IBJNews

Simon widow loses another battle in estate fight

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Bren Simon has lost another round of appeals in the legal battle over her late husband's more than $2 billion estate.

The Indiana Court of Appeals on Thursday ruled that Bren Simon did not have legal standing to challenge a Hamilton County judge's refusal to recuse himself from the case after Bren took issue with his choice of personal counsel to represent him in front of a state judicial commission.

Bren's efforts to remove Superior Court Judge William J. Hughes from the case began when the judge hired two Bingham McHale attorneys to represent him after he was charged with driving while intoxicated in North Carolina in October 2010. A different attorney at the same firm represents Simon Property Group, which got involved in the case after Bren sought to cash out Melvin's ownership units.

Hughes replaced the Bingham McHale attorneys on Nov. 22, 2010, three days after Bren’s attorneys objected and asked for a stay in the case. Hughes said he has “no bias” for any party or attorney in the case, but Bren’s attorneys were not convinced.

This was the second setback for Bren Simon at the Court of Appeals. In April, the court dismissed her petition seeking to reverse Hughes' ruling last year removing her as interim trustee of the mall magnate's estate.

In the ruling issued Thursday, Judges Edward Najam and Melissa May concluded that once Bren Simon was removed as interim trustee, she lost the ability to pursue on appeal on any issue, including whether Hughes should have recused himself. The court found that ability fell to her successor, retired Indiana Supreme Court Judge Theodore R. Boehm.

“We conclude that when Bren was removed as Personal Representative and Trustee she lost her authority to pursue this appeal in a representative capacity, and Bren was not a party in her individual capacity in the trial court,” Najam wrote. “Accordingly, we hold that Bren lacks standing to maintain this appeal in either a representative capacity or an individual capacity. Thus, we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal on the merits, and we dismiss.”

Judge Patricia Riley dissented and said the majority’s decision dismissing the interlocutory appeal is “a disservice to justice.”

In removing Bren as trustee, Hughes cited her decision to distribute $13 million from the estate to herself without notifying other trust beneficiaries, a move she later tried to recast as a loan.

Among Bren's other questionable decisions: paying her attorneys more than $3 million from the estate without the court's approval, and moving to convert more than $500 million worth of ownership units in shopping mall giant Simon Property Group Inc. without appropriate professional advice, the judge wrote.

Attorneys for Bren argued that she served capably as executor and trustee of the estate of her late husband, pointing to a series of moves she has signed off on, including the transfer of her husband's stake in the Indiana Pacers and moves to appraise the value of a vast array of holdings.

The plaintiff in the case is Melvin's daughter Deborah Simon, who claims her stepmother coerced Melvin to make changes to his estate plan in February 2009, seven months before he died at age 82.

Bren has claimed in court filings that the changes to the will reflected Melvin’s desire to compensate her for a drop in the company’s stock price and a reduction in the cash dividend. The stock price and dividend both have rebounded.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Doesn't she have enough already?
    Let's not be greedy. She cannot spend it all in this lifetime anyway.
  • Cheaters never win.
    Bren should go to jail, thats where she belongs.
  • so sad!
    I feel so very sorry for her! (rolling eyes) I hope the kids get it all.
  • Poor Woman
    Does anyone know where I can send a small donation to help this lady out?

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