The settlement, which was never made public, meant that Lynne Frederick was expecting to walk away from the three-year marriage to one of the world’s best-loved comic actors with £375,000 in a one-off payment and ownership of their Los Angeles home.

In the event, Sellers died at 54 on July 24, 1980, before the divorce became final, and Ms Frederick was able to claim his entire £4.5 million estate. His three children, from previous marriages, were left £750 each.

Ms Frederick died an alcoholic in 1994 and the fortune left by the star of the Goons and Pink Panther films has since been inherited by her daughter by her next-but-one husband after Sellers. Cassie Ungar, 25, who lives in Los Angeles, never met her benefactor.

Rumours that Sellers planned to cut his estranged wife out of his will began circulating after his death but Ms Frederick always denied them. Both parties signed the agreement after they separated but, as the decree absolute was never completed, they were legally still married when he died.

The fortune inherited by Ms Frederick included properties around the world, Sellers’s art collection, family heirlooms and the rights to his films.

His children, Michael, Sarah and Victoria, were unable to challenge the will as they had been given token amounts and had not been left out “by mistake”.

The agreement, dated June 15, 1979, was acquired by a collector and is being sold at auction in Devizes, Wiltshire, on November 14.

Roger Lewis, the author of The Life and Death of Peter Sellers, said that Ms Frederick publicly denied knowledge of the settlement. He said Sellers had been in the process of rewriting his will to leave the bulk of his fortune to the British Heart Foundation but collapsed after a heart attack and died the day before he was due to sign it.

Mr Lewis was told by Spike Milligan, another former member of the Goons, that he had pleaded with Ms Frederick, a successful actress, to make provision for Sellers’s children. “She relished the role of Mrs Sellers and played the grieving widow after he died, which his children found deeply offensive,” Mr Lewis said. “His first wife, Anne, and Spike Milligan went to see Lynne Frederick at the Dorchester Hotel and implored her to make some sort of settlement towards the children. She said no, because it was his last wish for her to have his money. But on the basis of this document it would seem that she shouldn’t have claimed his £4 million estate or the royalties to his films.”

He claims that Ms Frederick had coerced Sellers into cutting his ties with his children before they married in 1977. “When she came along he was in his fifties and she was 30 years younger than him. She was very manipulative. She didn’t want him to have anything to do with his former relationships, including his children. She threatened to leave him and his way of keeping her was to write his will so that she inherited the lot. I never met anyone who had a good word to say about her. She was a nasty, manipulative little gold-digger.”

The auctioneer, Andrew Aldridge, who expects the document to sell for up to £3,000, said: “Peter Sellers’s friends said he had been trying to cut Lynne out of his will and these papers substantiate those claims.”

Of Sellers’s children, Michael died of heart failure in 2006 at 52, Victoria, from his second marriage, to Britt Ekland, is a former drug addict living in California; and Sarah runs an antique teddy bear shop in London.

The Mystery of Sellers’ Millions
Adrian Lee
November 5, 2009
Daily Express
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/138306/The-mystery-of-Sellers-millions/
WHEN Peter Sellers’ will was read after his untimely death it seemed that the comedian was determined to have the last laugh from the grave. With a final admonition telling them to “stand on their own two feet” his children Michael, Victoria and Sarah were left almost penniless. Even his lawyer and accountant received more.

For the three, who’d endured their father’s notorious mood swings, perhaps this final cruelty should not have come as a surprise. Instead the man, who is still recognised as one of the finest comic geniuses the nation has produced, left his £4.5million ­fortune to his fourth wife Lynne ­Frederick.

When Frederick subsequently died and the money passed to her daughter Cassie – a young woman born four years after Sellers fell victim to a heart attack aged 54 – the betrayal of the children appeared complete.

Now, however, the wrangle over the Pink Panther star’s millions has produced a sting in the tail. Legal papers which have gathered dust for years but are now about to be auctioned, confirm that Sellers was planning to cut Frederick almost entirely out of his will. At the time of his death they were going through a bitter divorce and the former Goon intended her to receive just £327,000 plus the home they shared in Los Angeles.

The documents show that Frederick, who died in 1994, was not only aware of Sellers’ plans but had signed a waiver in which she agreed to the deal. Crucially, the decree absolute was not completed by the time ­Sellers died and so they were legally still ­married. Frederick inherited his ­fortune, including properties around the world, his art collection, family heirlooms and rights to his films.

For Sellers’ two surviving children – son Michael died of a heart attack aged just 52 in 2006 – the discovery may bring some comfort, even if a legal challenge is now unlikely.

Andrew Aldridge, of Henry Aldridge and Son Auctioneers in Devizes, Wiltshire, who is handling the sale later this month, says: “This is a ­fascinating document that sheds light on what was going on behind closed doors in their marriage.

“Peter Sellers’ friends always said he had been trying to cut Lynne Frederick out of his will and these papers substantiate those claims after nearly 30 years. They prove that it wasn’t his intention for her to inherit his estate at the time he died and she had in effect agreed to this. He would have had to amend his will after their divorce came through and he might have left a lot more to his children.”

Until now the documents, which are expected to fetch £3,000, have been in a private collection. Their father’s final act haunted the three children long after he died in 1980.

Victoria, whose mother is Sellers’ second wife Britt Ekland, struggled to cope with life in her father’s shadow, spending 20 years in and out of prison and rehab. She eventually won an extra £10,000 from the Sellers estate for school fees but now ekes a living as a jewellery designer in Los Angeles.

Accounts given by his children show that Sellers, probably best known for his portrayal of the hapless Inspector Clouseau, could be a tyrant.

In one incident when Michael was just five Sellers thrashed him mercilessly with his belt after the boy innocently tried to repair a tiny scratch on his father’s beloved Bentley. Then Sellers stormed inside and took away all his son’s toys, leaving only one on a shelf he could not reach.

Michael, who became an occasional builder and property developer, also said that in his teens he received a ­letter from Sellers saying: “I no longer wish to be thought of as your father. The time has come for you to continue on your own way. My final suggestion is that you change your surname.”

Victoria, 45, said after her brother’s death: “I’m sure he died of a broken heart because he was never able to get over my father’s treatment of him. Dad snubbed us in his will and Michael went to his grave feeling such pain.”

