(AP Photo)
In a show of disrespect to his son's final wishes and grandchildren's beneficial status, Joe Jackson is reported to be seeking "some manner" of support from the Michael Jackson estate. Here's a practical translation: Joe Jackson is asking the court to disregard the final wishes of his son, Michael, as communicated in recognized legal documents and he also is asking for the court to diminish the inheritance rights of the named beneficiaries - his wife and more importantly, three grandchildren - in lieu of the elder Jackson's own self-enrichment.
Michael Jackson’s father is seeking an allowance from his son’s estate to help cover expenses that exceed $15,000 a month, according to court documents filed Friday. The request seeking an unspecified amount for Joe Jackson was filed by lawyer Brian Oxman, who said there was no apparent reason for the administrators of the estate to not seek an allowance for the Jackson family patriarch.
Michael Jackson’s 2002 will, however, omitted any mention of his father. The two had an often-strained relationship, and Michael Jackson said at one point that he would get physically sick — as a child and as an adult — at the sight of his father.
The singer’s private trust calls for money to be paid to his mother, Katherine, his three young children, and various charities.
No apparent reason for the administrators to not seek an allowance for Joe Jackson? How about the fact that Michael Jackson declined naming him as a beneficiary? Either what is written in these estate planning documents means something or it doesn't. Evidently per Oxman, it doesn't. We'll see if a Los Angeles Superior Court judge agrees.
And if using the "no apparent reason not to" argument, why not kick out some dough for Jackie, Tito, Jermaine and Marlon? But wait, there's more. With this rationale, why exclude Rebbie, La Toya, Randy and Janet? To her credit, Janet seems to have actually made something of herself, but past that, who knows how many of these other people were living out of Michael Jackson's pocket. So by attorney Oxman's standards, should not all family members who previously mooched off the pop star now file their allowance documents?
In his estate plan, Michael Jackson specifically provided for his mother. That was his stated wish and so it should be. Unnamed charities are also said to be beneficiaries. By virtue of age and relationship, it appears Jackson intended for his children to be the main beneficiaries of his estate, something that decent people would understand and honor. It is deplorable for Joe Jackson to now seek diminishing his minor grandchildren's means of support due to his personal life choice of dependency rather than self-sufficiency. While he may justify this claim with a "there's plenty of money" mentality, the point should be that the money being sought belonged to Michael Jackson and was clearly not intended for him. Additionally, Joe Jackson has had a lifetime of opportunity to use his sons' fame for the creation of his own wealth. The tab for not having done so should not be paid by his functionally-orphaned grandchildren.
The AP further reports:
The filing claims Joe Jackson, who suffers from diabetes, was supported by Michael Jackson before his sudden death through payments made to the singer’s mother and Joe Jackson’s wife, Katherine Jackson, which were passed on to Joe Jackson.
Joe Jackson says his expenses exceed $20,000 per month, but his income from U.S. Social Security is a mere $1,700.
“Mr. Jackson’s circumstances require a family allowance because he is 81 years old and Michael Jackson supported him in the same manner as his wife, Katherine Jackson, who was Michael’s mother and who the court granted a family allowance on October 2,” says the petition.
If Katherine Jackson elects to share her monthly allowance with husband (they reportedly maintain separate residences - Katherine in California, Joe in Nevada), that's her choice. To ask the court to defy Michael Jackson's wishes is completely inappropriate.
Do final wishes written in a will really count? Sadly, the answer increasingly is no. The state of New York has disregarded Leona Helmsley's wishes by adding previously excluded heirs to her estate distribution plan and, to date, by witholding estate assets from her desired goal of helping dogs. Read through the articles and columns at EstateofDenial.com to see more examples of similar cases.
An expedited hearing request on Joe Jackson's filing has been denied. An early 2010 hearing is scheduled and Katherine Jackson's allowance status may be reviewed.
If the court approves Joe Jackson's dopey "why not?" request to undermine his son's final wishes, Californians will hopefully realize that despite legal industry talking points, their desired final distribution of assets is also completely subject to being changed or ignored. And folks in the other 49 states, don't get comfortable. It's no better where you are as we're all living in the Land of the Gimme-Gimmes and the Home of the I-Want-Mores. Study enough of these estate cases and this conclusion becomes self-evident.
Looting an estate is a tawdry, ugly business no matter how you try to pass it off and Joe Jackson is not alone in his pursuit. Americans from all points on the economic spectrum are slowly starting to learn that death, disability or incapacitation puts one's assets in an up-for-grabs mode with inheritance rights of designated heirs/beneficiaries being tenuous at best.
If you are interested in new posts from this site, please "Subscribe by E-mail" on my home page.
Comments
If Michael was supporting Joe and I believe he was ,he should have been provided an allowance. When Katherine submitted her bills the judge noted that it seemed like there were duplications. That was probably the money that Joe would have gotten. With Branca being MJ's lawyer for some time he knew this arrangement and I'm sure McClain did too. This man is 80 years old, he can't work.
I believe Michael supported him because that is typical of Black culture, at least through the the 1960's. We take care of our parents. I am sure Michael left the money to Katherine because he knew she would carry out the arrangement. Unfortunately the executors have Katherine on a short lease which is absurd.
