Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on X
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
Oct 26 Update: Court Rejects Joe's Appeal / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors
- Thread starter ivy
- Start date
Big Apple2
Proud Member
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
I believe it's a pretty standard procedure when there are minor children involved. (Samething was done in the Anne Nicole Smith case, i.e. the Court appointed an attorney to look out for the interest of Anne Nicole's young daughter.)
The Court likes to appoint a "third party" who has no ties to the Estate, per se. A third party who's ONLY job is to look out for the interest of any minors who may be involved.
I believe it's a pretty standard procedure when there are minor children involved. (Samething was done in the Anne Nicole Smith case, i.e. the Court appointed an attorney to look out for the interest of Anne Nicole's young daughter.)
The Court likes to appoint a "third party" who has no ties to the Estate, per se. A third party who's ONLY job is to look out for the interest of any minors who may be involved.
Annie123
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 566
- Points
- 0
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
Yes, here's the announcement from her firm:
http://www.trustlitigation.la/CM/Custom/Announcements.asp
Yes, here's the announcement from her firm:
http://www.trustlitigation.la/CM/Custom/Announcements.asp
CherubimII
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6,844
- Points
- 113
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
updated 1:42 p.m. EDT, Mon August 17, 2009/
Jackson Kids Now Have Lawyer; Estate Debate Continues
By Alan Duke
CNN
CNN
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The newly named lawyer for Michael Jackson's children makes her first court appearance Monday as a judge decides if he'll approve a contract between Jackson's estate and concert promoter AEG Live.
Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, who has custody of the three children, objected to provisions of the deal that would give AEG Live a share of rights to video of her son's final rehearsals.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff appointed estate law expert Margaret Lodise last week to represent the children after he decided their interests might sometimes conflict with their grandmother's.
Despite warnings by estate lawyers that a delay could cost millions of dollars, Beckloff delayed his decision on the AEG Live contract one week to give the children's new lawyer time to weigh in on the deal.
The contract would provide for an exhibition of Jackson memorabilia that would travel to at least three cities, according to Kathy Jorrie, a lawyer for concert promoter AEG Live.
"The longer we wait, the more time passes, frankly, the less interest there will be on the part of the public to come see it," Jorrie said.
The judge has already approved a contract to allow Columbia Pictures to use video that AEG Live shot of Jackson's last rehearsals for a documentary due out this fall. Columbia is a division of Sony Pictures.
Sony Pictures said it would deliver the movie -- "This Is It" -- to theaters starting October 30 "with the full support of the estate of Michael Jackson."
Court papers filed last week revealed that Columbia Pictures would pay a minimum of $60 million for the rights to make the Jackson movie.
Katherine Jackson's lawyers, while endorsing the movie deal, have objected to terms given to AEG, saying they are too generous to the company.
Jackson's lawyers objected to the estate's agreement to let AEG recover all its expenses from that money, then take 10 percent of the remainder. It also gives the company a perpetual share of the profits from the video rights.
AEG Live's lawyer said the company had made many concessions to the estate and could not make more.
The judge previously has said he might approve the contracts even over Katherine Jackson's objection.
Jermaine Jackson, Michael Jackson's older brother, told CNN's Larry King recently that he likes the deals, which he said could bring in nearly $100 million into the estate.
Katherine Jackson and Michael Jackson's three children are the main beneficiaries of the estate, which is controlled by Jackson's former lawyer, John Branca, and longtime Jackson friend and music executive John McClain.
Branca and McClain were named in Jackson's will as executors. Katherine Jackson is considering a challenge of their control of the estate.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/08/17/jackson.estate/index.html
updated 1:42 p.m. EDT, Mon August 17, 2009/
Jackson Kids Now Have Lawyer; Estate Debate Continues
By Alan Duke
CNN
- Story Highlights
- Judge appointed attorney for interests of Michael Jackson's children
- Discussion between estate, AEG Live is ongoing
- Executors have deal in mind, Katherine Jackson has expressed objections
CNN
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The newly named lawyer for Michael Jackson's children makes her first court appearance Monday as a judge decides if he'll approve a contract between Jackson's estate and concert promoter AEG Live.
Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, who has custody of the three children, objected to provisions of the deal that would give AEG Live a share of rights to video of her son's final rehearsals.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff appointed estate law expert Margaret Lodise last week to represent the children after he decided their interests might sometimes conflict with their grandmother's.
