The late King of Pop’s estate has filed legal documents in their dispute with Katherine, 93, over the cost of her attorney’s fees, which she wants the estate to cover, according to a representative who spoke with TMZ.
The estate claims that Katherine has gotten a large amount of cash and other benefits since Michael’s death in 2009, alleging it totals over $55 million in nearly 15 years.
A significant portion of the money comes from a monthly allowance that’s over $160k and amounts to $33 million of the $55 million, according to the estate.
It comes after Michael’s son, Blanket ‘Bigi’ Jackson, 22, filed legal papers seeking to block his grandmother from using estate funds amid an extended legal battle with the estate executors.
The latest filing claims that Katherine is well taken care of by the estate and that they have spent more than $15 million to buy and improve her luxury home, and have paid for her transportation, a private gardener, a chef, and security.
The estate executors believe that Katherine can afford to cover her own attorney’s fees in their legal dispute.
Her fight with Michael’s estate seemingly centres on a disagreement over a multi-million deal struck by the estate for the sale of a portion of Michael’s music rights.
Katherine reportedly objected to the deal and now she wants the estate to cover her legal fees.
On Wednesday it was reported that Michaels’ son Bigi, formerly known as Blanket, filed paperwork with the court earlier this week, as per TMZ.
It’s the latest chapter in a legal battle over the Beat It singer’s estate nearly 15 years after the June 25, 2009 death.
The latest court action comes in contrast to recent efforts on legal fronts, according to the outlet, as Blanket and Katherine had been in sync amid ongoing family efforts focused on issues circulating through the court system.
While the legal docs TMZ reviewed did not identify the specific issue on hand, recent headlines have indicated that the Man in the Mirror singer’s survivors oppose efforts made by his estate executors to sell a large portion of the late artist’s catalogue.
Blanket and his grandmother were on the same page in stating their resistance to a potential sale, according to legal documents reviewed by TMZ, but Blanket was not involved with Katherine’s subsequent appeal of the court’s eventual ruling to let the executors proceed in exploring further options for a sale.
Attorneys for Blanket told the court that he feels the appeal will not be a successful one and doesn’t want to depreciate the value of the estate with expensive legal bills, the outlet reported.
Blanket’s legal team requested the court ‘use its best judgment’ in ruling for Katherine to be reimbursed for ‘reasonable attorney’s fees’ she racked prior to appealing the court’s ruling.
Attorneys for Blanket said in docs submitted to the court last June that Blanket had hoped to keep his position on the matter under wraps, encouraging the court to maintain confidentiality on certain aspects of the legal conflict.
Blanket ‘is a very private person and may have said nothing if he knew that his words or positions could become public,’ his lawyers said. ‘That, in turn, would have denied the trial court of the ability to hear and consider all aspects of the proposed action.’
In legal docs obtained by Dailymail earlier this month, the two executors of the estate, John Branca and John McClain, filed paperwork in Los Angeles Superior Court asking it to stop Katherine in her pursuit of $561,548 from them over a legal dispute tied to the late Thriller singer’s catalogue.
Katherine filed court documents requesting the six-figure sum in a motion, as she said she spent the total on legal fees seeking to prevent Branca and McClain from selling her late son’s work.
Branca and McClain sought court approval in 2022 to sell Michael Jackson’s catalogue, leading his mother to file documents objecting to the potential sale.
Katherine told the court in a hearing on the topic that her late son – who famously feuded with Paul McCartney in the mid-1980s over his purchase of publishing rights of a chunk of Beatles material – made clear he never wanted his catalogue to be sold, as he felt it was his lifeline, Radar reported earlier this month.
Branca and McClain told the court that Katherine has an established track record of opposing business transactions that would be profitable for the estate; and said the timing was right to put Jackson’s work for sale, as it would command maximum value amid current market conditions.
Branca and McClain told the court that Jackson’s estate badly needed the cash infusion, as it ‘was teetering on the verge of collapse,’ Radar reported after reviewing legal docs.
The estate, according to the executors, had ‘more than $400 million in debt that encumbered Michael’s most significant assets and little or no liquidity or means to service that debt.
‘Through creative thinking, hard work and business savvy and, of course, Michael’s extraordinary creative legacy – the Executors transformed the MJJ Business into a profitable enterprise.’
The judge in the case eventually granted Branca and McClain permission to pursue a sale of the catalogue, which Katherine filed an appeal against, saying the executors were overreaching in their authority, Radar reported.
Branca and McClain filed papers in response objecting to Katherine’s appeal, citing their rights as executors. The court has yet to issue a judgment on the appeal.
Last month the estate announced a partial sale, as Sony purchased the rights to half of Jackson’s material for $600 million amid Katherine’s objections.
Michael’s eldest son Prince, 27, said through his legal team that he preferred to keep his position on the situation private.
Lawyers for Prince described him last June in court docs as ‘a private figure who never sought or invited attention as to this specific proposed transaction or, more broadly, the details of his position as far as this transaction is concerned.’
They added that ‘whether an individual beneficiary is supportive, opposed, or indifferent to this transaction is information that, if publicly disclosed, would likely have a negative impact on the ability to consummate this transaction or negotiate/renegotiate a different transaction in the future.’