Bridging the gap between principle and common sense can be tough for parties involved in litigation.
World renowned pop artist, Michael Jackson, died over one year ago on June 25, 2009. As with most estate disputes, they tend to be costly both emotionally and financially, and this tends to be the focus of everyone watching, despite all the good deeds that one may have accomplished during his or her lifetime.
Over the past year, we have heard of issues surrounding the Guardianship of Michael’s children, his mother Katherine Jackson’s fight to be appointed as the executor for Michael’s estate, and illegitimate children coming out of the woodwork claiming to be dependants of Michael.
Most recently, in an entertainment column published by TVNZ, Michael’s father, Joe Jackson, has decided to appeal a court decision indicating that he had no right to object to the executors of his son’s will.
Joe Jackson initially accused the executors of Michael’s estate, John Branca and John McClain, of fraud and embezzlement. As Joe Jackson was not a beneficiary of Michael’s estate, the court held that he was unable to object to the executors of his son’s will.
Joe Jackson’s lawyers now argue that Joe was financially dependent on Michael and should therefore have a right to object to the appointment of the executors who control the financial decisions of Michael’s estate. These claims of dependency are being refuted by the lawyer for Michael’s children.
As I indicated above, bridging the gap between principle and common sense can be tough for parties involved in litigation. Is this the legacy that Michael Jackson would have wanted to leave when he died?
Thank you for reading,
Rick Bickhram – Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.
Listen to Talking About Wealth and Personal Finance.
This week on Hull on Estates Suzanna and Ian review the pullout in March 18th’s New York Times and talk about the importance of dialog before and after death.