Apologies to everyone tired of Michael Jackson "news" but...

We have another famous person worth quite a bit of money, with a mess of an estate. We will likely never forget the mess left by Anna Nicole but the stories are almost always the same with the only changes being the players. It seems to involve assets, debts, and children.

I am relying mostly on the New York Times article in yesterday's paper (NYT, July 6, 2009, by Tim Arango and Ben Sisario, Despite a Will, Jackson Left a Tangled Estate). My understanding is his will dates back to 2002. I believe that was the year his last child was born. That's a good sign from a guardianship standpoint. There have been a couple of matters discussed at preliminary hearing(s), one involving where to place the children (with grandma) and the other was her attempt to take over as executor in spite of the will naming two non-family members in that role (the judge honored the will with a full hearing scheduled to discuss in greater detail at a later time).

What seems to be the biggest mess is capitalizing on his legacy, his debts, and his business interests. If, as we suggest to our clients, they get their affairs in order while they are alive, most of this mess is resolved or easier to manage. Who better to put the affairs in order than the person himself, Mr. Jackson? Sure, in this case I have a feeling Mr. Jackson may always have a mess with debts and his business dealings, but how much simpler it would have been if he would have placed in his will, trust or another agreement, how he wants his legacy handled, which businesses should be kept for the benefit of his children, and what should be done with his home/ranch. While it may come out that some of these issues were addressed, it seems thus far that most were not.

There are aspects of Mr. Jackson' will that I do like. One of the co-executors is an entertainment lawyer with intimate knowledge of Mr. Jackson's assets. What a great idea. Knowledge of the area of law and personal knowledge as well. Great choice in my opinion. The other provision that I have heard thus far is a "no contest" clause. This means if you challenge the will, you may be disinherited. Of course this only affects those that have received anything under the will and sometimes ignored by the courts if there is a good basis for the challenge, but still, can be effective and part of every one of our estate plans.

I may touch on this estate as facts come to light. It will be interesting to see if they find a newer will or how the family and business dynamics play out. Until then...