Latest on MJJC

Oct 26 Update: Court Rejects Joe's Appeal / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

Re: Joe Jackson appeals probate court judge's decision about contesting executors

this recent news story from TMZ has nothing to do with Joe contesting the will/ executors. it's totally different lawsuit.

for the wrongful death suit please go to this thread
 
Last edited:
Appeals court sets hearing for Joe Jackson's Appeal

Appeals court sets hearing for Joe Jackson's Appeal
Involving Michael's Estate
By Anthony McCartney (CP) – 9/01/2010
LOS ANGELES

LOS ANGELES, Calif. — An appeals court has scheduled a hearing for lawyers for the father of Michael Jackson to argue that he deserves a role in decisions involving his son's multimillion dollar estate.
The Second District Court of Appeal said Thursday the appeal by Joe Jackson would be heard on Oct. 6.

In November, the elder Jackson challenged a ruling by a state judge that the estate would be run by attorney John Branca and music executive and family friend John McClain. The men had been designated in the singer's 2002 will to administer his estate.

The will omitted Joe Jackson — in effect denying him any stipend or decision-making authority.
"I think it's an important issue for all fathers around the country and around the world that when their child dies they should have a say-so in their child's estate," said attorney Brian Oxman, who represents Joe Jackson.

Attorney Howard Weitzman, who represents the estate, said the administrators were meeting all obligations to the beneficiaries named in the will. "As I've said before, Mr. Jackson's appeal is not well taken," Weitzman said.

The singer's estate has earned tens of millions of dollars since the singer's death at age 50 in June 2009.

Joe Jackson is also pursuing a federal wrongful death lawsuit against Dr. Conrad Murray, who has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter in the singer's death. Authorities contend Murray, a cardiologist, gave the singer a lethal dose of the anesthetic propofol.The costs of the wrongful death lawsuit should be paid by Michael Jackson's estate, Oxman said.
The estate is not a party to the lawsuit.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hXOnMXyUkP3K93g-OxUOdt5Cg2Xg
 
Re: Appeals court sets hearing for Joe Jackson's Appeal

I wonder why the appeals court decided to hear this case?
 
Re: Appeals court sets hearing for Joe Jackson's Appeal

Here something from another case :

II. Standing

Probate Code section 8270, subdivision (a), provides that "[w]ithin 120 days after a will is admitted to probate, any interested person . . . may petition the court to revoke the probate of the will." An "interested person" is one who has "'"a pecuniary interest in the devolution of the testator's estate, as would be impaired or defeated by the probate of a will or be benefitted by the setting aside of the will"'" (Estate of Lind (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1424, 1430-1431), and includes "[a]n heir, devisee, child, spouse, creditor, beneficiary, and any other person having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent [*6] which may be affected by the proceeding." (Prob. Code, § 48, subd. (a)(1).) Only an "interested person" is entitled to contest a will before or after probate. (Estate of Lind, supra, at p. 1430.)

Appellant claims to be an "interested person" with standing to contest decedent's will and codicil based on her status as an assignee or creditor of Christian Brando. The record shows, however, that Christian Brando had no rights under decedent's will because he was neither an heir nor a beneficiary under that will. Appellant's status as an assignee or creditor of Christian Brando accordingly gives her no pecuniary interest in decedent's estate, and she alleges no pecuniary interest apart from her status as an assignee or creditor. Appellant lacks standing to contest the probate of decedent's will and codicil. The demurrers to appellant's petition were properly sustained on that basis.

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw...=eXZW.TdDa.UYGO.hcae&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW
 
Re: Appeals court sets hearing for Joe Jackson's Appeal

let them make a fool out of themselves they only got this much time left
 
Re: Appeals court sets hearing for Joe Jackson's Appeal

I don't really know how the appeals court works. I mean, do they set hearings for ALL cases that come before them or do they select cases that they feel have merit?

But then again, I'm often times surprised that "strange" women claiming to be Michael's wife or the mother of his children get to be heard in "regular" court over and over AND OVER AGAIN. I always think that those types of cases should be thrown out immediately, but they never are.

