IBJNews

Judge halts distribution of assets from Simon estate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Hamilton County judge has banned distributions from the estate of the late Melvin Simon to his widow Bren or any other beneficiary without the court's approval.

Superior Court Judge William J. Hughes entered the order on Friday afternoon. It will stand at least until the court determines whether to remove Bren Simon as trustee of the roughly $2 billion estate.

The order specifically prevents Bren from taking distributions unless all interested parties give their consent. The judge on Thursday grilled attorneys for Bren Simon about her decision as the estate's trustee to advance herself $14 million to pay her legal team.

Hughes said state law requires a trustee to get approval from a court and trust beneficiaries before a loan can be given, and “I don’t think there’s evidence" that Bren did that.

Michael Ciresi, a Minneapolis attorney who represents Bren, said he thought Indiana law gave his client the right to take the advance.

“It’s not whether it can be done,” Hughes responded, “it’s how it was done.”

Ciresi portrayed the mistake as “inadvertent" at the hearing Thursday, in which Bren's attorneys made final arguments to fend off a challenge from her stepchildren over whether she is fit to remain as trustee.

Bren did not attend the hearing in Hamilton Superior Court.

Attorneys for her stepchildren argued she is so incapable of serving as trustee of her late husband’s estate that she failed to take even the basic step of hiring a financial adviser to manage the fortune.

Specifically, attorneys for the stepchildren took aim at $500 million worth of Simon Property Group stock Bren has been trying to unload since her husband's 2009 death. The publicly traded company declined to immediately convert the ownership units into common stock that could be easily liquidated, citing a challenge to the will.

Attorneys for Melvin's daughter Deborah Simon, who attended the hearing, pointed out that the shares have increased in value by tens of millions of dollars since then.

“Ten months after Mel’s death, there’s no financial manager, no diversification [of assets],” said Barry Simon, who is not related to the Simon family.

Deborah’s attempt to get Bren removed as trustee of the estate is part of an effort to challenge her father’s will. A jury trial in the case is tentatively scheduled for September 2011.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • A $14 million advance?
    A $14 million advance for legal expenses? LOL That is ludicrous. Sensibility suggests it's a whale of a slush fund that is pegged for much more legal expenses. Bren sounds like she lacks basic financial savvy.
  • A $14 million advance?
    A $14 million advance for legal expenses? LOL That is ludicrous. Sensibility suggests it's a whale of a slush fund that is pegged for much more legal expenses. Bren sounds like she lacks basic financial savvy.
  • California Estate
    Bren has put her Bel Air home up for sale, price $50 million, poor Bren
  • Bren Simon cant be trust with the simon estate
    Bren Simon,
    The bank should be handle the money, not Bren.she trying to get people think that was Mr.simon ideal to change the will.
  • What does Bren live on in the meantime?
    Are there funds for her living expensives?
  • Bren Simon
    Bren Simon Videos

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT