Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on Twitter
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
MJ Estate Probate Notes
- Thread starter ivy
- Start date
Ivy, do you know whats this:
02/14/2014 at 08:30 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - PROBATE(RE: WHY NO STATUS REPORT OR PETNFOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION FILED
Is that smiley as the end?
they did not file their 3rd accounting (status report or petition for distribution) on the time (December 6th) court asked them too so the court is asking them to explain why. It's normal. they filed it late - got an extension the last time too.
it's not a smiley, they had a ; at the end of the sentence so it turns to smiley.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
I assume this is about the issue that the estate objected other judge, and we were wondering what reason they could possible have to be against that other judge (I cannot remember which case it was related).
Makes sense that they want to keep all the estate matter in one judge's hand.
PROBATE - OTHER
Petitioner(s): BRANCA, JOHN MCCLAIN, JOHN
Attorney(s): COHEN, JERYLL S., ESQ. WEITZMAN, HOWARD, ESQ.
Continuance Number: Continuance From:
Last Date Changed: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 04:11 PM
Last Note Changed By: MOSBORNE
To clear probate notes "filed documents" must be submitted to Rm 429, within time frames set forth in Rule 4.4 (b) of LASC Rules. You may contact the Probate Attorney or Probate Examiner whose E-Mail address appears at the end of these notes, subject to compliance with all conditions governing the use of Interactive E-Mail. E-mail Rules are available on the Court's web site at www.LASuperiorCourt.org.
This is an ex parte application presented on 3/3/14 and set for this hearing date
SUMMARY:
Petnrs (2) are co-extrs
Ntc given for ex parte hrg only
MATTERS TO CLEAR: N/A
FACTS: Petnrs seek an order assigning all Probate Proceedings Relating to the Estate of
Michael Joseph Jackson, (BP117321) to Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff for all purposes pursuant to the California Rule of Court 10.603(a).
Petnrs' request includes without limitation, all individual contested matters and all civil actions previously ordered related and transferred to and currently pending in the Probate Proceedings. In the alternative, the Executors request an order assigning to Department 51, Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff presiding, for all purposes, one or more, or all, of the individual contested matters currently pending in the above captioned Probate Proceedings, including without limitation, all civil actions previously ordered related and transferred to the Probate Proceedings.
Each of the individual contested matters is identified on Exhibit "A". Also listed on Exhibit A are the interested parties, counsel for each party, including contact information, status of the matter and future hearings.
Petnr alleges the interests of judicial economy, efficient use of judicial resources, as well as the efficient administration of the Estate would be served by an order assigning the Probate Proceedings to the Honorable Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, who has presided over these proceedings in their entirety since they began.
******************************************
objs filed 3/3/14
objr is Qadree El-Amin
objr's counsel is Jeffrey L. Fazio (Fazio, Micheletti LLP)
SUMMARY:
Objr is a plaintiff in a related civil action
Supplemental decls in support of opposition filed 3/7/14
ARGUMENT: Respondent alleges that he and three other individuals (Broderick Morris, Raymone Bane and Adean King) are the plaintiffs in a related civil action that is pending in Dept 34 (Morris v. Branca, No. BC508258).
Respondent objects to this application on the grounds that: a) the Estate has failed to make the affirmative factual showing required for ex parte relief, and b) there is no factual basis for the relief the Estate seeks as it pertains to the petition the Executors have filed pursuant to Probate Code section 850 (the"Section 850 Petition") for a declaration that the Estate is the sole owner of The Michael Jackson Company, LLC.
The only issue presented by the Section 850 Petition is whether, as the Executors contend, the Jackson Estate is the sole owner of TMJC. The resolution of that question will depend on the evidence and the law that applies to it, not on the institutional knowledge of the Jackson Estate or any special expertise gained by involvement in other matters involving the Jackson Estate.
Objr alleges the Court would not have transferred Judge Beckloff to Department 51 if it was as imperative for him to continue presiding over the Jackson Estate as petnrs now claim it is.
MATTERS TO CLEAR: N/A
******************************************
RELIEF:
1. JTD issuing an order assigning to Department 51, Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff presiding, for all purposes, the above captioned probate proceedings relating to the Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson (the "Probate Proceedings"), including without limitation, all individual contested matters and all civil actions previously ordered related and transferred to, and currently pending in, the Probate Proceedings; or, in the alternative JTD 2
2. JTD issuing an order assigning to Department 51, Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff presiding, for all purposes, one or more, or all, of the individual contested matters currently pending in the above captioned Probate Proceedings, including without limitation, all civil actions previously ordered related and transferred to the Probate Proceedings
3. JTD objections
Makes sense that they want to keep all the estate matter in one judge's hand.
PROBATE - OTHER
Petitioner(s): BRANCA, JOHN MCCLAIN, JOHN
Attorney(s): COHEN, JERYLL S., ESQ. WEITZMAN, HOWARD, ESQ.
Continuance Number: Continuance From:
Last Date Changed: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 04:11 PM
Last Note Changed By: MOSBORNE
To clear probate notes "filed documents" must be submitted to Rm 429, within time frames set forth in Rule 4.4 (b) of LASC Rules. You may contact the Probate Attorney or Probate Examiner whose E-Mail address appears at the end of these notes, subject to compliance with all conditions governing the use of Interactive E-Mail. E-mail Rules are available on the Court's web site at www.LASuperiorCourt.org.
This is an ex parte application presented on 3/3/14 and set for this hearing date
SUMMARY:
Petnrs (2) are co-extrs
Ntc given for ex parte hrg only
MATTERS TO CLEAR: N/A
FACTS: Petnrs seek an order assigning all Probate Proceedings Relating to the Estate of
Michael Joseph Jackson, (BP117321) to Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff for all purposes pursuant to the California Rule of Court 10.603(a).
Petnrs' request includes without limitation, all individual contested matters and all civil actions previously ordered related and transferred to and currently pending in the Probate Proceedings. In the alternative, the Executors request an order assigning to Department 51, Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff presiding, for all purposes, one or more, or all, of the individual contested matters currently pending in the above captioned Probate Proceedings, including without limitation, all civil actions previously ordered related and transferred to the Probate Proceedings.
Each of the individual contested matters is identified on Exhibit "A". Also listed on Exhibit A are the interested parties, counsel for each party, including contact information, status of the matter and future hearings.
Petnr alleges the interests of judicial economy, efficient use of judicial resources, as well as the efficient administration of the Estate would be served by an order assigning the Probate Proceedings to the Honorable Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, who has presided over these proceedings in their entirety since they began.
******************************************
objs filed 3/3/14
objr is Qadree El-Amin
objr's counsel is Jeffrey L. Fazio (Fazio, Micheletti LLP)
SUMMARY:
Objr is a plaintiff in a related civil action
Supplemental decls in support of opposition filed 3/7/14
ARGUMENT: Respondent alleges that he and three other individuals (Broderick Morris, Raymone Bane and Adean King) are the plaintiffs in a related civil action that is pending in Dept 34 (Morris v. Branca, No. BC508258).