All that being said, I believe the law on this issue is very clear (anyway, I THOUGHT it was very clear). That being that you have no say in a person's will, if you are not named in that person's will.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, especially with Oxman at the helm.

(P.S. We need our resident legal eagle to come in and clarify a few things for us.)
 
Re: Appeals court sets hearing for Joe Jackson's Appeal

In an appeal case, you don't show evidence. You have to explain to the appeal judges how the trial judge (Beckloff) erred his ruling and mistated the laws (here Joe has not standing to challenge executors' appointment)
 
Re: Appeals court sets hearing for Joe Jackson's Appeal

It's a lose-lose situation:

if Joe gets to have a say in "his child's" (I love how he uses this expression in order to sugarcoat the public, in order to mask his wrongdoings) estate, he'll leech off of it and extort it. Idiotic and dangerous decisions will be made by him which will result in schemes to extort fans and so on, with the goal of filling his pockets.

If he doesn't the to have a say in his "child's estate", he'll continue to invent schemes after schemes to make money. And we know that Joe doesn't care whom he hurts in the process. He'll continue slandering his "child" and doing everything, possible and impossible, for money.


Either way Joe will continue tarnishing his "child's" legacy. He'll never quit trying to become rich off of this tragedy.
 
Re: Appeals court sets hearing for Joe Jackson's Appeal

pilinlim said:
It's a lose-lose situation:

if Joe gets to have a say in "his child's" (I love how he uses this expression in order to sugarcoat the public, in order to mask his wrongdoings) estate, he'll leech off of it and extort it. Idiotic and dangerous decisions will be made by him which will result in schemes to extort fans and so on, with the goal of filling his pockets.

If he doesn't the to have a say in his "child's estate", he'll continue to invent schemes after schemes to make money. And we know that Joe doesn't care whom he hurts in the process. He'll continue slandering his "child" and doing everything, possible and impossible, for money.


Either way Joe will continue tarnishing his "child's" legacy. He'll never quit trying to become rich off of this tragedy.
Click to expand...


All of your posts are the truth! I agree with everything you said.. This is just insane. Joe is 81 years old, why does he need so much money? Most 81 year olds live off of their savings and social security, why does Joe need millions and millions of dollars?? I am really sickened at his behavior. I was sickened before, but since MJ's death he's really been a mess. Oxman is horrible too. They don't care what they do to MJ's children or to MJ's legacy as long as they get money
 
Re: Appeals court sets hearing for Joe Jackson's Appeal

My perception is that Joe Jackson is a greedy old man.
 
Re: Appeals court sets hearing for Joe Jackson's Appeal

StacyJ said:
This is just insane. Joe is 81 years old, why does he need so much money?
Click to expand...
What I don't get is, where the hell is Janet in all of this? Why is it always about MJ's money only?
 
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

please keep the discussion and comments about Joe only relevant to this case.


latest updates from the court's page

08/20/2010 Filed letter from: Randall Whattoff dated 8/18/10 re: requesting that Howard Weitzman and Randall Whattoff of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert, LLP as co-counsel for respondents John Branca and John McClain.

08/30/2010 Opposition filed. Respondents opposition to appellant's motion for judicial notice.

08/30/2010 Received document entitled: Respondents' motion to strike section II of appellant's reply brief and all subsections related thereto. Portions to be stricken make up pages 3-12. Received, not filed due to deficient proof of service.

09/02/2010 Filed proof of service. Respondents' amended proof of service re: motion to strike.

09/02/2010 Motion filed. Respondents' motion to strike Section II.A.2 of appellant's reply brief.

09/01/2010 Calendar notice sent. Calendar date: 10/6/10 @ 1:30 p.m.
 
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

*sigh* the things people do...
 
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

Sorry, for off top...
This CNN article link which was posted says that estate spend more than 1 million for Michael's funeral. :doh: I just wonder why it is so expansive? The biggest chunk of the whole amount went to Forest Lawn. I just remember reading somewhere about prices for crypts in Forest Lawn and it was not even close to what I have read from this article. I wonder if anything what comes to King of Pop gets overpriced? Well, I understand, the place itself, security and such but still it is hell of a lot Branca spend. I wonder who was ordering stuff estate or the family? Looks like estate did everything themselves on family requests?