Michael, who died 26 years to the day after his father, once said: “Dad had a mercurial, irrational temper, you could upset him with a look.” It’s said Michael only found some degree of happiness when his mother, Sellers’ first wife Anne Howe, remarried.

There was also the time when ­Sellers gave Victoria a pony, only to snatch it away and present it to Princess Margaret, with whom he was said to have had an affair, for her children.

Sellers, born Richard Henry Sellers in Southsea, Hampshire, was alleged to have had countless other affairs including one with Liza Minnelli. The master of the comedy accent, he was adored by fans but like many funny-men struggled with demons off stage. He was notoriously fickle and would discard friends for trifling reasons.

Even Prince Charles, one of his devotees, incurred his wrath when Lynne Frederick was not invited to the royal premiere of The Pink Panther Strikes Again. Sellers said: “If Lynne is not allowed to be there, I’m bloody well not going myself.”

Appearing on the Michael Parkinson show in 1974 when he dressed up as a member of the Gestapo, Sellers admitted: “I’m not easy to live with.”

Sarah, now 52, is the only one of his three children who appears to have emerged relatively unscarred. Today she lives quietly and runs an antique teddy bear shop in central London.

She says: “It was widely known at the time that my father intended to change his will. We looked into it but nothing could be done. This won’t make any difference. I felt hurt at the time but you just get on with your life. I don’t really want to say too much and drag it all up again. It all happened a long time ago and feelings change.”

Sellers and Lynne Frederick were married for only three years but had no children. Soon after Sellers died she married broadcaster David Frost, divorced him and then married Barry Unger, a Californian cardiologist.

Frederick increased her fortune by a further £1million after suing the makers of the 1982 film Trail Of The Pink Panther, which was panned by critics. It was made after Sellers’ death and brought Clouseau back to life by splicing out-takes from previous films. His ex-wife claimed it tarnished her late husband’s memory.

Frederick died in 1994 at just 39 from alcoholic complications. Few, it seems, who were close to the comedian were untouched by tragedy.

Michael Sellers said of his stepmother: “Her money brought her no happiness. She died bloated, miserable and hopelessly addicted to drink and drugs. I was appalled when her ashes were mingled with my father’s.”

Her daughter Cassie Unger, now 26, became the sole heir and Sellers’ fortune passed into a trust fund which is administered by a Californian accountancy firm in Santa Monica for Cassie’s benefit. She is in the final stages of a four-year English degree at the University of California, Los Angeles, where she reportedly has a £1.2million apartment. A friend says: “She’s very low-key. She shops at the local supermarket and rarely goes out at night. She’s just a normal student, even if she does have a luxury apartment and millions in the bank.”

Roger Lewis, who wrote Peter Sellers’ biography The Life And Death Of Peter Sellers, says the discovery of the document proves Frederick was wrong to claim his fortune.

He believes that Sellers, who suffered a series of heart attacks when he was 38 and at his death had been due to have surgery a month later, would have left most of his money to the British Heart Foundation. However he died the day before arrangements were to be confirmed.

Mr Lewis adds: “I don’t know about his other children but he was back on terms with Michael towards the end. The lawyer was going to come back the next day so he could sign the papers but Peter dropped dead. Lynne Frederick relished the role of Mrs Peter Sellers and played the grieving widow after he died, which his children found offensive.”

The biographer describes Frede­rick as “a gold digger.” He claims Sellers’ friend, fellow comic Spike Milligan, pleaded with her to leave some money to his children.

He adds: “She refused, stating it was his last wish for her to have his money and his will had to be abided by. Spike Milligan later told me this. Yet on the basis of this new document it would seem that she shouldn’t have claimed his fortune or the royalties to his films.”

Mr Lewis claims Frederick bribed Sellers into cutting all ties with his children before they married in 1977. “When she came along he was in his 50s and she was 30 years younger than him. She was very manipulative. She didn’t want him to have anything to do with his former relationships, including his children. She threatened to leave him and his way of keeping her was to write his will so she inherited the lot. I never met anyone who had a good word to say about her. She was a nasty, manipulative little gold-digger.

“It is now incredible that her daughter, who has no connection whatsoever with Peter Sellers, has his money when there are two of his three children who have nothing.”

Phrases like “I was not aware,” “Yes, but,” and “It was not my responsibility” wafted from the witness chair as officials who oversee the county’s courts denied knowing that thousands of adolescents were being locked away, often for petty offenses, after hearings in which they had been effectively denied lawyers.

When Luzerne County District Attorney Jacqueline Musto Carroll challenged the 11 members of the state-appointed Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice to “tell me what you do when you have a judge who is a crook,” she was promptly interrupted by the questioner-in-chief.

“You report him,” interjected John M. Cleland, the commission chairman and a judge on the state Superior Court.

Cleland and his fellow panelists have until May 31 to discover how two former judges, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan, managed to get away with what federal prosecutors say was a five-year, $2.8 million kickback conspiracy, a scheme that one juvenile-justice advocacy group called “one of the largest and most serious violations of children’s rights in the history of the American legal system.”

Musto Carroll said she was unaware that more than half the teenagers whose cases came before Ciavarella did not have legal representation. She said the judge’s “zero-tolerance” policy was a result of the 1999 Columbine High School shootings.

“I think Judge Ciavarella was probably doing what he thought he ought to do,” the district attorney testified. “I have heard in a number of cases, what he did actually straightened out kids’ lives. Some went on to get scholarships and college educations.”

That brought an angry response from panel member Robert L. Listenbee, head of the juvenile unit of the Defender Association of Philadelphia. “Ms. Carroll, I remind that you and I as attorneys took an oath to uphold the Constitution. There were children here whose basic constitutional rights were being violated every day. Let’s keep that in mind.”

Lawyer Kenneth J. Horoho Jr., a commissioner from Pittsburgh, offered a litany of questions about Musto Carroll’s having not known or questioned Ciavarella’s methods. Horoho concluded, “The bottom line is that ‘zero tolerance’ went unchallenged by your office.”

“Don’t worry about Luzerne County,” Musto Carroll assured the commission. “As long as I’m here, it’s in good hands.”