Despite warnings by estate lawyers that a delay could cost millions of dollars, Beckloff delayed his decision on the AEG Live contract one week to give the children's new lawyer time to weigh in on the deal.
The contract would provide for an exhibition of Jackson memorabilia that would travel to at least three cities, according to Kathy Jorrie, a lawyer for concert promoter AEG Live.
"The longer we wait, the more time passes, frankly, the less interest there will be on the part of the public to come see it," Jorrie said.
The judge has already approved a contract to allow Columbia Pictures to use video that AEG Live shot of Jackson's last rehearsals for a documentary due out this fall. Columbia is a division of Sony Pictures.
Sony Pictures said it would deliver the movie -- "This Is It" -- to theaters starting October 30 "with the full support of the estate of Michael Jackson."
Court papers filed last week revealed that Columbia Pictures would pay a minimum of $60 million for the rights to make the Jackson movie.
Katherine Jackson's lawyers, while endorsing the movie deal, have objected to terms given to AEG, saying they are too generous to the company.
Jackson's lawyers objected to the estate's agreement to let AEG recover all its expenses from that money, then take 10 percent of the remainder. It also gives the company a perpetual share of the profits from the video rights.
AEG Live's lawyer said the company had made many concessions to the estate and could not make more.
The judge previously has said he might approve the contracts even over Katherine Jackson's objection.
Jermaine Jackson, Michael Jackson's older brother, told CNN's Larry King recently that he likes the deals, which he said could bring in nearly $100 million into the estate.
Katherine Jackson and Michael Jackson's three children are the main beneficiaries of the estate, which is controlled by Jackson's former lawyer, John Branca, and longtime Jackson friend and music executive John McClain.
Branca and McClain were named in Jackson's will as executors. Katherine Jackson is considering a challenge of their control of the estate.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/08/17/jackson.estate/index.html
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
It was widely reported last year its a fact and its standard procedure
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
It was widely reported at the time as you can see from the above posted articles.
correct. one of the articles say that "their interests might sometimes conflict with their grandmother's". That means that both the children and the grandmother are the beneficiaries of the estate and grandmother can make decisions which is at her best interest but not the children's. Generally having guardianship and business/financial decisions is seen as a conflict of interest. Therefore as a standard procedure court appoints a lawyer for the minor children.
Regardless of who pays for her services she doesn't work or report to the estate. Her responsibility is to the court and to the kids.
and as we can see from "the resolution of certain contracts proposed by the estate’s Special Administrators" quote she also has the power to oversee, oppose the deals done by the executors if they are not in the children's best interest.
Oxman makes so many claims that it's really hard to keep track. The two arguments that he made was
- as a dependent parent (if he can establish it of course) he can argue that being left out of the will was unfair and get financial support.
- Another argument that Oxman made was if the executors are removed as the guardian of the kids they can request to have a say as who will be the executor or take the executor position themselves (which will be a huge conflict of interest).
It was widely reported at the time as you can see from the above posted articles.
correct. one of the articles say that "their interests might sometimes conflict with their grandmother's". That means that both the children and the grandmother are the beneficiaries of the estate and grandmother can make decisions which is at her best interest but not the children's. Generally having guardianship and business/financial decisions is seen as a conflict of interest. Therefore as a standard procedure court appoints a lawyer for the minor children.
Regardless of who pays for her services she doesn't work or report to the estate. Her responsibility is to the court and to the kids.
and as we can see from "the resolution of certain contracts proposed by the estate’s Special Administrators" quote she also has the power to oversee, oppose the deals done by the executors if they are not in the children's best interest.
Oxman makes so many claims that it's really hard to keep track. The two arguments that he made was
- as a dependent parent (if he can establish it of course) he can argue that being left out of the will was unfair and get financial support.
- Another argument that Oxman made was if the executors are removed as the guardian of the kids they can request to have a say as who will be the executor or take the executor position themselves (which will be a huge conflict of interest).
ExoticPrincess
Guests
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
:smilerolleyes:
And I'll say this again, what about Janet, Rebbie, Marlon, Jermaine, Tito, Jackie and Randy, are'nt they his children too? why the heck does Michael Jackson need to support Joe Jackson even in death when he, Michael Jackson CLEARLY did'nt care to do so!:doh:
:bugeyed love of God, Brian Oxman just needs to disappear for good!
