It's appauling that a government body that had nothing to do with his music (like the music industry itself) will get 1/2 his estate. A bunch of philatropists could do a much better job of addressing social ills than the government has ever done.

tmo1965 said:

Astasheiks said:

1. RODNEY H. DIXON HAS A PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE ESTATE On or about April 27, 2016, Mr. Dixon filed a claim against the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson for $1 Billion and Ownership rights to all intellectual properties. Notwithstanding, Mr. Dixon also included in his demand the ownership rights to stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. (all assets). On or about April 29, 2016, Bremer Trust filed a motion to dismiss the claims of Mr. Dixon for failure to state a claim in which relief may be granted. Since that time Mr. Dixon has filed additional memoranda in support of his position. Including but not limited to the filing of his Fourth Declaration on or about June 27, 2016. On or about June 29, 2016, the Court Ordered Bremer Trust and Mr. Dixon to submit additional factual record and legal argument in support of their positions not later than August 5, 2016. On or about July 21, 2016, Bremer Trust filed a Request for a Modified Protocol for Confidential Business

Agreements. Bremer Trust request states, “The Special Administrator requests that the Court adopt a modified protocol for confidential business agreements involving the Estate. As the Court has stated, the Special Administrator must “take all prudent steps to

***************

IV. BREMER TRUST MAY OPT TO PAY MR. DIXON $1 BILLION IN ORDER TO ADMINISTER THE ESTATE IN THE MANNER THEY HAVE SOUGHT Bremer Trust is a company worth reportedly at or about $10 Billion in assets. Since Bremer Trust continues to undermine the contract between Mr. Dixon and Prince Rogers Nelson, Bremer Trust can opt to simply pay the debt of $1 Billion to Mr. Dixon in accordance with Minnesota Law Section 524.3-814 - Encumbered Assets which states, “If any assets of the estate are encumbered by mortgage, pledge, lien, or other security interest, the personal representative may pay the encumbrance or any part thereof, renew or extend any obligation secured by the encumbrance or convey or transfer the assets to the creditor in satisfaction of the lien, in whole

http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CIOMediaLibrary/Documents/Petition-Restraining-Special-Administrator-Bremer-Trust-From-Selling-Assets-Of-The-Estate-Of-Prince-Rogers-Nelson.pdf

***************

[Edited 8/3/16 13:48pm]

You actually took the time to read through it?

I didn't read all that mess, I just picked out these 2 paragraphs,,,

morningsong said:

Astasheiks said:

1. RODNEY H. DIXON HAS A PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE ESTATE On or about April 27, 2016, Mr. Dixon filed a claim against the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson for $1 Billion and Ownership rights to all intellectual properties. Notwithstanding, Mr. Dixon also included in his demand the ownership rights to stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. (all assets). On or about April 29, 2016, Bremer Trust filed a motion to dismiss the claims of Mr. Dixon for failure to state a claim in which relief may be granted. Since that time Mr. Dixon has filed additional memoranda in support of his position. Including but not limited to the filing of his Fourth Declaration on or about June 27, 2016. On or about June 29, 2016, the Court Ordered Bremer Trust and Mr. Dixon to submit additional factual record and legal argument in support of their positions not later than August 5, 2016. On or about July 21, 2016, Bremer Trust filed a Request for a Modified Protocol for Confidential Business

Agreements. Bremer Trust request states, “The Special Administrator requests that the Court adopt a modified protocol for confidential business agreements involving the Estate. As the Court has stated, the Special Administrator must “take all prudent steps to

***************

IV. BREMER TRUST MAY OPT TO PAY MR. DIXON $1 BILLION IN ORDER TO ADMINISTER THE ESTATE IN THE MANNER THEY HAVE SOUGHT Bremer Trust is a company worth reportedly at or about $10 Billion in assets. Since Bremer Trust continues to undermine the contract between Mr. Dixon and Prince Rogers Nelson, Bremer Trust can opt to simply pay the debt of $1 Billion to Mr. Dixon in accordance with Minnesota Law Section 524.3-814 - Encumbered Assets which states, “If any assets of the estate are encumbered by mortgage, pledge, lien, or other security interest, the personal representative may pay the encumbrance or any part thereof, renew or extend any obligation secured by the encumbrance or convey or transfer the assets to the creditor in satisfaction of the lien, in whole

http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CIOMediaLibrary/Documents/Petition-Restraining-Special-Administrator-Bremer-Trust-From-Selling-Assets-Of-The-Estate-Of-Prince-Rogers-Nelson.pdf

***************

Yeah, he's kind of 'special'.

Does he live in Minneapolis area? Does he have some kind of written agreement/contract with P? Or is he just a lunatic?!

While refering to http://prince.org/msg/7/430276, my post about the published legal costs of the estate, I wonder who can explain this.

Who has details?

My calculations of the almost 2 million US dollars spent lead me 40 people working full time at a rate of $150 per hour.

For two months or more.

That leads me to the fact that I might be missing some info, or that US dolalr inflation has truly begun or that the task is indeed that big.

Please comment.

udo said:

While refering to http://prince.org/msg/7/430276, my post about the published legal costs of the estate, I wonder who can explain this.

Who has details?

My calculations of the almost 2 million US dollars spent lead me 40 people working full time at a rate of $150 per hour.

For two months or more.

That leads me to the fact that I might be missing some info, or that US dolalr inflation has truly begun or that the task is indeed that big.

Please comment.

Its more than $150 an hour for the Estate attorneys. I charge $275 hour and Im just small time. The big law firm attorneys are charging a minimum of $400+ per hour.

Misslink88 said:

It's appauling that a government body that had nothing to do with his music (like the music industry itself) will get 1/2 his estate. A bunch of philatropists could do a much better job of addressing social ills than the government has ever done.

The government gets over big time on inheritance taxes. They tax the money at 25 - 40% when the person is alive, then they re-tax the same money at 50% after they die. I'm all for the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes, but at that rate it's robbery.

Astasheiks said:

morningsong said:

Yeah, he's kind of 'special'.

Does he live in Minneapolis area? Does he have some kind of written agreement/contract with P? Or is he just a lunatic?!

From my understanding, he lives in the LA area. He used to work for Prince back in the 80's, I think. Prince allegedly once told him that by working for him (Prince), that he could be a millionaire in 3 years and that in 12 years he could be a billionaire . Now he wants his billion. I'll let you answer your last question.

tmo1965 said:

Misslink88 said:

It's appauling that a government body that had nothing to do with his music (like the music industry itself) will get 1/2 his estate. A bunch of philatropists could do a much better job of addressing social ills than the government has ever done.

The government gets over big time on inheritance taxes. They tax the money at 25 - 40% when the person is alive, then they re-tax the same money at 50% after they die. I'm all for the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes, but at that rate it's robbery.

Absolutely. Highway robbery.

They could also monitize some of the Estate by having a curator catalogue his costumes and stage sets and having a "touring" museum in all major art and cultural centres around the world. Perhaps even selling a complete set (like the Parade Tour or something) to a European museum as a permanent installation and tourist attraction.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

udo said:

While refering to http://prince.org/msg/7/430276, my post about the published legal costs of the estate, I wonder who can explain this.

Who has details?

My calculations of the almost 2 million US dollars spent lead me 40 people working full time at a rate of $150 per hour.

For two months or more.

That leads me to the fact that I might be missing some info, or that US dolalr inflation has truly begun or that the task is indeed that big.

Please comment.

Its more than $150 an hour for the Estate attorneys. I charge $275 hour and Im just small time. The big law firm attorneys are charging a minimum of $400+ per hour.

IMO, I think that in a case like this the attorneys should be on retainer, not hourly. At the rate they are chargining, the legal fees + the taxes will equal the value of the estate, if not more.

.

In the grand scheme of things (the size and complexity of this estate), those attorneys' fees are not outrageous.

Every time someone comes forward with a claim, the estate has to pay.

Think about all the attorney, management, recording costs, employee and other fees that P paid every month during his lifetime. This two million in 3.5 months isn't that outrageous.

Yes, he should have set up trusts and had a will -- but the nut cases would still be coming out of the woodwork. The real estate properties would still need to be accounted for, appraised and sold. The vault would still have to be organized.

Thinking about that, gives me a headache. Maybe it gave P one, too

.

.

Manuela in court today, with her attorney(s), to fight against the Star Tribune's request to unseal the private divorce settlement.

.

http://www.startribune.co...389206661/

.

tmo1965 said:

Misslink88 said:

It's appauling that a government body that had nothing to do with his music (like the music industry itself) will get 1/2 his estate. A bunch of philatropists could do a much better job of addressing social ills than the government has ever done.

