Michael Jackson's Will, Law, Estate

[BorderCollieMom]

I would like to see all of the "Will" discussed on a different thread (here). Its too hard to dig around here.

Ive been out of the loop for days...anyone know any bits & pieces ?

Ive heard 2002 was the last one drawn up & Joe not being mentioned in the Will.

Imo, his Will is gonna be a huge deal in this whole case.

All JMO ! :)

[Citygirl]

Hey BCM..the will is only a rumor so far..when it is filed, it then becomes "public" and someone will have it on the net before you can say Thriller. We are all on the edge of our seats waitin for it, like you.

[SKARDYKAT]

I hear the media talking about the will. And, that Joe J is not in it.
I don't understand where this information came from, considering the will has not even been entered into probate. Certainly, the lawyer didn't reveal anything. :confused:
Sorry, I've been out of the loop too.

[4Life]

I hear the media talking about the will. And, that Joe J is not in it.
I don't understand where this information came from, considering the will has not even been entered into probate. Certainly, the lawyer didn't reveal anything. :confused:
Sorry, I've been out of the loop too.

I heard the media talking about it on the radio. They said Joe was not it and Michael left a total of 1billion to his mother,3kids and charities

[SKARDYKAT]

Oh, now it's NG's turn. What will we learn tonight?

[sunstar]

Source says Jackson will gives mom custody

msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 1 hour, 52 minutes ago
LOS ANGELES - Michael Jackson’s will gives guardianship over his children to the singer’s mother and leaves all his assets in a trust fund, a person with knowledge of the document told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The word came just a day after the family said in court documents it believed the entertainer had died without a valid will and moved to take control over his estate.

A source tells msnbc.com that the Jackson family met on Tuesday and decided to file the will in probate court on Wednesday morning. The family hopes this will allow them to schedule the funeral as soon as possible, despite what the source described as disagreements among the family about the details of the will.

more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31669398/ns/entertainment-music/

[Carol25]

Wouldn't it just make sense that all the discussions would be in the attorneys office so the questions could be answered and that is that? Or are they going to bring in other attorneys and try to fight the will?

[disneyfreak]

Wouldn't it just make sense that all the discussions would be in the attorneys office so the questions could be answered and that is that? Or are they going to bring in other attorneys and try to fight the will?

It will be probated in court as this is a judicial and therefore, public, proceeding.

[incidentally]

What is the "Michael Jackson Family Trust".

It would appear his dad has not been cut from the will which was being reported.

[incidentally]

Hi, tally............not sure I understand what you mean?????


Hi aobtd.

Who does the Michael Jackson Family Trust consist of. The three executors? Katherine? His siblings?

Am I still not making sense? lol

[Citygirl]

Hi aobtd.

Who does the Michael Jackson Family Trust consist of. The three executors? Katherine? His siblings?

Am I still not making sense? lol


Hey Tally..it's not a WHO..it's a WHAT.
A trust is a document.
I can set up a trust and upon my death the executors or the trust have to administer it according to my wishes..there is no public record of this..if I said I wanted the administors to give you a thousand dollars a month..they would do it and there would be no public record of it.
I could also leave one thousand dollars a month to my best friend and my next door neighbor and none of the 3 would even know that I had left anything for the other 2.
Hope this helped.

[Carol25]

According to CNN reporting -- The Jacksons have no control over any of MJs assets, estate, etc. The only thing he mentions that he wants KJ as guardian of children; Diana Ross as backup.

Trust is a private document that will not be released to the public

FULL POWER is given to John Branca, John McClean, Barry Seagal over selling, leasing, exchange of any property whether real or otherwise. Power to invest as per their discretion.

MY COMMENTS: This is great because we know the children will be taken care of without all the other Jackson hands in the pot. JMHO

I hope he put that at no time should Joe have access to the children!

[Citygirl]

Copy of Will:

http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0701_mj_will_wm.pdf


I'll say thanks before I read it..thanks Athena!!:thumbup:

[Cornblossom]

Doesn't his debts have to be paid before the children get any money? So, if he has more debts than his estate is worth-there won't be any money put in any Trust. From all the reports I've heard-he owes more than he has.