Yesterday’s first witness was David W. Lupas, Musto Carroll’s predecessor as district attorney and now a county judge, who said that none of his assistants ever brought concerns about Ciavarella’s conduct to his attention.

Panel member Dwayne D. Woodruff - the head juvenile judge in Allegheny County, and a former Pittsburgh Steelers safety - noted that 54 percent of the children brought before Ciavarella did not have lawyers. “Would you expect your assistant D.A.s to come to you with that?” Woodruff asked.

“No one came to me,” Lupas said.

Cleland interjected, “I could understand a case here and a case there. But 6,000 cases? This went on for years, and it was a massive deprivation of rights. No assistant D.A., no public defender, no private lawyer ever raised a question? That’s hard to believe.”

Basil G. Russin, who has been chief public defender in Luzerne County since 1980, said that even if he had known the extent of Ciavarella’s denial of rights to juvenile defendants, he would not have had many options. “We don’t have the time or the money to look into things very deeply. We just do the best we can,” he said.

Besides, Russin said, the judges’ get-tough stance against juvenile misbehavior had wide public support.

“Everybody loved it. The schools loved it because they got rid of every problem kid. The parents loved it because there were kids they couldn’t control. The cops loved it because it got kids off the streets, and the D.A. loved it because they were getting convictions.”

In earlier testimony, Sandra Brulo, a former Luzerne County probation official, said she had raised concerns about Ciavarella with her boss, but did not hear back.

“Don’t you think you should have taken it further when you didn’t get any satisfaction from your supervisor?” asked Ronald P. Williams, a panel member from nearby Wyoming County, raising his arms in amazement.

“I took it to my boss,” Brulo replied. “That’s as far as I thought I should go.”

She testified that probation officers, not attorneys, asked young defendants to sign forms just before they entered Ciavarella’s courtroom that waived their right to a lawyer. Commissioner George D. Mosee, a deputy Philadelphia district attorney, asked Brulo if this was a proper role for probation officers.

“We did what the judge instructed us to do,” she said.

“Even when their very liberty was at stake?” Mosee asked. Brulo did not answer.

Joseph Massa, senior counsel for the state Judicial Conduct Board, which investigates complaints against judges, told the panel that his agency had acted properly more than two years ago when it referred allegations it received against Ciavarella and Conahan to federal prosecutors.

By not acting on its own, the board allowed the jurists to stay on the bench until they resigned this year. The judges stepped down after a federal grand jury indicted them on racketeering, bribery and fraud charges.

“To allege the [Judicial Conduct Board] members put their heads in the proverbial sand while juveniles in this county were sent to the hoosegow is a disgrace,” Massa told the panel.

Ciavarella is accused of taking bribes from operators of two for-profit detention centers in return for sending children to the centers. Conahan is accused of securing lucrative contracts for the private jails, which the state paid according to the numbers of inmates they housed.

Once the scheme was set up, prosecutors say, Ciavarella guaranteed that the jails were filled with a steady stream of juvenile offenders.

Ciavarella and Conahan are awaiting trial. They initially pleaded guilty but withdrew their pleas after a federal judge rejected the terms of their plea agreements.

Also, we’ve posted a new column about the Michael Jackson estate.  Things got a bit heated at yesterday’s hearing.

We’ll be heading to Galveston later this week as Americans for Prosperity will have a booth at the Texas Federation of Republican Women’s convention.  Please stop by if you happen to be attending that event.

Upon Katherine Jackson withdrawing her objections to the current Michael Jackson estate administrators, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff has formally appointed John Branca and John McClain to the positions designated by Jackson in his will.  At the same Tuesday hearing, the judge ruled that with not being a beneficiary, Joe Jackson cannot challenge the executors’ appointment, but can petition for an allowance.

Katherine Jackson appears to be getting good legal advice and is smartly taking it.  Alan Duke from CNN.com described the turn of events as follows:

Katherine Jackson’s change of heart came three weeks after she hired attorney Adam Streisand to replace the lawyers who were leading her four-month-long challenge of Branca and McClain.

Streisand announced in court Tuesday morning that Katherine Jackson “feels it’s high time that the fighting ends.”

“She feels that Mr. Branca and Mr. McClain have been doing an admirable job,” Streisand said. “We’re going to try to partner with them and work closely with them to make sure that the estate is doing the best that it can for the legacy of Michael Jackson, for the kids, most importantly.”

Streisand said Katherine Jackson kept the decision a secret from the rest of her family until Tuesday.

And it appears a wise move that the Jackson matriarch kept secret her decision until court as the announcement apparently provoked a contentious exchange:

It drew a harsh response from attorney Brian Oxman, who on Monday filed Joe Jackson’s challenge of Branca and McClain. It was a fight that Oxman said Katherine Jackson had promised she would help wage.

“She has now reneged on her obligation to her family,” Oxman told the judge. Joe Jackson’s lawyer said Katherine Jackson’s reversal was “one of the most despicable displays” he’s ever seen in court.

Oxman accused Katherine Jackson of reaching a secret deal — behind Joe Jackson’s back — with the men who control their son’s estate.

Her lawyer fired back.

“That is not only baseless, but just a product of Mr. Oxman’s imagination,” Streisand said.

There was no deal and it was a surprise to the estate lawyers, he said.

“Before I announced my position, Mrs. Jackson and I were the only two people in the world who knew what I was going to say,” Streisand said.

As for Joe Jackson’s challenge for control, Streisand told the judge, “He has no right in the assets of the estate.”

Until now, the Jacksons have painted a united public front in the battle over who controls the estate.

“Lawyer to lawyer, it was contentious between the two of us in there, in order to try to get things to come to a resolution,” Streisand said after court.

“She doesn’t wish in any way to be involved in any dispute or fight with him, but she wants to see things get moving along in a more cooperative way,” he said, referring to Katherine Jackson and her husband.

While Joe Jackson’s attorney may accuse Katherine Jackson of reneging on a family obligation, this new pledge of cooperation with her son’s designated representatives can also be viewed as respecting a family obligation - an obligation to protect the interests of her grandchildren and to honor the final wishes of her son.

The Associated Press reported on the denial of Joe Jackson’s estate executor challenge as follows:

Michael Jackson’s father does not stand to inherit any of his son’s assets and cannot challenge the appointment of the executors chosen by the singer to handle his will, a judge said Tuesday.

Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff said Joe Jackson was not named in the will but could pursue a motion to receive a family allowance from the estate because he claimed his son had been supporting him.

A New York Daily News article had this interesting quote from Judge Beckloff:

The judge said the family patriarch can petition for an allowance but not much else. “Joe Jackson ultimately takes none of this estate, and that was a decision his son made,” the judge said.

A Dec. 10 hearing is scheduled for the allowance petition.  Streisand has reportedly indicated that Katherine Jackson may support the request.  One wonders if that was said before or after Joe Jackson’s attorney harshly criticized her before the court.  Howard Weitzman, attorney for the Jackson estate, said they (the executors) will take her wishes into consideration in deciding their position on an allowance for Joe Jackson.

Ultimately, the legal decision belongs to Judge Beckloff, but could his comment signal that he sees Michael Jackson as already having responded to Joe Jackson’s request?

Stay tuned…..

Lou Ann Anderson is an advocate working to create awareness regarding the Texas probate system and its surrounding culture.  She is the Online Producer at www.EstateofDenial.com and a Policy Advisor with Americans for Prosperity – Texas Foundation.  Lou Ann may be contacted at info@EstateofDenial.com.

Judge Arthur E. Grim of Berks County, who reviewed transcripts of about 100 cases of juveniles caught up in the scheme, said the scandal grew out of “unfettered power, greed, opportunity, and intimidation.”

Lawyers, court employees, and school officials knew of the scheme, but winked at it for convenience or self-preservation, Grim testified.

He described his findings to the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, an 11-member panel named by Gov. Rendell, legislative leaders, and the state Supreme Court to look into the scandal.

The commission opened two days of hearings here yesterday in its inquiry into systemic failures that permitted what federal prosecutors say was a $2.6 million kickback conspiracy involving former Luzerne County Court Judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan.

Grim said “an almost routine disregard for the rights of juvenile offenders” was known to lawyers, court staff, and school authorities, yet went on for six years or more.

He said many school officials supported Ciavarella’s “zero-tolerance” policies toward teenagers no matter how minor the offense.

“When a misbehaving kid was brought to school authorities, they immediately picked up the phone and called the police,” Grim testified. “They did this because they knew that if they did, that child would go before Judge Ciavarella and would be out of their hair as a problem.”

He said many court officials failed to speak out because they owed their jobs to either Conahan or Ciavarella. Under orders from Ciavarella, Grim said, officers of the Juvenile Probation Department stationed themselves outside the courtroom and persuaded parents to give up their children’s rights by signing waiver-of-counsel forms that were improper and legally defective.

Grim noted that in 2001, the state Superior Court reversed Ciavarella’s sentencing of a 13-year-old because the judge had failed to inform the defendant of his right to a lawyer.

“Judge Ciavarella vowed publicly that this would never again happen in his courtroom. This was widely known by the general public, and especially by the members of the bar. Yet Ciaverella subsequently repeated this behavior over and over again. To my knowledge, not a single member of the Luzerne County bar ever spoke out.”

He speculated that local lawyers were silent because Ciavarella was the president judge of Luzerne County Court and they feared retribution in other cases that came before him.

Grim noted that many parents who sought out lawyers to defend their children were told not to bother, because it would “only make matters worse” with Ciavarella.

“It was common knowledge that something was rotten in Denmark,” Grim said.

The state Supreme Court appointed Grim, a senior judge, to review juvenile cases Ciavarella handled. Following his study, Grim recommended that about 6,500 convictions meted out by Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008 be overturned. In an unprecedented step, the high court adopted this recommendation on Oct. 29.

Grim said yesterday he decided to recommend throwing out nearly all the cases because so much money was involved in the kickbacks that “it was impossible for Ciavarella to be impartial.”

Federal prosecutors say Ciavarella and Conahan collected $2.6 million from the owner of two privately run youth detention centers in exchange for the judges’ sending teen defendants there.

Ciavarella and Conahan had agreed to plead guilty, but a federal judge this summer rejected their agreements with prosecutors.

They withdrew their pleas and have been indicted again on racketeering charges.

Grim recommended that serious consideration should be given to opening Juvenile Court proceedings to the public, and to creating a system of circuit-riding judges and public defenders with special skills in dealing with juveniles. State law closes criminal court proceedings for people under 18.

Superior Court Judge John M. Cleland, chairman of the commission, emphasized in opening remarks that one of the panel’s primary goals was to discover “what it would have taken to encourage people to act” and prevent the injustices.

“How do we create a system in which those who see corruption call the police? How do we create a system in which prosecutors who see a judge flagrantly disregard the law make a report to the [state] Judicial Conduct Board? How can we develop a system in which we select and educate our Juvenile Court judges so that glib sloganeering - and using phrases like ‘zero tolerance’ - is not mistaken for thoughtful judicial reflection?”

The commission may begin getting answers when hearings resume today, with testimony scheduled from representatives of the District Attorney’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, and Juvenile Probation Department.

Cleland also issued this plea to the people of Luzerne County:

“We know the people in this community did not consciously choose to stand on the side of injustice at the expense of children.

But what was it that made it so hard to do the right thing? Were people afraid? Were they intimidated? By whom? What protections would they have wanted? Where would they have wanted to take the information they had?”

The hearing was in a large meeting room at a hotel outside the city. About 50 spectators, including local officials and representatives of advocacy groups, attended the day session. The crowd size doubled for the evening hearing.

The bills prove it.

Court documents reveal Michael Jackson’s September funeral cost more than a million bucks, with the estate shelling out $35,000 for his burial garments, $3,682 for framing of his photo and $21,455 for the late-night restaurant reception.

“I probably would have done it less expensively, but it was Michael Jackson. He was bigger than life when he was alive, and there’s no reason why his funeral shouldn’t be bigger than life,” estate attorney Howard Weitzman said.

The biggest-ticket item was the $855,730.31 contract with Forest Lawn Memorial Park - including $590,000 for title to Jacko’s crypt.

The cost details out yesterday came after Katherine Jackson’s lawyer announced she was ending her war with the executors appointed in her son’s will.

“She wants the fighting to end and to get on with the business of making money for the estate and not spending money on these disputes,” her attorney Adam Streisand told a judge.

