ILNews

Judge appoints former justice as trustee over Simon estate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Hamilton County judge has ordered Bren Simon removed as personal representative and interim trustee over her late husband's estate, replacing her with a retired justice of the Indiana Supreme Court.

The ruling by Superior Court Judge William J. Hughes represents a turning point in an ugly family squabble over Melvin Simon's more than $2 billion fortune. It's a big victory for Deborah Simon, one of Melvin's children from a previous marriage, who had argued Bren is unfit to serve as trustee.

"The record herein is replete with examples of conduct by Bren Simon justifying her removal in both capacities," Judge Hughes wrote in the order entered Dec. 15.

The judge cited Bren's 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, albeit one without an interest rate or repayment schedule. 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 $600 million ownership units in Simon Property Group Inc. without appropriate professional advice, the judge wrote.

Judge Hughes appointed former Indiana Supreme Court Justice Theodore R. Boehm, who retired earlier this year and is now a senior judge, to replace Bren as both trustee and Melvin's personal representative. The judge chose an outsider because "successor personal representatives" noted in Melvin's will, including his son and Simon Property Group CEO David Simon, are either named parties or witnesses in the pending will contest.

Judge Hughes ordered Bren to immediately deliver all records pertaining to the estate to Judge Boehm and to provide a full accounting of her activities as interim trustee within 60 days.

Deborah's legal team argued in July that Bren is unfit to serve as trustee, saying that she is hostile toward her stepchildren and already had bungled several important decisions.

They played snippets of videotaped testimony from Bren, taken in March, in which she describes Deborah and her siblings Cynthia Simon-Skjodt and David Simon, the chairman and CEO of Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group, 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."

Attorneys for Bren argued 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 that include the transfer of her husband's stake in the Indiana Pacers and moves to appraise the value of a vast array of holdings.

Bren's attorneys are trying to remove Judge Hughes from the case, after taking issue in November with the judge’s choice of personal counsel to represent him in front of a state judicial commission. Hughes hired two attorneys with Bingham McHale after he was charged with driving while intoxicated in North Carolina in October. A different attorney at the same firm represents Simon Property Group.

Judge Hughes replaced the Bingham McHale attorneys on Nov. 22, three days after Bren’s attorneys objected and asked for a stay in the case. Judge Hughes said he has “no bias” for any party or attorney in the case, but Bren’s attorneys were not convinced. The judge on Wednesday certified the appeal, fast-tracking a review by another judge.

Deborah claims Bren coerced Melvin to make changes to his estate plan in February 2009, seven months before he died at age 82. Deborah contends Melvin was suffering from dementia and didn’t understand what he was doing when he signed off on the plan, which boosted 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 her two siblings from Simon’s first marriage—Cynthia and David.

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.
 

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 Indiana Lawyer 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

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT