Estate Planning
4 Estate-Planning Lessons From
Michael Jackson
Learn from the pop icon’s concise plans for handling his assets and caring for his family.
By Jane Bennett Clark, Senior Associate Editor, Kiplinger's Personal Finance
July 2009
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
For a man who lived so controversial a life, Michael Jackson did something surprisingly sensible before his death.
He set up a smart estate plan.
Jackson’s will provides for the care of his loved ones. A separate document gathers his assets — said to be over $500 million, exceeding his debt by about $200 million - into a trust, ensuring that his affairs stay (mostly) out of the courts and (ideally) out of the public eye.
Far from being wacko, the arrangements set the stage for an orderly disposition of his chaotic empire, says Todd Reinstein, an estate-planning lawyer in Los Angeles. And although challenges could roll in like the California surf, this plan is so well crafted that it just might hold up – unless another will emerges.
Here’s what you can learn about estate planning from the King of Pop.
Write a will.
A no-brainer? Actually, about two-thirds of Americans neglect to take on this basic estate-planning chore, allowing a judge to divvy up their assets by default according to state law. Had Jackson been similarly remiss, his property would have been split among his three children, as dictated by California law. Instead, he divided it the way he wanted to, reportedly leaving 40% of his estate to the kids, 40% to his mother, Katherine Jackson, and 20% to charity.
Jackson avoided potential misunderstandings by citing each of his children by name and by specifically excluding his former wife and mother of his two older children, Debbie Rowe, from any inheritance. That exclusion may not have been necessary, because the couple were no longer married, but it makes clear that Jackson purposely omitted her, rather than committing an oversight. Anna Nicole Smith, another celebrity with a tangled personal life, neglected to name her infant, Dannielynn, in her will, creating confusion as to her intent. Jackson made his choices clear.
Consider a living trust.
Along with a will, Jackson established a living trust, also called a revocable trust. This estate-planning tool lets you transfer all your property, including cars, bank accounts and real estate, into a separately owned entity—in Jackson’s case, the Michael Jackson Family Trust--while maintaining control as trustee. At your death, control transfers to your designated co-trustee or successor trustee. Most people, including Jackson, set up their will to “pour over” so that whatever property remains outside the trust at their death eventually is added to it.
The beauty of a living trust for some is that the assets it holds at the time of death avoid probate, a public process. “People who are not interested in having the media know how much they died with or to whom the money is going to be left always do a living trust to prevent media attention,” says Reinstein. Avoiding probate can also make sense for regular folks with significant assets or property in more than one state because it spares their heirs the aggravation of a prolonged legal process. “It saves a lot of money, time and hassle,” says David Shulman, an estate-planning attorney in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Name a guardian.
In writing his will, Jackson created a legal framework for naming a guardian for his children, all of whom are minors. Without that document, the state—not Jackson-- would have made the choice about who would raise the kids. Jackson selected his mother as primary guardian and singer Diana Ross, his longtime friend and mentor, as backup. Although the court has to sign off on the selection, most judges abide by a parent’s wishes unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.
One big reason: The other biological parent demands custody. Unless he or she is deemed unfit or has given up parental rights, “the court is going to favor the surviving biological parent,” says Richard Barnes, an estate-planning attorney and author of Estate Planning for Blended Families (Nolo, $35). Rowe reportedly gave up her parental rights several years ago and later petitioned to have them reinstated, leaving the legal picture murky. She has yet to say whether she will seek custody. (The third child’s mother, a birth surrogate, has not come forward.)
As for Jackson’s choice of caregivers, he might have done better to pick someone younger than his 79-year-old mother, says Shulman. But, he adds, “with so much money involved, it’s not as if she will be driving the children to school and doing the actual work of raising them.” Most lawyers recommend that parents go with a trusted friend or relative who is reasonably close to their own age and circumstances. Jackson chose trust and continuity over relative youth.
Assemble a good team.
Known as an astute businessman, Jackson named a top-notch lawyer, John Branca, and a savvy business executive, John McClain, as co-executors of his will and co-trustees of the family trust (a third representative dropped out before Jackson died.). Despite a challenge by Katherine Jackson, Branca and McClain were awarded control of the estate by a California Superior Court judge until the next court hearing, in early August.
By relying on these and other experts, Jackson improved the odds that his wishes would play out, says Reinstein. “He had good legal advice. The estate plan was well drafted. He put two people in charge of the will and trust who he felt were sage, mature and had a great deal of expertise in how to handle what are probably considerable assets. He couldn’t have put his estate in a better position.”
Bottom line: “A good estate plan is very important,” says Reinstein. “I believe Michael Jackson has one in place.”
Tags:
Topics:
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy



Reader Comments (16)
Posted by: Hamilton at 07/08/2009 09:01:06 AM
Never leave a % to charity. It may force you to sell everything so they can get their fair percentage.
Posted by: sid at 07/08/2009 11:55:39 AM
It's a good thing Jackson set up a living trust so that, according to this article, "People who are not interested in having the media know how much they died with or to whom the money is going to be left always do a living trust to prevent media attention". Otherwise we'd all know that his estate held $500 million in assets, he had around $300 million in liabilities, and which heirs and charities were getting what percentage...oh, wait a minute...that didn't exactly work out? Looks like the media found out anyway and dutifully reported it.
