IBJNews

Katz Sapper caught up in Simon estate battle

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Carmel accounting firm that has handled work for Simon family members and their companies for decades has become ensnared in the legal battle over Mel Simon’s fortune.

At a court hearing Friday morning in Hamilton County, Katz Sapper & Miller objected to subpoenas it received in February from Melvin’s daughter Deborah, saying the information requested was far too broad.

The search terms included in the subpoenas would yield more than 160,000 pages of tax documents, information that then would have to be reviewed to protect confidential information, said Richard Dick, an attorney for Katz Sapper and its KSM Business Services unit.

The requests also would force the firm to review every work station for deleted files and review archived data stored on computer tapes. Reviewing a single month of tapes would take 39 hours, Dick said.

“It is way beyond anything that could be considered reasonable,” Dick told Judge William Hughes.

Deborah in January sued Melvin’s widow, Bren Simon, contesting changes to Mel's estate plan he signed in March 2009, seven months before his death at age 82. The revisions substantially increased the share of his fortune earmarked for Bren.

The two sides have brawled over nearly every aspect of the case since. During Friday’s hearing, Jack Hittle, an attorney for Deborah, agreed to exclude the backed up data. But he said producing the tax records was not overly burdensome, especially considering all the profits Simon work has generated for the firm over the years.

“They are a sophisticated outfit,” Hittle said. “They should be able to produce these documents.”

Katz Sapper had estimated that producing and reviewing the 160,000 pages of tax records would cost the firm $100,000, and going through the backed up records might add $70,000 in expense.

Judge Hughes did not rule during the hearing, but indicated he likely would require Deborah to pay and require she provide $100,000 to the court clerk as security.

The legal battle has been awkward for Katz Sapper. In addition to handling financial affairs for Melvin and Bren, the firm has done work for Deborah and her brother, David, CEO of Simon Property Group. Further, one of the witnesses to the signing of the estate plan now being challenged was Bruce Jacobson, a retired Katz Sapper partner.

Deborah contends her father was suffering from dementia and didn’t understand what he was doing when he revised the plan, boosting the share of his fortune going directly to Bren from one-third to one-half. Bren, 67, who had been married to Melvin since 1972, contends the changes fully reflected his wishes.

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

  • Charities will suffer
    The money will not go to civic commitments if Bren wins-- it will be put on hold for years till her death and charities will lose money they counted on from the Simons- Mel & Bren. She is doing a 180 turn once Mel died- not being civic anymore. Give the disputed amount directly to charities- then good organizations and hurting people win.
  • Be Real and the charities will suffer
    The articles indicate that a lot of the money was set up to go to charities originally and on a schedule to begin right after his death. If Bren wins, the money will not go to the charities automatically till after her death, which could be in 10-20 years, or even longer- with all those charities suffering during that time. She was also giving more money in the "new will" to her daughter from a previous marriage, and that is at the expense of Mel's "blood children" and his grandchildren from them, too. Does not seem right--and Herb Simon would know if his brother wanted to change those details as they were always pretty close in business. But you do not see herb's name mentioned nor has he been subpoenaed. Hope this ends peacefully, as Mel did so much for his communities here in central Indiana.
  • Who wins!
    The lawyers and accountants are the only REAL winners in cases like these!
  • golddugger
    Bren,

    Dont be greedy your husband has the money sit up for the charities,Why are you makeing these people waiting? what so bad one of the charities set up for your son. you remine me the late mrs. helmsley.I cant believe you bull husband change the will that is so low I hope you can live with your self.
  • Exactly
    That is exactly what Deborah and David want is that their father and the benefactor to many charities should have his wishes granted and certainly the children should not be redacted out of a Will by a Greedy Widow....
  • Can they really spend it all?
    These types of cases always sound so frustrating to those of us who know that no matter who wins -- they can't spend it all?!? Perhaps, the civic commitment demonstrated by Mrs. Simon and her late husband should be honored and used as an example for the children :)!!!!

    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