The government gets over big time on inheritance taxes. They tax the money at 25 - 40% when the person is alive, then they re-tax the same money at 50% after they die. I'm all for the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes, but at that rate it's robbery.

I understand what you are trying to say.

The money is being taxed "again" because it is new income to his heirs.

I totally agree that the estate tax is crazy. And I do not completely agree with it. I think anything over $5M is taxable.

The IRS sees it as income to the person who receives the money or assets. Since it is viewed that way, it is taxed at the rates from 20-40%, depending on the level.

laytonian said:

.

Manuela in court today, with her attorney(s), to fight against the Star Tribune's request to unseal the private divorce settlement.

.

http://www.startribune.co...389206661/

.

I am not sure how I feel about this. Part of me thinks it should be sealed, it is a private manner. The curious part of me is like, release it. Not saying curiousity is a good thing.

nelcp777 said:

laytonian said:

.

Manuela in court today, with her attorney(s), to fight against the Star Tribune's request to unseal the private divorce settlement.

.

http://www.startribune.co...389206661/

.

I am not sure how I feel about this. Part of me thinks it should be sealed, it is a private manner. The curious part of me is like, release it. Not saying curiousity is a good thing.

I thought divorce documents were generally sealed? And even in states with public records it's not like they post details...just motions.

I'm not sure what the Star Tribune hopes to find out, to be honest.

nelcp777 said:

laytonian said:

.

Manuela in court today, with her attorney(s), to fight against the Star Tribune's request to unseal the private divorce settlement.

.

http://www.startribune.co...389206661/

.

I am not sure how I feel about this. Part of me thinks it should be sealed, it is a private manner. The curious part of me is like, release it. Not saying curiousity is a good thing.

.

The newspaper's attorney is saying that Prince's privacy rights died with him; while that's true, Manuela's privacy is just as important.

If anything is released, it should be heavily redacted (ie, personal matters). The ONLY thing of interest would be those "working papers" that indicated some heirship...revealed a couple of weeks ago.

.

nelcp777 said:

tmo1965 said:

The government gets over big time on inheritance taxes. They tax the money at 25 - 40% when the person is alive, then they re-tax the same money at 50% after they die. I'm all for the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes, but at that rate it's robbery.

I understand what you are trying to say.

The money is being taxed "again" because it is new income to his heirs.

I totally agree that the estate tax is crazy. And I do not completely agree with it. I think anything over $5M is taxable.

The IRS sees it as income to the person who receives the money or assets. Since it is viewed that way, it is taxed at the rates from 20-40%, depending on the level.

The idea for the inheritance tax goes all the way back to our founding fathers. They did not want a system based on inherited wealth as there was in Europe at the time. It was mostly land back in those days. So the IRS may view it a certain way, but it's based on a philosophy that a few should not own all the wealth. It is, of course, practiced very differently today, but I can appreciate the sentiment, especially since wealthy people do have the option to put money in trusts and whatnot to protect funds for their heirs. Not saying it's a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination, but wealthy people do have options (trusts; wills). Prince just chose not to exercise those options. Or maybe he just didn't like thinking about it. It took us 5 years before we put together a will after my daughter was born, and it was incredibly morbid to think about for so long. Ugh.

But I have mixed feelings about the inheritance tax. Everything is stacked in their favor in our system. I'm not too bothered if their heirs, who did not work for the money, have to give a chunk of it back to society if their family member chose not to put together trusts and a will.

[Edited 8/4/16 12:35pm]

[Edited 8/4/16 12:36pm]

selah said:

The newspaper's attorney is saying that Prince's privacy rights died with him; while that's true, Manuela's privacy is just as important. Media vultures

.

....and we're talking about an ex-wife who participated (with another ex) in a loving memorial, which she didn't have to do. Yes, there were conditions put upon her (and P) in the divorce settlement but she doesn't have to be harassed.

The fact that she flew all the way to MPLS to make this appearance is telling.

.

teach49 said:

nelcp777 said:

I understand what you are trying to say.

The money is being taxed "again" because it is new income to his heirs.

I totally agree that the estate tax is crazy. And I do not completely agree with it. I think anything over $5M is taxable.

The IRS sees it as income to the person who receives the money or assets. Since it is viewed that way, it is taxed at the rates from 20-40%, depending on the level.

