a South Korean newspaper -- won a judgment against Katherine, Joe and Jermaine Jackson

Moonwalker.Fan

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
3,584
Points
0
Location
Slovakia
Posted Aug 5th 2009 2:44PM by TMZ Staff

Open the floodgates -- the creditors are getting in line for a piece of the action in the Michael Jackson estate case.

Segye Times -- a South Korean newspaper -- won a judgment against Katherine, Joe and Jermaine Jackson, along with the Jackson Record Company, back in 1994. The suit claimed the newspaper paid the family $5.5 million for a series of Jackson family concerts in 1989 that never took place.

A judgment was entered for $4 million. Segye Times now wants $7,865,730.78 -- interest is a bitch!

It's interesting that Michael was not sued personally. Nonetheless, under the category "better late than never," Segye wants the estate to pay up.

:puke::doh:
 
t's interesting that Michael was not sued personally. Nonetheless, under the category "better late than never," Segye wants the estate to pay up.
spot the contridiction. mj was never sued so the estate will be paying nothing.they can go after the money katherine will get but thats her money and she can so what she sees fit with it. the estate is losing nothing
 
Last edited:
Thanks to - Midas57

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1996_May_9/ai_18267218/

Michael Jackson Sued; Jackson Family Home May Wind Up In Hands Of Creditors In Fraud Suit

Business Wire, May 9, 1996

SANTA BARBARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 9, 1996--The Los Angeles County mansion where pop star Michael Jackson grew up and his parents still reside may wind up in the hands of a Korean newspaper after the Jackson family lost a $4 million lawsuit for fraud and theft, according to attorneys for the newspaper.

Attorneys for the Segye Times of Seoul, Korea, late yesterday filed a lawsuit in Santa Barbara County Superior Court against Michael Jackson to take ownership of the home of Joseph and Katherine Jackson. The ownership is legally listed in Michael Jackson's name.

The lawsuit alleges that "Katherine, Joseph and Michael conspired to hinder, delay and defraud the Jackson parents' creditors."

The suit claims that the legal title to the family's mansion at 4641 Hayvenhurst Ave., Encino, was transferred into Michael Jackson's name, while the parents continued to reside there, so that creditors, such as the newspaper, could not collect their debts.

The lawsuit contends the Jackson family mansion actually belongs to Michael Jackson's parents and that the family is playing a "legal shell game" to keep the home from being taken from creditors, according to Edwin Bradley, an attorney for the Segye Times.

In February 1994, the newspaper's attorneys obtained a trial judgment finding that defendants Mr. and Mrs. Jackson, Jermaine Jackson and promoter Kenneth Choi, had wrongly taken concert money advanced by the Segye Times, a major Korean daily newspaper.

The judgment against the defendants was for $2 million in actual damages and $2 million in punitive damages.

The basis of the lawsuit was that the newspaper paid a $5.5 million advance for a concert by Michael Jackson and the Jackson family. The money was placed into what the newspaper believed was an escrow account. However, according to the lawsuit, the defendants took $2 million of the advance to purchase gifts and make cash payments to themselves and extended family and staff; the concert never took place.


The ownership of the Jackson family mansion has exchanged hands within the Jackson family numerous times over the past decade, according to the lawsuit, all in an attempt to keep creditors from collecting debts.

The suit alleges that Mr. and Mrs. Jackson "embarked upon a scheme and course of conduct to divest themselves of legal title of the Hayvenhurst property, while retaining the equitable and beneficial ownership" of the mansion.

In 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Jackson purportedly conveyed to their son Michael a 50 percent interest in the property, retaining the other 50 percent ownership in their name. Then, later that same year, Mr. Jackson purportedly conveyed his remaining 25 percent interest to his son.

In 1987, Mrs. Jackson purportedly deeded her remaining 25 percent interest to daughter LaToya Jackson. In 1990, Mrs. Jackson sued her daughter to return her 25 percent interest because that interest "was in jeopardy as community property and subject to loss in the event of any adverse litigation involving other family members."

In 1993, a deed was recorded in which Mrs. Jackson "who previously conveyed to (and withdraws from) LaToya Jackson, as nominee only, an undivided 25 percent interest" and then purportedly conveyed that interest to her son Michael as "nominee only."

The lawsuit seeking ownership of the Jackson family mansion for the Segye Times newspaper alleges that "in making the transfers... Katherine, Joseph and Michael agreed and knowingly and willfully conspired between themselves to hinder, delay and defraud Katherine and Joseph's creditors, including Segye, in the collection of their claims against Katherine and Joseph."