A lawyer for her husband, Joe Jackson, called the surprise deal “despicable.”

“She has now reneged on her obligation to her family,” lawyer Brian Oxman said, stating that Joe Jackson still planned to challenge the will to get more control.

The judge okayed the executors’ authority over Joe Jackson’s claim they “discriminated” against him when they gave Katherine a monthly allowance but not him. He wants a stipend, too, saying he was a “dependant” of his son and can’t live on the $1,700 he receives monthly from Social Security.

The judge said the family patriarch can petition for an allowance but not much else. “Joe Jackson ultimately takes none of this estate, and that was a decision his son made,” the judge said.

Michael Jackson estate fight becomes public family dispute
Alan Duke
November 10, 2009
CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/10/michael.jackson.estate/index.html
Los Angeles, California (CNN) — Michael Jackson’s mother dropped her challenge of the two men named as executors in her son’s will, but her sudden reversal caught her husband by surprise Tuesday and led to a bitter fight in court.

In the end, the judge approved John Branca and John McClain as executors to run the pop star’s estate and he ruled that Michael Jackson’s father had no right to challenge the decision.

Joe Jackson, however, will have his day in court in December to argue that he should get a monthly allowance from his son’s huge estate.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff also unsealed court documents that revealed the family spent $1.1 million on Michael Jackson’s funeral in August, using money from his estate.

Katherine Jackson’s change of heart came three weeks after she hired attorney Adam Streisand to replace the lawyers who were leading her four-month-long challenge of Branca and McClain.

Streisand announced in court Tuesday morning that Katherine Jackson “feels it’s high time that the fighting ends.”

“She feels that Mr. Branca and Mr. McClain have been doing an admirable job,” Streisand said. “We’re going to try to partner with them and work closely with them to make sure that the estate is doing the best that it can for the legacy of Michael Jackson, for the kids, most importantly.”

Streisand said Katherine Jackson kept the decision a secret from the rest of her family until Tuesday.

It drew a harsh response from attorney Brian Oxman, who on Monday filed Joe Jackson’s challenge of Branca and McClain. It was a fight that Oxman said Katherine Jackson had promised she would help wage.

“She has now reneged on her obligation to her family,” Oxman told the judge. Joe Jackson’s lawyer said Katherine Jackson’s reversal was “one of the most despicable displays” he’s ever seen in court.

Oxman accused Katherine Jackson of reaching a secret deal — behind Joe Jackson’s back — with the men who control their son’s estate.

Her lawyer fired back.

“That is not only baseless, but just a product of Mr. Oxman’s imagination,” Streisand said.

There was no deal and it was a surprise to the estate lawyers, he said.

“Before I announced my position, Mrs. Jackson and I were the only two people in the world who knew what I was going to say,” Streisand said.

As for Joe Jackson’s challenge for control, Streisand told the judge, “He has no right in the assets of the estate.”

Until now, the Jacksons have painted a united public front in the battle over who controls the estate.

“Lawyer to lawyer, it was contentious between the two of us in there, in order to try to get things to come to a resolution,” Streisand said after court.

“She doesn’t wish in any way to be involved in any dispute or fight with him, but she wants to see things get moving along in a more cooperative way,” he said, referring to Katherine Jackson and her husband.

Joe Jackson, 81, and Katherine Jackson, 79, have been married for 60 years but they live separately.

Joe Jackson is not named as a beneficiary in his son’s 2002 will, but he filed a petition last week asking for an allowance from his son’s estate to cover $20,000 in monthly living expenses.

Katherine Jackson is a beneficiary of the will, along with Michael Jackson’s three children and unidentified charities, and she receives a monthly allowance as ordered by the court in July.

Katherine Jackson supports her husband’s request for a monthly allowance, Streisand said.

Howard Weitzman, the lead lawyer for the estate, said they would take her wishes into consideration in deciding their position on an allowance for Joe Jackson.

Judge Beckloff will hear his request for a monthly allowance on December 10.

Joe Jackson’s petition to challenge the executors is dead, unless Oxman can resurrect it in a appeals court, which he told the judge he may try.

“I hope that an appellate court will agree with me,” Oxman said.

Joe Jackson contended that Branca and McClain should be disqualified as executors because they hid from the court a mistake regarding Jackson’s signature.

The signature section of the will said it was signed on July 7, 2002, in Los Angeles, although there is proof that Michael Jackson was in New York on that date, Oxman said.

The judge ruled that only a beneficiary, such as Katherine Jackson, is in a position to make the challenge.

Court documents unsealed Tuesday showed the estate paid $1,098,000 for Jackson’s funeral and burial.

The bulk of the cost went to Forest Lawn cemetery in Glendale, which was paid $855,730, including $590,000 for the crypt and monument inside the Holly Terrace section of it’s Great Mausoleum, the document said.

Jackson’s burial garments cost $35,000, while another $16,000 was spent in flowers for the funeral, the papers said.

Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009, from what the coroner ruled was “acute propofol intoxication.”

Judge: Joe Jackson can’t challenge executors
Katherine withdraws objection to estate’s administrators during hearing
Associated Press
November 10, 2009
MSNBC.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33824998/ns/entertainment-celebrities/
LOS ANGELES - Michael Jackson’s father does not stand to inherit any of his son’s assets and cannot challenge the appointment of the executors chosen by the singer to handle his will, a judge said Tuesday.

Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff said Joe Jackson was not named in the will but could pursue a motion to receive a family allowance from the estate because he claimed his son had been supporting him.

Joe Jackson and his son had an often-strained relationship, and Michael Jackson said at one point that he would get physically sick — as a child and as an adult — at the sight of his father.

Beckloff ended a contentious all-day hearing by telling Joe Jackson’s lawyer, Brian Oxman, that his client had no standing to prolong the legal fray over Jackson’s estate and would gain nothing from doing so.

“I don’t think he gets to step into this and create further litigation,” the judge declared. “Joe Jackson takes none of this estate. This is a decision his son made.”

In another development, the court released an accounting that the estate had paid nearly $1 million in expenses for the private family funeral held at Forest Lawn Memorial Park.

Some of the expenses were $11,716 for invitations and programs; $35,000 for burial garments; $30,000 for cars and security; and $15,000 to a designer.

