IBJNews

Judge's disclosure rules broader than Bren Simon sought

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Hamilton County judge handling the Melvin Simon estate battle has set confidentiality rules on financial and personal information that are less restrictive than what his widow, Bren Simon, had been seeking.

Attorneys for Bren had asked at a March 10 hearing that information related to household expenses, health and other personal matters be disclosed to no one beyond the plaintiff in the will contest—Melvin’s daughter Deborah—and her attorneys, and in some cases only her attorneys.

In a newly filed order, Judge William J. Hughes permitted dissemination to others who might have a financial interest in the estate, so long as they sign agreements to keep the information confidential. That includes Deborah's two siblings from Melvin’s first marriage, Cynthia Simon-Skjodt and David Simon, the CEO of Simon Property Group.

Attorneys for Deborah had argued for broad disclosure. But attorneys for Bren had bristled, saying the siblings were never entitled to see Melvin and Bren's financial information, even when they were living together years ago.

"If their interest is that strong and heartfelt, they should be willing to join as parties," David Beehler, an attorney for Bren, said at the hearing.

Deborah is asking the court to throw out changes to Melvin’s estate plan executed in February 2009, seven months before he died at age 82. She contends he was suffering from dementia and didn't understand what he was doing when he signed off on the plan, boosting the share of his fortune going directly to her stepmother, Bren, from one-third to one-half.

The changes also wiped out a portion that was to go to Deborah and her siblings.

Bren, 66, who married Melvin in 1972, contends the changes fully reflected Melvin’s wishes.

The protective order Hughes issued Tuesday likely won’t put all disclosure disputes to rest. Much of the information deemed confidential may be central to issues that surface during court hearings or at trial. Hughes ordered the parties to cooperate on ground rules for disclosing such information in open court, an apparent effort to limit the need for him to intervene.

Melvin Simon was one of Indiana’s richest men. Forbes magazine in March 2009 estimated his net worth at $1.3 billion. Shares of Simon Property, his principal holding, have zoomed higher since, perhaps pushing the value of his fortune past $2 billion.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • you need to take the one third sit your self down somewhere
    I think mrs.Bren,is wrong keeping the information from David and Cynthia Simon.They have alrigth know what going on with there father estate,the reason they didnt join with Mrs.Debroah because David and Cynthia have there own business to run.somebody need tell her that god dont like ugly.

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