[SKARDYKAT]

Hi aobtd.

Who does the Michael Jackson Family Trust consist of. The three executors? Katherine? His siblings?

Am I still not making sense? lol

I'm with you. I do understand that executors of the will are not necessarily grantors of the trust. Most of what I am reading lumps them together as though they are the same. Have the executors been named grantor? I'm betting the grantor is Michael's mother. ??

[SKARDYKAT]

Doesn't his debts have to be paid before the children get any money? So, if he has more debts than his estate is worth-there won't be any money put in any Trust. From all the reports I've heard-he owes more than he has.

The money in the trust is separate. It is an entity of it's own. You can't get money out of the trust that is owed you by Michael. The trust is separate from him and has no standing in his debts. IMO

[Cornblossom]

The money in the trust is separate. It is an entity of it's own. You can't get money out of the trust that is owed you by Michael. The trust is separate from him and has no standing in his debts. IMO
aha! Thanks! I was hearing like he had 5 billion dollars worth of debt and only had 500 million dollars and people had liens against this and that. I was just wondering what good a will was if he owed more than he had. Thanks again.

[incidentally]

Hey Tally..it's not a WHO..it's a WHAT.
A trust is a document.
snipped for bandwidth

The reason there is no forthcoming info is because it is said while the will is a public document; the trust is private.

snipped for bandwidth

Thanks, Citygirl and Athena.

[Carol25]

aha! Thanks! I was hearing like he had 5 billion dollars worth of debt and only had 500 million dollars and people had liens against this and that. I was just wondering what good a will was if he owed more than he had. Thanks again.

With sales of recordings going through the roof, perhaps some of his debts can be paid from that. It's a shame that debt holders cannot recoup their losses.

[ahlou3]

Listening to the announcer on CNN...the executors (3 but one quit) have total control of all assets. They could give or not give to the family - including the children - if they want to do so or not.

Soooooo the announer thinks and I agree the reason the judge put everything on hold and did not give them their wish to have immediate control.

[Casspian]

I don't know if this is mentioned on another thread, but it's reported that Michael had upward of 200 unreleased songs that he specifically left for the children.

[Carol25]

I don't know if this is mentioned on another thread, but it's reported that Michael had upward of 200 unreleased songs that he specifically left for the children.
And I think that is why Joe wants to start a record business.

[Tokyo Rose]

The executors will follow what MJ wanted and laid out in the trust, which hasn't been released to the public.

They can also make investments ect to bulk up the estate.

The children are provided for along with the mother in order to care for them. That can't be changed by the executors.

This is the best thing that can happen. The family can't raid that estate now for everything it's worth.

It looks like his heirs meaning his father and siblings can't get their hands on it. Let's face it, he had no love loss for the siblings, who always had their hands out, and his father ever since he finally got away from them.

The executors will do what's necessary to have an estate that grows.

Joe thought he was in the money since MJ died. He was more concerned with a record business. He won't have the money for that now.

It's to bad the executors couldn't take control right away. A lot will be missing by Monday. The siblings and father have already been at the rented house more than once. They are probably stuffing their pockets.

[ahlou3]

Athena, sorry I didn't see your post about CNN reporting before I posted.

[Tokyo Rose]

You know a few people have made some good points. When we all talk about how Joe Jackson treated MJ and the boys -- that was 35-40 years ago. They pointed out that Joe has mellowed a lot and the grandchildren love him. Just what I've been hearing.......


Maybe he's just not as strong as he use to be in order to swing that belt as hard.

When I saw him walking the red carpet at an event and plugging a new business instead of talking about his son who had just died, I felt he was as vile as ever.

I think, if given the chance, he would exploit MJ's kids for money.

JMO

[Tokyo Rose]

When Joe was abusing and pushing the kids around, none of them knew anything about the entertainment industry. Now, those kids are grown and are very capable of navigating without his interference.

JMO.... the Jackson family will not let Joe get his greedy little paws on and wreck the future for those children. Janet has moxie and clout to intercede. Michael has also designated Diana Ross to oversee the children. Joe will try, but I don't foresee it happening.