Court documents unsealed Tuesday showed the estate paid $1,098,000 for Jackson's funeral and burial.

The bulk of the cost went to Forest Lawn cemetery in Glendale, which was paid $855,730, including $590,000 for the crypt and monument inside the Holly Terrace section of it's Great Mausoleum, the document said.

Jackson's burial garments cost $35,000, while another $16,000 was spent in flowers for the funeral, the papers said.
Click to expand...

16 000 eatate spend for flowers? Give me break! I remember watching this funeral. And yes there were flowers and decorations but I cannot estimate in my head that it can end up at the price $16000 dollars. It just does not make any sense.
 
Last edited:
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

The family planned the funeral. As I recall Janet came up with money for a deposit at Forest Lawn. The estate did pay for it after the costs were submitted and approved by the judge.

I don't think you can blame John Branca for the costs of Michaels' funeral.

Asedora said:
Sorry, for off top...
This CNN article link which was posted says that estate spend more than 1 million for Michael's funeral. :doh: I just wonder why it is so expansive? The biggest chunk of the whole amount went to Forest Lawn. I just remember reading somewhere about prices for crypts in Forest Lawn and it was not even close to what I have read from this article. I wonder if anything what comes to King of Pop gets overpriced? Well, I understand, the place itself, security and such but still it is hell of a lot Branca spend. I wonder who was ordering stuff estate or the family? Looks like estate did everything themselves on family requests?



16 000 eatate spend for flowers? Give me break! I remember watching this funeral. And yes there were flowers and decorations but I cannot estimate in my head that it can end up at the price $16000 dollars. It just does not make any sense.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

Annie123 said:
The family planned the funeral. As I recall Janet came up with money for a deposit at Forest Lawn. The estate did pay for it after the costs were submitted and approved by the judge.

I don't think you can blame John Branca for the costs of Michaels' funeral.
Click to expand...

Well, the family planned the funeral, yes. They probably made a list saying we need this, this and that and the rest of job was estate business I guess to order stuff and to pay? I do not blame Branca but I am very suspicious about estate spending that much money. If you take just one position "flowers", in my opinion the price is not reasonable. Janet came up only with 50 000$ bill , which mostly I believe was casket cost 25 000 and maybe something else. I am not sure.
 
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

CherubimII said:
The will omitted Joe Jackson — in effect denying him any stipend or decision-making authority.
"I think it's an important issue for all fathers around the country and around the world that when their child dies they should have a say-so in their child's estate," said attorney Brian Oxman, who represents Joe Jackson.
Click to expand...

first of all I must add that this statement by Oxman angers me. So basically he says it's not important how the relationship was between the parent and the child, it's not important what the child wants, a father/mother just because they are parent should have a say so in the estate.

and I'm not saying this because of the nature of the relationship between Michael and Joe. Oxman generalizes it to every parent - child. With his logic for example somebody can father a child, leave them even before birth and then come after their death and claim a part from their estate, similarly a parent can abuse their child and then have a say in the estate - even though the child had chosen intentionally omit them from their will. None of these kind of things matters per Oxman.

Oxman really defies the logic of the wills (leaving what you want to whomever you want) by saying that every parent should have a say-so regardless of the relationship between the parties and wishes of the dead.


Asedora said:
I wonder who was ordering stuff estate or the family? Looks like estate did everything themselves on family requests?
Click to expand...

family arranged everything and estate just paid for what they wanted. see below for the comments from the executors and their lawyers and documents for fund request

The full budget for Jackson's private funeral was disclosed in court filings released on Tuesday. They show that the executors of Jackson's estate, John Branca and John McClain, approved payment of all proposed expenses, including an advance of $49,000 made by Janet Jackson to Forest Lawn-Glendale cemetery.

The documents, released Nov. 10, showed that his mother, brother Randy and sister Janet were involved in the planning and were mindful that the media would be covering the funeral, although media were not allowed inside the ceremony.

