Michael Jackson's mother Katherine Jackson wants to have the two executors of Michael's estate, attorney John Branca and music executive John McClain, removed as executors of her late son's lucrative estate valued at more than $500 million. Michael's 2002 will names the two as executors of the trust established from his estate at his death. Katherine would like control of the estate and does not believe Branca and McClain are who Michael really wanted to administer his estate; both Branca and McClain have report
Regardless of the executorship, Katherine remains an heir to 40% of the estate. Michael's three children share the other 40% and unspecified charities would share in the remaining 20%. The executors would decide which charities would benefit from the 20% share.
Katherine's dilemma comes from a clause in Michael's will that states anyone who challenges the terms of the will will be disinherited from the trust. Is is better for Katherine to risk losing all in pursuing a more control of the investments of the estate or should she be content with what she has even though her son's legacy might not be preserved in the manner she would choose?