Respondent objects to this application on the grounds that: a) the Estate has failed to make the affirmative factual showing required for ex parte relief, and b) there is no factual basis for the relief the Estate seeks as it pertains to the petition the Executors have filed pursuant to Probate Code section 850 (the"Section 850 Petition") for a declaration that the Estate is the sole owner of The Michael Jackson Company, LLC.
The only issue presented by the Section 850 Petition is whether, as the Executors contend, the Jackson Estate is the sole owner of TMJC. The resolution of that question will depend on the evidence and the law that applies to it, not on the institutional knowledge of the Jackson Estate or any special expertise gained by involvement in other matters involving the Jackson Estate.
Objr alleges the Court would not have transferred Judge Beckloff to Department 51 if it was as imperative for him to continue presiding over the Jackson Estate as petnrs now claim it is.
MATTERS TO CLEAR: N/A
******************************************
RELIEF:
1. JTD issuing an order assigning to Department 51, Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff presiding, for all purposes, the above captioned probate proceedings relating to the Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson (the "Probate Proceedings"), including without limitation, all individual contested matters and all civil actions previously ordered related and transferred to, and currently pending in, the Probate Proceedings; or, in the alternative JTD 2
2. JTD issuing an order assigning to Department 51, Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff presiding, for all purposes, one or more, or all, of the individual contested matters currently pending in the above captioned Probate Proceedings, including without limitation, all civil actions previously ordered related and transferred to the Probate Proceedings
3. JTD objections
qbee
Proud Member
That case they requested a different Judge in was the Quincy Jones case and I believe Ivy stated: The request for new judge was denied and that case will be heard in the civil courts in 2015 not the probate court.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Ivy, do you have any info regarding this:
07/08/2014 at 08:30 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
APPROVAL - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Before anyone freaks out, I'm certain it is related to one of the older cases.
07/08/2014 at 08:30 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
APPROVAL - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Before anyone freaks out, I'm certain it is related to one of the older cases.
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
Probably, because if it was about the allegations then Wade's side would not still do their media rounds to trash MJ and try to recruit more "victims".
indeed. No way would they take the settlement without running to the media.
no I don't but I'll agree with you. Given that Safechuck had added himself to Wade's claim I'll assume that's ongoing. There are several lawsuits / claims ongoing for a long time such as Demann or Tohme. I would think it's probably one of them. Probate notes in July should tell us who that settlement is with.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
I bet nobody saw this one coming
ALLOWANCE OF FEES
Petitioner(s): Jackson, Katherine Esther
Attorney(s):
Continuance Number: Continuance From:
Last Date Changed: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 03:43 PM
petn filed 7/9/14
SUMMARY:
petnr is co-guardian
ntc ok
spcl ntc/copy (AG) ok
FACTS: Petnr is co-guardian, seeking the court to instruct the Executors to pay atty fees incurred by petnr individually and as guardian. Petnr and the minor children are bens of this estate.
On 9/15/10, petnr, individually and on behalf of the decd's 3 minor children, filed a wrongful death suit agst AEG Live (BC 445597). A verdict was entered in favor of AEG Live. On 1/22/14, petnr filed an appeal, retaining the firm of Reed Smith LLP to handle 2 consolidated appeals (B252411 and B251972)
In April 2014, petnr and the minors were ordered to pay costs of 854,820.16 to AEG Live. On 5/27/14, Reed Smith filed Appellants' Opening Brief, Appendix, and the Certified Reporters' Transcripts. Reed Smith agreed to forego its typical hourly rate and agreed to a fee cap of 200,000 for the work on Appeal, plus a 100,000 success bonus if a reversal of the judgment was attained. There is an additional amt of 9,500 for costs. Petnr will provide a copy of the retainer agreement for in camera review. Atty rates are 340/hr - 830/hr.
Pursuant to PC 2642(b) & (c), petnr requests that the court instruct the Executors to pay Reed Smith a maximum of 300,000 from the Estate, for legal services relating to the Appeal on behalf of petnr and the minor children, plus costs 9,500.
Per decl of appellate atty, issues raised on appeal are numerous and complex, as the appeal challenges the trial cout's summary adjudication rulings and certain rulings during trial. Atty has reviewed trial court file, inc 17,700 page reporter's transcript, extensive legal research, prep and filing of opening brief and 16 volume appendix. A Reply brief will be due 50 days after the Respondent's Brief is filed.
MATTERS TO CLEAR:
A. Petnr alleg she is proceeding under PC 2642(b) & (c). There is no PC 2642(c). Moreover, this section permits ATTORNEYS to bring a petition fixing fees. Appears any such petition fixing fees related to the guardianship should be brought in the guardianship hearing. And petnr, as an indvidual adult, can incur fees without any court order fixing them. How is PC 2642(c) applicable to this petn, brought in this decd's estate proceeding by the guardian, and by an estate bene in her individual capacity? supp reqd.
B. Under what authority is this estate liable for the atty fees of petnr, individually, and as guardian of the minors? Is petnr actually seeking a preliminary dist to beneficiaries pay atty fees? If so, in what proportion should this amount be charged to the share of each beneficiary? are all equal benes? supp reqd.
C. If this is really a petn for prelim dist, appears a separate petn must be brought in the gship estate to determine if this is an appropriate expenditure of guardianship funds (as to the share attributable to the minor benes only). supp reqd.
D. When is this payment to be made, since the 100,000 is due only upon successful appellate outcome? Is the other 200,000 to be paid up front, or as incurred? Who is responsibility is it to review the bills for accuracy - petnr or extrs? supp reqd.
E. No copy of retainer agreement - petnr alleg it will be provided for in camera review. o/w, if court will not allow in camera review, to be filed w/ supp.
F. Who are the tees of the irrev life insurance tr? ntc? o/w, what authority to request relief as to Irrev Life Ins tr in this estate proceeding? supp reqd.
RELIEF:
1. JTD instruct and order the executors of the Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson OR the trustees of the Irrev Life Insurance Trust, to pay counsel for the benes, Reed Smith LLP's attorney fees and costs not to exceed the sum of 300,000, for legal services rendered w/ respect to the Appeal, as well as related costs NTE 9,500 - COMMENT: No authority to direct tees of Irrev Life Ins Tr in this decd's estate proceeding. If any order is made, it can be as to the executors only
P/A COMMENT: see notes. What authority for this estate to pay the attorney fees incurred on behalf of the beneficiaries individually? The code section cited in petn (PC 2642(b)& (c) does not appear to be applicable in this proceeding. If this is a really a petn for prelim dist, then it appears the court in the guardianship proceeding must determine if this is a proper expenditure of funds due to the guardianship. O/w, if this is really some sort of petition for instructions that petnr has authority for, then court may consider in camera review of retainer agreement. o/w, copy of retainer agreement to be filed w/ supp.
RELATED ITEMS: 1002-1005
Order to be Prepared By Clerk: Attorney:
--------------------------------
BP117321 1002 JACKSON, MICHAEL JOSEPH - DECEDENT
Letters of Administr
FAMILY ALLOWANCE
Petitioner(s): Branca, John McClain, John
Attorney(s): Hoffman, Paul Gordon, Esq.
