The Story Of 26-Year-Old Nicole Who Married 89-Year-Old Billionaire But...

The Story Of 26-Year-Old Nicole Who Married 89-Year-Old Billionaire But Got Excluded From His Will.

You might have come across some weird story in the past, and even might have concluded that you have seen it all.

 But we have brought to you yet another fascinating love tale; the sort of tales you only read up in novels or watch in movies

 It is the love story of American model, actress and TV personality, Anna Nicole Smith and American Billionaire oil tycoon, businessman and lawyer, J. Howard Marshall.

Including, the ensuing lengthy legal battle, which had lasted over ten times compared to the duration of their short-lived marriage. 

Meanwhile, the legal battle centred mainly on the ownership of the estate and other assets left behind by the Billionaire after they were married for just fourteen months.

According to Forbes, the lovebirds had previously met in a night club in Houston in 1993, and after the 89 year old Howard Marshall had been longing for the then 26 year old Anna Nicole for some time. 

They eventually got married in 1994, but unfortunately for her, the wealthy man died about a year thereafter.

Did it just ended there? No way! Just like a popular saying puts it that, "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride," that became the immediate story of Anna.

 Yes, she soon discovered that her name was not included in the Will (asset sharing/allocation) left behind by the deceased, as everything was willed to her late hubby's son, Pierce. 

There's no doubt, this will definitely break the hearts of many other women who might be in her position.

The truth is that most people would have concluded that she's only interested in the man's wealth, hence the reason she agreed to marry him in the first place.

Even Forbes reported that the Billionaire's first son, Pierce, believed that Nicole was only after his dad's money, which is why he made sure she wasn't included in his father's will. But such hasty conclusion will be harsh and unfair, because no one can actually prove that. 

Yes, because such a verdict is a mere speculation and has no distinct evidence(s).

Well, some time in 1995, Anna Nicole had to team up with Marshall's younger son, Howard III, who was equally not included in the will left behind by the Billionaire. 

That marked the beginning of an unending legal tussle involving the three parties mentioned above. 

First, a probate court based in Texas ruled in favour of the defendant (Pierce), insisted that the contents of the will must be upheld, as such, neither Anna Nicole nor Howard III should receive anything from the estate.

Anna Nicole refused to relent, she soon filed for bankruptcy in a court of law based in California. 

Eventually, she got a favourable judgment as the court awarded her the sum of $474 million. 

Unfortunately for her, that judgment was never executed as the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit quashed that judgment, on the ground that the court had no right to sit on the matter for the fact that it had been previously decided in a court of competent jurisdiction in Texas.

Meanwhile, the legal battle continued until Pierce Morgan died in 2006 and Anna Nicole died in February 2007. 

That did not mean the end of the case as Pierce’s widow, Elaine Tettemer Marshall, continued the legal tussle over the wealth left behind by her father in-law while Howard Stern, Nicole’s executor, continued the fight on behalf of Anna Nicole’s estate. 

But along the line, the Judge who has been handling the case for many years, Judge Mike Wood recused himself from the case, as he got frustrated over the unending drama surrounding the case.

According to Wikipedia, after years of legal tussle, the court kept James Howard Marshall's will and testament intact and substantially all of the assets in Marshall's "estate wound up in trusts for the benefit of his daughter-in-law, Elaine Tettemer Marshall and his family" which is (comprised of the two sons she had for Pierce Morgan before he died in 2006).

While many continue to hold the opinion that she married him for his money, the truth remains that she should have been given a certain percentage of the assets in question.

Thanks for reading, leave your thought in the comment section below.