It was reported when Katherine was in court to seek temporary custody of the children, she listed Joe's address as 'unknown'.

Honestly, I'm not surprised MJ has a valid will with specific designations.

WTG MJ

~~RIP~~

:wub:

If anyone knew his family, MJ did. I figured when he died a will would surface and tie everything up with a neat little bow. I also figured he wouldn't name anyone in his family as executors. He knew better if he wanted anything left for his children. JMO

Also I think it speaks volumes he didn't want any of his siblings to take care of his children.

[R~O~S]

Hey Tally..it's not a WHO..it's a WHAT.
A trust is a document.
I can set up a trust and upon my death the executors or the trust have to administer it according to my wishes..there is no public record of this..if I said I wanted the administors to give you a thousand dollars a month..they would do it and there would be no public record of it.
I could also leave one thousand dollars a month to my best friend and my next door neighbor and none of the 3 would even know that I had left anything for the other 2.
Hope this helped.

You forgot the most important part......

A trust is used as a tax shelter vehicle, to preserve the estate. The money stays in the trust, never goes through probate and it's never considered an inheritance therefore never subject to inheritance taxes.

[SKARDYKAT]

You forgot the most important part......

A trust is used as a tax shelter vehicle, to preserve the estate. The money stays in the trust, never goes through probate and it's never considered an inheritance therefore never subject to inheritance taxes.

You are so very right. I hate to repeat myself, but I am anxious to see who is in charge of the trust. I would guess Michael's mom. Someone has been managing it so far. I can't see Michael being the grantor of the trust himself. Someone has been doing it since 2002. Everything I read suggests the executors of the will manage the trust. Not necessarily so. They manage the terms of the will.

[ahlou3]

There are many her who know legal things so I have a question. Can the family members not mentioned such as father and siblings contest the will.

Is there such a thing they could use as contesting for something called 'undue influence' I thinkj it may be something like tort as in ANS suit. What about how the James Brown children got favorable rulings...would/could that happen?

[Citygirl]

I'm sure if you could find a lawyer that would do it..you could contest it..you would lose..but nothing to prevent them for tryin..a futile effort it would be tho..

[SKARDYKAT]

Well, maybe it's time to unleash the lawyers.........:tonguewag:

[incidentally]

I'll tell you what - go to the news media and tell them their Legal Analysts are incorrect. Every single one that spoke about this today from various media - said wills are public documents and trusts are private documents. :shrug:


ETA: Is a living trust document ever made public, like a will?

No. A will becomes a matter of public record when it is submitted to a probate court, as do all the other documents associated with probate -- inventories of the deceased person's assets and debts, for example. The terms of a living trust, however, need not be made public.

http://www.nolopress.com/article.cfm/pg/6/objectId/02B5FD86-BB5F-4F9C-88C5ED4A0D7F64BC/catId/FD1795A9-8049-422C-9087838F86A2BC2B/309/FAQ/

To many the living trust looks a lot like a will. It includes the details and instructions for how you want your estate to be handled at your death. However, unlike a will a properly funded trust:

Does not go through probate.
Prevents the courts from controlling your assets at incapacity.
Gives you control over the assets you leave to your minor children or grandchildren.

Every attorney I heard speak about this today, and I heard many, said exactly as you point out, Athena.

It's certainly confusing. Just when I think I've a minimal understanding someone or something comes along and confuses me again.

Thanks for the ETA.

[GentleBreeze]

Wow -- Diana Ross named as 2nd in line for children. That was a surprise.

$500,000M in assets - I am presuming that is before expenses that he owes. He owes $400M although record sales updated as of 6/28 says he has broken several records - so guess that eventually will be added to the assets

The money coming in is flowing like wine now.

His estate is climbing as we post.

imo

[GentleBreeze]

I'll tell you what - go to the news media and tell them their Legal Analysts are incorrect. Every single one that spoke about this today from various media - said wills are public documents and trusts are private documents. :shrug:


ETA: Is a living trust document ever made public, like a will?