"Mrs. Jackson and her family wish to honor her son by a funeral that seeks to offer solace to his multitude of fans and by which the family also may be comforted," the attorneys said. The costs were substantial but "entirely commensurate with the decedent's worldwide status as an entertainer and the world's grief over his death."

Mrs. Jackson's attorneys were granted the request for $1 million. The administrators noted this was in addition to the costs of the Staples Center tribute, which was approved by the court as part of the agreement with entertainment group AEG.

Outside court on Tuesday, lawyer Howard Weitzman, who represents the administrators, said: "I would have done it less expensively. But it was Michael Jackson, who was larger than life. There's no reason he should not have a funeral that's larger than life."

http://www.billboard.com/news/recor...kson-s-funeral-cost-nearly-1-1004041647.story



Asedora said:
Well, the family planned the funeral, yes. They probably made a list saying we need this, this and that and the rest of job was estate business I guess to order stuff and to pay? I do not blame Branca but I am very suspicious about estate spending that much money. If you take just one position "flowers", in my opinion the price is not reasonable. Janet came up only with 50 000$ bill , which mostly I believe was casket cost 25 000 and maybe something else. I am not sure.
Click to expand...


there was also a funeral planner/designer that was hired. they probably arranged for everything (see weitzman's quote), estate just paid - with court's approval.
 
Last edited:
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

The family signed a contract with Forest Lawn, not the the estate, that's why Janet came up with the $50,000 deposit Most contracts of this type require a deposit up front and then payment of the balance after the event.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you think the estate should have told Katherine that her plans were too expensive and not honoured the contract?

Asedora said:
Well, the family planned the funeral, yes. They probably made a list saying we need this, this and that and the rest of job was estate business I guess to order stuff and to pay? I do not blame Branca but I am very suspicious about estate spending that much money. If you take just one position "flowers", in my opinion the price is not reasonable. Janet came up only with 50 000$ bill , which mostly I believe was casket cost 25 000 and maybe something else. I am not sure.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

ivy said:
The full budget for Jackson's private funeral was disclosed in court filings released on Tuesday. They show that the executors of Jackson's estate, John Branca and John McClain, approved payment of all proposed expenses, including an advance of $49,000 made by Janet Jackson to Forest Lawn-Glendale cemetery.

.
Click to expand...

So many nice words, but still...
Estate approved anything what funeral planner/designer said that was hired by Branca?
I wonder if the family was aware how much estate spends. I am not sure if Janet, Randy and Katherine if were involved in planning they knew the cost.

"Mrs. Jackson and her family wish to honor her son by a funeral that seeks to offer solace to his multitude of fans and by which the family also may be comforted," the attorneys said. The costs were substantial but "entirely commensurate with the decedent's worldwide status as an entertainer and the world's grief over his death."
Click to expand...

Nice words...blah blah blah Ppl always say the same when the costs went over the roof for no reason.


The family signed a contract with Forest Lawn, not the the estate, that's why Janet came up with the $50,000 deposit Most contracts of this type require a deposit up front and then payment of the balance after the event.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you think the estate should have told Katherine that her plans were too expensive and not honoured the contract?
Click to expand...

I wish I would know how these paymnets were done. If the family knew how much they spend, it is one thing. If they had no idea what estate ppl were approving it is another thing.
Katherine signed the contract with Forrest Lawn. Did FL estimate the price on the contract? It is just does not make any sense that FL got that kind of money. I remember reading prices for crypts in FL website and it was not even close to what I see now.:doh:
 
Last edited:
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

Asedora said:
I wish I would know how these paymnets were done. If the family knew how much they spend, it is one thing. If they had no idea what estate ppl were approving it is another thing.
Click to expand...

you can be assured that the family (well at least Katherine) knew how much money were spent.

