Latest on MJJC

MJ's Brothers, Janet have Estate claims, according to TMZ

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
http://www.tmz.com/


MJ's Brothers, Janet May Have Estate Claim
Posted Dec 28th 2009 3:10PM by TMZ Staff

Michael Jackson's sister, Janet, along with brothers, Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon and Randy, are all listed as possible creditors in the Michael Jackson estate case -- this, according to documents obtained by TMZ.

The docs do not state what Michael might owe Janet and his brothers. We do know Janet fronted some of the costs for Michael's funeral.

We spoke with MJ estate lawyer Howard Weitzman, who told TMZ Michael's brothers have an ongoing royalty claim and therefore were listed as potential creditors.

Also listed as a potential creditor -- Rev. June Juliet Gatlin, Michael's spiritual advisor







God does this woman also has royality claims .lol this is the woman who said Tohme kept MJ away from his "loved ones" , yeah you figured it support me , i'll support you .
 
Well if its to do with royalties and the funeral, i guess theyre legitimate claims...

Dont know what the advisor want money for though.
 
Soundmind said:
http://www.tmz.com/


MJ's Brothers, Janet May Have Estate Claim
Posted Dec 28th 2009 3:10PM by TMZ Staff

Michael Jackson's sister, Janet, along with brothers, Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon and Randy, are all listed as possible creditors in the Michael Jackson estate case -- this, according to documents obtained by TMZ.

The docs do not state what Michael might owe Janet and his brothers. We do know Janet fronted some of the costs for Michael's funeral.

We spoke with MJ estate lawyer Howard Weitzman, who told TMZ Michael's brothers have an ongoing royalty claim and therefore were listed as potential creditors.

Also listed as a potential creditor -- Rev. June Juliet Gatlin, Michael's spiritual advisor







God does this woman also has royality claims .lol this is the woman who said Tohme kept MJ away from his "loved ones" , yeah you figured it support me , i'll support you .
Click to expand...

first of all, i think that tmz is forgetful. Janet was reimbursed. and yes..secondly..some spiritual advisor, huh?

as far as everything else goes..i'll just keep my feelings to myself.
 
The Jacksons attack again.

MJStorm - listening to "Money".
 
Note the words "may" and "possible" in the article. There's a chance it might not be true. I can't believe Janet would file a creditor claim. I can believe everyone else could do it, but Janet?...
 
It looks like TMZ is just trying to get folks all riled up.

First of all, did they all file a claim or not. This TMZ article really does not address that.

A little off topic, but today TMZ had a very, VERY bad day. They supposedly posted a picture, which was supposed to be of John F. Kennedy and some "undressed" women on a yacht. Long story short, the picture has now been deemed a FAKE, well after a bunch of other media outlets copied TMZ's John F. Kennedy photo story, spreading that FAKE picture around.
 
kathiejmie said:
Note the words "may" and "possible" in the article. There's a chance it might not be true. I can't believe Janet would file a creditor claim. I can believe everyone else could do it, but Janet?...
Click to expand...

Yeah I find that hard to believe
 
Hmmm....

I need more info regarding the claims for me to formulate an opinion.

WHY would Janet file a creditor's claim? Could it be that she paid some of Havenhurst's expenses - and wants to be reimbursed? Or be reimbursed for funeral expenses? (which I think is NOT COOL.) Michael's been carrying the family for decades and she and her brothers should share some of that expense. It's not about money, it's about the principle. Michael is not the only child Katherine had.

I can see the royalty claim as legit, but if MJ gave them an advance - then they aren;t entitled to anything unless the money was recouperated via sales. Weren't the brothers signed to MJJ Productions at one point ??? Didn't one of them complain a few years ago that MJ signed them - and put their album projects on the shelf?
 
I think some may be mis-reading what the article states. It said that the ESTATE is listing them as POTENTIAL creditors, not that they filed a claim.

