Taxation & Estate Planning

Michael Jackson's Estate, Part 6 -- Will Contest?

By Joel A. Schoenmeyer

I don't often link to TMZ, mostly because I don't often think that TMZ has anything perceptive to say. But they do on the Katherine Jackson potential contest of Will situation (link here). Just to explain: Michael Jackson's trust evidently has a "no contest" clause, which disinherits anyone who attempts to contest its terms. Katherine Jackson is now asking the Court if an attempt to challenge the appointment of the co-trustees would be viewed as a "contest."

Here's the quote from the article:

Here's what's bugging some family members and the lawyers representing the estate ... the will gives Katherine 40% of Michael's estate, so she can't be upset about that. The will names Katherine guardian for the children .. again, that's what she wants. And the named executors -- John Branca and John McClain -- are Michael's longtime, trusted advisors and friends.

So why would Katherine object to the will or the executors? A lot of people who are in the middle of it all feel Katherine is being manipulated and doesn't really understand the implications of mounting a legal challenge.

A few notes:

1. The article talks about provisions of the Will (the "no contest" clause, the fact that the Will gives Katherine 40% of the estate). But those provisions are actually in the trust. (The Will does, however, name Katherine as guardian.)

2. Judges tend not to like "no contest" clauses. The concern is that such clauses could be used to "fireproof" a Will signed under suspicious circumstances. Because there is a public interest in making sure a Will is in fact valid, Illinois courts typically don't enforce "no contest" clauses.

3. That being said, the sentiments in the TMZ article appear to be correct. There's simply no good reason for Katherine to contest her son's Will or trust. The concern is that she doesn't know what she's doing, or that she some (false) sense of entitlement. This TMZ article focuses on the latter concern, mentioning that Katherine wants a "seat at the table." Barring other information, I don't know of any judge who would agree with her.

Full post as published by Death and Taxes Blog on July 22, 2009 (boomark / email).