quote:

---

Judge Awards Anna Nicole Smith $88M

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) - A federal judge awarded former Playboy Playmate Anna Nicole Smith more than $88 million in damages Thursday in the latest ruling in a bitter legal fight over the estate of her late husband, Texas oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall II.

U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter ruled Thursday that Marshall's son, E. Pierce Marshall, had interfered with Smith's attempt to get part of her late husband's oil fortune, estimated at hundreds of million of dollars.

``The evidence of willfulness, maliciousness and fraud is overwhelming,'' Carter wrote.

He found that E. Pierce Marshall and others spied on the couple and controlled his father's access to money to deny Smith the sums she was promised.

E. Pierce Marshall released a statement saying he would appeal and that his father ``would be appalled that the district court continued to ignore his clearly stated wishes.''

Thursday's ruling came after E. Pierce Marshall challenged a previous federal bankruptcy court decision that awarded Smith $475 million of his father's money.

Smith, 33, has fought lengthy court battles in California and Texas over the fortune of her late husband, who died at age 90 in August 1995, 14 months after they wed.

The former Playboy Playmate, whose real name is Vickie Lynn Marshall, met her husband in 1991 when she was working as a stripper. The couple married three years later when she was 26 and he was 89.

Before his death, his estate went into a trust that divided his fortune among charities, a foundation, his son and other individuals, but gave nothing to Smith or his other son, J. Howard Marshall III. She sued E. Pierce Marshall to get part of it.

Carter's ruling said Smith had a reasonable expectation that she would receive a portion of her husband's estate and that she would receive it without interference.

``J. Howard made numerous promises to Vickie that she would receive half of what he owned,'' Carter said in his ruling.

He said Smith was entitled to $44.3 million in punitive damages and the same amount in compensatory damages against E. Pierce Marshall, who controls the trust established by his late father.

``This is a complete victory for my client, and I think it's a victory for a husband's love for his wife,'' said Smith's attorney, Philip Boesch.

He said his client ``was subjected to the worst kind of legal maneuvering'' by her stepson.

Marshall and Smith were absent when the ruling was issued.

A year ago, a Texas jury concluded Smith had no right to any money.

---

Thanks Mrs. Moosen for the pics.
You are getting good at this cut & paste thing.

quote:

---

But, she did marry the old man, which makes what was his, hers. That's what marriage is.

---

Thanks Mrs. Moosen for the pics.
You are getting good at this cut & paste thing.

quote:

---

No offense Joey1120, but if you really think this is what marriage is about then I truly feel sorry for the man who puts a ring on your finger. His life will be all but over with an attitude like that.
You really need to grow up and learn more about life my dear, because that was a very immature statement. Either immature or a typical cunt's response.

---

quote:

---

Fortunately, the man who puts a ring on my finger won't be some guy who calls a woman he doesn't even know a cunt. Furthermore, when you are getting married, you are joining lives, or so it's supposed to be. What is yours is his, and what is his is yours. It is completely sharing lives. Why else would you feel the need to actually get married? What will be your motive for saying those vows? If it's anything besides this "immature" reason, you are perhaps doing it for the wrong reasons.

---

Tell me where it hurts

quote:

---

While I understand what your point is Joey, I'd like to point out that the issue of financial gain is not a "mature" reason to marry someone. I believe that's what Flock was trying to say. Your taking offense to his statement should cause you to pause a moment and think about why. I feel that money too often skews what is really important. I believe that sharing (of lives, experiences, responsibility, etc.) is paramount to a successful marriage. Being overly concerned about money and who gets/earns/deserves what is simply, in my opinion, shallow. I can say without a doubt that saying our vows had nothing to do with money. Maybe that's why after so much time we can enjoy each other without wondering what's in it for us. I think that's "motive" enough. In fact, if you need a "motive" to marry someone maybe you shouldn't be marrying them at all.

---

quote:

---

While I understand what your point is Joey, I'd like to point out that the issue of financial gain is not a "mature" reason to marry someone. I believe that's what Flock was trying to say. Your taking offense to his statement should cause you to pause a moment and think about why. I feel that money too often skews what is really important. I believe that sharing (of lives, experiences, responsibility, etc.) is paramount to a successful marriage. Being overly concerned about money and who gets/earns/deserves what is simply, in my opinion, shallow. I can say without a doubt that saying our vows had nothing to do with money. Maybe that's why after so much time we can enjoy each other without wondering what's in it for us. I think that's "motive" enough. In fact, if you need a "motive" to marry someone maybe you shouldn't be marrying them at all.

---