:smilerolleyes:
And I'll say this again, what about Janet, Rebbie, Marlon, Jermaine, Tito, Jackie and Randy, are'nt they his children too? why the heck does Michael Jackson need to support Joe Jackson even in death when he, Michael Jackson CLEARLY did'nt care to do so!:doh:
:bugeyed love of God, Brian Oxman just needs to disappear for good!
Ashtanga
Proud Member
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
Thanks. I really do not remember it was released in the past.
marc_vivien
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,176
- Points
- 38
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
he may ask for a family allowance at the discretion of the court during the administration of the will, nothing more:
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/prob/6540-6545.html
but he don't take a share of the estate. Only a interested person may challenge the will or the executors.
By law, the judge decides the amount of the family allowance and the executor has to follow his order.
value of assets = property - debts - creditor's claims - funeral expenses - family allowance
In fact, Joe would impair beneficiaries' interests.
For the executor position, Katherine has priority over Joe :
section 8441 (http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/prob/8440-8442.html) and section 8464 (http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/prob/8460-8469.html and http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...0.DOC+section+8464+probate&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk)
he may ask for a family allowance at the discretion of the court during the administration of the will, nothing more:
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/prob/6540-6545.html
but he don't take a share of the estate. Only a interested person may challenge the will or the executors.
By law, the judge decides the amount of the family allowance and the executor has to follow his order.
value of assets = property - debts - creditor's claims - funeral expenses - family allowance
In fact, Joe would impair beneficiaries' interests.
For the executor position, Katherine has priority over Joe :
section 8441 (http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/prob/8440-8442.html) and section 8464 (http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/prob/8460-8469.html and http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...0.DOC+section+8464+probate&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk)
Last edited:
virginia_woolf
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,153
- Points
- 48
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
and that's the whole point.
Joe (or Oxman) thinks that by removing the executors, Katherine can be named the executor or she and the kids could nominate/determine the next executors and that would equal in getting more money from the estate.
and that's the whole point.
Joe (or Oxman) thinks that by removing the executors, Katherine can be named the executor or she and the kids could nominate/determine the next executors and that would equal in getting more money from the estate.
StephluvsMJ
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 2,154
- Points
- 63
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
he's also trying to invalidate the will due to place error on it - that's what TMZ story means by fraud.
It's a hard to thing to understand Oxman's strategies.
he's also trying to invalidate the will due to place error on it - that's what TMZ story means by fraud.
It's a hard to thing to understand Oxman's strategies.
Justthefacts
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,072
- Points
- 0
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
I don't even understand how he thinks he can do these things when number one he is not in the will and number two he has no proof that this will is fake. And number three Katherine who is in the will has already accepted this will and gave her fight. So Joe go to bed
I don't even understand how he thinks he can do these things when number one he is not in the will and number two he has no proof that this will is fake. And number three Katherine who is in the will has already accepted this will and gave her fight. So Joe go to bed
marc_vivien
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,176
- Points
- 38
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
katherine has her own lawyer. They agreed with the appointment. Oxman don't act for her, so he don't see how he can have a say here.
In nov, oxman said joe had a right to appointment. So he had standing. But it's false.
katherine has her own lawyer. They agreed with the appointment. Oxman don't act for her, so he don't see how he can have a say here.
In nov, oxman said joe had a right to appointment. So he had standing. But it's false.
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
I know and you are right that it's false. Oxman's whole argument is that the kids are going to inherit the estate and as they are minors their grandparents/ guardians are going to manage the estate. ( You know that the legal order if there's no will is spouse, children, parents, siblings and so on and that's the basis of Oxman's claim of right to appointment).
If you remember (or go to the first link in the first post) Oxman and Joe thought that Katherine was on board and they were surprised with her changed actions - which Oxman labeled as despicable and a conspiracy and fraud.
I know and you are right that it's false. Oxman's whole argument is that the kids are going to inherit the estate and as they are minors their grandparents/ guardians are going to manage the estate. ( You know that the legal order if there's no will is spouse, children, parents, siblings and so on and that's the basis of Oxman's claim of right to appointment).
If you remember (or go to the first link in the first post) Oxman and Joe thought that Katherine was on board and they were surprised with her changed actions - which Oxman labeled as despicable and a conspiracy and fraud.
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
His wrongful death lawsuit depends on that he proves that he was dependent to Michael at the time of his death ( so that he can ask damages).
So appealing Judge Beckloff's decision and the ruling of the appellate court can also affect the future of the wrongful death lawsuit.
His wrongful death lawsuit depends on that he proves that he was dependent to Michael at the time of his death ( so that he can ask damages).
