As the past two weeks' have unfolded, it is my personal opinion that the contention in the Jackson family is based on the validity of Michael Jackson's 2002 will. Because the Michael Jackson fan base is so dedicated to the truth with regard to Michael himself as well as his beneficiaries, most would like to view both sides of the coin before determining whether the will is valid or not. If you would like to read a copy of the will, click here. If you would like to read my 2010 blog with a timeline of events in court, including documents, click here.
For those questioning the will, their primary concerns are:
QUESTION: How can the Will be valid if the signature says Los Angeles, but Michael was in New York City on the day the Will was signed?
ANSWER: Generally, if a Will is signed in another state than the one in which he/she is living, the Will is valid under the laws of the state in which it was signed. In this case, it means as long as Michael's Will was signed under the laws of the state of New York as the Jackson's claim, then it is valid.
QUESTION: So, if it was signed it NYC as the Jackson's claim, then what are the New York State law requirements for a valid Will?
ANSWER: The laws regarding Will validity in the state of New York City are as follows:
1. The testator (person making the Will) must be over the age of 18.
2. The Will must be in writing. This does not mean literal handwritten Wills. It means that the Will cannot be verbal. For reference, handwritten Wills are labeled holographic.
3. The Will must be signed at the end by the testator (Michael Jackson).
4. The Will must be signed by at least two witnesses.
As you can see from the copy of the Will, Michael was over 18, the Will is in writing, the Will is signed by Michael, and the Will was signed by THREE witnesses. Even if the argument that the Jackson's claim, Michael was in NYC on the day the Will was signed, the Will meets all of New York state Will validity laws. Therefore, this argument is invalid.
If someone who got nothing under the will could challenge the appointment then that would allow anyone with an opinion and enough money to hire a lawyer the ability to tie up the probate." The 2nd District Court of Appeals upheld Beckloff's decision in November, 2010.
The quote above regarding a person getting nothing under the Will is quite interesting, isn't it?