Continuance Number: Continuance From:
Last Date Changed: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 03:44 PM
PETN FILED 7/09/14 (RECADTED--FILED CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL SUBJECT TO MOTION TO SEAL FILED SEPARATELY ON 7/09/14)
PRIOR ORDERS:
SUMMARY:
Petnrs are pers reps
Spec ltrs 7/14/09; gen ltrs 11/12/09 (limited IAEA)
D/D 6/25/09
Ntc/copy guardians of person, GAL ok
Ntc/copy Katherine Jackson's atty ok
Ntc/copy spec ntc, including AG ok
Dec of Sandra L. Ribera (atty for Katherine Jackson) filed 7/09/14 (redacted)
FACTS: Decd was survived by his three minor children (Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson, and Prince Michael Jackson II). Decd's mother, Katherine Esther Jackson ("Mrs. Jackson"), is the Guardian of the Person of the Minor Children. Margaret G. Lodise is the GAL for the Minor Children. The sole bene of decd's estate is his inter vivos trust. Petnrs are the Co-Trustees of the Trust. The tr benes are the Minor Children, Mrs. Jackson and unnamed charities.
Petnrs allege decd provided sole financial support for the Minor Children & was Mrs. Jackson's primary source of support. Per 8/03/09 order, petnrs were authorized and directed to pay from funds of the estate a family allowance for the benefit of Mrs. Jackson & the Minor Children, retroactive to 6/25/09 (d/d). Since that time, petnrs have adjusted the allowance per their IAEA & per Crt's orders. Petnrs allege Mrs. Jackson seeks an increase. GAL has requested petnrs seek an order re the increase. The requested amt includes estimated amounts allowed for income taxes, the Minor Children's travel and tuition, which amounts are not paid out monthly, but rather, are held by the petnrs and expended from time to time as needed.
In addition to the family allowance, petnrs provide and will continue to provide other funds for the support of the Minor Children and Mrs. Jackson, as follows: expenses, including pay off of the mortgage, substantial repairs and improvements, associated w/Havenhurst r/p in Encino, where Mrs. Jackson resided for more than thirty years; expenses associated w/"Alternative Residence," where Mrs. Jackson & the Minor Children resided during renovation of the Havenhurst r/p & where they continue to reside; medical treatment not covered by the family allowance.
Per atty Ribera's dec, the Minor Children are seeking an allowance increase of 24% from the current allowance; and Mrs. Jackson is seeking an increase of 23%; current allowance went into effect on 01/01/12. Breakdown attached to dec. Dec addresses areas of Mrs. Jackson's proposed increase in which the GAL expressed concern. Categories of children's allowance include: salaries and payroll benefits (nannies; chef; bodyguards; payroll taxes; worker's comp ins; med ins); basis needs (food, clothing, personal grooming, personal supplies); med exp (health ins; doctors/dentists/vision); school tuition/activities (annual donations, uniforms, books, computers, supplies, field trip, extracurricular activities, acting, guitar, karate, stop motion, tutoring); entertainment, travel & other expenses (entertainment, travel, toys/ games/ holidays/ parties/ electronics; pet care; gas & maint of security vehicles; hobbies; upgrades to Prince's car/maint, furniture); taxes (income tax; professional svc, CPA, bookkeeper). Categories of Mrs. Jackson's allowance: salaries and payroll benefits (salary, driver; handyman & full-time housekeeper; parttime housekeeper; payroll taxes; worker's comp ins); med benefits (ins); contract workers; basis needs (food, clothing, personal grooming, personal supplies; health ins; doctors, dentist, vision); entertainment, travel & other (gas, maint of vehicle & RV, parking, storage facility); taxes & professional svc (inc tax; CPA, bookkeeper, atty); household maint (maint & taxes for Indiana, Las Vegas & Calabasas); add'l items not previously reflected (family gatherings, parties, personal prop ins, vehicle reg & ins).
[Review of imaged filed: 8/03/09 order provided for allowance NTE six months w/stat hrg set for 1/11/10; 1/11/10 M.O. provided cousel to give ntc of proposed action re adjustment to family allowance and, if no objection, petnrs may proceed w/their authority to adjust the allowance. Thereafter, stat hrg cont'd to 9/22/10 & 10/7/10, when it was taken off calendar.]
MATTERS TO CLEAR: none
RELIEF:
1. JD allow and authorize the petnrs to pay a family allowance for the benefit of the Minor Children and for the benefit of Mrs. Jackson as set forth in the Petition.
PA COMMENTS: See Motion to Seal at calendar #1003
RELATED ITEMS: 1001-1005
Order to be Prepared By Clerk: Attorney:
------------------------------------------------------
BP117321 1003 JACKSON, MICHAEL JOSEPH - DECEDENT
Letters of Administr
MOTION - SEAL COURT RECORDS
Petitioner(s): Jackson, Katherine Esther
Attorney(s):
Continuance Number: Continuance From:
Last Date Changed: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 03:44 PM
To clear probate notes "filed documents" must be submitted to Rm 429, within time frames set forth in Rule 4.4 (b) of LASC Rules. You may contact the Probate Attorney or Probate Examiner whose E-Mail address appears at the end of these notes, subject to compliance with all conditions governing the use of Interactive E-Mail. E-mail Rules are available on the Court's web site at www.LASuperiorCourt.org.
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION:
RELATED ITEMS: 1001-1005
ALLOWANCE OF FEES
Petitioner(s): Jackson, Katherine Esther
Attorney(s):
Continuance Number: Continuance From:
Last Date Changed: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 03:43 PM
petn filed 7/9/14
SUMMARY:
petnr is co-guardian
ntc ok
spcl ntc/copy (AG) ok
FACTS: Petnr is co-guardian, seeking the court to instruct the Executors to pay atty fees incurred by petnr individually and as guardian. Petnr and the minor children are bens of this estate.
On 9/15/10, petnr, individually and on behalf of the decd's 3 minor children, filed a wrongful death suit agst AEG Live (BC 445597). A verdict was entered in favor of AEG Live. On 1/22/14, petnr filed an appeal, retaining the firm of Reed Smith LLP to handle 2 consolidated appeals (B252411 and B251972)
In April 2014, petnr and the minors were ordered to pay costs of 854,820.16 to AEG Live. On 5/27/14, Reed Smith filed Appellants' Opening Brief, Appendix, and the Certified Reporters' Transcripts. Reed Smith agreed to forego its typical hourly rate and agreed to a fee cap of 200,000 for the work on Appeal, plus a 100,000 success bonus if a reversal of the judgment was attained. There is an additional amt of 9,500 for costs. Petnr will provide a copy of the retainer agreement for in camera review. Atty rates are 340/hr - 830/hr.
Pursuant to PC 2642(b) & (c), petnr requests that the court instruct the Executors to pay Reed Smith a maximum of 300,000 from the Estate, for legal services relating to the Appeal on behalf of petnr and the minor children, plus costs 9,500.
