| User | Post |
|
7:30 pm
August 3, 2009
|
Tenderoni
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 205 |
|
|
Thank you, but I would also like to say that all of these proceedings have been standard operating procedure in a death/estate, and I have been trying to tell everyone that from the beginning. So, you don't really need to take my word for it, but any probate lawyer (I don't practice probate full time) will tell you this is all every day, not out of the ordinary, stuff in the world of probate law.
|
|
|
7:41 pm
August 3, 2009
|
doonbuggy
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 192 |
|
|
carelesslove46 said:
doonbuggy..The documents were filed in an open court..I think that means anyone can see them..Tenderoni had a collegue there in the court, correct??..I think this proves beyond all doubt that Michael did pass away..I think we should just accept that now..At what point do we accept that Mike is really dead?? What Tenderoni has said is good enough proof for me..Honestly, these past weeks my belief's have fluctuated from one extreme to the other..There have been times I have been convinced that Michael is still alive..But in light of the insurance payout and Tenderoni having a collegue that WAS THERE in the court room, I can now finally accept that Michael is gone. I know not many will accept this..But there has to come a point where we just have to face it…Take care..xxx
thanks for your insiught carelesslove,… BUT this is the contradiction I am questioning right now… I THINK IT MEANS ANYONE CAN SEE THEM>> OPEN COURT.. when asked.. suddenly one would have to pay for them.
with that in mind.. and also in mind the TMZ feed was limited… they did not mention this crucial part.
ANYWAY if it is open court why would i have to pay for the transcript?
AND why would TMZ…. the trolls that they are not add than in their report?
I have not followed anyone on this forum.. for as I am not a stalker. and yes I am repeating myself.. i apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
7:41 pm
August 3, 2009
|
mjfan
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 679 |
|
|
I dont' really understand why a life insurance carrier would pay out on a death that is this messy and still has so many unanswered questions. There is an ongoing investigation and I would think a life insurance carrier wouldn't want to pay out until after all this mess was sorted out.
|
|
|
7:47 pm
August 3, 2009
|
carelesslove46
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 266 |
|
|
Well, you do have a point there doonbuggy..Tenderoni, if you are still onboard what exactly does 'open court' mean??..Thanks!
|
|
|
7:49 pm
August 3, 2009
|
Tenderoni
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 205 |
|
|
carelesslove46 said:
Well, you do have a point there doonbuggy..Tenderoni, if you are still onboard what exactly does 'open court' mean??..Thanks!
Open court means the records aren't sealed and media and other non-interested parties can attend.
What you would have to pay for ARE THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS YOU WANT. Also, court reporters charge a fee for the transcripts.
It's not rocket science.
|
|
|
7:50 pm
August 3, 2009
|
Tenderoni
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 205 |
|
|
Sorry–my “rocket science” comment was directed to doonbuggy.
|
|
|
7:53 pm
August 3, 2009
|
Annieisnotokey
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 121 |
|
|
I have a question (just out of curiosity, I'm not trying to start an argument):
Is it a common practice in the US to name the estate as beneficiary in the life insurance policy, instead of naming actual individuals (in this case, for example, his children and/or his mother)?
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the life insurance payout because instead of going directly to the beneficiaries, the proceeds are paid into the estate, joining the rest of the assets and consequently be subject to the delays / expenses / uncertainties of the probate process?
If you know you are in debt (like MJ was reported to be), why risk the payout to be destined to pay those debts instead of directing the money directly to his mother & children?
I knows it means nothing and I can't really compare it, but in my country, we cannot name the estate as life insurance beneficiary. At least one individual has to be named beneficiary (and we are advised by insurance companies to name more than one, in case the beneficiary dies before the insurance owner).
|
 |
The beauty of conspiracy theories is that the more they try to talk you out of it, the more they reinforce the idea of conspiracy. |
|
|
|
7:55 pm
August 3, 2009
|
Tenderoni
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 205 |
|
|
Annieisnotokey said:
I have a question (just out of curiosity, I'm not trying to start an argument):
Is it a common practice in the US to name the estate as beneficiary in the life insurance policy, instead of naming actual individuals (in this case, for example, his children and/or his mother)?
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the life insurance payout because instead of going directly to the beneficiaries, the proceeds are paid into the estate, joining the rest of the assets and consequently be subject to the delays / expenses / uncertainties of the probate process?
