The ongoing dispute over Michael Jackson’s multibillion-dollar estate has intensified, as estate executors filed new court documents this month challenging allegations made by his daughter, Paris Jackson.
Back in July, Paris submitted a petition opposing what she called “premium payouts” to multiple law firms, claiming the payments were made without proper authorization from the court.
Paris Jackson’s latest filing accused the executors of her father’s estate of authorizing more than $600,000 in bonuses for “uncaptured time,” describing the payments as “lavish gratuities” to already well-paid attorneys.
She claimed that estate co-executors John Branca and John McClain had not justified the need for such fees and called for stricter oversight. In her motion, Paris said she had first raised these concerns privately in 2018 but alleged that the questionable payments continued despite her objections. Her legal team urged the court to demand detailed billing records, pause further fee approvals until invoices were reviewed, and even consider appointing a third executor to monitor finances.
According to People, the estate’s response, filed on October 9, rejected Paris’s claims and emphasized the estate’s strong financial management. The filing stated that Paris herself has received “roughly $65 million from the Estate in benefits” since 2009, crediting the executors’ leadership for turning around an estate that was once more than $500 million in debt.
“Few have benefited more from the Executors’ business judgment than Petitioner herself,” the response read, adding that previous court rulings had praised the estate’s transformation into “a powerhouse and a force in the music business today,” generating billions in revenue.
The estate argued that the attorney bonuses were “well deserved and reasonable,” pointing to exceptional results such as a $287 million return on its EMI investment. Estate attorney Jonathan Steinsapir said in July, “We are confident that the objected-to payments are appropriate,” noting that similar fee structures had been approved by the probate court for over a decade.
At the heart of the dispute is a 2010 court order granting the executors authority to approve attorney payments without prior court approval — a policy Paris is now seeking to overturn. Meanwhile, the estate argues her challenge falls under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which protects certain legal filings from being contested.
A hearing on the matter was set for Thursday, October 16, with the court expected to review both sides’ motions.