Many blacks leave all their money to mama, no matter how close they were to dad because in the long ru mama will take care of business. Families from that era (1929/1930) were usually matriarchal in nature where the wife was responsible for family finances. Look it up, folks.
While Apriate's comments may be true, I don't believe that was Michael's intentions when he created the will. If a will doesn't stand, what good is it? If Joe is in that sorry of shape he should move back to California. Instead he's running around the country basking in the spotlight.
To me, it's absurd of Joe to be making such a claim and I absolutely agree with everything written in this article. I say to the family and court, let one of the other "many" children step up and start caring for him. Why should Michael continue to carry the heavy burden for supporting his family even in death? Why was it his responsibility alone anyway? The children are all (except for Janet and Rebe) gaining off of Michael's death. I don't care how much money the estate makes, the money is coming from people who love and respect Michael and his children...not his father. If this goes through, I will have lost all faith in our justice system. RIP Michael. We love you more.
Well said. Good article. Thank God, I only have one son. Even though, he is our only child, he is going to complete his degree and pursue an engineering career. Yes, I will leave him everything because he is our only kid. Joe should ask other offsprings to support him. They should know their father is in his 80's with diabetes. In the film, This Is It, after MJ sang the Jackson 5 medley, he thanked his family, mentioned his brothers names & said "I Love You", mentioned his parents' names & said "God Blessed You", so if the court allows it & the estates could afford it, so be it. Simply because he's elderly & with diabetes. I think MJ would have wanted his father to be looked after at old age. Out of the goodness of MJ's heart, someone should help the father. What about Janet, and who else, I don't know. Oh, boy, what a mess. Everybody seems to want a piece of the pie.
Yeah, Sarah and Apriate. You guys made some points. Well, lets see what the court says. It is our chinese culture too to look after the old. I'm married to a Canadian & I dont think my husband agrees with some of our culture. Certainly, our son, is not expected to look after us at old age.
when are we going to have mature journalist in this country. How can you say that about joe. For me he is more famous than his sons. He is the one who created the jacksons. He is the one who saw holywood as a blackman in poverty. How many parent do that to their children. Michael has always loved his father.
We also featured this on our site www.michaeljacksonchitchat.com. We think it is disgraceful. MJ was very specific re: his wishes and in death does not have to support anyone that was not named. I agree completely with the above article. Hopefully the judge who so far seems to have common sense will not allow this. Even if the estate made millions, there are hundreds of millions still in the hole and this money is for the children ultimately providing for his mother while she is alive and charity.
love aside, if Michael took it upon himself not to finance his abusive, self-indulgent father, then so be it. respect MJ's final wishes. and culture aside, Joe could fend for himself (obviously), and is doing business behind the scenes on the back of his deceased son (don't forget Joe's BET award show business plug right after MJ's death). the man's a sociopath, in my opinion. and to attempt to leave those grandchildren exposed is disgraceful...yet nothing out of character for Joe. $3,000/mo just for hotel stays is not about a son taking care of dad, it's about Joe taking of Joe.
i agree with what Sara posted.
let's not forget that Joe did make millions on his creation of J5. where did it all go? and why did he not make provisions for retirement? lifestyle preference perhaps? or did it go toward child support for his children outside of his marriage to Katherine (why would MJ want to support Joe's actions)? Michael's will stipulates that if Katherine passes, then her share goes to the children. obviously, MJ put some thought into his will. MJ could not prevent his mother from enabling Joe. but MJ could prevent Joe from taking from MJ's own 3 children.
I think Joe should get some money. If not for him, there would have never been "Michael Jackson". Sure, Joe was abusive, but MJ said he forgave him. Joe is not even asking for that much and he's old anyway.
"I think Joe should get some money. If not for him, there would have never been "Michael Jackson".'
And, without Michael, there would be no Joe - at least not the swinging, high-living, womanizing Vegas Joe that we all know and despise. He likely would have withered away from working long years in the steel mills and going jobless and poverty-stricken after the steel mills eventually closed.
"Sure, Joe was abusive, but MJ said he forgave him."
LOL: I think the operative word here is Michael "said" he forgave Joe. But, even he truly DID forgive him, he clearly had no intention of providing for Joe in his will.
Whatever Michael owed Joe, he paid back 100 times over while he was still alive.
does this surprise you? What an opportunist! Makes me sick!
he is his father and the rest his family.. those legally and morally should have right to the fortune. No one else.
Is he serious? He really thinks that the courts will over turn Michael's wishes & signed will so that he will benefit from the estates money?! He really has some nerve & has absolutely NO consideration for anybody except himself! This should come as no surprise, at the B.E.T awards, he selfishly soaked up all the praise & said nothing relevant about his son. He was also laughing it up with others at the show instead of being with Katherine Jackson who was obviously distraught and grief stricken. Another family friend has said that Joe was only interested in how MJ could help him out financially dead or alive.
Joe doesn't care about anybody but himself. Not his son, wife, or grandchildren. He's the definition of the word "dead-beat dad". GO TO WORK & EARN YOUR OWN MONEY!
Well Joe, you're gonna have quite a difficult time attempting to over turn a signed, official, legal will which would look out for the well being of your wife and grandchildren. Wont happen, Michael made sure of it
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!