An appellate panel in Los Angeles says Katherine Jackson should remember the time she first objected to the $600 million sale of her son’s catalog to Sony more than a year ago. Because she failed to argue then that the asset sale allegedly violated the terms of Michael Jackson’s will, she can’t do it now on appeal, the three-judge panel says.
In a new tentative opinion expected to be adopted over the next 90 days, the appellate panel sided with Michael Jackson’s estate executors and said Katherine Jackson “forfeited” the core claim of her appeal by not raising it in the lower court that first rubber-stamped the deal. The tentative ruling from California’s Second Appellate District went on to say that even if Katherine had raised that issue in the probate court, it wouldn’t have mattered. Looking at the merits of her appeal, the judges said they agree with the prior judge’s ruling that the executors had the full power and authority to negotiate the sale.
Katherine’s lawyer was set to give an oral argument for the appeal effort Wednesday, but waived the appearance after the tentative was issued. The tentative, obtained by Rolling Stone, ended with the warning that “this court will not entertain further briefing or grant a continuance.” (The lawyer did not respond to a request for comment.)
“Katherine did not contend [in the lower court] that the sale violated the terms of Michael’s will or were inconsistent with the Probate Code. Indeed, as the executors note, Katherine agreed in the probate court that the will gives the executors the power to sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the estate’s real or personal property,” the judges wrote. They pointed out that Katherine instead challenged the proposed transaction on the grounds that “the assets to be sold were valuable and would appreciate over time, the estate did not need the cash generated by the sale, the sale violated Michael’s wishes as communicated to various members of his family, and the executors took no steps to confirm that the sale price was at or above fair market value.”
But either way, the judges wrote, “We tentatively conclude that Katherine’s challenge fails on the merits because the probate court’s order does not violate the terms of Michael’s will.” They said that while Katherine argued under appeal that Michael’s will required the executors to “sell off as little of the estate as possible after paying legitimate estate debts,” the language of the will “does not suggest this limitation.” They said a “common-sense interpretation” of the will gives the executors authority to sell, invest or otherwise manage estate property until probate closes and the estate “as it exists then.” Once probate closes, the assets are to be distributed to the trust benefitting Michael’s three children, named as his full heirs, and Katherine, named as a lifetime beneficiary only.
The eye-watering $600 million catalog sale was first reported by Billboard and later confirmed by Rolling Stone. According to an appellate brief previously filed by the executors, the asset sale was negotiated to take advantage of an asset market that was “by far” the “hottest it had ever been.” The deal, which closed amid Katherine’s appeal, lets the estate maintain “effective control over Michael’s music” while diversifying its range of assets, the filing reads.
In her appellate filings leading up to the tentative ruling, Katherine and her lawyers called the deal “wholly improper.” They said she was seeking appellate relief so she could sue the estate for breach of fiduciary duty. (The lower court’s approval of the deal otherwise gives the executors immunity from lawsuits over its propriety.)
In a heavily redacted filing obtained by Rolling Stone, estate lawyer Jonathan P. Steinsapir called the deal a “remarkable” one that gives the estate “the best of both worlds” in terms of tax benefits and earnings. He said that under the deal, the estate retains the right to control “critical decisions” related to Michael’s name, image and likeness and exercise day-to-day control over his trademarks. “Over the past 14 years, the executors have exercised their powers with extraordinary care and extraordinary diligence with extraordinary results. As the probate court recognized in its [underlying decision], ‘What started out as nothing but debt and substantial ongoing obligations has been turned into a $2 billion estate,’” he wrote.
None of Michael’s three adult kids – Prince, Paris and Bigi Jackson – filed written objections to the estate petition for court approval of the transaction. Lawyers for Prince and Paris said at a March 2023 hearing that they did not object. A lawyer for Bigi reserved the youngest sibling’s right to object, court filings state. In March of this year, Bigi’s lawyer David Coleman wrote to the court this his client considered the asset sale of “paramount significance,” both financially and personally, but that he did not support Katherine’s appeal.
“Bigi objected to the proposed transaction. He believed that the executors should prove the necessity of the proposed transaction to the court,” the lawyer wrote. But once the court heard from Katherine and Bigi and still decided to approve the transaction, Bigi was persuaded that the deal couldn’t be stopped, he said. “The chances of a reversal on appeal were quite slim, and Bigi did not wish to incur further expense in pursuing an appeal,” the lawyer wrote.
Michael Jackson was 50 years old when he died of an accidental overdose of the surgery strength anesthetic propofol at his rented mansion in Los Angeles on June 25, 2009. His estate has been in probate ever since. A major roadblock to funding his heirs’ trust is a tax dispute with the IRS involving over $700 million in alleged unpaid taxes and penalties. According to estate filings, the final liability paid by the estate will be a “tiny fraction” of that amount thanks to legal maneuvering. The valuation of one remaining, unidentified asset is holding up final resolution of the tax issue, the estate has said, and in the meantime, the IRS continues to have a lien on estate assets.
Meanwhile, Michael Jackson’s companies are again defendants in revived lawsuits from two of his molestation accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck. The men claim the companies are liable for their alleged abuse as children.
From Rolling Stone US
