Supreme Court Hears Ex-Playmate's Case

Feb. 28, 2006 — -- In a case that sets new standards for family feuds, Playboy's 1993 Playmate of the Year, Anna Nicole Smith, took her multimillion-dollar legal fight to the highest court in the land today.

Smith arrived at the Supreme Court building with great fanfare, surrounded by cameras as she worked her way through the metal detector. Dressed in black with her blond hair at shoulder length, she posed for photographs with security guards, then made her way to the courtroom on the second floor.

The former stripper was 26 when she married 89-year-old Texas oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall at a Houston drive-in wedding chapel in 1994. The marriage was short-lived -- Marshall died 14 months later -- but Smith claims Marshall had promised to care for her the rest of her life.

Two California judges agreed and awarded Smith millions of dollars. But a Texas probate court said no. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Texas court, so now the case has landed at the Supreme Court on a very technical legal issue: When can federal courts exercise jurisdiction over state probate proceedings?

Salacious allegations of lust and greed have dogged this case from the beginning. Both sides have spent millions in fees in the knock-down legal battle.

Smith's stepson, E. Pierce Marshall, calls Smith a gold digger who squandered millions in lavish gifts given to her by his father. Among the items she received were more than $2 million in jewelry, $700,000 in clothes, and two homes. The younger Marshall charges Smith rarely saw her husband during their marriage, and so, not surprisingly, is not named in any of J. Howard Marshall's numerous wills or trusts. He claims his father rued the day he married Smith, calling it "a mistake."

Smith fired back, claiming her stepson deceived his aging father to gain control over his money, for example, by having him sign legal documents when he was not mentally competent. Smith alleges E. Pierce Marshall tampered with documents to cut her out of the estate. She has also produced an audio recording of her husband in which he says he wants Smith to be "taken care of."

In court, while most of the questions pertained to the technical legal issue of jurisdiction, the justices referred repeatedly to the enormous amount of money at stake. Chief Justice John Roberts commented that the case involved a substantial amount of assets. Justice David Souter described Smith's legal position as "I just want some money" from her deceased husband.