Per decl of appellate atty, issues raised on appeal are numerous and complex, as the appeal challenges the trial cout's summary adjudication rulings and certain rulings during trial. Atty has reviewed trial court file, inc 17,700 page reporter's transcript, extensive legal research, prep and filing of opening brief and 16 volume appendix. A Reply brief will be due 50 days after the Respondent's Brief is filed.
MATTERS TO CLEAR:
A. Petnr alleg she is proceeding under PC 2642(b) & (c). There is no PC 2642(c). Moreover, this section permits ATTORNEYS to bring a petition fixing fees. Appears any such petition fixing fees related to the guardianship should be brought in the guardianship hearing. And petnr, as an indvidual adult, can incur fees without any court order fixing them. How is PC 2642(c) applicable to this petn, brought in this decd's estate proceeding by the guardian, and by an estate bene in her individual capacity? supp reqd.
B. Under what authority is this estate liable for the atty fees of petnr, individually, and as guardian of the minors? Is petnr actually seeking a preliminary dist to beneficiaries pay atty fees? If so, in what proportion should this amount be charged to the share of each beneficiary? are all equal benes? supp reqd.
C. If this is really a petn for prelim dist, appears a separate petn must be brought in the gship estate to determine if this is an appropriate expenditure of guardianship funds (as to the share attributable to the minor benes only). supp reqd.
D. When is this payment to be made, since the 100,000 is due only upon successful appellate outcome? Is the other 200,000 to be paid up front, or as incurred? Who is responsibility is it to review the bills for accuracy - petnr or extrs? supp reqd.
E. No copy of retainer agreement - petnr alleg it will be provided for in camera review. o/w, if court will not allow in camera review, to be filed w/ supp.
F. Who are the tees of the irrev life insurance tr? ntc? o/w, what authority to request relief as to Irrev Life Ins tr in this estate proceeding? supp reqd.
RELIEF:
1. JTD instruct and order the executors of the Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson OR the trustees of the Irrev Life Insurance Trust, to pay counsel for the benes, Reed Smith LLP's attorney fees and costs not to exceed the sum of 300,000, for legal services rendered w/ respect to the Appeal, as well as related costs NTE 9,500 - COMMENT: No authority to direct tees of Irrev Life Ins Tr in this decd's estate proceeding. If any order is made, it can be as to the executors only
P/A COMMENT: see notes. What authority for this estate to pay the attorney fees incurred on behalf of the beneficiaries individually? The code section cited in petn (PC 2642(b)& (c) does not appear to be applicable in this proceeding. If this is a really a petn for prelim dist, then it appears the court in the guardianship proceeding must determine if this is a proper expenditure of funds due to the guardianship. O/w, if this is really some sort of petition for instructions that petnr has authority for, then court may consider in camera review of retainer agreement. o/w, copy of retainer agreement to be filed w/ supp.
RELATED ITEMS: 1002-1005
Order to be Prepared By Clerk: Attorney:
--------------------------------
BP117321 1002 JACKSON, MICHAEL JOSEPH - DECEDENT
Letters of Administr
FAMILY ALLOWANCE
Petitioner(s): Branca, John McClain, John
Attorney(s): Hoffman, Paul Gordon, Esq.
Continuance Number: Continuance From:
Last Date Changed: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 03:44 PM
PETN FILED 7/09/14 (RECADTED--FILED CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL SUBJECT TO MOTION TO SEAL FILED SEPARATELY ON 7/09/14)
PRIOR ORDERS:
SUMMARY:
Petnrs are pers reps
Spec ltrs 7/14/09; gen ltrs 11/12/09 (limited IAEA)
D/D 6/25/09
Ntc/copy guardians of person, GAL ok
Ntc/copy Katherine Jackson's atty ok
Ntc/copy spec ntc, including AG ok
Dec of Sandra L. Ribera (atty for Katherine Jackson) filed 7/09/14 (redacted)
FACTS: Decd was survived by his three minor children (Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson, and Prince Michael Jackson II). Decd's mother, Katherine Esther Jackson ("Mrs. Jackson"), is the Guardian of the Person of the Minor Children. Margaret G. Lodise is the GAL for the Minor Children. The sole bene of decd's estate is his inter vivos trust. Petnrs are the Co-Trustees of the Trust. The tr benes are the Minor Children, Mrs. Jackson and unnamed charities.
Petnrs allege decd provided sole financial support for the Minor Children & was Mrs. Jackson's primary source of support. Per 8/03/09 order, petnrs were authorized and directed to pay from funds of the estate a family allowance for the benefit of Mrs. Jackson & the Minor Children, retroactive to 6/25/09 (d/d). Since that time, petnrs have adjusted the allowance per their IAEA & per Crt's orders. Petnrs allege Mrs. Jackson seeks an increase. GAL has requested petnrs seek an order re the increase. The requested amt includes estimated amounts allowed for income taxes, the Minor Children's travel and tuition, which amounts are not paid out monthly, but rather, are held by the petnrs and expended from time to time as needed.
In addition to the family allowance, petnrs provide and will continue to provide other funds for the support of the Minor Children and Mrs. Jackson, as follows: expenses, including pay off of the mortgage, substantial repairs and improvements, associated w/Havenhurst r/p in Encino, where Mrs. Jackson resided for more than thirty years; expenses associated w/"Alternative Residence," where Mrs. Jackson & the Minor Children resided during renovation of the Havenhurst r/p & where they continue to reside; medical treatment not covered by the family allowance.
Per atty Ribera's dec, the Minor Children are seeking an allowance increase of 24% from the current allowance; and Mrs. Jackson is seeking an increase of 23%; current allowance went into effect on 01/01/12. Breakdown attached to dec. Dec addresses areas of Mrs. Jackson's proposed increase in which the GAL expressed concern. Categories of children's allowance include: salaries and payroll benefits (nannies; chef; bodyguards; payroll taxes; worker's comp ins; med ins); basis needs (food, clothing, personal grooming, personal supplies); med exp (health ins; doctors/dentists/vision); school tuition/activities (annual donations, uniforms, books, computers, supplies, field trip, extracurricular activities, acting, guitar, karate, stop motion, tutoring); entertainment, travel & other expenses (entertainment, travel, toys/ games/ holidays/ parties/ electronics; pet care; gas & maint of security vehicles; hobbies; upgrades to Prince's car/maint, furniture); taxes (income tax; professional svc, CPA, bookkeeper). Categories of Mrs. Jackson's allowance: salaries and payroll benefits (salary, driver; handyman & full-time housekeeper; parttime housekeeper; payroll taxes; worker's comp ins); med benefits (ins); contract workers; basis needs (food, clothing, personal grooming, personal supplies; health ins; doctors, dentist, vision); entertainment, travel & other (gas, maint of vehicle & RV, parking, storage facility); taxes & professional svc (inc tax; CPA, bookkeeper, atty); household maint (maint & taxes for Indiana, Las Vegas & Calabasas); add'l items not previously reflected (family gatherings, parties, personal prop ins, vehicle reg & ins).
