Comment (0) Read More...

Comment (0) Read More...

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.  

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."

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.

Comment (0) Read More...

We've recognized for some time that our "Ask the Experts" forum needs some kind of a kick-start to get it going.  Everyone says that it's very difficult - and a lot of work - to create an active forum.  We're finding that to be very true.

We do know, however, that people have lots of questions about wills and trusts and probate - and we also know that people will chit chat away on a forum once they become accustomed to using it.  People actually enjoy reading posts and even making their own posts once they get started.  Besides being educational, forums are also quite entertaining.

So, we've been at work sprucing up the forums so that they're more user-friendly and more attractive visually.  You'll notice that we've added a number of features that do this - for example, we've added the ability to spotlight certain posts and to add avatars, smilies, and other images.  We've also added advertisements between some of the posts.  Believe it or not, the ads do add visual appeal to the forums because they break up the text.

Now, we're going to introduce a competition to get people to actually do some posting.  For the remainder of the year, we're going to offer prizes to 10 people who make the most posts during that period.  We don't know yet what the prize will be, one suggestion is Sarah Palin's book that will be released on the 17th of this month.  That's a possibility, but we may have a couple of different books that the winners can choose from.  So, if you've been holding back, this exciting offer should be enough to get you going.

Oh, by the way!  Every forum has a problem with spammers ruining everything with their pornographic and generally distasteful posts.  The only way to effectively eliminate that type of activitiy is to require that you register before you post.  Registering means simply giving your name and email address so that we know who you are.  You can register by using the Facebook Connect button if you have a facebook account, or you can register in the old fashioned way by clicking on the register button.  Either way, its free and easy.

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)