News: PFT: Jerry Jones heads to court again soon -- as the plaintiff

[Ghost12]

I actually attended McGeorge school of law, and while I certainly am not a lawyer and dont live in Texas, it isnt hard to research some texas law. You are sadly mistaken in your assumptions. Here are the legal reasons a child can contest a will. You cant just contest a will because you dont like the fact you got nothing:

• Pretermitted Child: This is the most common reason for a child to contest a will in Texas. A pretermitted child is one who was born after the will's creation and was not mentioned in the document. Pretermitted children are entitled to receive a share of the estate as if the deceased died without a will (intestacy).
• Omitted Child: Similar to a pretermitted child, an omitted child was alive when the will was created but unintentionally left out. However, unlike pretermitted children, omitted children have a higher bar to contest. They need to prove the omission was unintentional and due to oversight or mistake, not intentional disinheritance.
• Lack of Testamentary Capacity: If a child can show that the testator (the parent who wrote the will) lacked the mental capacity to understand the will's contents when creating it, the entire will could be challenged. This could be due to dementia, mental illness, or substance abuse.
• Undue Influence: A child can contest if they have evidence someone pressured or manipulated the testator into changing the will in a way that doesn't reflect their true wishes. This could be a caregiver, sibling, or another party.
• After-Born or Adopted Child Not Provided For: If the will was created before the adoption of a child and doesn't make provisions for them, the adopted child may have grounds to contest, especially if the testator intended to include them in the inheritance.
• Insufficient Support: While not a direct challenge, a minor child who is not adequately provided for in the will can petition the court for additional support from the estate if their needs are not met through other means.

So using Texas law, which of those seem to fit this kid? actually, this woman, she is not a child.

Before I answer your question, answer the one I asked you: Even if the law is on your side, would you be comfortable with 12 total idiots selected completely at random having absolute control of your financial future?

 

[Ghost12]

It's not just a jury. There are judges involved. They throw out anything they see wrong by a jury. They can also throw out the case before it even sees a jury. Then there is the appellate judges. It just wouldn't pass through all that. It's Texas, not NY.

OK.... meanwhile the distribution of the assets have been held up for 4 years while the above process plays out....

I stated it before and shall do so again: I do not believe she would win any of the hypothetical lawsuits I laid out above.... but she sure can be a huge PITA to the Jones family if she wants to be (assuming paternity is indeed established) both in the present and in the future.

 

[Ghost12]

I think you underestimate the wealthy and their lawyers ability to make their wills virtually bulletproof. She wouldn't get anything.

One additional point: Anna Nicole Smith sued her late husband's estate to contest his will and it went all the way to the Supreme Court (twice), so please don't be so foolish as to believe extreme wealth makes things cut 'n dry. If anything, extreme wealth makes things far, far more complicated. Everyone wants a piece and, quite honestly, it's very easily to gain sympathy for the party with nothing than it is to gain sympathy for the party with $15 billion.

 

[speedkilz88]

One additional point: Anna Nicole Smith sued her late husband's estate to contest his will and it went all the way to the Supreme Court (twice), so please don't be so foolish as to believe extreme wealth makes things cut 'n dry. If anything, extreme wealth makes things far, far more complicated. Everyone wants a piece and, quite honestly, it's very easily to gain sympathy for the party with nothing than it is to gain sympathy for the party with $15 billion.

The son of the old guy she married kept her from getting the fortune (from Texas) it was California that was giving her the wins. In the end it was her child that ended up with a partial inheritance, not Anna Nicole.

 

[Reid1boys]

I'll ask you the same question Reid1Boys ignored: Even if the law is on your side, would you be comfortable with 12 total idiots selected completely at random having absolute control of your financial future?

And even if it is a hopeless, losing battle, she can still be a HUGE PITA by holding the whole thing up in court for years.

I didnt ignore it, you ignored my post. This case will never get to a jury..... we are talking about a hypothetical challenge to a will that YOU brought up. I listed the reasons someone could contest a will. None of them will apply in this case. Will get tossed quickly if ever filed.

And I thought i actually answered that question. Some people, including myself, are principled. I know the o=irony of saying that in this situation. But we made a deal. You broke the deal. I would go after them with all I had. Mommy had no problem with this deal when the cash was rolling in.

Yep, I made 1 mistake, she had 1 more payment due at age 28, she is 27. That payment isnt coming now.

