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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  2. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  3. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

  4. For some strange reason this story, like many on this ezine that question the powerful, seems to have been released in two formats. Prior format here: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 That observed, I must note that it is quite refreshing that denizens of the great unwashed (like me) can be allowed to openly question powerful elitists at ICE MILLER who are on the public dole like Selby. Kudos to those at this ezine who understand that they cannot be mere lapdogs to the powerful and corrupt, lest freedom bleed out. If you wonder why the Senator resisted Selby, consider reading the comments here for a theory: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263

  5. Why is it a crisis that people want to protect their rights themselves? The courts have a huge bias against people appearing on their own behalf and these judges and lawyers will face their maker one day and answer for their actions.

ADVERTISEMENT