It has been said that MJ's siblings would not inherit anything IF MJ did not have a will and trust in place, but that is untrue. Michael's brothers and sisters would have received a percentage IF MJ did not have a will and trust in place.

Janet J said in her statement that there was no financial gain for the family. Randy stated when he spoke to Al Sharpton that it was "not about the money, but about his mother and her welfare". Jermaine stated that he "recinded his name from the letter", but everything he said in his retraction was in SUPPORT of the letter by saying that "So when it comes to the well-being of loved ones, and especially our mother, we are perhaps understandably and unapologetically over-protective." and "Whatever the tabloid and on-line misrepresentations have led people to believe, my primary concern has only ever been rooted in the welfare of our mother in the environment where she lives."

Think it is "not about the money"?? Think again. What Rebbie, Janet and Randy did was isolate their grandmother, under false pretenses, and cause her to potentially lose guardianship of PP&B and caused much grief to PP&B, as well as those who care about her. They have continued to question the validity of the will and question the actions of the estate executors, despite the fact that the executors have brought MJ's estate millions, put 30 mil into the trust set up for PP&B, and nearly wiped out his debt.

Check this out:
http://www.ca-trusts.com/intestate.html

It states that (for those who may not be able to open the link):

Dying Without a Will or Trust

If a California resident dies without a will or trust, they die "intestate" and the laws of intestate succession are used to determine who will inherit the estate. Determining the heirs of the estate involves answering a series of questions about the person who died. The following discussion applies only to California residents and the intestate succession law of other states may be different.

1. The first question is whether the decedent (the person who died) was married.

A. If the decedent was not married, the estate is distributed as follows:
1. To the decedent's children, who take in equal shares if they are in the same generation.
2. If there are no children or other issue (issue is the legal term for children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc.) living, the estate goes to the decedent's parents.
3. If there are no parents living, the estate is distributed to the "issue of the parents." If the decedent had brothers or sisters, they will inherit the estate. If there are deceased brothers and sisters, and they had issue, the issue will inherit the share of the estate that the deceased brother or sister would have inherited.
4. If there are no brothers or sisters, the decedent's grandparents will inherit the estate.
5. If there are no living grandparents, then the "issue of the grandparents" will inherit the estate. This could include the decedent's aunts and uncles, or if there aren't any aunts and uncles, the decedent's cousins. Generally, the oldest generation that has surviving issue will inherit, but if there are deceased issue in that generation, their issue will inherit their share.
6. If there are no cousins, Probate Code section 6402 provides that the estate will be distributed to "next of kin in equal degree," generally meaning more distant cousins.

B. If the decedent was married, the first question is whether the decedent owned community property, separate property, or a combination of the two. Community property is generally defined as the assets acquired during marriage from earnings or salary. Separate property is generally defined as assets brought into the marriage when the decedent got married, inheritances to the decedent, or gifts to the decedent. However, California case law provides many exceptions to these definitions, and assets can change from community to separate property, or from separate to community, by combining assets, by improving separate property with community property, or by written agreement of the spouses, for example.

1. The decedent's community property goes to the surviving spouse, who may have to file a spousal property petition to establish ownership.
2. The decedent's separate property is distributed as follows:
a. The surviving spouse receives all of the separate property if the decedent is not survived by issue, parents, brothers, sisters, or children of a deceased brother or sister.
b. The surviving spouse receives one-half of the separate property if the decedent had only one child, or issue of a deceased child.
c. The surviving spouse receives one-half of the separate property if the decedent left no issue, but left parent(s) or their issue.
d. The surviving spouse receives only one-third of the separate property if the decedent left more than one child.
e. The surviving spouse receives only one-third of the separate property if the decedent left one child and the issue of one or more deceased children.
f. The surviving spouse receives only one-third of the separate property if the decedent left the issue of two or more deceased children.

However, all of the above considerations are irrelevant if the decedent had a will or living trust. For more information about wills, click here: Wills For information about living trusts, click here: Living Trusts

How an asset is titled may also change who will own it after one of the owners has died. See these pages for information about property ownership: Joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common


------------------

So for all of you who believe that "if MJ did not have a will and trust in place that it would have all gone to his children only": this is simply not true according to CA trust and will laws. IF MJ did not have a will or trust, his estate would have been divided up amongst his next of kin: his children, surviving parents, and siblings as well.

But you see, MJ had a trust in place for his children and KJ, plus a will to match it. BOTH MJ's wills from 1997 and 2002 are the same with the exception that MJ revised it to include Blanket and Paris, who were both not born at the time he made his 1997 will. Those who are saying the 2002 will is fake will rationalize that the 1997 one is too, and since they both match the trust MJ set up, then that would be fake too. If they can get any court to agree to it in effort to uproot the will in place, then MJ's estate would be then divided differently.

I'll say it one more time.

Simply put: it would mean that if he had no trust or will in place, and IF he died intestate, then his estate would have been divided as follows according to CA state laws regarding if a NO will or trust was in place:

First, Prince, Paris and Blanket would receive an equal share.

MJ was not married, so there was no spouse to consider.

Secondly, MJ's mother and father, KJ and Joseph, would also receive a share.

Thirdly, MJ's siblings: Randy, Latoya, Rebbie, Jackie, Jermaine, Marlon, Tito and Janet would all have a share too.

It would stop there because those are all of MJ's immediate and next of kin in line as his heirs (according to the Ca state provisions) and they are living. Had any of his siblings passed, that sibling's share would have gone to that siblings' children (who would be Michael's nieces and nephews of that sibling only).

This is a true example of what it means to pass without a will and trust in place. It means, all of your immediate family and their children receive a portion if they are the next immediate and surviving heirs.

There is no way in hell MJ would not have his estate protected the best way possible for what he wanted for his children. MJ had distanced himself from certain relatives for a reason and considering his known history with them, it is clear that MJ did not want to allow his estate to be squandered.

Anyone telling you that Branca and McClain are not out for the best interests of MJ's estate and MJ's beloved children is not telling you the truth.


Anyone telling you that "the will"and "money" is not the issue is not telling you the truth.



Plain and simple....

Reply · Report Post