As many in the media await the results of a DNA test to determine the real father of Anna Nicole Smith's infant daughter, Dannielynn, some reports have perpetuated a legal myth. Consider the Associated Press story that pronounced that "Anna Nicole Smith’s 6-month-old daughter . . . could inherit millions after the former reality TV star’s death last month."

This is only partially right. Dannielynn has indeed had a DNA test. But there is little chance that this child will inherit millions.

Why? Because Anna Nicole Smith's legal claims on J. Howard Marshall's estate were always tenuous. And once the courts act, they will likely extinguish the claim altogether. That means Dannielynn is more likely to be saddled with legal bills and other debt from litigation associated with her mother's estate than she's likely to inherit any portion of Marshall's estate.

NO MILLIONS HERE

A quick review of the case Marshall v. Marshall (Anna Nicole Smith's married name was Vickie Lynn Marshall) illustrates why Dannielynn may not be a million-dollar baby.

Although it has been overshadowed by the media hype surrounding the former Playboy model's visit to the Supreme Court last year, the trial of record in this case took place in Texas probate court in 2001. The trial — complete with jury — lasted nearly six months. It found that Marshall's son, Pierce, was the legal heir, and it explicitly found no evidence whatsoever that the elder Marshall's will was interfered with or that there was any intention to make Smith his heir. It specifically upheld Marshall's will and his estate plan.

Despite the Texas probate ruling, Smith and her legal team went forum-shopping for a favorable judgment. After she filed for bankruptcy in California, Smith convinced a federal bankruptcy judge to award her nearly $450 million she claimed was promised from Marshall. This judge accepted her claim of tortious interference with a gift, finding that Marshall's son thwarted his father's intent.

This decision of the bankruptcy court was appealed to a federal district court in California. The district court vacated the bankruptcy ruling, reviewed the matter de novo, and reduced the award to Smith to $88.5 million.

Subsequently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overruled these awards — not on the merits — but instead by invoking what it called a federal "probate exception" that denied federal jurisdiction over probate matters. The 9th Circuit held that neither the bankruptcy court nor the federal district court had any ability to rule on Marshall's estate.

ALREADY DECIDED

Perhaps the most important principle involved in this case is a common legal concept known as "res judicata" — a Latin phrase that literally means a matter already judged. This broadly accepted legal principle dictates that once a court or jury has issued a final judgment, subsequent courts will uphold and enforce it.

This was a sensitive issue to the Framers of the Constitution because of failures in the earlier Articles of Confederation to impose legal duties on other states to honor contracts or other legal judgments. The principle is so important that it is explicitly embodied in the full faith and credit clause.

The idea is that our law strikes a balance between competing interests. On one hand, we ensure that we can provide litigants with certainty of finality that prevents a defendant from having to defend the same claim repeatedly. On the other hand, we can also guarantee that a plaintiff will be granted his or her day in court without limits on what claims they're allowed to make. But if this claim has already been dealt with earlier, instead of dismissing the case, the court will apply the findings of the earlier judgment.

The Supreme Court last year ruled that the 9th Circuit's interpretation that the federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over probate matters was overly broad, and the justices have sent the case back to the 9th Circuit on remand. Now the 9th Circuit will focus on the specific arguments of this legal dispute.

This is bad news for Dannielynn and Smith's legal team. The remaining legal issues surrounding this litigation are fairly straightforward and uncomplicated. J. Howard Marshall was legally allowed to direct his bequest to whomever he pleased, and he chose his son Pierce. He never intended to leave any portion of his estate to Smith or her heirs. We know these things because that's what the jury found after a six-month trial in Texas. We also know that, under the doctrine of res judicata, each of these findings must be upheld in any other courts that look at this case.

ON THE MERITS Continued...