Posted by: Wesley at 07/08/2009 10:27:01 PM
Your article was very informative. However it was somewhat offensive in its first paragraph: "For a guy who squandered millions, consorted with chimpanzees and dressed like a Christmas nutcracker..." I didn't find it at all funny to speak of a deceased man this way.
Posted by: Kristina at 07/09/2009 11:06:33 AM
Sid...you miss the point of the article. Like the general media, this author is merely speculating on Jackson's estates. The actual details are not disclosed as they would be had he only drafted a Will or had no estate plan in place. The Living Trust is protecting him in the end. I wrote something similar earlier this week at vickstromlawdotcom. (urls not allowed)
Posted by: JP at 07/09/2009 02:30:28 PM
Hamilton - the same could be said for any beneficiary. What you suggest only happens in a poorly planned/executed estate plan.
Posted by: MR King at 07/10/2009 12:22:53 AM
Wish the author had went into the tax angle of a Trust. Not many people understand that a Trust will save them getting bent over by the Imperial Federal Gov one more time even though they are DEAD. Another good reason for FairTax HR25/S296.
Posted by: Butterfly at 07/10/2009 09:34:55 AM
Just because you look different, and dress different, doesn't mean your stupid. Because we all know you can't fix stupid. It was all for show, that is what Hollywood is all about, the show.
Posted by: Mike at 07/10/2009 03:33:21 PM
This is an article talking about him doing something correct and proper - right? But first line, lets give him a shot or two first....I think it's horrible. but let's break it down with facts. "squandered millions" the man gave so much of his money to charity and never given the credit for it. In fact this article mentions that 20% of the family trust is going to charity as well. "consorted with chimpanzees" this is bizarre terminology when referring to a pet that was rescued from a cancer research clinic. Only someone with his kind of money could afford such a pet. I'm not sure why there is a "es" at the end. Only one I know of. "Christmas nutcracker" do I really need to explain why this is wrong? The man was a performer and entertainer. His clothes were not terrible considering his field and level of accomplishment as a showman. Standing out is part of the game. and why is it "surprisingly sensible". Businesswise he was genius as well. Shame on the author here.
Posted by: Steven J. Fromm, Esq at 07/10/2009 06:09:40 PM
This is great advice for everyone. Your readers may be interested in another perspective on some of the more interesting legal implications raised by the deaths of Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett by reading Michael Jackson & Farrah Fawcett: Estate Plan Wake Up Call by visiting my blog at wttp://frommtaxes.wordpress.com/ Hope this is of value to your readers.
Posted by: Kyle at 07/12/2009 01:39:27 AM
...a cheap shot at Michael. Mr. Jackson's ability to amass a fortune worth half a BILLION shows that he was way smarter than the person who wrote this story.
Posted by: LinkMan at 07/14/2009 08:15:07 PM
@MR King, there isn't really a tax angle to a living/revocable trust. It doesn't usually avoid estate taxes, it just avoids probate. Now if he set up an IRREVOCABLE trust for each heir and contributed to them over time, he could avoid some estate/gift taxes. But if he truly had hundreds of millions in net worth at death, the $12k or so per year per heir wouldn't have amounted to much in the grand scheme of things. Plus with an irrevocable trust, if he ever needed the money for himself for whatever reason, he wouldn't have been able to get it back.
Posted by: Mike at 07/18/2009 08:58:19 AM
...The other comments sum up my take on the situation: Michael Jackson was a guy who knew a hell of a lot more about making and distributing money than the average American. What does his style of dress have to do with his business sense or his personal responsibility to his family? The opening paragraph really discredits the author...Poor form.
Posted by: Darek at 08/12/2009 05:16:44 PM
Hmmm. Some readers here haven't noticed that people who dress far outside the norm often attract attention -- and droll comments..
Posted by: LFord at 08/12/2009 05:21:58 PM
LinkMan (July 14, 2009 08:15 PM) wrote: "@MR King, there isn't really a tax angle to a living/revocable trust. It doesn't usually avoid estate taxes, it just avoids probate. Now if he set up an IRREVOCABLE trust for each heir and contributed to them over time, he could avoid some estate/gift taxes." Not exactly. A living trust (technically, an inter-vivos revocable trust) can be used to avoid estate taxes for married couples by insuring that the estate tax exemption available to each decedent taxpayer is used correctly and that the assets of the decedent "flow" correctly after death to fund the exemption (or "credit shelter") trusts. However, that planning strategy would not have been available to Mr. Jackson if he were not legally married at his death. It is true that certain forms of irrevocable trusts can be used to achieve additional estate, gift, or income tax savings, depending upon the circumstances and goals of the client.
Posted by: Dr.M.Brown at 08/13/2009 03:45:41 PM
Michael Jackson was a smart businessman. He just had issues he needed help with.To not forgive will destroy us.
Posted by: Maerzie at 08/13/2009 04:17:45 PM
Michael Jackson was a gifted artist. Artists are ALWAYS uniquely different in some or all of their lifestyle, thinking, actions, and/or dress. Their brains are simply wired differently, wherein lies the genius qualities!