Attorneys finish arguments on Simon estate issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys for Bren Simon’s stepchildren argued on Thursday that 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.

The charge came during a hearing in which her attorneys made final arguments to fend off a challenge from her stepchildren over whether she is fit to remain as trustee over Melvin Simon’s roughly $2 billion estate.

Bren did not attend the hearing in Hamilton Superior Court.

Melvin, who died in September 2009, co-founded Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group Inc., the nation’s largest shopping mall owner.

Specifically, attorneys for the stepchildren took aim at $500 million worth of Simon stock Bren has been trying to unload since her husband's 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 Deborah Simon, who attended the hearing, pointed out the shares have grown 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.

Judge William J. Hughes on Thursday took the arguments to remove Bren as trustee under advisement and will rule at a later date.

But before he did, Hughes took to task lawyers on both sides as they wrapped up arguments.

Hughes questioned Barry Simon’s request to assign a corporate fiduciary to the trust to replace Bren when there are few assets presently moving through it.

“Which one, who doesn’t already have a conflict?” Hughes asked.
His most pointed exchange during the afternoon, however, came with one of Bren's attorney, Michael Ciresi.

Ciresi argued Bren has no reason to hire a financial adviser to oversee $500 million in Simon shares she wants to sell, until she needs to reinvest the money.

“So what do you do [with the money]?” Hughes asked. “Put it in a bank?”

Ciresi maintained that his client is unsure what she will do, but putting the money temporarily in U.S. Treasuries is a possibility.

“It would be darn hard to find an adviser in this country who would say to immediately invest $500 million,” Ciresi argued. “Getting a handle on all the assets has been a horrendously difficult job.”

The judge also grilled Ciresi about a $14 million advance Bren took from the trust to pay her private counsel.

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 of the two.”

Ciresi said he thought Indiana law gave Bren the right to take the advance.

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

Ciresi portrayed the mistake as “inadvertent.”

“If you want to direct the consequences at anyone, direct them at me,” he told the judge.

Deborah contends her father was suffering from dementia near the end of his life and didn’t understand what he was doing when he revised his estate plan, boosting the share of his fortune going directly to Bren from one-third to one-half.

The changes also wiped out a portion that was to go to Deborah and siblings Cynthia Simon-Skjodt and Simon Chairman and CEO David Simon from Mel’s earlier marriage, and left charitable gifts stipulated in prior versions to Bren’s discretion. Bren, who married Mel in 1972, contends the changes fully reflected his wishes.

In a court hearing earlier this month, Deborah’s legal team played portions of videotaped testimony from Bren, taken in March, in which she describes Deborah and her siblings as spoiled, vicious and hurtful.

In e-mails entered into the court record, Bren calls Deborah “bin Laden” and describes the actions of David as “terrorism.”


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1