On 2009-07-02 15:41:49 -0700, "Kris Baker" said:
> "S. Fu" wrote in message
> news:2009070215141216807-fufunu@fubarorg...
>>
>> Why say, look who crawled out from under a rock:
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31711537/ns/entertainment-music/
>>
>>
>> No wonder they want to hold onto the kids. But if they're as broke as
>> they seem to be, Rowe may have more money to fund a custody fight than
>> they do. However, since the will specifically names Mom Jax as
>> guardian, with Diana Ross as backup, I believe it's the duty of the
>> executors to defend those terms, including paying the legal fees to
>> support either in a custody fight. I may be wrong about that.
>
> You know more about the legal side than I do, so go find the
> part of the will that talks about the executors being able to
> over-rule anything contained in the will.
I don't see anything in there about that. The will gives the executors
wide latitude in terms of managing the financial affairs of the estate.
There's no language that specifically authorizes them to judge the
adequacy of the named guardians.
However, I may have overstated the imputed duty of the executors to
enforce the guardian designation. The will states that MJ "nominates"
his mom to serve as guardian. One could argue that if MJ had intended
his estate to actively defend that nomination, he would have included
language defining that duty for the executors. They may decide that
their duty was to nominate Mom Jax to the court as stipulated in the
will and then follow the courts rulings thereafter.
Given that Mom Jax is 80 friggin' years old, it might not take much for
the executors to decide that she's "unable" to serve as guardian and
decide to support Miss Ross as the secondary nominee for guardian.
Practically, if you were the executors weighing two unappealing
alternatives, you might ask Grandma to step aside in favor of Diana, if
the latter is willing to get involved.
I've only handled one simple estate as an executor. Any idle
speculation I post about the inheritance law aspects is way less
informed than my myriad dealings with California family law. I play
poker with a good trusts and estates shyster regularly, though, and if
I get a chance I'll ask him what he thinks of the will.
> Rowe's my pick for custody, especially if she brings Grace
> back in. Those kids need to know their mother, and also
> the person who raised them.
I missed the most obvious next step, one that'll be significant: if
there's any dispute over who should have custody of the kids, the judge
will appoint a guardian ad litem to represent their interests directly.
That person--almost certainly an attorney--would be the impartial
legal advocate for the kids' interests in court. Pretty quick there's
going to be an initial custody evaluation, possibly followed by a full
evaluation. A G.A.L/special master usually manages that process and
reports to the court, so their opinion can have a lot of weight.
Rowe plus the nanny, working together, would be a strong claimant for
immediate primary physical custody of the kids, especially if they make
generous offers to "make time for Grandma". But it's also possible, if
the two Rowe kids are not especially close to the mystery mom kid, that
judge would split 'em up.
|