 

[Reid1boys]

One additional point: Anna Nicole Smith sued her late husband's estate to contest his will and it went all the way to the Supreme Court (twice), so please don't be so foolish as to believe extreme wealth makes things cut 'n dry. If anything, extreme wealth makes things far, far more complicated. Everyone wants a piece and, quite honestly, it's very easily to gain sympathy for the party with nothing than it is to gain sympathy for the party with $15 billion.

Smith claimed the following:

Anna Nicole Smith contested her late husband J. Howard Marshall II's will based on a verbal promise allegedly made by Marshall. Here's a breakdown of the legal argument:

• Promised Inheritance: Smith claimed that Marshall, much older than her, verbally promised her a significant portion of his estate, estimated at $1.6 billion, in exchange for marrying him.
• Promissory Estoppel: This legal doctrine argues that if someone relies on another's promise and suffers a detriment (like marriage) because of that reliance, the promisor can be held liable for breaking their promise. In this case, Smith argued she married Marshall based on his promise of inheritance.

This possible daughter will have NO LEGAL BASIS to challenge any will of Jerry.... NONE. Comparing one situation with another is absolutely foolish. Gove me one fact that makes you think she would have LEGAL standing to challenge a future Jerry Will if it is proven she is his daughter. Just being a daughter entitles you to absolutely NOTHING.

 

[Ghost12]

The son of the old guy she married kept her from getting the fortune (from Texas) it was California that was giving her the wins. In the end it was her child that ended up with a partial inheritance, not Anna Nicole.

That’s only because she was dead. In essence, she challenged an ironclad will, it went to the Supreme Court (twice) and she won her estate some money which many said at the start was impossible.

 

[Ghost12]

I didnt ignore it, you ignored my post. This case will never get to a jury..... we are talking about a hypothetical challenge to a will that YOU brought up. I listed the reasons someone could contest a will. None of them will apply in this case. Will get tossed quickly if ever filed.

You don’t know that. Once again you’re just ranting and raving but talking out your arse.

The simple fact is that a child of the deceased automatically has standing to challenge a will and would be taken very seriously. Period. It is not something that would “get tossed quickly” no matter how shaky her grounds are.

And I thought i actually answered that question. Some people, including myself, are principled. I know the o=irony of saying that in this situation. But we made a deal. You broke the deal. I would go after them with all I had. Mommy had no problem with this deal when the cash was rolling in.

Yep, I made 1 mistake, she had 1 more payment due at age 28, she is 27. That payment isnt coming now.

She had 3 payments remaining when she first went to Jones. You were also mistaken to claim she got more from Jones than he would have owed in child support.

 

[Ghost12]

This possible daughter will have NO LEGAL BASIS to challenge any will of Jerry.... NONE. Comparing one situation with another is absolutely foolish. Gove me one fact that makes you think she would have LEGAL standing to challenge a future Jerry Will if it is proven she is his daughter. Just being a daughter entitles you to absolutely NOTHING.

You claim she has no legal basis and then claim she has no standing. You are improperly mixing your terminology so let’s be clear:

Assuming she is Jones’ daughter (which I know is currently not proven), she absolutely, 100% has standing to challenge his will. That is compelely undeniable.

What you are arguing above is she has no *basis* to challenge the will. And while you may very well be right, that’s simply your opinion. A court is not likely to summarily dismiss a case brought by someone who is proven to have standing in the matter.

 

[cowboyed]

It's an open and shut paternity case. Jerry's DNA has age spots.

 

[MyFairLady]

ask the players that actually know him what they think of him. not those behind a keyboard that have never spoken to him.

LOL how about I ask his wife what she thinks.

 

[MyFairLady]

Jerry is a dirty dirty little old man. By the time he croaks there won't be a human left on the planet that gives a rat's turd about him.

 

[zrinkill]

Did Jerry break the contract with the other party to the contract? did I miss something?

You missed the same thing you keep missing ........ if she were not his daughter he would not have paid hush money to her mama.

And a baby cannot sign a contract.

I know someone as "principled" as you thinks its ok for Jerry to abandon his daughter because he is such a "nice guy" ........ I mean ask the millionaires he pays about him

 

[Bobhaze]

Couple of thoughts about all this Jerry Jones court drama:

• It appears Jerry considers “winning” in this situation to be getting a judge to rule that his (apparent) biological daughter and baby mama have violated a non-disclosure agreement signed in 1998 by the mother.
• How sad and telling is it that JJ won’t even acknowledge he is this young lady’s father. I understand that all this would potentially open up his fortune to another heir. But it seems completely disgusting to me that he considers “winning” in court holding this NDA over these people and citing “the millions” he’s given for this girl’s upbringing to be all he owes that daughter. He apparently chooses not make any of this right.

