Amid an ongoing legal clash with the executors of her late father Michael Jackson‘s estate, Paris Jackson is appearing unshaken.
The daughter of the late pop icon has been locked in a tense dispute with those overseeing his estate, raising concerns about what she believes are questionable management decisions and a lack of accountability.
Despite the legal back-and-forth, including a ruling that granted the estate’s anti-SLAPP motion, the singer’s legal team remains optimistic about how the case will ultimately unfold.
Paris Jackson’s Lawyers Express Confidence After Latest Court Appearance
The “Let Down” singer appeared in court on March 12 for a continued hearing in the dispute between her and the administrators of her late father’s estate. Although the judge has yet to deliver a ruling, her attorneys believe their evidence is strong.
A source close to the 27-year-old revealed that her legal team outlined several facts proving their claim that the executors failed in their duty to be transparent and accountable.
“We think these unacceptable six-figure bonus payments are just the tip of the iceberg,” the insider said, adding they are confident in their claims.
“It was contentious at times — these cases always are — but the facts are on our side,” the source told US Magazine. “There’s no way to be sure until the judge issues a ruling, but we feel good about how today went.”
Paris Jackson Fires Back With More Claims
The latest hearing follows days after Paris’s legal team filed an opposition brief challenging the estate’s request that she reimburse $115,000 legal fees after the anti-SLAPP win.
The estate brought the motion against the model back in November when she petitioned the court to change the process through which legal fees are claimed from the estate.
However, according to The Blast, Paris’ lawyers argue that the motion did little to address the substance of her original concerns.
In their filing, they described it as a “waste of resources,” claiming it prolonged the legal process and increased costs, particularly because two separate law firms were involved in the matter.
Paris Jackson’s Team Previously Called The Motion A ‘Money Play’
Before formally challenging the motion in court, the actress’s representative had already hinted that they intended to fight back.
At the time, the spokesperson accused the estate’s leadership and their lawyers of using the legal process to secure additional financial gains.
According to the representative, Paris had spent months examining what she believes are questionable inconsistencies in the financial handling of her father’s affairs. Instead of addressing those concerns, the management allegedly focused on devices that could further benefit them.
“It’s no surprise the executors and their lawyers are using every tool at their disposal to take even more money from the Jackson family and use it to line their own pockets,” the rep said per The Blast.
How Paris’ Legal Battle Reignited Decades Of Feud Between The Jackson Family And The Executors
Paris’ fight against executors John Branca and John McClain is reopening a historical precedent. Per The Blast, Stacy M. Brown, who has reported on the family over the years, revealed that a part of them, including Randy Jackson and occasionally Janet Jackson, have since been against Branca and McClain’s management.
In Paris’ petition against Branca and McClain, she alleged that they have made excessive, unexplainable payouts and have failed to be transparent.
She claimed that the estate is sitting on more than $460 million in cash, which in 2021 earned “next to nothing” in returns. That same year, the executors awarded themselves $7.98 million in fees, while Branca’s law firm received an additional $2.16 million.
Paris Jackson Raised Concern About How Her Father’s Biopic Benefited The Executors
Another focus point for “The Sex Appeal” star in her legal dispute was the upcoming movie “Michael,” which follows the late pop icon’s life.
According to The Blast, Paris questioned the project’s management, asking whether Branca holding the position of an executive producer, for the first time, was appropriate.
She pointed to the film’s reported reshoots, noting that a significant amount of money had been spent to redo portions of the movie. She further probed the management’s approach to the film, which could expose the estate to financial loss if the movie doesn’t perform as expected.
Instead of licensing the life rights of her father to a major studio and allowing the studio to take on the production risks, the estate chose to fund the film directly.