The legal battle over Michael Jackson’s multibillion-dollar estate took a sharp turn this month, with executors filing new documents that directly push back against claims made by his daughter, Paris Jackson.
In July, Paris filed a petition objecting to what she described as “premium payouts” made to several law firms without proper court approval.
Her motion alleged that bonuses totaling more than $600,000 were paid for “uncaptured time” and referred to the payments as “lavish gratuities” to attorneys who were already well compensated.
She argued that the estate’s executors—John Branca and John McClain—failed to justify why such fees should be allowed, and called for tighter oversight.
According to Paris’s filing, she first raised similar concerns privately in 2018, but alleged that payments continued despite objections. Her legal team urged the court to require more detailed records, limit fee approvals until invoices were reviewed, and even suggested adding a third executor to oversee finances.
According to People, the estate’s response, filed on October 9, disputes those claims and highlights the financial success of its management. The motion states that Paris herself has received “roughly $65 million from the Estate in benefits” since 2009, emphasizing that such sums were only possible because of the executors’ strategy in transforming an estate once burdened with more than $500 million in debt.
“Few have benefited more from the Executors’ business judgment than Petitioner herself,” the filing reads. It also cites prior court rulings praising how the estate grew into “a powerhouse and a force in the music business today,” generating billions in revenue.
The estate argues that bonuses to attorneys were “well deserved and reasonable,” tied to extraordinary results such as a $287 million return on its EMI investment. Jonathan Steinsapir, attorney for the estate, said in July that “we are confident that the objected-to payments are appropriate,” noting that the probate court had approved similar fee structures for more than a decade.
At the center of the dispute is a 2010 court order that allows the executors to approve attorney payments without prior court sign-off. Paris seeks to roll that order back, while the estate contends she is challenging protected filings under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
A hearing on the matter was scheduled for Thursday, October 16, where the court will consider the competing motions.