If his music company paid them royalties in the past for their music, the estate probably intends to continue do so since his company is part of the estate. Weitzman is probably giving the court notice of expenditures the estate anticipates paying. I am sure they are not the only artists the estate will be paying royalties to. TMZ just snatched their names from the list for their story.

Janet was reimbursed for her deposit on the burial while they awaited the judge's release of funds so why is TMZ lying about that?

As usual TMZ sensationalizes. I was hoping that they had left Michael and his family alone after the Tiger Woods thing but I guess they are back to creating melodrama around Michael.

But I guess they had to think of something after their fake JFK photo fiasco earlier this morning.
 
OldSchoolMJFan said:
But I guess they had to think of something after their fake JFK photo fiasco earlier this morning.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly!

They got played and now they are trying to change the subject right quick.

I hope who ever sold TMZ that FAKE picture, got paid a lot of money. LOL!
 
Weren't the brothers signed to MJJ Productions at one point ??? Didn't one of them complain a few years ago that MJ signed them - and put their album projects on the shelf?
Click to expand...
dont believe so. mj was never involved with them mjj prod isnt a label. the 3T and rebbie put some music out on MJJ music.his label but there was nothing else. might be to do with the TII song

not really fussed either way about this. maybe just TMZ loking for attention, its not like family members havnt sold mj out already anyway so why would this be a surprise
 
OldSchoolMJFan said:
I think some may be mis-reading what the article states. It said that the ESTATE is listing them as POTENTIAL creditors, not that they filed a claim.

If his music company paid them royalties in the past for their music, the estate probably intends to continue do so since his company is part of the estate. Weitzman is probably giving the court notice of expenditures the estate anticipates paying. I am sure they are not the only artists the estate will be paying royalties to. TMZ just snatched their names from the list for their story.

Janet was reimbursed for her deposit on the burial while they awaited the judge's release of funds so why is TMZ lying about that?

As usual TMZ sensationalizes. I was hoping that they had left Michael and his family alone after the Tiger Woods thing but I guess they are back to creating melodrama around Michael.

But I guess they had to think of something after their fake JFK photo fiasco earlier this morning.
Click to expand...

well after reading and re-reading the article to myself..I have to agree with you....I hope that TMZ has it wrong this time....I would hate to think that the Vultures have struck the bunny once again...:(.......If this news is true then all I can say is......nothing...I am speechless....once again!!
 
elusive moonwalker said:
might be to do with the TII song
Click to expand...


Then the brothers need to go to Sony for that - not the estate. UNLESS of course the label itself is MJJ Music and the distributor is Sony, which then it would mean that yes, the brothers do have a right to claim royalties.

BUT - normally, background singers on a track are what is considered a work for hire agreement, where the singers/musicians are paid a one time fee and not eligible for royalties (unless they worked out a special deal of course).

Who knows at this point.
 
Sirena said:
Hmmm....

I need more info regarding the claims for me to formulate an opinion.

WHY would Janet file a creditor's claim? Could it be that she paid some of Havenhurst's expenses - and wants to be reimbursed? Or be reimbursed for funeral expenses? (which I think is NOT COOL.) Michael's been carrying the family for decades and she and her brothers should share some of that expense. It's not about money, it's about the principle. Michael is not the only child Katherine had.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of your statement and especially the bold part. Having said that, I'm too tired to get upset and worked up about this, after six months of insanity and madness I just don't have the strength anymore.
 
Sounds like they're back to exaggerating ish for a story...nothing definite in there.
 
Sirena said:
Hmmm....

I need more info regarding the claims for me to formulate an opinion.

WHY would Janet file a creditor's claim? Could it be that she paid some of Havenhurst's expenses - and wants to be reimbursed? Or be reimbursed for funeral expenses? (which I think is NOT COOL.) Michael's been carrying the family for decades and she and her brothers should share some of that expense. It's not about money, it's about the principle. Michael is not the only child Katherine had.

