You do not need to own the Lakers to understand the problem: one family member wants to keep an important asset, another wants to sell, and everyone believes the estate plan supports their position. For your family, that asset might be a home, a rental property or the business you spent decades building.
The Buss family’s public dispute offers a useful reason to look beyond the question “Who gets what?” A thoughtful plan should also address who makes decisions, how disagreements are handled and what happens when circumstances change.
How the Lakers became a family legacy
Jerry Buss bought the Lakers from Jack Kent Cooke in 1979 as part of a $67.5 million package that included the Kings and Forum. His ownership spanned the Showtime years with Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and the later championships with Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant. The Lakers won 10 titles under his ownership. For the Buss family, the team became both a business and a shared identity.
Sources: Lakers ownership history | Jerry Buss and the Lakers | AP history and sale coverage
After Jerry died in 2013, the family’s 66% interest was held through four trusts benefiting his six children: Johnny, Jim, Jeanie, Janie, Joey and Jesse. The children shared the financial benefit, but their management roles were different. A beneficiary receives benefits under a trust; a trustee is responsible for administering its assets under the governing terms. Being a beneficiary did not give each sibling a separate right to run the Lakers.
The inheritance rules also mattered. Reporting described a structure under which a deceased sibling’s interest largely shifted to surviving siblings, with separate provisions for grandchildren. Keeping the team could therefore mean something different to an older sibling thinking about the next generation than to a younger sibling hoping to remain in the business.
Sources: ESPN reporting on the four trusts and inheritance structure | Buss family ownership interests
The 2017 fight was about control rather than a sale
After Jeanie removed Jim from his basketball operations role, Jim and Johnny proposed a board slate that excluded her. Jeanie went to court, arguing that the trust required them to support her as controlling owner. A March 2017 agreement preserved her position. That dispute did not sell the team, but the protection for her leadership became central to the later fight over selling the family’s remaining interest.
Sources: FOX 11 on the 2017 agreement
The first recent sale transferred majority ownership in 2025
In 2025, the family sold majority ownership to Mark Walter at a reported $10 billion valuation for the team. The NBA approved the transaction on October 30. The family kept a minority interest, and the announced arrangement kept Jeanie as governor for at least five years. The team subsequently confirmed the acquisition was complete.
The disagreement was over how much to sell, the process and what the family would keep. ESPN later reported that Joey and Jesse preferred selling a smaller piece to raise money without surrendering family control. They questioned whether open-market bidding could produce a higher price and the short timetable for deciding. Jeanie reportedly believed a wealthier owner could better support the team. Although the siblings differed privately, ESPN reported that the final family vote was 6–0 in favor.
The sale also exposed a practical difference between owning an interest and having a job. Jeanie received a five-year arrangement; Joey and Jesse were dismissed from their team roles after the sale. Those reported concerns help explain the family tension, but they are not findings that the sale was unlawful.
Sources: NBA official approval | Lakers completion announcement | ESPN on the family disagreements
The proposed second sale raised a different question in 2026
In August 2026, Walter agreed to sell his interest to a group led by Josh Kushner and Bob Iger at a reported $12.5 billion team valuation. Five Buss siblings wanted the family’s remaining 17.82% included; Jeanie opposed. This was a proposed resale and possible full family exit, rather than another completed sale of the family’s shares.
Jeanie argued that the trust and the 2017 order protected her continued leadership. She challenged the vote and sought to remove Janie and Joey, her fellow co-trustees. AP reported that a full family exit would also end her eligibility as governor under the NBA’s 15% ownership requirement. Her petition also disputed whether the formal notice needed to trigger the family’s contractual right to join Walter’s sale had occurred.
Her siblings argued that the required two-thirds beneficiary support authorized termination of the trust and that the trustees had to carry out the decision. In their view, the 2017 order protected Jeanie while the trust owned Lakers stock; it did not require the trust to own stock forever. They also pointed to the economics: a tag-along right would let the family join the new sale at the higher valuation, rather than use a separate right to sell back to Walter at the earlier $10 billion valuation.
The underlying question is easy for any family to recognize: does protecting one person’s management role also prevent the others from ending their shared investment? The October filings presented competing answers. The dispute remained unresolved in the reporting available as of October 27, 2026; neither side’s allegations should be mistaken for a court’s findings.
Sources: AP on the proposed resale | AP on the remaining stake | ESPN on Jeanie’s petition | ESPN on the siblings’ response
What This Means for You
Your family may face similar choices over a home, a rental property or a business. The practical steps below start with separating inheritance from decision making and choosing the right people for the work. From there, consider what happens when someone wants out, how your plan will work after signing, and what protections it can realistically provide.
Separate inheritance from decision making
Suppose you want three children to benefit equally from a rental property, but only one has the time and experience to manage it. Equal financial shares do not answer who selects tenants, approves repairs or decides when to sell. Giving everyone a voice without a clear decision process can leave important work undone.
Ask your attorney to review the trust alongside any LLC operating agreement, corporate documents and ownership records. The goal is a consistent plan for management, distributions and eventual sale, rather than documents that point in different directions.
Choose people for the work they will actually do
Being a trustee is a responsibility, not simply an honor. Consider who can keep records, communicate calmly, meet deadlines and make difficult decisions when relatives disagree. Someone who is excellent at running a business may not be the best person to resolve a sibling conflict about distributions.
Discuss backups and a workable replacement process. In some families, an independent trustee or a professional adviser can provide useful distance. In others, a capable family member with clear instructions is the better fit. The choice should reflect the people and assets involved.
Plan for someone wanting out
A parent may see a property as a legacy. One child may see it as a place to live, another as an investment and another as money needed now. Those differences are worth discussing while you can still explain your priorities.
For jointly held assets, explore whether the plan should permit a buyout, require an appraisal, set a sale process or address a deadlock. Also consider practical expenses: who pays insurance, taxes and upkeep while a decision is pending? Written procedures can reduce uncertainty, although no document can guarantee family harmony or prevent litigation.
Make the plan usable after signing
A signed trust deserves a follow-through plan. Review how each asset is titled, which beneficiary designations apply and what transfer steps are appropriate. Not every asset should be retitled into a trust; retirement accounts and other assets need individual treatment.
Give the people you choose a secure way to locate the documents and an organized inventory of assets, institutions and advisers. Keep sensitive account information protected. Revisit the plan after major family, property or business changes, rather than assuming the original instructions will always fit.
Keep expectations realistic
The California dispute does not establish the rules for a Texas or Missouri estate plan. Local law, the actual documents and the nature of the assets matter. A trust is not an automatic shield against creditors or a promise of tax savings. Missouri expressly subjects revocable trust property to the creator’s creditors during life; Texas also limits protection for a creator’s own beneficial interest.
Legal references: Missouri section 456.5-505 and Texas Property Code section 112.035
Start with your own family
You may never face a dispute over a professional sports team. You can still leave your family with clearer instructions about the things that matter to you. At Scarborough Law, the conversation starts with your people, your property and the decisions someone may one day need to make for you.
Contact Scarborough Law to request an estate planning inquiry and discuss whether your current plan addresses ownership, control and the practical work ahead.
E: xavier@scarboroughfamilylawyer.com
General educational information, not individualized legal advice.