The lawsuit was filed in Santa Barbara County because that is where Michael jackson now resides. For a copy of the lawsuit or more information, call Kerosky & Bradley at 415-777-4445

CONTACT: Christopher Kerosky or Edwin Bradley, 415/777-4445

Gary Hill, 805/963-1453
 
Last edited:
spot the contridiction. mj was never sued so the estate will be paying nothing.they can go after the money katherine will get but thats her money and she can so what she sees fit with it. the estate is losing nothing

I'm confused. Is there a difference between what she gets and the estate? If the lawsuit has to be paid with cash from the estate ain't it the same as the estate losing.

I remember reading about this whole Choi fiasco. e'rybody is coming outta the woodwork, now. Mrs. Jackson is gunna have to be on top of things, cuz all the slime is gunna be running amok for sum money.
 
If the judgment was not against MJ, then only katherine's portion will be paying for this.

I don't know what the result of that 1996 suit was. That was 13 years ago. Did the judge find MJ at fault, or was he exculpated?

And this is another reason why the family, IMO should not be administering the estate. Certainly not Joe or Jermaine.
 
I'm confused. Is there a difference between what she gets and the estate? If the lawsuit has to be paid with cash from the estate ain't it the same as the estate losing.
katherines getting 40% what she does with that his her choice. it will not cost the estate anymore money because the lawsuit money will come from her 40% she will have less but the estate wont
 
wtf? I really hope they're not bombarded with crap like this for a long time to come. As if there isn't enough for her to deal with. :( I hate money and what it does to people. :(
 
That's the Moonies - the Moonies wanted the Jacksons to do a few concerts over there. Michael finally gave in and agreed to do the concerts and the Moonies were to pay him $10 million and another $7.5million to the Jacksons. The whole thing fell through after the Moonies then lowered Michael's fee to $2.5 million.

They launched a lawsuit then against the family, so Michael countersued THEM over his fee. I don't know what the outcome of it all was in the end but since MJ countersued them I'm presuming this latest attempt is a load of balloney that will come to nothing.
 
katherines getting 40% what she does with that his her choice. it will not cost the estate anymore money because the lawsuit money will come from her 40% she will have less but the estate wont

ok, I kinda git it. I'm soo slow sometimes:doh:

That's the Moonies - the Moonies wanted the Jacksons to do a few concerts over there. Michael finally gave in and agreed to do the concerts and the Moonies were to pay him $10 million and another $7.5million to the Jacksons. The whole thing fell through after the Moonies then lowered Michael's fee to $2.5 million.

They launched a lawsuit then against the family, so Michael countersued THEM over his fee. I don't know what the outcome of it all was in the end but since MJ countersued them I'm presuming this latest attempt is a load of balloney that will come to nothing.

Woa...I'm lost, again.:doh: So tell me if I got this right: Sigye times went after the family's house becuz of the Choi incident in which money was given to various people and then no deal was struck. The house was supposed to be means of copmensation, but they never got it cuz of something and now that Mrs. Jackson has dough they bringing it back up.

Did I get that right?


I feel like an idiot:thinking:Hope u'r right about the bullshit part.
 
spot the contridiction. mj was never sued so the estate will be paying nothing.they can go after the money katherine will get but thats her money and she can so what she sees fit with it. the estate is losing nothing

The contract was likely with one of MJ's companies, not him personally so I'm not sure they could sue him personally. If that company he owned actually paid him from funds it received from the failed contract, or the company is an asset placed in the estate, then the estate could be liable, maybe. Just another reason to have some very smart people looking after this type of stuff - probably just the tip of the iceberg.
 
This thing is practically unenforceable in the US.

For the simple reason that Katherine and Joe filed for bankruptcy in 1997.

Which means all debts up till then are unenforceable.

Now that the period passed, these people cannot bring along anotehr debt prior to bankruptcy because when you file for bankruptcy, it is public record and all your debtors need to make themselves known.

Too late for them to try and cash in.
 
This thing is practically unenforceable in the US.

For the simple reason that Katherine and Joe filed for bankruptcy in 1997.

Which means all debts up till then are unenforceable.

Now that the period passed, these people cannot bring along anotehr debt prior to bankruptcy because when you file for bankruptcy, it is public record and all your debtors need to make themselves known.

Too late for them to try and cash in.

I think that the Jackson's would have had to have listed that as a debt in the bankruptcy proceedings right?

Also aren't some debts and judgments exempt from being discharged via bankruptcy?
 
Back
Top