Posted by: Michael P. Pancheri
in Probate on Nov 11, 2009
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.