[Review of imaged filed: 8/03/09 order provided for allowance NTE six months w/stat hrg set for 1/11/10; 1/11/10 M.O. provided cousel to give ntc of proposed action re adjustment to family allowance and, if no objection, petnrs may proceed w/their authority to adjust the allowance. Thereafter, stat hrg cont'd to 9/22/10 & 10/7/10, when it was taken off calendar.]
MATTERS TO CLEAR: none
RELIEF:
1. JD allow and authorize the petnrs to pay a family allowance for the benefit of the Minor Children and for the benefit of Mrs. Jackson as set forth in the Petition.
PA COMMENTS: See Motion to Seal at calendar #1003
RELATED ITEMS: 1001-1005
Order to be Prepared By Clerk: Attorney:
------------------------------------------------------
BP117321 1003 JACKSON, MICHAEL JOSEPH - DECEDENT
Letters of Administr
MOTION - SEAL COURT RECORDS
Petitioner(s): Jackson, Katherine Esther
Attorney(s):
Continuance Number: Continuance From:
Last Date Changed: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 03:44 PM
To clear probate notes "filed documents" must be submitted to Rm 429, within time frames set forth in Rule 4.4 (b) of LASC Rules. You may contact the Probate Attorney or Probate Examiner whose E-Mail address appears at the end of these notes, subject to compliance with all conditions governing the use of Interactive E-Mail. E-mail Rules are available on the Court's web site at www.LASuperiorCourt.org.
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION:
RELATED ITEMS: 1001-1005
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker
Guests
am i reading this correct that the estate is refusing to pay for the AEG case? and surprsie surprise she wants an increase to pay for everyone else
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
"Dec addresses areas of Mrs. Jackson's proposed increase in which the GAL expressed concern"
I'm not sure but I read that both GAL and the estate is asking the court to decide whether they should pay and it this payment going to be part of KJ's 40% of the will.
Maybe Ivy can explain it in plain language?
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
To which house is KJ asking money to pay mortgage?
Havenhurst is paid, and according to 3 accounting there were no signs of Lindley condo so no mortgage to it either, and didn't the estate pay or give money to KJ to pay Gary house?
"substantial repairs and improvements associated w/Havenhurst r/p in Encino"
3rd accounting showed that tons of money went to it already? Has KJ and Joe cooked up some sort of scheme to get extra money out of the estate?
"Renovations for the Encino mansion were $154,323.53 in 2012, including a $12,000 home theater renovation project, $3,225 studio repair and pond keeper services for $814.43.
Even though no one was living at the house in 2012, utilities including phone, gas, and electricity totaled $35,842.05. Storage and moving fees for 2012 added up to a whopping $806,872.52."
"add'l items not previously reflected (family gatherings, parties, personal prop ins, vehicle reg & ins)."
and MJ pays the whole lot. Why and what the hell is family gatherings and why KJ is asking the estate pay for them? Is that one of the schemes that they have cooked up to squeeze money out of the estate, and when KJ gets it she will distribute it to her less well to do cubs and useless husband.
Havenhurst is paid, and according to 3 accounting there were no signs of Lindley condo so no mortgage to it either, and didn't the estate pay or give money to KJ to pay Gary house?
"substantial repairs and improvements associated w/Havenhurst r/p in Encino"
3rd accounting showed that tons of money went to it already? Has KJ and Joe cooked up some sort of scheme to get extra money out of the estate?
"Renovations for the Encino mansion were $154,323.53 in 2012, including a $12,000 home theater renovation project, $3,225 studio repair and pond keeper services for $814.43.
Even though no one was living at the house in 2012, utilities including phone, gas, and electricity totaled $35,842.05. Storage and moving fees for 2012 added up to a whopping $806,872.52."
"add'l items not previously reflected (family gatherings, parties, personal prop ins, vehicle reg & ins)."
and MJ pays the whole lot. Why and what the hell is family gatherings and why KJ is asking the estate pay for them? Is that one of the schemes that they have cooked up to squeeze money out of the estate, and when KJ gets it she will distribute it to her less well to do cubs and useless husband.
Katherine is the one that asked for AEG appeal costs and she filed the petition. "The matters to clear" is added by the court so it seems like court isn't clear on what basis this request is being made.
As for the second one Katherine asked for a 23-24% increase in allowances. Estate was going to give it but they need to give notice to guardian ad litem (Margared Lodise) and Attorney General (who represents charities interest). If those parties gave okay Estate could have increased the allowance themselves with no court order. Apparently Lodise has expressed concerns over the request - no idea what that concern was and told Estate to seek a court order for increase. It means now the court has to look over the request and decide whether it's warranted or not.
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Thanks ivy. did k,going back ask for the attorney fees for the actual yrial as this is just the appeal.
and i wonder if branca and co would hand the noney out to kj so quickly if it was their money and not mjs. so much for following the will. it gets handed out left right and centre. everything should be questioned
do u think we will get details on it when the court rules on the increase interms of why she needs it and why the kids lawyer doesnt approve
and i wonder if branca and co would hand the noney out to kj so quickly if it was their money and not mjs. so much for following the will. it gets handed out left right and centre. everything should be questioned
do u think we will get details on it when the court rules on the increase interms of why she needs it and why the kids lawyer doesnt approve
this is just the appeal. we learned they agreed to take it on for $200,000 and plus $100,000 if they win the appeal.
As for the trial costs although she is ordered to pay trial costs as well those are on hold until the appeal is decided.
well eventually we'll see if the requests get granted or not but as for the details no I don't think so - unless someone makes a in person request or media reports about it plus there's a motion to seal.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Thanks Ivy, hats of the kids GAL for keeping an eye on what is going on.
Ivy, Do you know who is asking these questions (kids Gal Lodise?) and whats that prelim distribution means?
A. Petnr alleg she is proceeding under PC 2642(b) & (c). There is no PC 2642(c). Moreover, this section permits ATTORNEYS to bring a petition fixing fees. Appears any such petition fixing fees related to the guardianship should be brought in the guardianship hearing. And petnr, as an indvidual adult, can incur fees without any court order fixing them. How is PC 2642(c) applicable to this petn, brought in this decd's estate proceeding by the guardian, and by an estate bene in her individual capacity? supp reqd.
B. Under what authority is this estate liable for the atty fees of petnr, individually, and as guardian of the minors? Is petnr actually seeking a preliminary dist to beneficiaries pay atty fees? If so, in what proportion should this amount be charged to the share of each beneficiary? are all equal benes? supp reqd.
C. If this is really a petn for prelim dist, appears a separate petn must be brought in the gship estate to determine if this is an appropriate expenditure of guardianship funds (as to the share attributable to the minor benes only). supp reqd.
D. When is this payment to be made, since the 100,000 is due only upon successful appellate outcome? Is the other 200,000 to be paid up front, or as incurred? Who is responsibility is it to review the bills for accuracy - petnr or extrs? supp reqd.
E. No copy of retainer agreement - petnr alleg it will be provided for in camera review. o/w, if court will not allow in camera review, to be filed w/ supp.