Does being a father to JJ boil down to the details of a written agreement and cash? Is that all the character he has ? Money? Obviously he made a bad mistake in the 90s with a woman and could have done the right thing by owning up to it and acknowledging his daughter. Maybe even made her part of his legacy.

I don’t fault a man for the mistakes he owns up to and takes responsibility for. In this case we have a billionaire who seems to see his responsibility to only be monetary. I find that pretty sad.

 

[TexasHillbilly]

I am sure this has been said but I really feel for his wife. I would leave him and take him to the cleaners at the same time. Jerry deserves everything he is getting. Your past will catch up to you sooner or later.

 

[Bobhaze]

I am sure this has been said but I really feel for his wife. I would leave him and take him to the cleaners at the same time. Jerry deserves everything he is getting. Your past will catch up to you sooner or later.

Money can buy a lot of things. But it cannot buy character or class.

 

[zrinkill]

I am sure this has been said but I really feel for his wife.

I don't ....... he has been doing this kinda stuff for years ....... with girls his grandchildren's age, and she has not put a stop to it.

She obviously only cares about the billions continuing to roll in.

 

[Reid1boys]

You claim she has no legal basis and then claim she has no standing. You are improperly mixing your terminology so let’s be clear:

Assuming she is Jones’ daughter (which I know is currently not proven), she absolutely, 100% has standing to challenge his will. That is compelely undeniable.

What you are arguing above is she has no *basis* to challenge the will. And while you may very well be right, that’s simply your opinion. A court is not likely to summarily dismiss a case brought by someone who is proven to have standing in the matter.

I listed the legal reasons a will can be challenged in Texas. None will apply to her. If Jerry, being of sound mind decides to leave out one of his children from his will because he doesnt like them, thats it. Case closed. Just because the child is upset they lost out on millions is not a legal reason to challenge the will. Case dismissed.

 

[Reid1boys]

Couple of thoughts about all this Jerry Jones court drama:

• It appears Jerry considers “winning” in this situation to be getting a judge to rule that his (apparent) biological daughter and baby mama have violated a non-disclosure agreement signed in 1998 by the mother.
• How sad and telling is it that JJ won’t even acknowledge he is this young lady’s father. I understand that all this would potentially open up his fortune to another heir. But it seems completely disgusting to me that he considers “winning” in court holding this NDA over these people and citing “the millions” he’s given for this girl’s upbringing to be all he owes that daughter. He apparently chooses not make any of this right.

Does being a father to JJ boil down to the details of a written agreement and cash? Is that all the character he has ? Money? Obviously he made a bad mistake in the 90s with a woman and could have done the right thing by owning up to it and acknowledging his daughter. Maybe even made her part of his legacy.

I don’t fault a man for the mistakes he owns up to and takes responsibility for. In this case we have a billionaire who seems to see his responsibility to only be monetary. I find that pretty sad.

You are using your morals and placing them on others. I grew up with my real father not in my life. He was until about 4, then not after that. So I view things from my perspective, not yours. Lets assume my facts correct, just for the sake of argument. Jerry and mama are at some casual event and they start flirting with each other. They eventually have sex a few times, I wont even call it an affair, they hook up , have sex and thats it. No other relationship. 2 months goes by and Jerry is informed his sex toy got pregnant. He asks her to have an abortion and she refuses. At that time Jerry tells her he has n desire to have another child and if she does go through with it, he will in no way be involved in this child's life.

They make the financial agreement, that Jerry followed through on. Giving them millions of dollars, setting up several cash payments, a car, vacations, college, and who knows what else.

Now Jerry has done exactly what he said he would do. He also has the right to not be involved. How can I say that? Because my morals are different than yours. The woman should not have all the power in this scenario, yet they do. Being a biological father doesnt make you a father. Remember, I have experience with this which is why I have the views I have. So when Jerry said he wouldnt be involved in her life, he meant it. He paid what he agreed, and just because the other side wants things to be differently doesnt mean he is required to do so. It isnt that complicated. While you may view him as scum for following through with what he said, I do not.

 

[Reid1boys]

I am sure this has been said but I really feel for his wife. I would leave him and take him to the cleaners at the same time. Jerry deserves everything he is getting. Your past will catch up to you sooner or later.

She knows she could divorce him and get huge money. Apparently she feels her marriage is good. So why you would give a damn about a man's personal business with his wife is hard for me o understand.

50% of the marriages in this country end in divorce. Infidelity runs rampant. I wonder how many of your family you feel are scum since undoubtedly you have someone in their that has had an affair... statistically speaking.