No. A will becomes a matter of public record when it is submitted to a probate court, as do all the other documents associated with probate -- inventories of the deceased person's assets and debts, for example. The terms of a living trust, however, need not be made public.

http://www.nolopress.com/article.cfm/pg/6/objectId/02B5FD86-BB5F-4F9C-88C5ED4A0D7F64BC/catId/FD1795A9-8049-422C-9087838F86A2BC2B/309/FAQ/

To many the living trust looks a lot like a will. It includes the details and instructions for how you want your estate to be handled at your death. However, unlike a will a properly funded trust:

Does not go through probate.
Prevents the courts from controlling your assets at incapacity.
Gives you control over the assets you leave to your minor children or grandchildren.


You are correct.

IMO

[Patriot]

Maybe he's just not as strong as he use to be in order to swing that belt as hard.

When I saw him walking the red carpet at an event and plugging a new business instead of talking about his son who had just died, I felt he was as vile as ever.

I think, if given the chance, he would exploit MJ's kids for money.

JMO

ICAM. My jaw dropped when I heard him plugging that new business while his son's body was barely cold. Unreal. The man is just vile.

[Cornblossom]

Is a living trust document ever made public, like a will?

No. A will becomes a matter of public record when it is submitted to a probate court, as do all the other documents associated with probate -- inventories of the deceased person's assets and debts, for example. The terms of a living trust, however, need not be made public.
http://www.nolopress.com/article.cfm/pg/6/objectId/02B5FD86-BB5F-4F9C-88C5ED4A0D7F64BC/catId/FD1795A9-8049-422C-9087838F86A2BC2B/309/FAQ/


Is a living trust document ever made public, like a will?
No. The terms of a living trust need not be made public. A will, however, becomes a matter of public record when it is submitted to a probate court, as do all the other documents associated with probate -- inventories of the deceased person's assets and debts, for example.
http://www.legalhelpmate.com/living-trust-online-faq.aspx



Is a living trust document ever made public, like a will?
No. A will becomes a matter of public record when it is submitted to a probate court, as do all the other documents associated with probate -- inventories of the deceased person's assets and debts, for example. The terms of a living trust, however, need not be made public
http://www.bartolomeilaw.com/id21.html

[disneyfreak]

Having advised a family member on setting up a living trust I can speak from experience. It is not public. The trust does have a tax ID number which goes to Social Security and the IRS however.

One of the benefits of a living trust is that you do not have to pay the same filing fees since you don't have to file it in a court of law.

[Ice Cycle]

Regarding the trust, I am not sure because CA has different laws but it's MO that it will evidentially be made public as it will probably be contested by his family if it is not and more than likely the Judge will make the final decision on if it is to be made public.

[Cornblossom]

http://www.familyworks-law.com/lawyer-attorney-02B5FD86-BB5F-4F9C-88C5ED4A0D7F64BC.htmlRegarding the trust, I am not sure because CA has different laws but it's MO that it will evidentially be made public as it will probably be contested by his family if it is not and more than likely the Judge will make the final decision on if it is to be made public.
Living Trust San Francisco CA:Is a living trust document ever made public, like a will?
No. A will becomes a matter of public record when it is submitted to a probate court, as do all the other documents associated with probate -- inventories of the deceased person's assets and debts, for example. The terms of a living trust, however, need not be made public.
http://articles.directorym.com/Living_Trust_San_Francisco_CA-r936122-San_Francisco_CA.html

Is a living trust document ever made public, like a will?
No. A will becomes a matter of public record when it is submitted to a probate court, as do all the other documents associated with probate -- inventories of the deceased person's assets and debts, for example. The terms of a living trust, however, need not be made public.

http://www.mikegreenlaw.com/CM/Custom/FAQ-Trusts.asp


This California attorney also says "no": http://katetovichienlawyers.com/faqs-trusts.jsp

[Ice Cycle]

http://www.familyworks-law.com/lawyer-attorney-02B5FD86-BB5F-4F9C-88C5ED4A0D7F64BC.html
Living Trust San Francisco CA:Is a living trust document ever made public, like a will?
No. A will becomes a matter of public record when it is submitted to a probate court, as do all the other documents associated with probate -- inventories of the deceased person's assets and debts, for example. The terms of a living trust, however, need not be made public.
http://articles.directorym.com/Living_Trust_San_Francisco_CA-r936122-San_Francisco_CA.html