F. Who are the tees of the irrev life insurance tr? ntc? o/w, what authority to request relief as to Irrev Life Ins tr in this estate proceeding? supp reqd.
Ivy, Do you know who is asking these questions (kids Gal Lodise?) and whats that prelim distribution means?
A. Petnr alleg she is proceeding under PC 2642(b) & (c). There is no PC 2642(c). Moreover, this section permits ATTORNEYS to bring a petition fixing fees. Appears any such petition fixing fees related to the guardianship should be brought in the guardianship hearing. And petnr, as an indvidual adult, can incur fees without any court order fixing them. How is PC 2642(c) applicable to this petn, brought in this decd's estate proceeding by the guardian, and by an estate bene in her individual capacity? supp reqd.
B. Under what authority is this estate liable for the atty fees of petnr, individually, and as guardian of the minors? Is petnr actually seeking a preliminary dist to beneficiaries pay atty fees? If so, in what proportion should this amount be charged to the share of each beneficiary? are all equal benes? supp reqd.
C. If this is really a petn for prelim dist, appears a separate petn must be brought in the gship estate to determine if this is an appropriate expenditure of guardianship funds (as to the share attributable to the minor benes only). supp reqd.
D. When is this payment to be made, since the 100,000 is due only upon successful appellate outcome? Is the other 200,000 to be paid up front, or as incurred? Who is responsibility is it to review the bills for accuracy - petnr or extrs? supp reqd.
E. No copy of retainer agreement - petnr alleg it will be provided for in camera review. o/w, if court will not allow in camera review, to be filed w/ supp.
F. Who are the tees of the irrev life insurance tr? ntc? o/w, what authority to request relief as to Irrev Life Ins tr in this estate proceeding? supp reqd.
^^
Those questions are asked by the court. matters to clear are the issues that need to be cleared before the court can make a decision. and as you can see the bolded part shows the court is confused they ask if the Estate is liable for legal costs of the beneficiaries or not. If KJ is simply asking for preliminary distribution and so on. when the payment will be made, how will it be made and so on.
and prelim distribution is giving money before the probate is closed. normally what would happen is the an Estate will handle all the probate issues, close the probate and distribute the money/assets to the beneficiaries (or trusts established for them etc). When the probate is ongoing and there are matters to handle as we all know Estate gives allowances. So preliminary distribution is asking for a (early and partial) distribution when the probate is still going on.
Those questions are asked by the court. matters to clear are the issues that need to be cleared before the court can make a decision. and as you can see the bolded part shows the court is confused they ask if the Estate is liable for legal costs of the beneficiaries or not. If KJ is simply asking for preliminary distribution and so on. when the payment will be made, how will it be made and so on.
and prelim distribution is giving money before the probate is closed. normally what would happen is the an Estate will handle all the probate issues, close the probate and distribute the money/assets to the beneficiaries (or trusts established for them etc). When the probate is ongoing and there are matters to handle as we all know Estate gives allowances. So preliminary distribution is asking for a (early and partial) distribution when the probate is still going on.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
If the court decides that the estate can pay those costs as preliminary distribution, then the estate have to make distribution to the charities too?
General atty was asking the estate start distribution money back in 2011 but didn't get any to the charities, so I think they might have some objections for the estate paying KJ court cases.
and by court you mean judge?
I'm a bit confused with this bit: "court is confused"
Does that mean judge is confused and and to whom he is going to ask if the estate is liable for legal costs?
General atty was asking the estate start distribution money back in 2011 but didn't get any to the charities, so I think they might have some objections for the estate paying KJ court cases.
and by court you mean judge?
I'm a bit confused with this bit: "court is confused"
Does that mean judge is confused and and to whom he is going to ask if the estate is liable for legal costs?
yeah I mean the judge or the clerk or both. whomever is reading these motions when filed. In short all of those are referred as "the court". those the issues / questions need to be answered / resolved before a decision can be made.
he's asking Katherine, see the comments that says "supp reqd." which means supplement required.
so it's basically like this
- Katherine files a petition asking for $200,000 (+ $100,000) for AEG appeal costs
- Court / judge reads the petition.
- then lists the issues need to be cleared before he can make a decision.
- for example he says : Under what authority is this estate liable for the atty fees of petnr, individually, and as guardian of the minors?
- then adds : supplement required
- that means Katherine needs to respond to this question with additional information / case law etc to convince the Estate is liable for her attorney fees for judge to approve the request.
and as this process takes time that's why we see multiple hearings etc. in most times before a decision is made.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Thanks ivy. im glad the court is asking these questions but havnt they approved legal fees etc in the past or lets say for example the estate paying kjs korean bill. where the same questions asked then? call me biased but tge bending of the will interms of what is classed as kjs allowance to me makes a mockery of the will. and ino another reason for adding the kids to the lawsuit so they can argue the estate should pay costs cause the kids are involved
will we know if the estate files an objection to payibg the lawsuit costs?
will we know if the estate files an objection to payibg the lawsuit costs?
as for Korea payment I don't think they asked for permission for that. They just loaned Katherine money which technically means they would get back and then later they gave Katherine a consulting fee and paid back partial loan. So yes they are manipulating the situation as much as they can.
I don't think Estate will file an objection. They haven't really said "no" to Katherine and I don't expect them to start.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Thanks
It got updated, they filed a supplement and now asking it under family allowance
Department LA 51 Court Convened at: 08:30 AM 07/24/2014
Honorable
, Deputy County Clerk , Deputy Sheriff
, Reporter
BP117321 1001 JACKSON, MICHAEL JOSEPH - DECEDENT
Letters of Administr
ALLOWANCE OF FEES
Petitioner(s): Jackson, Katherine Esther
Attorney(s):
Continuance Number: Continuance From:
Last Date Changed: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:46 AM
Last Note Changed By: DHORTON
To clear probate notes "filed documents" must be submitted to Rm 429, within time frames set forth in Rule 4.4 (b) of LASC Rules. You may contact the Probate Attorney or Probate Examiner whose E-Mail address appears at the end of these notes, subject to compliance with all conditions governing the use of Interactive E-Mail. E-mail Rules are available on the Court's web site at www.LASuperiorCourt.org.
petn filed 7/9/14
SUMMARY:
petnr is co-guardian
ntc ok
spcl ntc/copy (AG) ok
supp filed 7/22/14
FACTS: Petnr is co-guardian, seeking the court to instruct the Executors to pay atty fees incurred by petnr individually and as guardian. Petnr and the minor children are bens of this estate.
On 9/15/10, petnr, individually and on behalf of the decd's 3 minor children, filed a wrongful death suit agst AEG Live (BC 445597). A verdict was entered in favor of AEG Live. On 1/22/14, petnr filed an appeal, retaining the firm of Reed Smith LLP to handle 2 consolidated appeals (B252411 and B251972)
In April 2014, petnr and the minors were ordered to pay costs of 854,820.16 to AEG Live. On 5/27/14, Reed Smith filed Appellants' Opening Brief, Appendix, and the Certified Reporters' Transcripts. Reed Smith agreed to forego its typical hourly rate and agreed to a fee cap of 200,000 for the work on Appeal, plus a 100,000 success bonus if a reversal of the judgment was attained. There is an additional amt of 9,500 for costs. Petnr will provide a copy of the retainer agreement for in camera review. Atty rates are 340/hr - 830/hr.