I can see the royalty claim as legit, but if MJ gave them an advance - then they aren;t entitled to anything unless the money was recouperated via sales. Weren't the brothers signed to MJJ Productions at one point ??? Didn't one of them complain a few years ago that MJ signed them - and put their album projects on the shelf?
Click to expand...


I sooooooooooooo agree................................and hope this is not true...
 
Quick, we got played by a fake JFK photo that we took to experts and they said it wasn't photoshopped, get me some MJ news, STAT! That'll make people believe we're a legitimate news source still.
 
Big Apple2 said:
A little off topic, but today TMZ had a very, VERY bad day. They supposedly posted a picture, which was supposed to be of John F. Kennedy and some "undressed" women on a yacht. Long story short, the picture has now been deemed a FAKE, well after a bunch of other media outlets copied TMZ's John F. Kennedy photo story, spreading that FAKE picture around.
Click to expand...

I read that. It could be anyone but JFK LOL.
 
I don't know what to believe anymore. If it's about royalties from J5 music etc then I guess I understand but why don't they go the record companies? For Janet, I don't think she needs any money.

Honestly and I am not bashing anyone but seeing his brothers and sister as "potential creditors" to Michael's estate just looks wrong to me. Just reading that in print rubs me the wrong way. I can't explain really why it's just how I feel.
 
They could be listed as possible creditors because the estate does not feel they owe them any money so they would have to prove it in court. If Weizman knew they were owed the money they would be a definite creditor not possible.
 
:doh: I don't even know what to say.

I mean why would the brothers, *cough especially Jermaine cough* do a creditor's claim against the estate? I mean helloo! Mike fxckin supported them for how long?! And Janet, well like someone else in this thread has already said she was already reimbursed by the estate for the costs that she attributed to the funeral. I call BS on tmz. surprise, surprise there eh? :smilerolleyes:
 
amyzabeth said:
:doh: I don't even know what to say.

I mean why would the brothers, *cough especially Jermaine cough* do a creditor's claim against the estate? I mean helloo! Mike fxckin supported them for how long?! And Janet, well like someone else in this thread has already said she was already reimbursed by the estate for the costs that she attributed to the funeral. I call BS on tmz. surprise, surprise there eh? :smilerolleyes:
Click to expand...


What you should ask yourself is why the media chooses to target MJ's family and some other person as "possible" creditors while leaving out all teh other numerous people we've heard making cliams and who may be "possible" creditors?

If any of MJ's brothers or Janet passed away, MJ might be listed as a possible creditor if he was alive.

They had business interests over many years. Why is that such a big issue?
It's not the brothers or Janet who have filed, this is a list, a product of teh executors. Why not direct the question to them as to why they have chosen to draw up a list of possible creditors?

- Does it serve the purpose of streamlining the estate by assessing any possible source of claims that might be made?
- Or is it to create a list for media to extract Jacksons names to further malign the family from Michael's estate affairs and grant executors more control by depicting the family as "greedy" through insinuating that they may make claims?
 
Last week, the estate filed a motion of Administration to Creditors. Legally, they required to do it. They are asking creditors of an estate to present their claims in court under a limited timeline. After, they can not claim any money.
 
Sirena said:
Hmmm....

I need more info regarding the claims for me to formulate an opinion.

WHY would Janet file a creditor's claim? Could it be that she paid some of Havenhurst's expenses - and wants to be reimbursed? Or be reimbursed for funeral expenses? (which I think is NOT COOL.) Michael's been carrying the family for decades and she and her brothers should share some of that expense. It's not about money, it's about the principle. Michael is not the only child Katherine had.
Click to expand...

Umm Mike did not carry the family for decades. ALL of the brothers carried the family through the 70s. Janet has been supporting herself since Good Times. And it's been that was since then. The only people Mike was carrying was Katherine, Joe, and the other brothers and LaToya. When a family member dies the insurance company pays out a portion of the expenses, and the entire family split the cost of the residual balance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top