The Michael Jackson memorial in Los Angeles last July reportedly cost the cash-strapped city millions of dollars in police overtime and sanitation expenses, and now one  resident wants  Michael Jackson's family to pay the bill. According to the Associated Press, Jose F. Vallejo is seeking $3.3 million from Jackson’s estate.  The lawsuit, typically called a taxpayer's suit, is brought under a California law which permits taxpayers to sue in order to recover money on behalf of a governmental entity to which the taxpayer pays taxes. The taxpayer has requested that the money be deposited into the treasury for the City of Los Angeles.  Although the taxpayer typically does not benefit directly from the action, there are typically attorney fees which may have to be paid either by the defendant or the City, depending upon the outcome of the case.  The taxpayer benefits, at least theoretically, indirectly by reduced need for taxation.

Ohio, too, has a statute which permits taxpayer suits in certain cases. 

While the memorial cost the city millions, it also reportedly earned $4 million for the city’s hotels, restaurants
and local businesses, too. However, in his claim Vallejo alleges, “The [Jackson] estate benefited from the use of public resources that amounted to an illegal gift of public funds.” The city of Los Angeles and AEG Live, the organizers of the memorial and Jackson’s planned This Is It concerts in London, have reportedly been in talks to repay the city some of the costs.  Acccording to the AP, however, there is no agreement at this point. You may recall that L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s office launched a website seeking public donations to help ease the city’s financial burden in paying for the memorial.

As required in all probate estate proceedings, it will be left up to executors John Branca and John McClain to investigate the validity of the claim and determine if it should be paid.  As you may know, Michael Jackson employed a trust in his estate plan.  The trustee of that trust, too, will determine whether the trust requires or permits payment of the obligation.

Of course the  real winners are attorneys who will be paid to both prosecute and defend the various parties.

Published January 26, 2010 in the Aging in Place Planning and Elderlaw Blog. This article is general information, not legal advice; see our disclaimer.

Schedule a consultation