Pursuant to PC 2642(b) & (c), petnr requests that the court instruct the Executors to pay Reed Smith a maximum of 300,000 from the Estate, for legal services relating to the Appeal on behalf of petnr and the minor children, plus costs 9,500.
Per decl of appellate atty, issues raised on appeal are numerous and complex, as the appeal challenges the trial cout's summary adjudication rulings and certain rulings during trial. Atty has reviewed trial court file, inc 17,700 page reporter's transcript, extensive legal research, prep and filing of opening brief and 16 volume appendix. A Reply brief will be due 50 days after the Respondent's Brief is filed.
Fees will be paid as incurred, up to 200,000. Bills will be reviewed by atty and her counsel for accuracy.
MATTERS TO CLEAR:
b. Under what authority is this estate liable for the atty fees of petnr, individually, and as guardian of the minors? Is petnr actually seeking a preliminary dist to beneficiaries pay atty fees? If so, in what proportion should this amount be charged to the share of each beneficiary? are all equal benes? supp reqd. (per supp, petnr cites auth under PC 6540- Family Allowance)
E. No copy of retainer agreement - petnr alleg it will be provided for in camera review. o/w, if court will not allow in camera review, to be filed w/ supp.
RELIEF:
1. JTD instruct and order the executors of the Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson, to pay counsel for the benes, Reed Smith LLP's attorney fees and costs not to exceed the sum of 300,000, for legal services rendered w/ respect to the Appeal, as well as related costs NTE 9,500 -
P/A COMMENT: see notes. What authority for this estate to pay the attorney fees incurred on behalf of the beneficiaries individually? Petnr first claimed to be proceeding under PC 2642 (b) & (c) (atty fees in guardianship proceedings). Per supp, petnr now claims to be proceeding under PC 6540 (Family Allowance). However, PC 6540 applies to costs of maintenance of the family, and does not appear to be applicable her, for this cost. This appears to be more of a petn for prelim dist, which if the case, appearss must be brought first in the guardianship proceeding to determine if this is a proper expenditure of funds due to the minors. O/w, if this is really some sort of petition for instructions that petnr has authority for, then court may consider in camera review of retainer agreement. o/w, copy of retainer agreement to be filed w/ supp.
Department LA 51 Court Convened at: 08:30 AM 07/24/2014
Honorable
, Deputy County Clerk , Deputy Sheriff
, Reporter
BP117321 1001 JACKSON, MICHAEL JOSEPH - DECEDENT
Letters of Administr
ALLOWANCE OF FEES
Petitioner(s): Jackson, Katherine Esther
Attorney(s):
Continuance Number: Continuance From:
Last Date Changed: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:46 AM
Last Note Changed By: DHORTON
To clear probate notes "filed documents" must be submitted to Rm 429, within time frames set forth in Rule 4.4 (b) of LASC Rules. You may contact the Probate Attorney or Probate Examiner whose E-Mail address appears at the end of these notes, subject to compliance with all conditions governing the use of Interactive E-Mail. E-mail Rules are available on the Court's web site at www.LASuperiorCourt.org.
petn filed 7/9/14
SUMMARY:
petnr is co-guardian
ntc ok
spcl ntc/copy (AG) ok
supp filed 7/22/14
FACTS: Petnr is co-guardian, seeking the court to instruct the Executors to pay atty fees incurred by petnr individually and as guardian. Petnr and the minor children are bens of this estate.
On 9/15/10, petnr, individually and on behalf of the decd's 3 minor children, filed a wrongful death suit agst AEG Live (BC 445597). A verdict was entered in favor of AEG Live. On 1/22/14, petnr filed an appeal, retaining the firm of Reed Smith LLP to handle 2 consolidated appeals (B252411 and B251972)
In April 2014, petnr and the minors were ordered to pay costs of 854,820.16 to AEG Live. On 5/27/14, Reed Smith filed Appellants' Opening Brief, Appendix, and the Certified Reporters' Transcripts. Reed Smith agreed to forego its typical hourly rate and agreed to a fee cap of 200,000 for the work on Appeal, plus a 100,000 success bonus if a reversal of the judgment was attained. There is an additional amt of 9,500 for costs. Petnr will provide a copy of the retainer agreement for in camera review. Atty rates are 340/hr - 830/hr.
Pursuant to PC 2642(b) & (c), petnr requests that the court instruct the Executors to pay Reed Smith a maximum of 300,000 from the Estate, for legal services relating to the Appeal on behalf of petnr and the minor children, plus costs 9,500.
Per decl of appellate atty, issues raised on appeal are numerous and complex, as the appeal challenges the trial cout's summary adjudication rulings and certain rulings during trial. Atty has reviewed trial court file, inc 17,700 page reporter's transcript, extensive legal research, prep and filing of opening brief and 16 volume appendix. A Reply brief will be due 50 days after the Respondent's Brief is filed.
Fees will be paid as incurred, up to 200,000. Bills will be reviewed by atty and her counsel for accuracy.
MATTERS TO CLEAR:
b. Under what authority is this estate liable for the atty fees of petnr, individually, and as guardian of the minors? Is petnr actually seeking a preliminary dist to beneficiaries pay atty fees? If so, in what proportion should this amount be charged to the share of each beneficiary? are all equal benes? supp reqd. (per supp, petnr cites auth under PC 6540- Family Allowance)
E. No copy of retainer agreement - petnr alleg it will be provided for in camera review. o/w, if court will not allow in camera review, to be filed w/ supp.
RELIEF:
1. JTD instruct and order the executors of the Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson, to pay counsel for the benes, Reed Smith LLP's attorney fees and costs not to exceed the sum of 300,000, for legal services rendered w/ respect to the Appeal, as well as related costs NTE 9,500 -
P/A COMMENT: see notes. What authority for this estate to pay the attorney fees incurred on behalf of the beneficiaries individually? Petnr first claimed to be proceeding under PC 2642 (b) & (c) (atty fees in guardianship proceedings). Per supp, petnr now claims to be proceeding under PC 6540 (Family Allowance). However, PC 6540 applies to costs of maintenance of the family, and does not appear to be applicable her, for this cost. This appears to be more of a petn for prelim dist, which if the case, appearss must be brought first in the guardianship proceeding to determine if this is a proper expenditure of funds due to the minors. O/w, if this is really some sort of petition for instructions that petnr has authority for, then court may consider in camera review of retainer agreement. o/w, copy of retainer agreement to be filed w/ supp.
passy001
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,386
- Points
- 0
Family allowance? but as this court correctly notes, the legal costs incurred in the aeg appeal/trial do not apply to the maintenance and care of kj. these costs don't do squat for her living care. this seems more appropriate for a preliminary distribution of her share when the estate closes.
i really think kj is abusing her role of beneficiary overspending unnecessarily in a veiled attempt to wipe out the kids inheritance.
i really think kj is abusing her role of beneficiary overspending unnecessarily in a veiled attempt to wipe out the kids inheritance.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
MATTERS TO CLEAR:
b. Under what authority is this estate liable for the atty fees of petnr, individually, and as guardian of the minors? Is petnr actually seeking a preliminary dist to beneficiaries pay atty fees? If so, in what proportion should this amount be charged to the share of each beneficiary? are all equal benes? supp reqd. (per supp, petnr cites auth under PC 6540- Family Allowance)
E. No copy of retainer agreement - petnr alleg it will be provided for in camera review. o/w, if court will not allow in camera review, to be filed w/ supp.
