Yesterday, I reported that Joe Jackson had filed an objection to Michael's will, claiming that he never signed it.  Joe Jackson also objected to the appointment of attorney John Branca and music executive John McClain as executors of Michael's estate, claiming they committed a fraud on the court when they withheld the fact that Michael was in New York at the time his will was supposedly signed in California.

Today, it was reported that a judge threw out Joe Jackson's challenge to the will, saying that he didn't have locus standi in the case.  "Locus standi" is a legal way of saying that Joe Jackson didn't have a sufficient connection to the case to be able to present a challenge to the will.  In today's jargon, it's called, "Standing."  And, it simply means that only those who are in a position to be harmed by the court's action will have a say in the matter.

So, the court took the position that Joe Jackson couldn't challenge the will because he didn't have a sufficient interest in Michael's estate.  In the vernacular, he didn't have a dog in the fight.

But, is that really true?  We know that Michael never gave his father anything under his will.  But, if he was successful in getting the will thrown out, would he then be entitled to any of Michael's estate?  Apparently not!  Because Michael didn't have a surviving spouse or a surviving domestic partner, California's intestacy laws [see California Codes, Probate Code, Section 6402(a)] give all of his probate property to his three children - and nothing is given to his mother or father, or anyone else. 

It appears, therefore, that the judge was right in throwing out Joe Jackson's challenge of the will because he wouldn't get anything from Michael's estate if the will was admitted or not.  

But, that raises an interesting question.  That is, who does have the requisite "locus standi" to challenge Michael's will?  It appears that the only persons who do have that standing under California's intestacy laws would be Michael's three children.  Yet they're all minors and can't act for themselves.  Moreover, they're also the primary beneficiaries under the will, so they're not inclined to contest it in any event.

It's ironic, too, that Michael's mother, Elizabeth, could contest the will on behalf of the three children because she is their court-appointed temporary guardian.  So, will she take up her husband's crusade and challenge the will by virtue of her guardianship powers? 

Apparently not!  It's been reported that she wants the challenge to the will stopped and has petitioned the court to that effect.  The reason, I suspect, is because the children are the primary beneficiaries under the will and Elizabeth has been awarded $1 million a year to raise the children, plus $26,804 for herself.  

If that's the case, then why in the world would Joe Jackson want to put all of that in jeopardy by having the will thrown out?  There's something going on here that we're not being told.