Filing alleges irregular “premium payments,” late disclosures and missed investment gains under executors John Branca and John McClain.
LOS ANGELES — Paris Jackson has filed a fresh objection in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that the co-executors of her late father Michael Jackson’s estate abused their roles by paying themselves irregular bonuses and delaying key financial disclosures, according to court papers filed this week.
Her move intensifies a yearslong dispute over how the lucrative estate has been managed since the pop star’s death in 2009. Jackson, 27, contends that the estate held hundreds of millions of dollars in cash that were not prudently invested and that the co-executors, entertainment attorney John Branca and music executive John McClain, approved “premium payments” and bonuses that enriched themselves beyond standard fees. The estate has pushed back, saying the beneficiaries are well cared for and that its actions are approved by the probate court. A hearing on the latest objections is scheduled for early next year, keeping one of entertainment’s most-watched probate cases in the spotlight.
In the filing submitted Tuesday, Jackson challenges the estate’s accounting for 2021, saying she and her brothers — Prince, 28, and Bigi, 23 — did not receive that year’s detailed report until this September, nearly four years after the close of the period. She alleges that Branca and McClain approved nonstandard “premium payments” and unexplained bonuses for themselves and certain lawyers, and that some expenditures were labeled as gifts without contracts attached. “The estate has become a vehicle for self-enrichment,” the filing says, arguing that delayed disclosures have limited meaningful oversight by beneficiaries. Branca and McClain, through estate representatives, have said that the estate’s transactions are subject to court review and that their stewardship transformed the estate from debt into a multibillion-dollar enterprise. “All beneficiaries have been and remain well provided for,” the estate has said.
Jackson’s objection also argues that too much cash sat idle rather than being invested, citing several hundred million dollars that could have been placed in low-risk instruments. Her lawyers estimate that such conservatism cost the estate tens of millions in potential gains for 2021 alone. She further questions executive compensation, asserting that fees and bonuses paid to Branca and McClain in 2021 exceeded $10 million and were more than double what beneficiaries received that year. The filing does not accuse the co-executors of violating a specific statute but seeks closer scrutiny of their accounting, repayment of any improper compensation, and clearer rules around what qualifies as fees versus bonuses. Estate representatives counter that compensation is set by court order and reflects years of licensing, touring, and theatrical deals tied to Jackson’s catalog and likeness.
The dispute comes after mixed results for Jackson in the same court this month. A probate referee recently recommended striking portions of an earlier petition that sought to expand beneficiary oversight of estate transactions. Even so, the new objection zeroes in on the annual accounting process, a recurring checkpoint in the long-running probate case. The estate’s co-executors were appointed in 2009 after Jackson’s death and have presided over major ventures, including a Broadway production and a planned biopic, as well as a high-profile music rights transaction. Jackson’s filing says some recent entertainment projects are misaligned with what she believes to be the estate’s core fiduciary duties to preserve assets and maximize returns for heirs.
While many records in probate are routine, the Jackson estate’s scale and celebrity profile have kept its proceedings unusually public. In prior reports, estate administrators have highlighted how they reduced debt that topped hundreds of millions of dollars and built new revenue streams from licensing, stage productions and catalog deals. Jackson’s objection does not dispute those successes outright but argues that returns could be higher with more timely reporting and tighter controls on compensation. The filing also notes that some law firms received lump-sum payments without contemporaneous retainer agreements attached, which her team argues complicates auditing. The estate has said such payments are common in complex entertainment estates and are ultimately reviewed by the judge.
Legally, the case now turns on the court’s review of the 2021 accounting and any related fee petitions. Jackson is asking the judge to compel amended reports, order the repayment of alleged excess compensation, and set firmer deadlines for delivering annual accountings to beneficiaries. A status and motion hearing is expected on Jan. 13, 2026, in Department 29 of the probate division, though dates could shift as filings are processed. No criminal allegations have been made. If the judge orders supplemental reporting, the estate could be required to submit revised schedules of fees, gifts and investments for the period in question. If the accounting is approved as filed, Jackson could appeal or narrow her objections to discrete line items.
Outside the courthouse, reaction has split along familiar lines. Supporters of the executors point to the estate’s resurgence, the global draw of Jackson’s music and the ongoing pipeline of projects. Fans sympathetic to Jackson’s children say beneficiaries should receive timely, transparent accountings and that bonuses labeled as “premium payments” deserve an explanation in plain language. “This is about trust and stewardship,” a person familiar with the filing said, adding that the beneficiaries want clearer rules on when cash should be invested and how executive compensation is calculated. Neither Branca nor McClain has personally commented in recent days; a spokesperson for the estate said they will address claims in court filings rather than the press.
As of Thursday afternoon, the new objection remains pending and the estate has not filed a detailed response to the latest allegations. The next milestone is the January hearing, when the judge could set a briefing schedule or rule on parts of the accounting.
Author note: Last updated November 20, 2025.