Paris Jackson Seeks $600 Million Transfer to Family Trust as Estate Dispute Deepens

The dispute over Michael Jackson’s estate now centers on a large gap between the fortune it has generated and the money Paris Jackson says has reached the family trust. In an Oct. 29 petition, she asked for roughly $600 million to be transferred into the trust, arguing it remains unfunded more than 17 years after her father’s death. The estate says unresolved tax litigation stands in the way and disputes her account of how beneficiaries have been treated.

Paris, 28, cited approximately $850 million in estate cash and equivalents at the end of 2024. After accounting for liabilities, she argued, roughly $600 million could be moved to the trust. A hearing is scheduled for Dec. 4. Her request concerns the trust’s funding, not an early payout to her personally.

That distinction matters under Michael’s 2002 will. As Paris’s petition describes its terms, the trust can provide income to his children beginning at 21, while distributions of principal start at 30 and continue in installments at 35 and 40. None of the siblings has reached 30. Funding the trust now would therefore not, by itself, give them immediate access to its principal.

A fortune rebuilt, with a funding dispute unresolved

The estate says more than $200 million has already been distributed for the beneficiaries’ benefit. It called allegations that payments were withheld or reduced “a complete fabrication.” Its position is that unresolved tax litigation prevents it from fully funding the trust. The litigation originally involved approximately $700 million in taxes and penalties.

The scale of the estate’s recovery gives the disagreement its weight. Michael died in 2009 with at least $450 million in debt. Since then, Forbes estimates the estate has generated more than $3.5 billion. Those figures describe a business built from music rights and entertainment projects, but they don’t settle how much cash is available to transfer after liabilities, ongoing costs and the tax dispute are taken into account.

Executor John Branca, whom Michael personally named as a co-executor, has played a prominent role in the estate’s history. In 1985, he helped negotiate Michael’s $47.5 million purchase of the ATV Music Publishing catalog. Later, the estate turned footage from Michael’s final rehearsals into the concert film This Is It. The estate’s attorney, Jonathan Steinsapir, defended Branca’s stewardship in an August 2025 statement, saying the estate’s “historic turnaround and success” speak for themselves.

Commercial activity around Michael’s work continues to add to that story. The 2026 biopic Michael became the first biographical film to cross $1 billion worldwide. MJ: The Musical and Cirque du Soleil’s Michael Jackson ONE also continue to bring his work to audiences. The scale of this business helps explain why the trust’s funding and the estate’s accounting have become consequential questions for the family.

Family views of the biopic diverge

The estate’s commercial success has unfolded alongside sharp disagreement over how Michael’s story should be told. Paris criticized an early version of the biopic’s script in September 2025, saying her feedback about inaccuracies had gone unaddressed. She called the project “sugar-coated” and alleged, “The narrative is being controlled. There’s a lot of inaccuracy and there’s a lot of full-blown lies.” She also said the film catered to a part of her father’s fandom that “still lives in the fantasy.”

Other relatives supported the production. Her brother Prince Jackson served as an executive producer and was “on set every day,” producer Graham King told The Hollywood Reporter. Prince later wrote on Instagram that their cousin Jaafar, Jermaine Jackson’s son, was “the only right choice” to play Michael.

Aunt La Toya Jackson said family involvement was “very important” because relatives could “say yay or nay” about the story. Uncle Marlon Jackson didn’t identify any inaccuracies, according to E! News. Cousin Taj Jackson took a different tack, writing on X: “Sorry media, u don’t get to control the narrative anymore of who Michael Jackson truly was. The public gets to watch this movie…they will decide for themselves.”

Accounting oversight and legal costs

Paris’s objections to estate spending have already resulted in a financial remedy. In an April 29 ruling made public in May, retired Judge Mitchell Beckloff ordered outside estate attorneys to return $625,000 in bonuses he found insufficiently justified. He also credited Paris as the “catalyst” for an order requiring six years of attorney-fee petitions to be filed. Beckloff also praised the executors for turning an estate once “teetering on the brink of bankruptcy” into today’s “financial powerhouse.”

Other efforts have brought setbacks and fresh expense. In November 2025, Beckloff struck portions of an earlier petition under California’s anti-SLAPP law. The estate then sought more than $115,000 in legal fees and costs.

A proposed compromise over accounting procedures also stalled. According to filings obtained by TMZ, an attorney for Paris’s younger brother Bigi Jackson, formerly known as Blanket, helped negotiate changes that included court approval for law-firm bonuses. The executors said Paris later backed away and offered substantially different terms. Her representatives countered that the estate sought exceptions that would weaken the safeguards.

The dispute extends to who should cover the legal work. After the ruling that returned $625,000 in bonuses, Paris’s attorneys requested approximately $1.16 million in reimbursement. Branca objected, arguing that the request included costs from unrelated proceedings.

In a May interview with NewsNation, former Jackson attorney L. Londell McMillan spoke generally about outsiders’ influence on beneficiaries of major fortunes, without making specific accusations against Paris’s attorneys. “They’re often manipulated, and people are in their ears,” he said.

The central question is whether the estate can fund the trust while its tax dispute remains unresolved, and how its accounting safeguards should work in the meantime. The reported cash balance, estimated lifetime revenue and distributions already made each describe a different part of the picture. The next hearing may clarify how the parties frame the proposed transfer; the trust’s terms will still determine when its principal can reach the siblings.