Is a living trust document ever made public, like a will?
No. A will becomes a matter of public record when it is submitted to a probate court, as do all the other documents associated with probate -- inventories of the deceased person's assets and debts, for example. The terms of a living trust, however, need not be made public.

http://www.mikegreenlaw.com/CM/Custom/FAQ-Trusts.asp


This California attorney also says "no": http://katetovichienlawyers.com/faqs-trusts.jsp

Well I am not doubting that the law says that but I do believe that as in most laws it also states that the Judge has the right to use his
or her own discretion if need be. I just believe their are going to be plenty that file wanting to know the contents of that trust, including K Jackson.

[GIGI4256]

Why was Debbie Rowe intentionally mentioned in the will just to be left nothing?

[RootBeer]

Why was Debbie Rowe intentionally mentioned in the will just to be left nothing?

This is to prove that she was not over looked and especially states that she has already been compensated years ago.

[Ice Cycle]

This is to prove that she was not over looked and especially states that she has already been compensated years ago.

See I find that odd and odd that it is being made such a deal about, most ex wife's (or husband's) are not mentioned in the ex's will. It would odd if they were.

[Citygirl]

Well I am not doubting that the law says that but I do believe that as in most laws it also states that the Judge has the right to use his
or her own discretion if need be. I just believe their are going to be plenty that file wanting to know the contents of that trust, including K Jackson.


See..this is a perfect example of why people have a "trust"..to keep nosy nellies out of their business.

[RootBeer]

See I find that odd and odd that it is being made such a deal about, most ex wife's (or husband's) are not mentioned in the ex's will. It would odd if they were.

I have a friend who's mother mentions in her will that her son is not to get anything because he was given so much while she was alive. She was told by her lawyer to word it that way to make sure he was not over looked. She did not want him to get anything else.

[RootBeer]

I was advised to leave them a dollar demonstrating that they were not overlooked.

That was a good move. :thumbup:

[incidentally]

I just heard on CNN that the will states, 40% is to go to Katherine and revert to Michael's children upon her death, 40% goes directly to his children and 20% to various charities.

No link..sorry.

[vonna]

ICAM. My jaw dropped when I heard him plugging that new business while his son's body was barely cold. Unreal. The man is just vile.

It's plain to see from that act alone why he was not included in the will.

[Jupiter]

See I find that odd and odd that it is being made such a deal about, most ex wife's (or husband's) are not mentioned in the ex's will. It would odd if they were.

Most people are not the "ex wives" of famous people with money:rolleyes:

[kitty1182]

It's plain to see from that act alone why he was not included in the will.

amen to that!!!!!!

[Ice Cycle]

Most people are not the "ex wives" of famous people with money:rolleyes:

Still, I would think the divorce itself would warrant that no matter who it is.

[Ice Cycle]

It's a shame that someone is leaking info. We don't need to know all of their business.

Thursday, CNN learned the family trust created by Jackson to receive all of his assets includes his mother, his children and a list of charities, according to a person with direct knowledge to the contents of the trust.

Katherine Jackson's 40 percent share would go to Michael Jackson's three children after her death, the source said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/02/jackson.wednesday/index.html

I figured it would't take long and they didn't even need a order.

[disneyfreak]

Still, I would think the divorce itself would warrant that no matter who it is.

It also makes sure that if she were to receive custody of the children she won't get any funds outside of what she would need to raise them. Its a good way to protect the estate from any contingency. My step-mom did the same thing to one of her family members. By naming the family member, there is no way the person can say "I was forgotten" etc.

[disneyfreak]

What they need to do is enforce the laws that already exist. There were so many doctors abusing their prescription pads and breaking laws. All a new law will do is make the real doctors scared to prescribe controlled substances for their patients legitimate pain conditions.

