Judge In Decades Old Anna Nicole Smith Case Announces He's Had Enough (2024)

There was a time when you couldn't click on the news without hearing about Anna Nicole Smith. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the country was captivated as the former Playboy model made it all the way to the Supreme Court to fight her late husband's family for a share of his billion dollar estate. After her untimely death, the fascination with the high profile case died down - but the matter didn't go away. This month, a Texas judge, Judge Mike Wood, who has had the case on his docket for nearly two decades finally had enough: he wants out.

Anna Nicole didn't start out in the spotlight. Born Vicky Lynn Hogan, she was a high school dropout who had dreams of becoming a household name. Her big break didn't come when was named Playmate of the month (1992) or when she landed a Guess jeans contract (1993) but when she was stripping at a Houston night club. There, Anna Nicole met billionaire J. Howard Marshall. In 1994, after pursuing Anna Nicole, the 89-year-old oil tycoon married the 26-year-old model. But Anna Nicole didn't get her happily ever after: he died a year later without ever including Anna Nicole in his will.

In 1995, Anna Nicole teamed up with Marshalls’s younger son, Howard III, who had been disinherited, to challenge the will. Marshall's oldest son, Pierce, believed that Anna Nicole only wanted his father's money, and vowed to prevent Anna Nicole from getting anything from the estate. Initially, a Texas probate court found in favor of Pierce, ruling that neither Anna Nicole nor Howard III should receive anything from the estate.

As the Texas case proceeded, Anna Nicole filed for bankruptcy in California, alleging that Pierce had interfered with her potential inheritance. That court ruled in Anna Nicole’s favor, awarding her a whopping $474 million. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently threw out the entire award, claiming that a federal bankruptcy court had no right to hear the matter since it had been previously decided in a Texas state court.

Typically, probate matters are relegated to state courts. However, federal courts may hear matters which are considered matters of federal jurisdiction, including disputes involving large amounts of money or federal matters. That apparent conflict resulted in anappealto the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter on a specific point of law: whether afederal court in California had jurisdiction over a Texas probate matter. In other words, for U.S. Supreme Court purposes, the case was not about whether Anna Nicole was entitled to a share of the estate but instead, it was about jurisdiction. The Court was charged with answering the simple question: does federal court always trump state court?

In 2006, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled for Anna Nicole (the case was Marshall v. Marshall). While the justices didn't hand her a piece of the estate, they did allow her to continue to argue in court that she was entitled to the money. And continue to argue she did.

About a month after the Supreme Court decision, Pierce died. Six months later, Anna Nicole also died (her death was ruled a drug overdose). But the court cases didn't stop there. Pierce's widow, Elaine Marshall, continued the legal fight over the Marshall fortune on his behalf while Howard Stern (no, not that Howard Stern), Anna Nicole’s executor, continued the fight on behalf of Anna Nicole’s estate - and it was going back to the Supreme Court.

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the estate (downloads as a pdf), finding that "although Bankruptcy Court had the statutory authority to enter judgment on Vickie’s counterclaim, it lacked the constitutional authority to do so." Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts likened the story which "drags its weary length before the Court" to Dickens’ Bleak House and affirmed the ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which had thrown out Anna Nicole’s original win.

That still didn't put an end to the matter. In 2011, Anna Nicole’s estate filed a motion in U.S. District Court to bring sanctions against Pierce’s estate. U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter ultimately sided with Pierce’s estate, denying Anna Nicole’s claims for more than $44 million in compensatory damages and an alternative $25 million for "discovery abuses" plus fees and costs. Noting that "Stern’s counsel has litigated this case with commitment and vigor from its inception," the judge refused to allow the fees, finding "[t]here is simply no evidence before the court that justifies awarding sanctions against Pierce’s Estate."

More than two decades after the elder Marshall passed away, his heirs are still fighting over his billions - including recent trips to court to sort out years old federal estate and gift tax issues. For much of that time, the matter has remained on Judge Mike Wood's docket: Judge Wood is a probate judge in Harris County, Texas.

This month, as lawyers quarreled over a temporary restraining order (TRO) involving trusts that were created as part of the estate, Judge Wood finally had it.

"I am," he told those in the court, "going off the handle officially. I am tired of this case. I've told you that from the beginning. I beg you to recuse me. I beg you to recuse me. I don't want to deal with you people anymore. This is ridiculous. This is ridiculous."

Judge Wood went on to say, "I am not going to spend a lot of time cutting at nits and gnats for people that are fighting over 20 billion, $10 billion that they didn't earn. They didn't create this wealth. It was created by a third party, and they're just fighting over it. They can't agree on anything. They can pay lots of lawyers. They can pay lawyers until hell freezes over. But they don't want to agree to anything. They just want to pay lawyers."

Judge Wood disputed that the parties actually wanted the case to end, advising them, "you're going to have to figure out something to do because I just can't -- I'm not going to deal with you anymore. I've had it. I have had it. This is outrageous. This didn't happen overnight. This wasn't done four years ago. Pierce has been dead nine years." He then declared at the January 11 hearing that "it's just not the way I'm going to spend my life." A week later, on January 18, Judge Wood officially recused himself from the case.

When asked about the hearing, Russell Post, a partner at Beck Redden who represented Elaine Marshall on appeal, stated simply, "Elaine Marshall is grateful for the court of appeals’ decision vacating the void temporary restraining order and she looks forward to a resolution of this matter." Post referred me to Trey Cox and Chris Akin of Lynn Pinker who represents Elaine Marshall at the trial level, who declined to comment further.

Max Tribble, a partner at Susman Godfrey who represents Preston Marshall, says that they are "disappointed that the Court chose to recuse itself." Noting that Judge Wood had a great deal of historical and institutional knowledge about the case - "more than anyone else" - Tribble called the decision "unfortunate." However, he noted that he had confidence in the new judge, Judge Christine Butts, referring to her as a "smart judge" and expressing faith that she would be fair.

As for Judge Wood? He plans to retire from the bench within the next two years. The Smith/Marshall case, however, "won't be anywhere close to over" since, as he told those at the hearing, "you don't want it to be over. None of the lawyers do. You're not trying to settle it."