----------------------------
To me it looks like kids GAL have raised these questions and does not agree with KJ request. At least she (GAL) raised questions about KJ's request for increase
"Mrs. Jackson is seeking an increase of 23%; current allowance went into effect on 01/01/12. Breakdown attached to dec. Dec addresses areas of Mrs. Jackson's proposed increase in which the GAL expressed concern."
If judge doesn't allow to pay that legal costs, but KJ gets it as prelim distribution, then the whole amount should be taken from her share.
I don't think this falls under PC 2642 (b) & (c) (atty fees in guardianship proceedings) nor it is family allowance.
"This appears to be more of a petn for prelim dist, which if the case, appearss must be brought first in the guardianship proceeding to determine if this is a proper expenditure of funds due to the minors."
Minors weren't asked regarding KJ suing AEG, she did it without talking to them (as per her testimony).
If the court says this is proper expenditure of funds, they will open the gates for KJ to misuse the estate monies even more.
---------------------------
For an elderly woman who always wears same clothes and doesn't go (voluntary) holidays etc, she most certainly spends money like no tomorrow. If there was a family gathering or party outside of Calabasas, family fans would have been first ones to report about it, and because there haven't been any reports, I take it there haven't been as such, so I still don't get it why is she asking money for family gathering if that gathering is at Calabasas? Does she charge from the estate if she hosts a family gathering, like the way she charged the estate for "consulting them"?
Her allowance was already bigger than growing up child with many hobbies, school thing and holidays, yet she is asking increase of 23% on top of $1,386,548.
I guess that request for increase is got to do with Prince coming on age early next year so she have less money to control, thus she is being pro-active.
b. Under what authority is this estate liable for the atty fees of petnr, individually, and as guardian of the minors? Is petnr actually seeking a preliminary dist to beneficiaries pay atty fees? If so, in what proportion should this amount be charged to the share of each beneficiary? are all equal benes? supp reqd. (per supp, petnr cites auth under PC 6540- Family Allowance)
E. No copy of retainer agreement - petnr alleg it will be provided for in camera review. o/w, if court will not allow in camera review, to be filed w/ supp.
----------------------------
To me it looks like kids GAL have raised these questions and does not agree with KJ request. At least she (GAL) raised questions about KJ's request for increase
"Mrs. Jackson is seeking an increase of 23%; current allowance went into effect on 01/01/12. Breakdown attached to dec. Dec addresses areas of Mrs. Jackson's proposed increase in which the GAL expressed concern."
If judge doesn't allow to pay that legal costs, but KJ gets it as prelim distribution, then the whole amount should be taken from her share.
I don't think this falls under PC 2642 (b) & (c) (atty fees in guardianship proceedings) nor it is family allowance.
"This appears to be more of a petn for prelim dist, which if the case, appearss must be brought first in the guardianship proceeding to determine if this is a proper expenditure of funds due to the minors."
Minors weren't asked regarding KJ suing AEG, she did it without talking to them (as per her testimony).
If the court says this is proper expenditure of funds, they will open the gates for KJ to misuse the estate monies even more.
---------------------------
For an elderly woman who always wears same clothes and doesn't go (voluntary) holidays etc, she most certainly spends money like no tomorrow. If there was a family gathering or party outside of Calabasas, family fans would have been first ones to report about it, and because there haven't been any reports, I take it there haven't been as such, so I still don't get it why is she asking money for family gathering if that gathering is at Calabasas? Does she charge from the estate if she hosts a family gathering, like the way she charged the estate for "consulting them"?
Her allowance was already bigger than growing up child with many hobbies, school thing and holidays, yet she is asking increase of 23% on top of $1,386,548.
I guess that request for increase is got to do with Prince coming on age early next year so she have less money to control, thus she is being pro-active.
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker
Guests
This primary distrubution is distrubuting the kids money? right? because correct me if im wrong but she gets an allowance and nothing more regardless of whether the estTe is in probate or not?
totally agree this is being done and no doubt will happen again before jr turns 18 as once that happens she will have less in her hand. and as i said before no doubt why the kids were added. obviously to win more money and to use the estate via the kids to pay for the loss
totally agree this is being done and no doubt will happen again before jr turns 18 as once that happens she will have less in her hand. and as i said before no doubt why the kids were added. obviously to win more money and to use the estate via the kids to pay for the loss
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
I'm not sure, but Ivy can correct me if I'm wrong. I think KJ didn't ask preliminary distribution, she tries to get the court to pay her legal bills under "family allowance" or "atty fees in guardianship proceedings". Just like they pay her housekeep, driver secretary etc. If it was, her atty would have advised her to fill in the form for prelim distribution.
Court doesn't agree that this 300 thousand falls under the atty fees or family alowance and are suggesting it might be preliminary distribution of her 40% as beneficiary of MJ's will
For ref see this:
http://stimmel-law.com/articles/preliminary_distributions_from_estate_or_trust.html
If it is decided and KJ apply for preliminary distribution, they need to decide whether it comes from KJ's share, or is it going to be divided between KJ and PPB. Needless to say, kids had no say on this thus no money should be taken from their share.
Edited to add, I re-read MJ will regarding KJ trust and I don't know whether this trust allows any kind of preliminary distribution, see page 5 on the following link
http://wills.about.com/library/JacksonTrust.pdf
If KJ trust doesn't allow prelim distribution, why the court is even talking about it or suggesting it as they should know it?
Ivy can clear this out
The more I read stuff, the more confused I get
Last edited:
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Ivy, I have a question.
I was wondering that we know KJ cannot will her share to anyone and she gets her allowance during her lifetime, but if she uses the allowance money to buy property, jewels or other valuable stuff, she then can will these to her other cubs?
I was wondering that we know KJ cannot will her share to anyone and she gets her allowance during her lifetime, but if she uses the allowance money to buy property, jewels or other valuable stuff, she then can will these to her other cubs?
LastTear
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,245
- Points
- 0
^^^^^ I believe she can will any monies in her name and any property to whom ever she likes. So if she banks any small change (sarcasm) left from her allowance that is hers to keep and can leave it in a will. As far as I know it doesn't have to be handed back over to the estate.
*********
Talk about milking it for everything it's worth.
*********
Talk about milking it for everything it's worth.