Having seen pain patients go without because doctors are scared to lose their license to the DEA (I knew one primary care doctor who even told me where the DEA was staying!) while seeing fellow college students know what "Doctor Feelgood" to go to for their drug of choice... a new law won't do anything but make it harder for the real patients.

[disneyfreak]

A new law will be regulated. Those who are truly in need will not go without...it's the abusers on both ends I am referring to.


Heard that one before...each time a new law comes out. What really happens is that the "good" doctors end up not prescribing out of fear. Seen it happen with my own eyes. Had two friends who committed suicide from extreme chronic pain after being told by their doctors (who specialize in chronic pain and have all the MRI's etc to back up their patients claims) that the DEA was looking into their prescribing practice so they were not comfortable prescribing any controlled substance. Of course, neither of the doctors were busted by the board or the DEA but they were "scared" into submission.

On the other hand, there are the doctors out there that don't normally prescribe so if you are rich or a celeb, the doc will be fine giving out the controlled substance since there isn't a long paper trail of REAL patients in REAL need. A bit like Dr. Murray.

[aproudmom]

What they need to do is enforce the laws that already exist. There were so many doctors abusing their prescription pads and breaking laws. All a new law will do is make the real doctors scared to prescribe controlled substances for their patients legitimate pain conditions.

Having seen pain patients go without because doctors are scared to lose their license to the DEA (I knew one primary care doctor who even told me where the DEA was staying!) while seeing fellow college students know what "Doctor Feelgood" to go to for their drug of choice... a new law won't do anything but make it harder for the real patients.

Very true my insurance is no longer paying for 1 of my medications for some reason they have for almost 6 years and went to get it a couple of weeks ago and had to pay for it had no idea no one let me know..I can not afford paying full price so have had to cut down more than I do and feel like total crap..my new doctor since I moved and can not drive over 2 hours to go to my regular doctor that knows me and my family very well my new doctor who was very rude said do not lose the prescription because he does not even like his name on controlled substances and if it fell in the ocean he would not re write it..so I think they need to change the laws as far as how these doctors and famous can get them with many names and no questions because it is hurting the ones who do not abuse them or can not afford them and doctors do not like to prescribe them..and I can understand they track those doctors and see how many they write and how many patients are getting them..so they are scaring the regular doctors as sad as it is it is true..

[aproudmom]

Sadly Michael had to die to bring prescription drugs to the forefront.
Yes, there were other celebrities ( Heath Ledger , Anna Nicole, Elvis etc) but the topic has never garnered so much media attention until it affected Michael Jackson.
It is because of his world wide status as a beloved humanitarian and entertainer that has prompted investigations from The DEA, local law enforcement and probable investigations by the Medical Association.
MJ will "Heal the World' in death.
The Michael Jackson Law should be introduced into Congress to regulate the so called legal prescription drugs that are too available, too often and too much.

Patty it is a nice thing but will never work for one not only pain meds are controlled.. and it is scaring alot of doctors even the good ones and the little people are paying for it through insurance companies and medicaid and medicare..if these doctors who had been giving him the pain meds and the ones who knew it had spoke up he would be here for one the drug in his home was not even on the DEA controlled substance so it was never tracked we need to have a database for all drugs being filled and no longer allow the rich and famous to get stuff in other names..so many things could have prevented this but we can not scare and punish the everyday doctors and patients

I take no pain meds I refuse to..I do have horrible pain at times due to a knee surgery and needing a knee replacements since I have very little cartilage in my knees but I take no pain meds..I will suffer for as long as I can..I hurt from arthritis and horrible migraines

I do take medicine for Anxiety and it is controlled my other med is for acid reflux it is not controlled and just got put on Blood Pressure medicine but I could not afford it when I went to get my others and found out I had to pay 100% we can not hurt the little people who do everything they can to live with pain and not to get addicted to something..WE NEED A NATIONAL DATABASE and doctors being held accountable and the ones providing it for the rich and famous IMO

[withay]