So appealing Judge Beckloff's decision and the ruling of the appellate court can also affect the future of the wrongful death lawsuit.
sweetbabyxsj
Proud Member
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
hell, he thought the court was the store owed by himself?
hell, he thought the court was the store owed by himself?
Darth Sidious
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 683
- Points
- 43
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
If Joe gets control of the estate it'll be flushed down the drain.
If Joe gets control of the estate it'll be flushed down the drain.
marc_vivien
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,176
- Points
- 38
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
Joe didn't prove he was a dependent parent in probate. The judge choose a date for an evidentiary hearing in May (postponed after the estate"s lawyers wanted Joe to be deposed in June). on June 25, Joe filed a motion to withraw his allowance.
The appelate court only cares about laws (standing, etc..), not what Joe is thinking or entiled.
Joe didn't prove he was a dependent parent in probate. The judge choose a date for an evidentiary hearing in May (postponed after the estate"s lawyers wanted Joe to be deposed in June). on June 25, Joe filed a motion to withraw his allowance.
The appelate court only cares about laws (standing, etc..), not what Joe is thinking or entiled.
Sophielo
Proud Member
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
Joe isn't entitled to anything at the end of the day. Michael gave money to Katherine who gave money to Joe. He was never a dependant of Michael's. If Katherine wants to give Joe something then fine but Michael owes Joe nothing. I remember the Glenda tapes when Michael talked about this and how Joe would ring up Michael asking for money and say how he was entitled to it as 'I made you.' I just wish he'd let it be.
Joe isn't entitled to anything at the end of the day. Michael gave money to Katherine who gave money to Joe. He was never a dependant of Michael's. If Katherine wants to give Joe something then fine but Michael owes Joe nothing. I remember the Glenda tapes when Michael talked about this and how Joe would ring up Michael asking for money and say how he was entitled to it as 'I made you.' I just wish he'd let it be.
Roxa
Proud Member
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
Thanks for the informations.
I liked to know that the childrean and Katherine simply are i''n the hands of the executors''. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have nothing against Branc and Mclain so I don't dislike them taking care of MJ's state. But it's nice to know that th children and Katherine have someone for them in the case of executors steal them (we don't know what will happen in the future)
And about Joe. He just want money! Why doesn't he look for his others children too? It's just Michael, just Michael....
Thanks for the informations.
I liked to know that the childrean and Katherine simply are i''n the hands of the executors''. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have nothing against Branc and Mclain so I don't dislike them taking care of MJ's state. But it's nice to know that th children and Katherine have someone for them in the case of executors steal them (we don't know what will happen in the future)
And about Joe. He just want money! Why doesn't he look for his others children too? It's just Michael, just Michael....
blankyluvdoodoo
Proud Member
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
so now he is getting divorce from his wife,is that thing going to help him . i mean is this new trick of his?
so now he is getting divorce from his wife,is that thing going to help him . i mean is this new trick of his?
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
I don't think that's true news however I don't see how it might help him.
His all claim is based on that he is the father of Michael - which wouldn't change regardless of he is married to Katherine or not. Plus they are already separated. He shows different residence different living costs etc.
I don't think that's true news however I don't see how it might help him.
His all claim is based on that he is the father of Michael - which wouldn't change regardless of he is married to Katherine or not. Plus they are already separated. He shows different residence different living costs etc.
Last edited:
Thetruthbetold
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,417
- Points
- 0
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
I really wish when Mrs.Jackson had a chance to divorce this man she should of i do understand that Joe love MJ and show his love for his son in his own way but through the years his greed played out more than his love for MJ. He knows the real reason why his son was killed and most of it is his fault you live by greed it can be taken from you he soldout so its his lost Karma is coming back to J.J because he was living a lie. Enough said on him i want even go into details to painful
I really wish when Mrs.Jackson had a chance to divorce this man she should of i do understand that Joe love MJ and show his love for his son in his own way but through the years his greed played out more than his love for MJ. He knows the real reason why his son was killed and most of it is his fault you live by greed it can be taken from you he soldout so its his lost Karma is coming back to J.J because he was living a lie. Enough said on him i want even go into details to painful
sweetbabyxsj
Proud Member
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
they won't get divorced.
they won't get divorced.
SuperLee
Proud Member
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
Amen !
Amen !
Ashtanga
Proud Member
Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors
Delete.......
Delete.......
Last edited: