestacy.
The Florida statute of intestacy (which deals with PROPERTY) gives preference to a minor child over a parent. This permitted the Court to transfer the decision to the ad litem which the Court had itself appointed.
The Florida funeral home statute gives preference to a parent over a minor child. This would have resulted in a ruling in favor for Ms. Arthur.
I'm getting into "if I had a gavel" here but: 1) Ms. Arthur had been estranged from Ms. Smith for 11 or 12 years; 2) the paragraph of the Will in question cannot, without reaching an absurd result, be construed as a bequest by Ms. Smith to Mr. Stern personally of her corpse. The only logical conclusion, from any legal standpoint would be: 1) the intent of the testator is that her executor make arrangements for her burial; 2) that paragraph, along with the contract purchasing of the plots executed by Stern, along with Ms. Smith's authorizations to her bank, should be construed as a codicil; or 2) since Florida recognizes oral but not holographic wills and codicils, that paragraph, the other documents mentioned in 2) supra; and 3) witness testimony satisfying the statute of wills, should have been construed as an oral codicil.
Of course, the failure of the Circuit Court in Broward to make a decisionm either for Stern or Arthur, but instead to appoint an ad litem under the worng statute, is the reason Arthur can now appeal.
Can you spell, ABUSE of DISCRETION (I'm sure you can)?
The more interesting question, going forward is this: if the will is valid, the remainder to Daniel, though he pre-deceased Anna, is subject to the anti-lapse statute due to the degree of consanguinity of those involved. Daniel died intestate; Daniel's intestate heirs are 1) Any person who can prove to be HIS biological father; 2) Vergie Arthur; 3) baby DanielleLynn. (Remember the Cross of Intestacy from law school?: descendents, ascendants, collaterals. Right arm down, left arm up then both arms to the side). The bequest to Daniel would lapse if his biological father is alive (he did not share a parent or grandparent with Daniel who was also his parent or grandparent of Anna Nicolle). However, Vergie Arthur would trump DanielleLynn under the anti-lapse statute if Daniel’s biological father is dead.
Of course, if the will is invalid, under the statute of intestacy, Danielle Lynn trumps Vergie.
Just my thoughts. |
|
|
