Tag: Michael Jackson

[media-credit name=”Instagram” link=”https://www.instagram.com/p/DJ8goypAK8_/?img_index=5″ width=893 align=”center”][/media-credit]

Paris Jackson, 27, has filed a court motion challenging how her late father Michael Jackson’s estate has been managed—especially focusing on a series of controversial legal payments. In her petition, Paris accuses the estate’s executors of approving “premium payments” to outside law firms for 2018 alone amounting to approximately $600,000–$625,000 in unrecorded or late‑approved attorney time, often referred to as “uncaptured time”. She labels these fees as lavish gratuities and alleges a “lack of oversight” and opaque accounting practices that undermine beneficiary trust.

In her motion, Jackson seeks court‐mandated disclosure of documents relating to legal costs paid between 2019 and 2023 and requests that future payments be held pending court approval. She also proposes appointing a third executor to ensure independent oversight of the estate’s ongoing administrative and financial management.

Executors John Branca and John McClain strongly defend their record. In filings dated July 15, they assert that these premium payments were justified given their success in rescuing the estate—assumed to be more than $500 million in debt at Michael Jackson’s death—and achieving major financial gains, including a roughly $300 million return on a previously $50,000 EMI stake. They affirm that such compensation is standard in the entertainment industry and was previously approved by the courts.

Supporters of Paris’ position include observers who describe the situation as typical of fiduciary mismanagement. Reddit commenters, for instance, portray lawyers exploiting vulnerable beneficiaries, with one remarking, “another scheme is the trustee creating phony firms… hiding their connection… and profiting.” Though anecdotal, these comments echo widespread unease.

Jackson’s motion will be weighed at a court hearing (scheduled for July 16 in prior filings), where a judge may decide whether the beneficiaries should be shielded from unchecked legal expenses or whether the executors’ actions merit continued trust. If confirmed, Paris’s concerns may prompt a meaningful change in estate oversight.