Joe Jackson has filed papers in a Los Angeles court claiming that Michael's will has problems. 

The "problems" apparently consist of Joe Jackson's claim that Michael  never signed his will.  He claims that the will presented to the court by John Branca and John McClain, the named executors under the will, was signed in California in July of 2002 but Michael was in New York at that time.  Besides contesting the will, Joe Jackson claims that the concealment of this information by John Branca and John McClain was a fraud upon the court and, therefore, both should be disqualified as executors.

Joe Jackson has also petitioned the court for an allowance of $15,000 a month to cover his expenses, including "$1,200 a month on rent for his Las Vegas home; $2,500 to eat out; $1,000 on entertainment, gifts and vacations; $2,000 on air travel and $3,000 on hotels." 

You can read all the details in a KTLA News article entitled, "Joe Jackson Says There are 'Problems' with His Son's Will."

My point in relating this story is simply to illustrate the ease in which any disgruntled heir can contest a will in the probate court, and why many people choose to prevent that from happening by utilizing a living trust.  In Michael's case, he did have a living trust; yet, you will not hear much about it in the news.  That's because the trust is private and contesting the trust requires the filing of an actual law suit, the payment of court fees, and the hiring of an attorney.

Contesting his will in a probate court is a different matter.  There, any one having an interest in the estate can raise any number of objections and the court is required to hear them.  Moreover, everything is a matter of public record, as can be seen from the Michael Jackson case. 

Of course, we often think in terms of the disgruntled heir as the "bad guy" trying to get something he's not entitled to.   It might also be the case that the disgruntled heir has a reason to be disgruntled; i.e., Michael's will may have been the product of undue influence and a fruad may have been committed upon the court. 

Is it possible that Joe Jackson may be right?  Or is Joe Jackson simply trying to get a share of Michael's estate when Michael never intended to give him any?

I'd like to hear your comments on this one - then we'll continue to follow this case to see how it ends.  The outcome should be enlightening.