Legal lesson in MJ death

July 8, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
I know, I know, there’s been non-stop news coverage of the death of Michael Jackson since June 25, and the last place you’d expect to read more about him is here. But I think there is a legal lesson to be learned from his death if you’ll just hear me out – the importance of wills.

For a few days, there was talk that Jackson didn’t have a will. Turns out, he had one prepared back in 2002. My thought when hearing these discussions: Maybe this will make people following this saga create or update their wills. (Does this mean I’m starting to think like a lawyer if that’s what I immediately think about when watching the coverage?)

For some reason, when celebrities do certain things or when they die, it affects some people more profoundly and personally than if the same thing happened to a non-celebrity. Because these celebrities are on our TVs each week, on the big screen, or playing on our radios, some feel a connection to them that they may not have with neighbors or family. Let’s face it – celebrities are influential and perhaps Jackson can influence people to make a will.

I do think if he hadn’t had a will, it would be even more influential on people because the talking heads would have picked this apart and spent days, weeks, or even months talking about it as Jackson’s affairs were settled.

We, as the general public, know wills are important but the thought of actually creating one (and paying a lawyer to help make one) can be daunting and overwhelming. People put it off because creating a will signifies dealing with your mortality. Although we know we won’t live forever, no one likes to think about actually dying.

Some people have wills, but then never update them. Life happens after you create the will – you make more money, get married, get divorced, have children, etc. Perhaps what you wanted to leave to your brother before you had children you’d now rather leave to your son. Things like that.

I imagine most people watching the news and memorial service are just trying to remember a great entertainer who had a major impact on the world, but maybe a few will remember to update their wills or find a lawyer to make one.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT