Ok, so for us remedial students out there, why isn't smith ('s estate) entitled to a forced elective share in the billionaire's estate?

4:08- See http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20001121.html

excerpt:
Separate Property versus Community Property

In a separate property regime, each spouse holds all property he acquires–before and during marriage–in his own name, and has the right to access, control, and dispose of only his own assets. In a divorce, most courts have the authority to engage in equitable distribution–awarding some of the separate property of one spouse, or property classified as "marital property," to the other based on various factors, including duration of the marriage, need, and non-economic contributions to the marriage.

But when the marriage ends in death, the rules are different. The surviving spouse can either accept her bequest, or "elect against the will" and take a forced share (typically one-third) of the estate. In most cases, the spouse enjoys the ability to choose an "elective share" regardless of the length of the marriage, whether the parties loved or treated each other well, or whether she needs the support. Thus, the young bimbo who marries the aging billionaire for a mercifully short period of time (14 months for Anna Nicole Smith) is entitled to the same amount as the wife who lives through fifty years of marriage, twelve kids, and a life of ironing her husband's shirts.

In contrast, in a community property state like Texas, all property earned or acquired before marriage is separate property, as is property acquired by gift or inheritance during marriage. But property earned during the marriage is generally community property, regardless of who earned it. That means each spouse gets a one-half interest in the property upon acquisition; the right to manage the property; and the right to keep, and eventually bequeath, his or her half of the community property (as well as all his separate property).

When one spouse dies, the other spouse is protected not by an "elective share," but by getting her half of the community property (even if it was all earned by her spouse) in addition to her own separate property. That means that, unlike in separate property states, a long-term spouse usually receives much better protection from disinheritance than a trophy wife does.

larry birkhead is screwed

so she won't get 1/3 of the estate, but shoudn't any billionaire acquire at least a few million dollars (interest etc...) during a 14-month period?

I think interest on separate property remains separate property, but that's just a guess.

I thought the moral of the long (and very informative) post was that Texas is a community property state. So if he earned like 20 million bucks in community property (very possible given his wealth), shouldn't she get $10,000,000?

I think that's right, 4:08, but I don't think J.H. earned any money--in the traditional sense--during his marriage to Anna Nicole. Most of his wealth existed in trusts that became irrevocable upon their marriage. Any appreciation in those trusts would remain separate property and thus not be subject to the elective share.

poor floozie

WTF is this, Lat? An actual legal discussion on this blog? I want more crotch-shots of Adriana Dominguez.

Income of most kinds is community property in Texas. But, I bet Anna probably earned large sums as well during the marriage, which would be counted in the community.

From what I have read, Mr. Marshall's cash earnings were rather meager compared to his wealth on paper. It has been said that most of the money he used for gifts to Anna was borrowed. In Texas, debt acquired during marriage is also community property.

Great article!