I do not think we need any additional laws about controlled substances. We need better, more even enforcement of the laws we have. I am a pain patient. I take, in legal dosages and prescriptions multiple pain medications. I have for years and likely will until I die. I have damage to my spinal cord and brain that causes me to feel pain from "phantom injuries" to my body. I have no doubt that without the medications, I would have killed myself years ago. As it is, the meds do not block the pain, they only keep it at a tolerable level.
There are already plenty of federal laws in place. I, and others that I know, have to jump through hoops to get medications that plenty of medical tests have proven we need. I cannot get refills. Though I live an hour away from the Pain Clinic and do not drive, I have to get there every 28 days for a new prescription. They are not allowed to write a prescription for longer than that. If it was to be lost or even stolen, I could not get replacement meds so I keep my meds in a small safe. I randomly have to have a blood and urinalysis to check my medication levels.
So, no, I do not think we need additional laws.:thumbdown:

[RootBeer]

I think a lot of lawyers are going to be making a lot of money off of this settling the estate. jmo

[Unperson1984]

I want to expand something Athena2 posted on the closed thread. She stated that "Inheritance is not considered community property in CA."

She is correct to a point. Inheritance is not community property if the inheritor chooses to keep the inheritance as separate property. However the inheritor can make the inheritance community property by co-mingling the inheritance with marital assets or depositing it in a joint account.

[retiredcop]

It seems ol' Joes is back at it again..!!

http://www.tmz.com/category/michael-jackson/


Jackson Family War Over Michael's Will
Posted Jul 21st 2009 2:30AM by TMZ Staff

Jackson family sources tell us there's a bitter dispute over who will call the shots in probating Michael Jackson's will.

Katherine Jackson has hired an attorney -- Londell McMillan -- and we're told it's a done deal that McMillan will challenge the co-executors Michael selected. We're told most of the brothers -- Randy the notable exception -- are angry that McMillan has asserted himself by challenging co-executors John Branca and John McClain, both long time advisers and friends of M.J.

Ultimately, we're told, Joe Jackson has asserted his influence over Katherine to hire McMillan. We're told Katherine is really being manipulated and doesn't even have real objections to Branca and McMillan.
Randy is coy on who Joe and McMillan want as executor in place of or in addition to Branca and McClain -- the family is worried Joe and McMillan will rack up legal fees and the estate will suffer. Pretty ironic, since Michael cut Joe out of the will and he gets zippo as a beneficiary.


LMS

I wonder who this McMillan is? If he's a friend of Joe's, I wonder if he is a good attorney. I don't see how hiring an attorney to contest the executor would be paid for by the estate.

Anyway, Joe may get Katherine disinherited, especially with an attorney who may not be that good.

Katherine needs to get a backbone and get rid of Joe. She is allowing this to happen.

I wonder if this is the attorney who is asking the judge this Friday if Katherine can challenge the executors and not be disinherited?

That's like asking a judge for advice. I can't see how a judge can get involved in that.

in my opinion only

[Unperson1984]

L. Londell McMillan has recently rejoined the law firm of 1. Dewey & LeBoeuf L.L.P., as Partner and Head of Entertainment, Media and Sports. Mr. McMillan was the Founder and Chairman of The McMillan Firm and NorthStar Business Enterprises, Inc. where he specializes in the law of business and commercial transactions, litigation, communications, intellectual property, and government affairs. Mr. McMillan's elite client list includes legendary artists, professional sports clients, authors, executives and businesses in the communications, media, entertainment, retail and real estate industries. Over the years, he has represented celebrity icons, such as Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Usher, Roberta Flack, Ciara, L.L. Cool J, Kanye West, Mos Def, Danny Glover, Spike Lee, Russell Simmons and many other notables. In addition, Mr. McMillan has also represented media clients such as Mercedes Benz, the New York Times, Screenvision, the Source Magazine and Radio One on entertainment matters.

[disneyfreak]

Profiles:

John Branca (http://www.superlawyers.com/california-southern/article/Shaman-At-the-Negotiating-Table/9dd713b1-1420-4355-9d4f-299d7446244c.html)

L. Londell McMillan (http://www.superlawyers.com/new-york-metro/article/The-Lawyer-Who-Freed-Prince/1a37b3b2-cc7e-102a-a861-000e0c6dcf76.html)

[vonna]

Maybe he's just not as strong as he use to be in order to swing that belt as hard.

