Paris Jackson is demanding the managers of her late father Michael Jackson’s estate repay nearly $3 million to her family, according to a new court filing exclusively obtained by Us Weekly.
In the filing, Paris, 28, called for John Branca, who operates Michael’s estate, to repay the $1.1 million that she spent on legal fees after he “over-litigated” their dispute. Paris also alleged that Branca used estate funds to pay for unauthorized gifts totaling $2.85 million. She requested that all funds be recovered to support her family.
“All Paris has ever wanted is fair treatment for her family, but the Estate has tried to block her at every turn,” a source close to Paris’ legal team tells Us. “It’s been clear for a while that John Branca has been mismanaging the Jackson estate, and the multi-million dollar scope of his wasteful spending, financial mismanagement and scorched-earth litigation against the very beneficiaries to whom he has a fiduciary duty is mind-boggling. Branca needs to commit to accountability and real transparency.”
Lawyers for Michael’s estate responded in court documents obtained by Us, where they stressed the estate has “a duty to preserve the confidentiality of information regarding its attorney-client relationships and negotiating strategies.”
“The Opposition ignores the foregoing realities and instead is filled with irrelevant attacks such as the suggestion that the Executor is responsible for the fact that Michael Jackson’s Estate has not yet been closed,” the estate’s attorneys argued. “The Beneficiary’s counsel suggested something similar to Judge [Mitchell] Beckloff, who responded by asking counsel if they knew something he did not, or had the “keys to that kingdom” of how to wind up the Estate given unresolved litigation including the ‘potential for the tax court judgment to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit.’ The Beneficiary’s counsel admitted that he did ‘not have the keys to that kingdom’ [in a previous court hearing] but nonetheless repeated the same baseless suggestion in the first paragraph of this Opposition.”
Regarding the accusation that $120 million have been paid in fees to the executors, Us has learned that this figure refers to a period between Michael’s death in 2009 and 2022. Executors maintain that payouts to beneficiaries have been managed according to the musician’s will.
In 2025, Paris accused a small team of lawyers of allegedly exploiting her father’s estate. She alleged the attorneys had been skimming money in “plain view.” A rep for the trust denied the accusations at the time.
Michael died in 2009 at the age of 50 and is survived by Paris and sons Prince, 29, and Bigi, 24. (Michael shared Prince and Paris with Debbie Rowe, later welcoming Bigi via surrogate.)
Following the King of Pop’s death, Paris and her brothers allegedly became concerned about making seemingly excessive attorney payments. Trust executors initially agreed to reduce the fees before submitting an additional $115,000 bill in January. The Jackson siblings also claimed that the executors paid $625,000 in “non-contractual gifts” to three law firms with “no holdback.”
In her new court motion, Paris argued that she should be awarded compensation after the estate’s then-secret payments were made public.
“Mr. Branca chose to over-litigate this matter with the estate’s near endless resources at his disposal, including by retaining and paying the highly-conflicted recipients of these payments to defend their own entitlement to the amounts,” her filing reads. “It is unfortunate that Mr. Branca fought so ferociously to deny the obvious and delay the inevitable, without advancing any corresponding benefit to the estate or its beneficiaries, thereby increasing the amount of Paris’s reasonable and compensable fees.”
The docs continue, “Paris should not be required to bear the costs generated by tactics that increased the expense and complexity of the proceedings.”
In their response, attorneys for Michael’s estate insisted, “The Beneficiary fills much of her Opposition with inflammatory rhetoric about matters that are irrelevant to the sealing motions. She also mischaracterizes the record and makes arguments that have no legal support. The Beneficiary’s inflammatory rhetoric should be disregarded and her arguments that actually go to the merits of sealing should be rejected.”
A hearing to determine attorney’s fees is set for Thursday, September 3.