Estate was (and still is) under probate, at that time the executors were temporarily put in the position. they couldn't authorize/release any payment without the courts approval.
Plus they couldn't do bogus payments. As we can see all the costs were listed in itemized format (and invoices were most probably provided as well).
any court hearing and the documents would be sent to all of the parties involved- which includes Katherine as a beneficiary and a guardian of minor kids.

so once again even if the estate did all the funeral by themselves - which they didn't - Katherine will be notified of the cost and had a chance to object it as an interested party (for example see the recent news about Katherine objecting the request by Debbie Rowe's lawyers for their fee payment).

plus it was reported that family bought several plots not just one.
 
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

Oxman is an ass hole and the judge will see his BS.

Here, it's clear :

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An "interested person" is one who has "'"a pecuniary interest in the devolution of the testator's estate, as would be impaired or defeated by the probate of a will or be benefitted by the setting aside of the will"'" (Estate of Lind (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1424, 1430-1431), and includes "[a]n heir, devisee, child, spouse, creditor, beneficiary, and any other person having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent [*6] which may be affected by the proceeding." (Prob. Code, § 48, subd. (a)(1).) Only an "interested person" is entitled to contest a will before or after probate. (Estate of Lind, supra, at p. 1430.)

Appellant claims to be an "interested person" with standing to contest decedent's will and codicil based on her status as an assignee or creditor of Christian Brando. The record shows, however, that Christian Brando had no rights under decedent's will because he was neither an heir nor a beneficiary under that will. Appellant's status as an assignee or creditor of Christian Brando accordingly gives her no pecuniary interest in decedent's estate, and she alleges no pecuniary interest apart from her status as an assignee or creditor. Appellant lacks standing to contest the probate of decedent's will and codicil. The demurrers to appellant's petition were properly sustained on that basis.

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw...=eXZW.TdDa.UYGO.hcae&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

One must be a "person interested" in the estate in order to oppose a petition for letters of administration. [5] Such a person includes only those who, either absolutely or contingently, are entitled to share in the estate.

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/30020

The phrase "any person interested" includes only persons who, either absolutely or contingently, are entitled to share in the estate. [4] Appellants are not entitled to share in the estate. They do not have any pecuniary interest in the devolution of the estate as may be defeated or impaired by the probate of the will. They are not in any way interested in preserving the assets, or in the settlement of the estate. They have no right to oppose the probate of the will or the grant of letters of administration with the will annexed, or to appeal from the order with respect thereto.

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/24741

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The father excuse will not fly. I'm sure that many people came with this excuse in the past. And apparentlt, the courts don't care
 
Last edited:
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

ivy said:
plus it was reported that family bought several plots not just one.
Click to expand...

I heard that Michael's estate covered the costs for burial plots for the rest of the Jackson family. I don't know how true that is, but if true, it would certainly explain why the bill was so high.
 
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

StephluvsMJ said:
I heard that Michael's estate covered the costs for burial plots for the rest of the Jackson family. I don't know how true that is, but if true, it would certainly explain why the bill was so high.
Click to expand...
it is true, the estate fronted the bill for their waredrobe for th funeral last september

 
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

StephluvsMJ said:
I heard that Michael's estate covered the costs for burial plots for the rest of the Jackson family. I don't know how true that is, but if true, it would certainly explain why the bill was so high.
Click to expand...

I heard that too....and at the time we were like WHY should Michael pay for everyone's burial plot???.....then I think they said that they did so that noone else other than the family would be next to Michael.



twinklEE said:
it is true, the estate fronted the bill for their waredrobe for th funeral last september



yeah and I found that to be tasteless then...and I still do now. Michael had to pay for the very clothes that they wore to his funeral.....shame on them..:mad:
Click to expand...
 
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

^ Agreed, that does not sit well with me at all. It is odd, to say the least, it's not like any of them are that poor that they can't buy suitable clothes for goodness sake.

As for Joe and Oxman, I don't even really know what to say about it.
 
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

Katherine did withdraw her court filings to boot Branca/McClain. Where is katherine in this mess and what does she feel about this ordeal?

ivy said:
first of all I must add that this statement by Oxman angers me. So basically he says it's not important how the relationship was between the parent and the child, it's not important what the child wants, a father/mother just because they are parent should have a say so in the estate.
Click to expand...

Hell yeaaah, MJ said himself as a grown man that he doesnt even know his father.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top