When I saw him walking the red carpet at an event and plugging a new business instead of talking about his son who had just died, I felt he was as vile as ever.

I think, if given the chance, he would exploit MJ's kids for money.

JMO

I think you're right. Michael was wise to leave his father out of his will.

[daniel green]

UPDATE: 2:44 PM PT: How's this for brutal honesty? The documents state, "The Special Administrators believe that it is in the best interest of the Estate for all book publishing agreements to be entered as soon as possible, as sales of the book and profits for the estate will be maximized the sooner the book is released due to the notoriety surrounding Michael Jackson's unexpected death and the resulting heightened demand for such products."

http://www.tmz.com/2009/07/23/michael-jackson-book-deal/ :scared:

[daniel green]

Lawyers for Michael Jackson's estate, along with Katherine Jackson's lawyer, went to court this morning, seeking temporary financial allowances -- and Katherine claims she needs the money to live.The matter was put off until August 3, when lawyers will all appear in court. UPDATE: 2:29 PM PT: Lawyers for the estate wrote in a written declaration, "We are informed that Mrs. Jackson was also financially dependent upon Michael Jackson and that other than extremely modest social security benefits, Mrs. Jackson has no independent means of support."

http://www.tmz.com/2009/07/23/katherine-and-kids-want-an-allowance/

[retiredcop]

http://www.tmz.com/2009/07/23/michael-jackson-book-deal/ :scared:

That's the executors job. Their first duty is to the estate.

in my opinion

[retiredcop]

http://www.tmz.com/2009/07/23/katherine-and-kids-want-an-allowance/

The executors will take care of Katherine and the children, but the spigots of outgoing money is shut down for the rest of the family to continue to live off of Mr Jackson.

in my opinion

[Firehead11]

http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=422744&GT1=28102

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A former financial advisor to Michael Jackson said Friday that he was the person who recently turned over to executors $5.5 million, which had been "a secret between Michael and me."

Dr. Tohme Tohme responded to an inquiry from The Associated Press about documents in which administrators of the estate said they had recovered $5.5 million and substantial amounts of personal property from an unnamed former financial adviser.

"It was not recovered," he said. "I had the money and I gave it to them. It was a secret between Michael and me."

[retiredcop]

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/07/exclusive-katherine-jackson-lawyers-comments-disputed-estate-battle-continues


EXCLUSIVE: Katherine Jackson Lawyer's Comments Disputed -- Estate Battle Continues

[retiredcop]

I think this McMillan lawyer wants KJ to control the estate because he stands to get a lot of money. According to the Judge that handled Anna Nicole Smith's case, he said that the Executors get 3% of the estate plus hourly fees. That is a whole lot of money when you are talking about millions of $.

Source: Geraldo at Large, Sun 7/26 10PM EST

Yes, the executors would be Katherine, Joe, and the lawyer. lol

in my opinion

[Firehead11]

http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=423291&GT1=28102

This is certainly troubling. Does she not realize that continuing to fight this will cost the estate more and more money. Lawyers that usually get 200.00 a hour, will be charging the estate 2,000. an hour?

(Ok, I picked a price off the top of my head) but you get the general drift.)

MJ DID NOT WANT HIS MOTHER in charge of the money. He knew what would happen if he had. I would suggest she drop it and sit back and watch what happens OR have the executors name her as the third party BUT it will take 2/3 mim. to agree to anything involing the state. Maybe katherine should waive any fees that she might get as executor, in that way she would look like she is acting on behalf of the estate and not what more she can get?

[GentleBreeze]

More money pouring into the Estate.

Michael Jackson album tops Billboard’s No. 1 album chart, again
29-Jul-2009


http://www.thecelebritycafe.com/features/31009.html

[Unperson1984]

Let's pray they're wrong.

:mad:

[RootBeer]

The executors will take care of Katherine and the children, but the spigots of outgoing money is shut down for the rest of the family to continue to live off of Mr Jackson.

in my opinion

I am sure KJ will find some way to spread the money around for her extended family.

jmo