Ex-Playboy Model Anna Nicole Smith Stripped of Inheritance

Ex-Playboy model stripped of her £46m inheritance (London Telegraph)

Anna Nicole Smith, the former Playboy model, has been stripped of the $88million (£46million) inheritance given to her by an oil tycoon she married when he was nearly 90. In the latest twist to her nine-year legal battle with Pierce Marshall, the son of her late husband, the federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that a California judge who ruled in her favour in 2002 should never have even heard the case. Instead, it upheld an earlier Texas probate court’s decision that the son was the sole heir of J Howard Marshall II, who died in 1995, and owed Smith nothing. The model’s lawyers dismissed the setback as a “legal technicality” and said they would appeal to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

Smith, who was Playboy’s 1993 Playmate of the Year, was 26 and Mr Marshall 89 when they married in 1994. They had met three years earlier when she was working as a stripper. She has yet to receive anything from her late husband’s estate, as the estate’s assets were frozen during the appeals process.

Pierce Marshall said in a statement: “After nine years of litigation, I’m very pleased by the judgment issued by the 9th Circuit upholding my father’s wishes regarding disposition of his assets.” The overturned 2002 court ruling found that Smith, whose real name is Vickie Lynn Marshall, was entitled to compensatory and punitive damages because the younger Marshall altered, destroyed and falsified documents to try to keep her from receiving money from his father’s estate.


Upon his death in August 1995, Smith discovered that her husband, a Texan, had left her out of his will and any share of his £70 million fortune. She maintains that he promised to leave her half his money.

I’ve never understood this case. Texas is a community property state. One would think Smith would be entitled to half the assets regardless of what the will specified, unless there was a prenuptial agreement to the contrary.

The Australian has an amusing, if not-safe-for-work, take on this story.

Anna Nicole: I sucked a lot of cock to get where I am

Anna Nicole Smith said yesterday she would contest the court ruling that she was not entitled to her $88 million estate left to her by dead billionaire J Howard Marshall. The court has ruled that spoiled brat E Pierce Marshall has more ownership to the money because he knows what it is like to be rich in the first place and never had to spread his legs once to get anything he wanted. “This is the right decision,” Marshall said. “This is my Daddy’s money and it belongs to me. It does not seem right to give it to someone who is no more than a high class ho.”

Ms Smith said she felt like all the work she had done was wasted and E Pierce never deserved anything. “Does he know what it is like to lay on your back and take it like a prison bitch,” Ms Smith said. “Can you imagine having to screw a dirty old man.” Ms Smith met the ageing tycoon when he was picking up young girls at a strip joint in Texas.

Marshall said he originally was attracted to the former Playboy centerfold because she looked under age.

“I deserve this money. I sucked a lot of cock to get here,” she said.

Related stories:

Fat chick wins Australian Idol, more pop per pound

Australian Idol winner to host The Fat

ARIA sued for promoting crap

FILED UNDER: Popular Culture, , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Bithead says:

    Admittedly, I got to Nicole Smith Stripped and my mind suddenly had trouble processing additional info.

  2. anjin-san says:

    Have we nothing better to discuss? Will “Is Britney Preggers?” be the next topic?

  3. Bithead says:

    Well, consider it this way; It does have more potential as a story, than, say, John Kerry’s political future, for example.

  4. Attila Girl says:

    The money should be divided up between them, and the world should move on.

    I have no particular respect for ANS, but I imagine the expectation of inheriting part of her husband’s estate was part of the understanding between them, and for her to be disinherited amounts to fraud.

  5. Tom H says:

    I understand that common law is in place for property gained after a marriage and money and property owned by either party prior to marriage is exempt.

  6. Tom’s right – “community property” comes into effect FOR THE TIME OF THE MARRIAGE.

    Any assets he owned before hand are his – as long as they are not “co-mingled”. So she would get 1/2 of any interest and appreciation of his wealth during the time of the marriage, which I believe was a year.

    Why do so many people have problems understanding this concept, including the author of this post?

  7. anjin-san says:

    Right Bithead, Kerry is a US Senator and you are a chronic whiner. You have every reason to hold him in contempt.