Executors or Administrators?

Executors is a person named by a maker of a will to carry out the directions of the will. The executor's duties include the disbursement of property to the beneficiaries as designated in the will, obtaining information about any other potential heirs , collecting and arranging for payment of debts of the estate and approving or disapproving craditors'claims. the executor also holds legal title to the estate property , but may not ude that property for the executor's own benefit unless expressly permitted by the terms of the will. A person who deals with a deceased person's property without proper authority is known as an executor de son tort. Such a person's actions may subsequently be ratified by the lawful executors or administrators. The administrator of an estate is a legal term referring to a person appointed by a court to administer the estate of a deceased person WHO LEFT NO WILL.

Branca and Mc Claine were already appointed executors by Michael Jackson in his last will ( 7 July 2002).

In the petition for probate of will they were appointed EXECUTORS, but with limited authority.. why??? in the last will mj didn't limit the authority of the two lawyers.

The executors don't need a judge approval to have the power, they keep their legitimation from the will , if there is a will and it is valid they don't need judge approval.

Why they were appointed to be ADMINISTRATORS if there was a Will and they were already appointed executors???

Executors- 7 July 2002 in the will / 1 july 2009 in the petition of probate. / 9 November 2009

Why in 2002 they were be appointed as ADMINISTRATORS if mj is alive?? on the 6 july at 12:14 pm Branca and Mc Clain had been appointed the special ADMINISTRATORS of Michael Jackson's estate , but THEY AREN'T EXECUTORS?
and again there is a petition filled on 12 november for appointing them as a ADMINISTRATORS.


and what about that "The lawyer for the named co-executors says he has a letter from Michael Jackson stating he wanted Branca to be in control of his affairs. The letter was dated June 17, 2009, 8 days before Jackson died. "

So they are administrators or executors??

Administrators = NO WILL
Executors = WILL

Double again?? we have two mjs… the first wrote a will and the other one not??.. so branca and mc claine are executors for the estate of the 1mj and administrators for the estate of the 2mj?..

I think the Branca letter is very interesting indeed. As far as the executors/administrators go, maybe because it's such a large estate, and because his family was challenging it...saying it was forged, there was a newer one, etc. they wanted to be sure before permanently appointing them...I don't know. Why is this a sticky?

administrator can take care of property and business of someone missing but not dead ... maybe that's why they are administrators and not executors ...

Administrator (law), a person appointed by a court to handle the administration of an estate for someone who has died without a will. Not missing, the person must be dead without write a will.

http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/1112_michael_jackson.pdf

Here you can see that it ends at 04.January 2010.

i maybe wrong ... sure ! i'm italian an laws are different in different countries, i know. but look at this link...
TRUSTEES OF ESTATES OF PERSONS MISSING 90 DAYS OR MORE
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Nrs/NRS-156.html

But here we have a DEATH CERTIFICATE , so the person is death not missing....and why they are appointed EXECUTORS in the will and then they became ADMINISTRATORS , appointed by judge..... there is something wrong.....

do we have a real or a fake death certificate?
i think they were appointed administrators by the judge because they were appointed executors in a will that can't be used because the person is missing and not dead. that's my opinion.

All documents are "fake"... but we don't have legal paper of a missing person. On the documents you can read DECEDENT right next Michael Jackson name , so the man is "dead" not missing.

so you think he's dead?

I'm not think he is dead! i'm not saying that! i'm just saying that there is something wrong.. you can't appoint the same lawyers executors and administrators of the same estate... There is a big difference, I put in my first post the definitions. but if there is 2 mjs, so 2 estates , ONE wrote a will and the other ONE not , it's a different story, Branca and Mc Clain could be appointed executors of the 1mj estate ( with will) and administrators of 2mj estate ( no will). It's just my thought...

yes you can!!! if you can't execute the will ...

if you are appointed executor ( will and petition of probate) , you can't become administrator, and then change again in executor.... it's impossible..

tinkerbell72 wrote:yes you can!!! if you can't execute the will ...

Execute a will means putting your signature on it, having it witnessed and having your signature, and the witnesses signatures notarized. In California , you can chose if notarized or not the will, the important things are witness and your will.

really, i can't see the problem. maybe it's my fault. i'll tell my opinion the best i can then i'll wait for someone else to express themselves.
if there's a will, no matter if notarized or not, and a person is dead, the will has to be respected. if there's not a will law tells who are the people that will get the estate.
if there's someone missing and not dead the judge can tell someone to administer money and business for the missing person for a period of time at least.
now i can't understand the problem if the judge chooses the same people chosen by the missing person in a will ... i can't understand why we need to think about TWO MJs and TWO estates ... and moreover: one should be dead and one should be missing?
please try and understand what i mean even if terms are not appropriate - i'm not english and i'm trying really hard to explain myself

Hey guys I have to point out that there are 2 things involved with MJ's estate -- a will and a trust.

Branca/McClain are the named administrators of the TRUST. The will basically says 2 things: who MJ said he wanted to take care of the children and that the assets of his estate are going into the trust. IT IS THE TRUST that divides up the assets of the estate, NOT THE WILL. They were named executors with limited authority because all of the assets are put into the trust.

Because of all the legal stuff involved with the estate/trust/lawsuits their duties are limited because they need to obtain permission from the court to do certain things. That is why there are all sorts of petitions to the court. It is basically a way of making sure that the court has oversight with regard to what is happening to the estate and that no one can, on their own, dispense assets without that oversight.

he gave to the executors full power... why the judge limited the power?? his decision is against michael jackson will..

Cecile wrote:he gave to the executors full power... why the judge limited the power?? his decision is against michael jackson will..

Because of all the complications involved with the estate/lawsuits/etc. Also, because Katherine has suggested that she is questioning the choice of the executors. Until the beneficiaries are satisfied with the executors and the court resolves that issue , the judge has to limit their "powers" and oversee everything. If the beneficiaries are challenging the will, the court cannot allow the executors to proceed without authority from the court on issues arising from the estate.