Reply
Thu 17 Jun, 2004 08:31 am
I saw her on Jimmy Kimmel last night, and I think she's very stupid, but shouldn't she get her inheritance from the old guy who she married and who kicked off soon after?
It's been a long time and they are still in a court battle. What's the hold up? He gave her the money, so what the hell is the problem. The fact that she's a jiggly 30-year-old idiot and he was about a hundred years old should not matter.
What do you think?
kickycan - I haven't followed the story. The usual scenario in cases like these is proving that an old duffer wasn't coerced into handing over the family fortune to a Janie come lately.
I think that is why pre-nups are so important in marriages that are gone into later in life.
I'd do her is all I know. If I wasn't married to squinney of course.
Stupid hell! She was smart enough to marry a man with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel and get him to will his money to her. I would call that damn smart.
Jiggly... could that have anything to do with T & A? Just wondering.
(Not up to date, dunno who was appointed judge...)
Soz, this is definitely
not a T&A thread.
It may have a small component of T&A in it, a
very small component, I might add, but it is definitely not a T&A thread. I really want to know what the deal is with her and her money. It seems like that guy kicked off four years ago, so what gives?
The coercion part, far as I can tell. (Was he of sound mind when he made her the inheritor? DID he actually make her the inheritor?) Millionaire dude has a lot of relatives with a lot invested in making sure Anna Nicole doesn't get the loot.
I think she's a very interesting character. She's actually a painter too. I think she's selling her art.
Check this one out. Arafat wearing a jewish star. That is classic. How can anyone not like someone who is this oblivious?
I really don't think that painting is bad, to tell you the truth.
From hearing her talk last night, I think she is the consummate bubble-headed bleach blonde. And there is nothing wrong with that. He he.
Didn't he reverse it himself (effectively humbugging the humbug)?
Craven, by "he" do you mean me, or Arafat?
I think it's a T&A thread.
You think everything has to do with T&A, bunny.
I mean the rich old dude. I was under the impression that he was the one who left her with less than she had her eyes on.
This is funny:
"Marrying into money was not a good thing for me."
-Anna Nicole Smith
Ok, I got the skinny, she was not named in any of j. howard marshall's wills and won the money she got by fighting that in court.
So my impression was correct, he did not leave her the money. I always liked that twist and I wish that was what had stuck.
So why does she deserve it? She didn't manage to convice the dude to care enough to leave her anything in his will.
Craven
I am not sure but I believe by law a wife inherits will or no will. I sure someone knows the skinny on that. Help.
But there was a will and she was not in it.
kickycan wrote:You think everything has to do with T&A, bunny.
Why did the old fella get with Anna?
I rest my case.
Oh, he loved her for her mind you say?
A likely story!
Just as much as she loved him for his.
That's not what the thread is about, bunny!
It's about whether she deserves the money that he left her! But now, since Craven has pointed out that he didn't leave her anything, which I was unaware of, I guess it's all mooooooooot. I thought that he had left her money, and the family was fighting for it.
If what you say is true Craven, then I completely change my opinion. She is an idiot and she deserves nothing.
Craven
Again I may be wrong but I believe an individual can not cut his spouse out of the will. That is why prenuptial agreements are needed.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace