Brooke Astor's Son Sentenced to 1 - 3 years

Brooke Astor’s only son, Anthony D. Marshall, was sentenced on December 21, 2009, to one to three years in prison for defrauding his mother, stealing millions of dollars from her as she suffered from Alzheimers. (A co-defendant, Francis X. Morrissey Jr., a lawyer who did estate planning for Mrs. Astor, was also convicted of a series of fraud and conspiracy charges, as well as one count of forging Mrs. Astor’s signature on an amendment to her will.)



Credit: The New York Times

In addition to the legal issues involved, this story caught my attention due to my interest in the transatlantic liners of the early to mid-1900s. On April 14, 1912, the R.M.S. Titanic struck an iceberg in the middle of the North Atlantic and subsequently foundered on April 15, 1912 at approximately 2:20 a.m., sinking to the bottom of the ocean and taking over 1,500 souls with her.

One of the many people to die in the sinking was John Jacob Astor IV. After assisting his young, pregnant wife Madelaine into a lifeboat, Mr. Astor stood back with the other men while the other women and children entered the lifeboats, which was customary back then.



John Jacob Astor IV Credit: Picture History



Madelaine Astor Credit: Titanic-Titanic

It was Vincent Astor, son of John Jacob Astor IV, and married to Brooke Astor at the time of his somewhat sudden death of a heart attack on February 3, 1959, who brought his father's body back to New York (his body was recovered from the Atlantic after the sinking) and presided at his funeral after the sinking. In 1948, Vincent set up the Vincent Astor Foundation and, upon his death, half of his $130 million estate went to the Foundation which his widow, Brooke, was to administer.

Over the course of her life, Brooke Astor carried out her husband's wishes, donating over $200 million to various charities during her lifetime. Although, unfortunately, her good work might be overshadowed by the recent events involving her estate, this classy lady can rest in peace knowing she carried out her late husband's wishes.



Brooke Astor Credit: Fox News

Brooke Astor's Son Found Guilty

I have a book on the Astors, and I think there are a number of interesting issues going on with the family members involved (or not, some might argue), and I also plan to follow the appeal, so I'll be posting more on this story.

Vincent Astor, who brought his father's body back to New York and presided over his funeral after the sinking, was married to Brooke at the time of his somewhat (doctors had diagnosed a cardiovascular condition that fluctuated over the five months before his death) unexpected death of a heart attack on February 3, 1959. I can't help but think that he's smiling down over this verdict, and perhaps somewhat relieved. It's my understanding that sentencing will take place on December 8, and I hope the judge sticks it to the lawyer involved.

Article

On a side note, Vincent left his half-brother nothing. I don't think I'll ever be able to watch "the movie" again without being reminded of the fact that the kid with whom Madelaine was pregnant while on the Titanic and, in my opinion unintentionally disinherited, is, ironically, the one responsible (he left a son and grandson when he died in July of 1992) for carrying on the Astor name in the United States. I find it a bit interesting that Vincent left him nothing, as he had to have known that his father would have wanted to provide for him and, although it's my understanding that Vincent didn't like him (his half-brother) much and didn't respect his choices in life, it's interesting that he didn't do the right thing, so to say.

This Marriage Is Sunk

I thought I’d begin this blog by summarizing a case I find rather amusing, brought to us courtesy of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District, Hamilton County. It seems Ms. Nadine Proctor made an attempt to use the sinking as a means to having her divorce decree vacated, but the court wasn’t buying it.

Percy and Nadine Procter were married in London in 1909. Percy subsequently brought a petition for divorce against Nadine, personal service was made on her, after which she filed an answer admitting the marriage, but denying all other allegations of the petition. A decree of divorce was granted to Percy after the case was tried in the common pleas court in Nadine’s absence. The Court also found that, by reason of a written agreement entered into by Nadine and Percy, she was not entitled to any alimony. Approximately seven months after the decree was entered (which was on June 8, 1912), Nadine filed a petition to vacate the decree (on January 4, 1913, to be exact).

In her petition to vacate the decree, Nadine claimed she was unable to attend the trial due to “unavoidable casualty and misfortune” because it was necessary for her to return to Europe after the summons was served to attend to business matters. Further, she claimed she made arrangements with attorneys, whom she didn’t name, to see to it that the case was not tried until her return. When she received notice of the upcoming trial, Nadine claimed she left Europe on Titanic.

After Titanic hit the iceberg, Nadine claimed she became severely injured while being lowered into a lifeboat, and that she was so shocked by being out in the middle of the ocean, that she became unconscious and remained so until waking up in a hospital in London, where she remained until traveling, on May 12, to Russia where her mother lived. She then sailed for the United States and arrived on August 15, 1912, aboard the steamship President Lincoln to find that a decree had been entered in her case the preceding June.

Nadine was relying on a section of the General Code, which empowers the common pleas court to vacate or modify a judgment or order “for unavoidable casualty or misfortune, preventing the party from prosecuting or defending.” The court points out the code authorizes the setting aside of a judgment for unavoidable casualty or misfortune only when it is of such a character as prevents the party from prosecuting or defending, not when it only prevents a person from attending a trial in person.

The court notes she could have given her deposition while in London in May of 1912 and filed it in the common please court of Hamilton County before the decree was rendered on June 8, 1912, because she was able to travel from London to St. Petersburg during that time. They also point out that it would be inconceivable for the court to have denied her a delay if she had, indeed, been a survivor of the sinking and had asked for one. They also note she had failed to employ counsel after summons had been served on her, among other things. Finally, the court wonders the following –

“If it be true as she avers, and the truth of the averment must be assumed for the purposes of this case, that she was a passenger on the steamship Titanic at the time it collided with an iceberg, then the query naturally arises how she came to be thereafter in a hospital in London, in view of what is said to be well-known current history that the survivors of that shipwreck were picked up at sea by a steamer which landed them at an American port.”

Hmmmmm . . .

Procter v. Procter, 245 Ohio App., 245 (1915).