If you know you are in debt (like MJ was reported to be), why risk the payout to be destined to pay those debts instead of directing the money directly to his mother & children?
I knows it means nothing and I can't really compare it, but in my country, we cannot name the estate as life insurance beneficiary. At least one individual has to be named beneficiary (and we are advised by insurance companies to name more than one, in case the beneficiary dies before the insurance owner).
Yes, it is very common. It's usually done so that those proceeds are used to pay out estate tax rather than burden the estate's cash flow/assets with respect to beneficiary payouts.
|
|
|
7:59 pm
August 3, 2009
|
Annieisnotokey
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 121 |
|
|
Tenderoni said:
Yes, it is very common. It's usually done so that those proceeds are used to pay out estate tax rather than burden the estate's cash flow/assets with respect to beneficiary payouts.
Thanks for your reply.
It's so different in my country that it really didn't make sense to me.
As I said, where I am from it's not even an option to name the estate as life insurance beneficiary.
|
|
The beauty of conspiracy theories is that the more they try to talk you out of it, the more they reinforce the idea of conspiracy. |
|
|
|
8:02 pm
August 3, 2009
|
doonbuggy
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 192 |
|
|
who was the life insurance beneficiary?
|
|
|
|
|
8:07 pm
August 3, 2009
|
bec
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 388 |
|
|
doonbuggy said:
who was the life insurance beneficiary?
The estate. And hows this for a wrench in the works? Doesn't mean the check is cashed 
|
 |
What do you think about that, Give.It.To.Me? |
|
|
|
8:11 pm
August 3, 2009
|
carelesslove46
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 266 |
|
|
OK, thanks Tenderoni…I appreciate your input.
|
|
|
8:14 pm
August 3, 2009
|
carelesslove46
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 266 |
|
|
I think Mike's mother and the kids are entitled to an allowance from the life insurance..A monthly allowance if I am correct..But it's not as much as Katherine's lawyer's had asked for..
|
|
|
8:35 pm
August 3, 2009
|
doonbuggy
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 192 |
|
|
from his life ins. policy or his estate???
|
|
|
|
|
8:39 pm
August 3, 2009
|
carelesslove46
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 266 |
|
|
From the life insurance policy…I am pretty sure of it.
|
|
|
8:41 pm
August 3, 2009
|
curious_george
Member
| | Planet Earth | |
|
| posts 189 |
|
|
bec said:
doonbuggy said:
who was the life insurance beneficiary?
The estate. And hows this for a wrench in the works? Doesn't mean the check is cashed
But I think that in order for a life insurance policy to be paid out, a proper and official death certificate (which of course would have to include a cause of death that was covered by the policy) would have to be submitted. Sorry 
|
|
|
9:03 pm
August 3, 2009
|
doonbuggy
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 192 |
|
|
carelesslove46 said:
From the life insurance policy…I am pretty sure of it.
how are you sure of it?
|
|
|
|
|
9:07 pm
August 3, 2009
|
bec
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 388 |
|
|
curious_george said:
bec said:
doonbuggy said:
who was the life insurance beneficiary?
The estate. And hows this for a wrench in the works? Doesn't mean the check is cashed
But I think that in order for a life insurance policy to be paid out, a proper and official death certificate (which of course would have to include a cause of death that was covered by the policy) would have to be submitted. Sorry
I would think so too. But some say we should believe otherwise.
|
|
What do you think about that, Give.It.To.Me? |
|
|
|
11:13 pm
August 3, 2009
|
Tenderoni
Member
| | | |
|
| posts 205 |
|
|
bec said:
doonbuggy said:
who was the life insurance beneficiary?
The estate. And hows this for a wrench in the works? Doesn't mean the check is cashed
Yes, it does, because the proceeds were put into the estate's bank account. That's why they were discussing the fact that proceeds have been paid, they were taking stock of the assets to date in connection with the amount of money Katherine was requesting.
Also, again, for the people who keep asking. YES, you CAN have a life insurance payout with a DEFERRED cause of death on a death certificate. That IS an official certificate as of now. Many deaths are NEVER resolved, and yet insurance pays out.
|
|
This forum is currently locked – access is read only
Login
Search 
Forums
Topic RSS 