Home

Exclusive: Selling Neverland was the goal of Colony Capital and MJ all along

Neverland Ranch related issues have been on the fans radar for several years. First there was the foreclosure news, followed by MJ – Colony Capital refinancing deal. After Michael’s death, fans wondered what would happen to Neverland. Last year we heard that Colony Capital decided to sell Neverland. This brought a lot more questions. Based on the available information, we believed there was a joint venture between MJ and Colony Capital. Fans questioned how Colony Capital can decide to sell Neverland and how could Estate have no right to stop the sale.

Until today we couldn’t answer such questions. However recently Tohme’s Finder’s Fee Claim (10% from Neverland refinancing, 10% from any future transaction about Neverland) has been put on calendar and this resulted in Tohme filing some documents which included letters and agreements between MJ and Colony Capital. For the first time we get a look inside the Neverland deal between Colony Capital and MJ.

First we confirm that there was a joint venture between MJ and Colony Capital. However the documents also state that the goal of the joint venture between MJ and Colony Capital was “to own, operate, reposition and sell Neverland”.

Overview of Court of Appeals Ruling for Jackson v. AEG Appeal

Only a week after the oral arguments Court of Appeals have denied Katherine Jackson’s request for a new trial against AEG and affirmed jury’s decision. Court of Appeals released a 39 page ruling and certified the ruling for publication making it citable by other parties and courts.

Assuming not everyone will have time or interest to read the full ruling, I decided to copy sections from the ruling to make it easier to understand why the Court of Appeals decided the way they did.

Court of Appeal’s 39 page ruling can be found at this link: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B252411.PDF

Negligence claim

Jacksons argued the trial court made a mistake in dismissing the negligence claim. Below is Court of Appeal’s explanation why the trial court’s decision was correct.

Biased media reporting in Robson v. MJ Estate case

{socialbuttons}

Recently you might have seen two Radar Online articles reporting the recent developments in Robson v. MJ Estate case. You might also have realized the extremely biased headlines and questionable choice of words in those articles. This post is going to cover the recent developments as well as the biased reporting about those developments.

Do you wonder what is going on in Robson v. MJ Estate civil case? They are having a dispute about interrogatories and request for admissions (RFAs). California Civil Code of procedure says a party can serve 35 interrogatories and 35 RFAs. Robson has served 143 interrogatories and 93 RFAs. If you do the math that’s more than 4 times the allowed interrogatories and more than 2.5 times the allowed RFAs. Estate wants to answer 35 interrogatories and 35 RFAs – as the law requires them to do. Robson lawyers on the other hand want them to answer it all. There have been discussions among the parties and they have agreed that Estate will answer 35+8 (43) interrogatories instead of the original 143 sent. However they cannot agree about RFAs. Robson lawyers want all 93 where as Estate lawyers want it to limit it to the first 35 RFAs. In order to send more than 35 RFAs, lawyers need to justify the need for the extra items. Estate argues Robson side wasn’t able to justify why they sent so many questions while Robson lawyers disagree with that. Motions have been filed about it, a hearing is set for November 6^th and the judge will rule about this dispute sometime soon.

Robson v. Estate September 2014 Case Updates

{socialbuttons}

UPDATE: October 1 2014 Hearing Transcript : https://www.scribd.com/doc/244181549/Robson-Oct-1-2014-Hearing-Transcript

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to previous July 2014 case updates: http://www.dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/276-robson-v-estate-case-updates

Civil case updates

Estate had filed two demurrers (dismissal request stating there’s no legal basis for a lawsuit) and parties are getting ready for the demurrer hearing. Most current documents (added September 24^th) are Estate’s replies to Robson’s opposition to Estate’s demurrer requests. As I prepare this post court system isn’t showing Robson’s opposition documents (I’ll update this post if they become available) therefore this post is done based on what the Estate reply documents state about Robson’s opposition and their reply.

Hearing for these two demurrers is set for October 1^st.

Doe1 (MJ) Demurrer

Document link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/241210020/Robson-Estate-Reply-Doe-1-Demurrer

Estate had filed a demurrer to dismiss MJ as Doe 1 defendant on the civil case simply arguing Doe1 / MJ is deceased and no court has jurisdiction to have a case or have power to enter judgment against him.

Exclusive: Selling Neverland was the goal of Colony Capital and MJ all along

Overview of Court of Appeals Ruling for Jackson v. AEG Appeal

Biased media reporting in Robson v. MJ Estate case

Robson v. Estate September 2014 Case Updates

More Articles ...

Latest Articles

Welcome