IBJNews

Judge: Bren Simon can take some distributions from estate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Hamilton County judge will allow Bren Simon to withdraw about $3.3 million per year of the estimated $43 million in annual dividend and interest income from her late husband's estate.

The widow of the late mall billionaire Melvin Simon will be entitled to a distribution of $125,000 every two weeks to offset the payroll expenses of her personal staff and the team that manages her homes, including Asherwood in Carmel, Judge William J. Hughes wrote in an order issued Oct. 27.

The withdrawals will later be charged against the amount of the trust she ultimately is due. The estate holds assets, primarily stock in Simon Property Group Inc., worth at least $2 billion.

"Distributions to Bren during the administration of the trust can be appropriate, but only if they occur in a manner that protects the trust and the interests of all beneficiaries," Hughes wrote. "A further consideration is that the amount of distributions this court can legitimately order must be based on record evidence."

Bren Simon's attorneys have said the biweekly payroll expense for MBS Associates is about $116,000.

The order, which specifies distributions must come from the estate's interest income and not principal, clarifies a July ruling in which Hughes banned withdrawals from the trust after Bren, in her capacity as trustee, distributed to herself $13 million from the trust's principal balance.

Deborah Simon—Melvin's daughter from a previous marriage—is challenging his will, saying Melvin was coerced into approving a new estate plan that dramatically increased the amount of his fortune going to Bren. She also wants her stepmother removed as trustee of the estate while the broader case is pending. (Click here for a July story on the dispute that includes video excerpts of Bren's deposition; the first of the four videos appears below.)



There is no provision in the trust allowing Bren to receive distributions before the trust assets are dispersed, but attorneys for Bren argued she should be allowed to collect all of the income from the estate during the court battle since she was Melvin's "object of greatest concern and solicitude."

Attorneys for Deborah did not dispute that point, but they argued Bren should get nothing until the judge sorts out the will contest.

Deborah contends that 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 David Simon, 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Why is the street configuration necessary? New York and Michigan get congested enough as 4-lane one-way streets, imagine how bad they'll be when they are only 2-lanes in each direction. Furthermore, there are TONS of flashing lights and yield signs for pedestrians EVERYWHERE on IUPUI's campus, but I swear I'm the only driver who yields to the pedestrians there. Just enforce the existing signs!

  2. Excellent investment! Many times people are too shortsighted to see that investments such as these are just as important as "fixing potholes". And, perhaps I missed it, but could you point out where your / our pockets are being pilfered in this deal, Italiano? I didn't read where any of your (or my) tax dollars are involved.

  3. I see the same whiney liberals complaining about every single thing that Mayor Ballard does to improve the city. There could be an article about him saving a drowning child and your liberals would find a way to complain about.

  4. Oh snap! It's on! Ballard vs. Hogsett. Indy is due for a "real" mayoral race, this will be epic!

  5. This is obviously good for the city and all of its residents. Would you object to any improvements to anything in our city until every pothole is filled? Why? Look, there's a proposal for roads in place, with funding proposed as well, it simply requires the City Council and the Major to agree. It will happen (not soon enough, perhaps, but it will happen). In the meantime, yes, let's do the common sense, demonstrably smart things that will make our city better.

ADVERTISEMENT