marc_vivien;3033614 said:
okay let's summarize
Some background information first (most of which we know)
- 4 days after Michael's death Katherine and Joe files documents saying that Michael died intestate. Katherine appointed temporary executor.
- Later Branca and McClain files the will and trust. They got appointed executors.
- Joe filed an objection to their appointment citing fabricating the will and having several conflicts of interests.
- Joe also asked for an allowance. Oxman filed an affidavit saying that immediately before his death Michael was giving Joe $50,000 to $60,000 per month.
- Katherine withdrew her objection to the executors saying that it was unnecessary to “spend the estate‟s money on these disputes” and “felt it‟s high time that the fighting end.”
- Both Katherine's lawyer and the children's ad litem were against Joe's objection to the executors.
- Joe argued that even though he wasn't a beneficiary he was an interested party because he had a priority for appointment as an executor.
- Court determined that he didn't have priority to be an executor as he wasn't entitled to any portion of the estate.
- A really good quote from the judge " And I‟m not sure how he is affected at all by the appointment of Branca and McClain as executors. . . . he has his right to bring a family allowance petition, and he‟s done that, and we‟ve set it for hearing. He can get an order from the court ordering the executors to pay the family allowance. I‟m not sure that he has any other interest in this estate. Because
even if the will is invalidated and the trust is invalidated, he has three children and under the laws of intestacy, those children would take (the estate) . . . I cannot figure out how Joe Jackson is affected by the decision to appoint [Branca and McClain as executors].”
- 6 months later Joe withdrew his request for allowance saying that he would pursue a wrongful death lawsuit and sues Murray.
About the appeal
- Joe had 3 issues 1) that he qualifies as an interested party 2) the court should had an evidentiary hearing and 3) even though none of those applied the court should have investigated the allegations that he had made (about the will and the executors).
- The appeals court determine that Joe is not an interested party because he doesn't have the priority of appointment as an executor (parents are the 5th on the list and a parent needs to be a beneficiary to get priority), even if the will were to be successfully challenged (btw 120 days has passed no one did and could anymore revoke the will) everything will be MJ's children's. In short Joe fails to show how in any scenario he would be entitled to any part or control of the estate hence he's not an interested party.
side note: the documents state that Joe had the standing to apply for an allowance and if he could have proved that he was a dependent parent the court could have determined an allowance for him in their discretion.
- Another good quote about why the court didn't need to investigate the allegations (from the appellate judges this time)
"Several of the beneficiaries of the estate, including Katherine and Jackson‟s surviving children, had an opportunity to evaluate the allegations in Joseph‟s objection and
decided to approve the executors because they believed it was in the best interest of the estate. Under Joseph‟s theory,
the probate court was required to ignore the beneficiaries‟ stated desires and hold an evidentiary trial to resolve allegations that were asserted by a party with no interest in the estate. That is the very outcome that Section 48 was designed to prevent."
Meaning : Katherine and MJ's kids that the change to see Joe's allegations about the executors/will but they didn't agree with them and raise any issues. On the contrary they approved the executors. So Joe's request goes (not only against Michael's wishes but also) against the wishes of the beneficiaries of Michael's estate.
In short
- Nobody contested the will.
- Time to contest the will has long passed.
- Katherine and MJ's kids has no issues with the executors. They have no claims against the executors.
- Joe has no priority of appointment. At most he could have been getting an allowance from the estate if he could establish that he was a dependent parent.
- Oxman isn't a good lawyer - read the documents to see this.
