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. 

Comment (0) Read More...

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."

Comment (0) Read More...

I get a lot of questions about this lately, not only from spouses but from children and other heirs as well.  Unfortunately, it's not an easy question to answer because the laws vary from state to state, and because many states do not have clear-cut laws governing these questions.

We've had it on our mind to write an exhaustive article on this subject for some time.  We still intend to write it because it's an important issue for many people.  However, in the meantime, we've come across a Question and Answer article published by Bills.com/blog that provides a good explanation of the rules governing a spouse's (or other heirs') liability for a deceased spouse's debts.  Read it yourself and see if it answers your questions.  Here's the link to the article:  http://www.bills.com/blog/am-i-liable-for-my-deceased-spouses-debts/

Comment (0)