“I would have done it less expensively. But it was Michael Jackson, who was larger than life,” Howard Weitzman, an attorney for the estate administrators, said outside court. “There’s no reason he should not have a funeral that’s larger than life.”

Earlier in Tuesday’s hearing, Michael Jackson’s mother withdrew her objections to the appointment of two longtime Jackson associates as executors of his will.

The surprise announcement came from Katherine Jackson’s new probate attorney Adam Streisand, who said his client felt it was time for the legal battle to end over the appointment of attorney John Branca and music executive John McClain.

Katherine Jackson now believes their appointment, as spelled out in her son’s will, can “enhance the legacy of Michael Jackson in the best interest of his children,” Streisand said.

It was Streisand’s first major move in the case since he was chosen last month by Katherine Jackson to replace the team that had represented her since her son’s death in June.

Beckloff later made the formal appointment of the executors after deciding Jackson’s father could not challenge the move.

Oxman threatened to appeal, which could interfere further with the appointments.

Streisand said Katherine Jackson decided she wanted to let the executors go about earning money for the estate rather than incurring more legal fees.

Oxman, however, accused her of reneging on an agreement with her family to challenge the executors and called the announcement in court “one of the most despicable things I have ever seen.”

He accused Katherine Jackson of making a secret deal with the executors, a statement vehemently denied by Streisand and Weitzman.

Streisand said no one but he and Jackson knew of her decision until he stood in court and announced it.

“All the credit goes to Mrs. Jackson,” the lawyer said. “She is really the wise sage of this family.”

The judge scheduled a hearing for Dec. 10 on Joe Jackson’s request for a family allowance. Streisand suggested Katherine Jackson would support that request.

The will left Michael Jackson’s assets to his mother, his children and children’s charities.

Branca is an attorney who represented Jackson for more than 20 years and is regarded as the architect of his financial empire.

McClain is a music executive and childhood friend of the singer.

Katherine Jackson’s original legal team complained that she was not being given enough of a role in making decisions after her son’s death. While they considered a challenge, the judge allowed the administrators to go forward with projects including the movie, “This Is It,” which brought $60 million into the estate and became a box office hit.

Branca and McClain were credited as executive producers on the movie.

A 60-page motion filed by Oxman detailed Joe Jackson’s bid to get money from his son’s estate. The father is seeking an allowance to help cover expenses that exceed $15,000 a month, according to the court documents.

Read more here.

The Glassell estate trial, Houston’s latest high profile probate dispute, once more illustrates that a clearly stated will in no way guarantees avoidance of future legal conflicts.  At issue is distribution of the half-billion-dollar estate that belonged to oil pioneer and cultural philanthropist Alfred C. Glassell Jr.  Per the Houston Chronicle, his daughter, Curry Glassell, “is contesting his most recent of nine wills, claiming lawyers coerced him into shrinking her share of the estate and bequeathing it to charity.”

The Chronicle further describes the parties involved as:

Alone on one side of the dispute, arguing in favor of a 1998 will, is the oilman’s daughter Curry Glassell.

She is a 52-year-old single mother of two who attended the New School, a Greenwich Village-based progressive university. She’s active in the “Good Vibes for You” bottled water company and lists herself as an “Access Consciousness” facilitator.

On the other side of the lawsuit is a formidable crowd. It includes her younger brother, Alfred Glassell III, who followed his father’s footsteps into the River Oaks Country Club and society column charity balls; their father’s widow, Clare Attwell Glassell; the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston; and the Glassell Family Foundation, a charity run by Alfred Glassell III and expected to benefit Houston art. This group wants Probate Court Judge Kathy Stone to abide by the last will, signed in 2003.

The estate reportedly could be worth up to $600 million with each of the Glassell siblings having been given trust accounts of more than $15 million each.  Oil and gas leases are also said to have contributed income and the final will “grants Curry $3 million and a future interest in an oil well now paying out about $6 million a year.”

Alfred C. Glassell Jr. was a long-time supporter of the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston.  Here’s how Bloomberg.com described his commitment:

It will be difficult to persuade jurors that the museum didn’t have a special place in Alfred C. Glassell Jr.’s heart, museum lawyer Joe Jamail said in an interview. As chairman of the museum’s board of trustees in the 1990s, Glassell led a capital campaign that raised $112 million to build an exhibition wing that doubled the museum’s size in 2000, making it the nation’s fifth-largest.

The most visible sign of the oilman’s support was his 1979 donation of the Glassell School of Art, which serves as the MFAH’s teaching wing.

“The museum was a big part of his life,” Jamail said. “He even tried to train the docents who showed people around the museum.”

During his lifetime, Glassell also gave the museum more than 1,000 gold artifacts in three collections of West African, Indonesian and Pre-Columbian art. MFAH claims the U.S.’s largest collection of Akan gold art from Ghana and Ivory Coast, as well as the biggest collection of Indonesian gold art outside of Jakarta, almost all donated by Glassell.

Trial like this are usually accompanied by a cadre of high-powered attorneys.  This one is no exception and the attorneys themselves have histories worth noting.  Vinson & Elkins, the legal firm representing the museum, is a controversial entity and the firm’s ties with Enron still seem fresh in terms of public memory.  Per the Chronicle, Curry Glassell’s attorneys characterize them as follows:

“We have a very long, long history of what Mr. Glassell wanted to do with his property in his wills. It changed radically right at the very end,” said Jack Lawter, one of the attorneys for the daughter.

He argued that Vinson & Elkins lawyers, who drew up all of the elder Glassell’s wills, pushed him into moving his money to the foundation and his artifacts to the MFAH because that would mean more future work for the attorneys.

Curry’s lawyers said the elder Glassell forgot a painting he promised his daughter, didn’t finish paperwork on some oil leases he gave to his daughter’s trust and forgot other important things.

Jim Hartnett, another lawyer for Curry, argued that the elder Glassell was subject to a “new fund-raising technique” in which folks such as the MFAH’s Peter and Frances Marzio told Glassell that they loved him.

“They aren’t family, they are people who want his money,” Hartnett said. “They are trying to supplant the family.”

