ILNews

Settlement ends bitter battle over Mel Simon estate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bitter battle over the $2 billion estate of the late shopping mall tycoon Melvin Simon has ended with a confidential settlement.

Hamilton County Superior Judge William J. Hughes signed off on the agreement following a hearing Wednesday morning attended by daughters Deborah Simon and Cynthia Simon-Skjodt. They had objected to changes to their father's will that gave stepmother Bren Simon a larger chunk of the estate after Melvin died in 2009.

The judge agreed to close the hearing and accept the settlement under seal because some of the financial terms involve the estate's holdings in publicly traded Simon Property Group Inc. All of the principals in the case had to to sign off on the deal, as did not-for-profit organizations, including Indiana University, that are set to receive charitable gifts from the estate.

An IBJ reporter attending Wednesday's hearing was asked to leave shortly after it began around 10:45 a.m. Closed hearing are unusual in estate cases, and the newspaper registered its objection.

An attorney for trustee Theodore R. Boehm, the former Indiana Supreme Court justice, requested the hearing be closed, and none of the other parties objected. The court in January is expected to consider an IBJ request to make all or part of the settlement public.

Cynthia Simon-Skjodt declined to discuss the agreement but said she's "glad it's over" as she stepped onto a courthouse elevator with Deborah Simon, the plaintiff in the case. After the elevator doors closed, one of them let out a loud "Yeah!"

Attorneys for Bren Simon, who did not attend the hearing, declined to comment.

The judge's order accepting the settlement describes the resolution as "just and reasonable." It also notes that the agreement marks an end to bi-weekly estate distributions of $125,000 to Bren Simon.

There have been suggestions in court records that a settlement was near, particularly after attorneys for both sides agreed in October to vacate a scheduled July 2013 trial date and put discovery on hold, a development IBJ reported in November.

The largest argument in favor of a settlement: The fortune they’re fighting over has swelled in size since the legal battle began in January 2010, four months after Melvin died at 82.

The co-founder of Simon Property Group Ieft an estate worth about $2 billion. His principal holding was Simon Property stock, which was a good investment during his lifetime and has only gotten better since. Simon shares now fetch $156 apiece, more than double where they were when his daughter Deborah filed to contest the will.

Deborah is one of Melvin’s children from his first marriage. The other surviving children from that marriage are Cynthia Simon-Skjodt and David Simon, chairman and CEO of Simon Property Group. She and her siblings contend Mel was suffering from dementia and didn’t understand what he was doing when he revised his estate plan in February 2009, 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 directly to the children and left charitable gifts stipulated in prior versions to Bren’s discretion.

Bren, 69, who was married to Mel for 37 years, contends the changes fully reflected his wishes. She said Mel wanted to compensate her for the negative impact of the financial crisis, which had knocked Simon shares into the $40 range and caused the board to sharply reduce the cash dividend.

The court fight has exposed deep division between Mel’s children and their stepmother. In one email quoted in court, Bren said of the three: “I hope they rot in hell.” Bren also gave an emotional deposition, in which she said her stepchildren have been “cruel, insensitive and hurtful on a fairly regular basis” since she joined the family.

Hefty attorney fees typically give parties a strong incentive to settle and halt the bleeding, but the Mel Simon estate is so large that the many millions of dollars in fees represent barely more than a rounding error.

Still, the rising value of Mel’s estate made it possible for a deal both sides could embrace as a victory. The template was the resolution in the fall of a side dispute with Simon Property Group, which had blocked Bren’s attempt in early 2010 to cash in Simon holdings held by a Mel Simon trust.

The settlement allowed the sale to go forward, with the estate reaping $944 million — far more than the original transaction would have generated but a $100 million discount to the market value at the moment of the conversion. A win-win.

The IBJ is a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT