The Buss Family Trust Dispute: A Case Study in Estate Planning
Updated: Oct 5
Understanding the Trust Provisions
When Dr. Jerry Buss died in 2013, his controlling interest in the Lakers passed into trusts for the equal benefit of his six children. The trust structure had a clear directive: the trustees were required to take all actions reasonably available to ensure Jeanie Buss remained the "Controlling Owner" of the franchise.
That directive created a built-in tension. The trust wanted Jeanie to hold the operational reins. But it also named multiple co-trustees — initially Jeanie, Jim, and Johnny Buss — who were expected to manage the trust together.
According to court records and public reporting, the current dispute turns on whether the trust's co-trustee provisions allowed a majority to bind the minority on a decision to sell the trust's remaining Lakers stake.
The 2017 Fight: A Prelude to Current Disputes
This is not the family's first dispute over control. In 2017, brothers Jim and Johnny moved to elect a Lakers board without Jeanie, a move that threatened her status as controlling owner. Jeanie filed a petition that they were violating their fiduciary duties. The court ruled in her favor. Janie and Joey Buss later replaced Jim and Johnny as co-trustees.
The 2025 Partial Sale: A Compromise?
The family agreed to sell a majority interest to Mark Walter for roughly $10 billion. The family trust retained a 17.8% stake — keeping Jeanie above the 15% threshold required to remain NBA governor.
The 2026 $12.5 Billion Dispute: A New Chapter
In August 2026, a new transaction led by former Disney CEO Bob Iger and investor Joshua Kushner valued the team at $12.5 billion. Five of the six siblings voted to sell the trust's remaining interest.
Jeanie maintains she was never consulted, never voted, and never approved the sale. On August 26, 2026, she filed a petition seeking to invalidate the vote, remove Janie and Joey as co-trustees, and hold her siblings accountable for alleged trust violations.
The Lakers brand and ownership stakes carry significant financial and emotional value for the family.
The Legal Framework Governing Co-Trustee Disputes
The Buss case turns on how California law handles co-trustee authority, fiduciary duties, and the court's power to intervene. Several provisions of the California Probate Code are central to the analysis.
California Probate Code section 15620 — establishes the default rule that, unless the trust provides otherwise, co-trustees may only act through unanimous action.
California Probate Code section 15642 — governs the removal of trustees, including where a trustee has committed a breach of trust, is unfit to administer the trust, or where hostility or lack of cooperation among co-trustees impairs administration of the trust.
California Probate Code section 16000 — requires a trustee to administer the trust according to the trust instrument.
California Probate Code section 16002 — imposes the trustee's duty of loyalty and requires the trustee to administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries.
California Probate Code section 16003 — requires a trustee with multiple beneficiaries to deal impartially with them and take their differing interests into account.
California Probate Code section 17200 — provides a mechanism for trustees and beneficiaries to ask the probate court to resolve issues concerning the internal affairs of a trust, including questions involving trustee powers, instructions, breaches of trust, and removal of trustees.
The case, Jo Ann C. Buss 2006 Children's Electing Small Business Trust, Dated September 1, 2006, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 17STPB01837, remains pending. The reported hearing date is December 8, 2026.
Why Co-Trustees Can Create a Deadlock
California law starts with a rule that surprises many people. Unless the trust provides otherwise, when a power is given to two or more trustees, California Probate Code section 15620 requires the trustees to act unanimously.
The trust document can change that rule. A trust might permit decisions by majority vote, give one trustee authority over a particular asset, or establish special voting rules for certain decisions.
That makes the actual language of the trust critically important.
A trust can become functionally deadlocked when:
Unanimity is required. If the trust does not provide a different decision-making rule, disagreement among the trustees may prevent them from exercising a trust power.
The trust creates special voting requirements. A trust might permit majority action for ordinary administration but impose different requirements on major decisions, such as selling a family business or other significant asset.
The trustees disagree about the scope of their authority. Even where majority action is permitted, a dissenting trustee may contend that the proposed action violates another provision of the trust or exceeds the trustees' authority.
Fiduciary duties complicate the vote. A trustee cannot necessarily justify an action simply by saying that a majority approved it. Trustees remain subject to the terms of the trust and their fiduciary obligations to the beneficiaries.
Personal interests diverge. Co-trustees who are also beneficiaries may have very different economic interests, relationships with trust assets, or views about what the settlor intended.
When those disagreements cannot be resolved privately, the trustees or beneficiaries may ultimately find themselves asking a probate judge to determine how the trust should be administered.
Legal expertise is vital in resolving complex family trust disputes and protecting beneficiaries' rights.
The Danger of Naming Multiple Co-Trustees Without Clear Rules
Parents often name multiple children as co-trustees out of a sense of fairness. The logic is understandable: everyone gets an equal voice.
But co-trustees often have different financial pressures, lifestyle needs, and emotional attachments to inherited assets. One sibling may want to sell and cash out. Another may want to hold for legacy. A third may work inside the business and see it differently than the passive beneficiaries.
When those incentives diverge, co-trusteeship can shift from family cooperation to litigation — especially if the trust does not answer a few basic questions:
Which decisions require a single trustee, a majority, or unanimous consent?
Who holds primary authority over operating a family business or real estate asset?
What happens when trustees deadlock?
Is there a process for removing a co-trustee who acts against the settlor's stated intent?
Are independent trustees, trust protectors, or advisory boards available to resolve disputes?
In the Buss case, those questions are not academic. They affect control of a franchise worth over $12 billion.
What Families Should Consider Before Naming Co-Trustees
The Buss dispute shows why co-trustee planning deserves careful attention. Equal economic treatment does not require equal management authority. Often, the most effective plan splits financial benefits evenly while placing management control in the hands of a single, qualified trustee or professional fiduciary.
A well-drafted trust should address:
Decision-making structure. Who decides what? Some decisions may need a single trustee. Others may require a majority or unanimous vote.
Deadlock resolution. What mechanism kicks in when co-trustees cannot agree? Options include trust protectors, mediation, arbitration, or court guidance under section 17200.
Settlor intent language. The trust should state the settlor's goals clearly enough that a court can enforce them — as Jeanie Buss is now asking the court to do with her father's intent that she remain controlling owner.
Removal provisions. Under section 15642, the court can remove a trustee for cause. But the trust can also include its own removal process.
Good planning cannot eliminate human conflict. But it can dramatically reduce the risk that a family dispute ends up in probate court with billions of dollars on the line.
The Buss family trust dispute remains pending. A hearing is scheduled for December 8, 2026, in Los Angeles Superior Court. Whatever the outcome, the case is already a powerful reminder that trust language written today determines who wins a family fight tomorrow.
The Law Offices of Rodono & Haydt, APC assists clients in California with trust litigation, co-trustee disputes, estate planning, and trust administration. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Comments