Vinson & Elkins is not the only firm involved in this case, however, having experienced high profile exposure.  The Dallas-based Hartnett Law Firm was part of the legal contingency representing J. Howard Marshall III in Marshall v. Marshall, the 2000-2001 probate court trial in which Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall III joined forces in the first attempt to undermine the estate distribution wishes of J. Howard Marshall II.  In a statement issued after the verdict, E. Pierce Marshall, the rightful Marshall estate heir, said:

“My father left me with the responsibility of filing his will for probate,” Pierce Marshall said. “His decisions concerning his estate were clearly stated in six wills and seven separate property trusts over 13 years prior to his death. The jury agreed with us that there was never any reason for Howard Junior to challenge our father’s estate plan and that he did so with malice.

“While these rulings will not reimburse the full cost of nor make up for the six years this litigation has taken out of our lives, they will serve as a warning to all that they cannot disrupt our lives again with another baseless lawsuit without assuming substantial personal risk,” Pierce Marshall said.

Sadly, Pierce Marshall did not live to see the end of the litigation that continues on today.  Meanwhile, similar sentiments regarding the honoring of wishes have been attributed to Alfred Glassell III:

Alfred Glassell III, listed as executor of his father’s will, testified he wants to see his father’s wishes met, even if it means cutting his sister and her two boys out of getting a penny since his father wanted anyone contesting the will to take nothing.

This is not a point of view that suits wannabe heirs, disgruntled family members or legal industry practitioners speculating on a lucrative settlement, but it’s the honorable position that once actually held weight in our society.  Detractors will claim Glassell to be self-motivated, but what if he’s just right?

From this case, people should take a note and a warning.  The note is simple:  estate planning documents are important, but don’t believe the attorney that tells you they are a safeguard from estate litigation.  From Houston alone, Marshall v. Marshall, the recent Henry J.N. Taub dispute and this case clearly prove otherwise.

The warning from this case is simply to not believe that an absence of millions of dollars makes one immune from these Involuntary Redistribution of Assets (IRA) acts.  Wealth is relative and there is always someone who wants what you have.  Not everyone can afford to fight even the most illegitimate of claims.  That point is not lost on the legal industry and its IRA allies.  Don’t let it be lost on you!

Lou Ann Anderson is an advocate working to create awareness regarding the Texas probate system and its surrounding culture.  She is the Online Producer at www.EstateofDenial.com and a Policy Advisor with Americans for Prosperity – Texas Foundation.  Lou Ann may be contacted at info@EstateofDenial.com.

The surprise announcement came from Katherine Jackson’s attorney Adam Streisand, who said his client felt it was time the legal fighting ended.

Katherine Jackson no longer objects to the appointment of attorney John Branca and music executive John McClain to oversee the singer’s estate, Streisand said. She feels her actions were in the best interest of her son’s children, he added.

A judge intended to make his formal appointment after resolving whether Jackson’s father can challenge the appointments. Joe Jackson was omitted from his son’s will, with Michael Jackson’s assets going to his mother, his children and children’s charities.

Lawyers for the estate were ordered back to argue the matter.

A 60-page motion filed last week by Joe Jackson’s attorney, Brian Oxman, detailed his bid to get money from his son’s estate by making conflict of interest accusations against Branca and McClain.

Joe Jackson is seeking an allowance from his son’s estate to help cover expenses that exceed $15,000 a month, according to the court documents.

The two had an often-strained relationship, and Michael Jackson said at one point that he would get physically sick — as a child and as an adult — at the sight of his father.

The documents said Joe Jackson receives a $1,700 monthly Social Security payment and had relied on his son for support for many years.

Howard Weitzman, an attorney for the administrators of Jackson’s estate, has said Joe Jackson’s petition would be considered along with all other requests for money from the estate.

Joe Jackson suffers from diabetes and had a stroke in 1998, the filing stated.

A former steelworker, he managed and trained his children and organized the Jackson 5. He has been married to Katherine Jackson for 50 years, but he lists his home in Las Vegas. She lives at a family home in the San Fernando Valley north of Los Angeles.

The filings listing Joe Jackson’s age as 80 in one place and 81 in another.

His list of expenses includes $1,200 a month for rent for his Las Vegas home; $2,500 to eat out; $1,000 for entertainment, gifts and vacations; $2,000 on air travel and $3,000 on hotels.

Joseph Jackson, singer’s father, lobs accusations
Linda Deutsch/Associated Press
November 10, 2009
Google News
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h9a7kycTsBsS5YVilTVuapWmQ4JgD9BSGG880
LOS ANGELES — On the eve of a hearing in the Michael Jackson estate, a lawyer for the singer’s father filed a 60-page motion Monday that intensifies a bid to get money from his son’s estate by making accusations of fraud against the administrators of his will.

Joseph Jackson’s attorney, Brian Oxman, filed a blizzard of documents in court late Monday claiming that the singer believed his old friends John Branca and John McClain had defrauded him. He also accused both of conflicts of interest and said they should be removed from administering the will.

Joseph Jackson was omitted from his son’s will with all of Michael Jackson’s assets going to his mother, his children and children’s charities.

Howard Weitzman, one of the attorneys representing Branca and McClain, issued a statement Monday night in response to the motion. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Tuesday morning.

“These claims filed by Joe Jackson are so outrageous that they don’t deserve any response,” said Weitzman.

It was unclear whether Joseph Jackson has the legal standing to challenge its provisions.

Judge considers allowance for Joe Jackson; new Michael Jackson estate allegations
Shelby Grad
November 10, 2009
Los Angeles Times
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/11/judge-considers-allowance-for-joe-jackson-new-allegations.html
Joe Jackson’s attorneys will ask a Los Angeles judge this morning to have Michael Jackson’s estate to help cover living expenses that exceed $20,000 a month.

Joe Jackson on Monday also filed new court papers claiming that his son believed the executors of his will were defrauding him.

Joe Jackson had a rocky relationship with his son and was not mentioned in the pop star’s will.

The estate is already paying Jackson’s mother a monthly allowance of $26,000 and an attorney for Joe Jackson, 81, wrote in the Los Angeles County Superior Court filing that the family patriarch was entitled to the “same manner” of support.

In the papers, his lawyer wrote that Michael Jackson had footed his father’s bills for decades.

“He does not have a regular or steady source of income, and he was dependent upon the money provided by his son, Michael Jackson, through his wife, Katherine Jackson, for his support,” attorney Brian Oxman wrote in court papers.

Michael Jackson’s father moves to oust will executors
Alan Duke
November 9, 2009
CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/11/09/michael.jackson.estate/
Los Angeles, California (CNN) — The battle for control of Michael Jackson’s estate took another turn Monday as the pop singer’s father filed a challenge of the men named as executors in Jackson’s 2002 will.

Joe Jackson, who was not named as a beneficiary of the will, contends John Branca and John McClain must be disqualified as executors because they hid from the court a mistake regarding Jackson’s signature, Brian Oxman, Joe Jackson’s attorney, told CNN.

The signature section of the will said it was signed on July 7, 2002, in Los Angeles, although there is proof Michael Jackson was in New York on that date, Oxman said.

“The executors have an obligation to tell the court the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” Oxman said. “But for four months they’ve been silent as to where this will was signed. They are concealing this from the court and you cannot do that.”

Howard Weitzman, one of the attorneys for Branca and McClain, responded by saying Joe Jackson’s claims “are so outrageous that they don’t deserve any response.”

“John Branca and John McClain, who were designated by Michael Jackson in his will as executors of his estate, will continue carrying out Michael’s wishes for the benefit of his mother, his children and charities,” Weitzman said in a statement.

Judge Mitchell Beckloff, who is overseeing the probate of Jackson’s estate, will hold a hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court Tuesday morning. It is expected he will choose a date in that hearing to consider the arguments on these and other matters related to the estate, Oxman said.

Joe Jackson also filed a request last week asking Judge Beckloff to order the estate to pay him a monthly allowance. While he is married to Jackson’s mother — Katherine Jackson — he lives separately in Las Vegas and does not share in the monthly allowance from the estate.

Oxman filed a petition Monday afternoon listing 11 grounds for Branca and McClain’s dismissal as executors.

In addition to the issue of where the will was signed, Oxman said Branca had several conflicts of interest concerning his involvement with overseeing the partnership between Jackson and Sony to own music catalogues.

The petition also contends that Branca was fired as Jackson’s lawyer in 2003, but failed to resign as an executor to the estate as he was ordered.

Michael Jackson died June 25, but the probate of his will has been slowed by a series of court squabbles.

Katherine Jackson is pursuing her own challenge of Branca and McClain. Her lawyers have indicated they would present evidence that the men have possible conflicts of interest that would disqualify them.

Oxman said his grounds for challenging them is separate and different from Katherine Jackson’s challenge.

Katherine Jackson’s legal team has asked that a member of the Jackson family “have a seat at the table” — as a third executor.

Under the 2002 will, Michael Jackson’s three children and his mother are the chief beneficiaries of his estate, while unnamed charities will share in 20 percent of the wealth.

Lawyers for 52-year-old daughter Curry described a feeble 90-year-old writing a 2003 will while drifting in and out of competency and bending to the pressures of lawyers and others who went so far as to profess love for him to get to his riches.

A doctor her lawyers will call is expected to testify her father was demented.

The crowd on the other side of the fight — which includes Curry’s brother, her father’s widow, a family foundation and the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston — countered with video of the elder Glassell throwing the ceremonial first pitch at an Astros game three weeks before he wrote the 2003 will and showed 2008 photos of him with shotgun in hand at his ranch.

Glassell died at age 95 in October 2008. He was a founder of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. and the Glassell School of Art. He left behind a $500 million estate including stocks and bonds, oil leases, ranches, artifact treasures and a $5.8 million home near the River Oaks Country Club.

“Nobody ever said Mr. Glassell was demented while he was alive,” David Gerger, lawyer for the Glassell Family Foundation, told a jury in Probate Judge Kathy Stone’s court. Gerger and company argue the 2003 will, the last of a line as long as 13 wills, is the one the jury should enforce.

“He knew his family and he had made them all rich, he made them all millionaires, multi-millionaires, multi-multi-millionaires,” Gerger said. “When her lawyers tell you she was cut out they mean she only got 15 or 20 million.”

Impressive numbers

Several impressive dollar figures were tossed around the small courtroom.

The estate may be worth up to $600 million. Alfred Glassell III is worth $30 million to $50 million. The siblings were given trust accounts of more than $15 million each.

A recent sale of oil and gas leases netted the brother $27 million and the sister $7 million. The final will grants Curry $3 million and a future interest in an oil well now paying out about $6 million a year.

What’s at stake in this sibling rivalry is about half of the elder Glassell’s estate after a few specific gifts are made. It’s estimated to be $200 million or so.

Everybody in the case but Curry wants it to go to the philanthropic Glassell Family Foundation, which is controlled by her brother who appointed two of his employees as fellow trustees.

Following father’s wishes

Alfred Glassell III, listed as executor of his father’s will, testified he wants to see his father’s wishes met, even if it means cutting his sister and her two boys out of getting a penny since his father wanted anyone contesting the will to take nothing.

The son said his father became sick well after writing the last will. He described him as honest, but not always in glowing terms.

His father sometimes used “tough love,” said the son, who was paid a five-figure salary at the oil company and who said his father didn’t like and thus never acknowledged his wife, early on calling her by the wrong name.

Curry wants the jury to find her father was too feeble in 2003 and when he wrote a similar will in 2000. She wants to go back to a 1998 will that gave both Curry and her brother each one quarter of the entire estate.

“We have a very long, long history of what Mr. Glassell wanted to do with his property in his wills. It changed radically right at the very end,” said Jack Lawter, one of the attorneys for the daughter.

More work in future

He argued that Vinson & Elkins lawyers, who drew up all of the elder Glassell’s wills, pushed him into moving his money to the foundation and his artifacts to the MFAH because that would mean more future work for the attorneys.

Curry’s lawyers said the elder Glassell forgot a painting he promised his daughter, didn’t finish paperwork on some oil leases he gave to his daughter’s trust and forgot other important things.

Jim Hartnett, another lawyer for Curry, argued that the elder Glassell was subject to a “new fund-raising technique” in which folks such as the MFAH’s Peter and Frances Marzio told Glassell that they loved him.

“They aren’t family, they are people who want his money,” Hartnett said. “They are trying to supplant the family.”