The idea for the inheritance tax goes all the way back to our founding fathers. They did not want a system based on inherited wealth as there was in Europe at the time. It was mostly land back in those days. So the IRS may view it a certain way, but it's based on a philosophy that a few should not own all the wealth. It is, of course, practiced very differently today, but I can appreciate the sentiment, especially since wealthy people do have the option to put money in trusts and whatnot to protect funds for their heirs. Not saying it's a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination, but wealthy people do have options (trusts; wills). Prince just chose not to exercise those options. Or maybe he just didn't like thinking about it. It took us 5 years before we put together a will after my daughter was born, and it was incredibly morbid to think about for so long. Ugh.

But I have mixed feelings about the inheritance tax. Everything is stacked in their favor in our system. I'm not too bothered if their heirs, who did not work for the money, have to give a chunk of it back to society if their family member chose not to put together trusts and a will.

[Edited 8/4/16 12:35pm]

[Edited 8/4/16 12:36pm]

.

Well-said.

Not to be political (who, me?) but as soon as one political party started calling it a "death tax", the entire conversation was skewed.

I think P learned a lot about MN's inheritance laws when he cleared his own father's estate. He knew who the money would go to -- and due to the total amount, there would be heavy inheritance taxes.

.

laytonian said:

.

Manuela in court today, with her attorney(s), to fight against the Star Tribune's request to unseal the private divorce settlement.

.

http://www.startribune.co...389206661/

.

Why would the court even consider unsealing something as personal as their divorce settlement? As nosey as I am, even I think that this is not right. Manuela should not have to worry about her business being made public. It's obviously weighing heavily on her because she made it a point to appear in court to stop it.

selah said:

tmo1965 said:

laytonian said:

.

Manuela in court today, with her attorney(s), to fight against the Star Tribune's request to unseal the private divorce settlement.

.

http://www.startribune.co...389206661/

.

Why would the court even consider unsealing something as personal as their divorce settlement? As nosey as I am, even I think that this is not right. Manuela should not have to worry about her business being made public. It's obviously weighing heavily on her because she made it a point to appear in court to stop it.

.

They have to at least "consider" it, legally...but I agree.

In a divorce, people make each other sound horrible as possible, to end things quickly and/or with a settlement. I think P loved her (more than one article talks about how he'd look "lovingly" at her) and the end of their life together is only their business.

On the other hand, I'm sure the reporters know what's in that settlement; there's always lots of "off the record" conversations; they're just salivating to reveal stuff.

.

laytonian said:

tmo1965 said:

Why would the court even consider unsealing something as personal as their divorce settlement? As nosey as I am, even I think that this is not right. Manuela should not have to worry about her business being made public. It's obviously weighing heavily on her because she made it a point to appear in court to stop it.

.

They have to at least "consider" it, legally...but I agree.

In a divorce, people make each other sound horrible as possible, to end things quickly and/or with a settlement. I think P loved her (more than one article talks about how he'd look "lovingly" at her) and the end of their life together is only their business.

On the other hand, I'm sure the reporters know what's in that settlement; there's always lots of "off the record" conversations; they're just salivating to reveal stuff.

.

Hadn't thought of that. While I think it's pretty low that they want it unsealed, at least they aren't blabbing off the record stuff until they get a verifiable source.

As a divorce attorney I can tell you there is nothing in the divorce papers that will make P look bad. His divorce appeared not to be contested. So there would be no dirt in the paperwork. Only contested divorces contain derogatory information about a spouse.

However, I think it is telling that Bremer Trust attorneys appeared at this hearing. P's divorce attorney is the one who sought an attorney/client privilege waiver from the Probate Judge as to confidential information they had in regard to heirs. When you get a divorce there is complete disclosure of assets and debts. I think the Star Tribune caught on there is something in there about an heir(s) and payments made to an heir that people want hidden. My own opinion. DONT SHOOT!

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

As a divorce attorney I can tell you there is nothing in the divorce papers that will make P look bad. His divorce appeared not to be contested. So there would be no dirt in the paperwork. Only contested divorces contain derogatory information about a spouse.

However, I think it is telling that Bremer Trust attorneys appeared at this hearing. P's divorce attorney is the one who sought an attorney/client privilege waiver from the Probate Judge as to confidential information they had in regard to heirs. When you get a divorce there is complete disclosure of assets and debts. I think the Star Tribune caught on there is something in there about an heir(s) and payments made to an heir that people want hidden. My own opinion. DONT SHOOT!

.

I mentioned (above) that this might have something to do with those "working papers" that were discovered in the files of the divorce attorney.

.

Thank you for your perspective. No shooting. I trust you in that there will be no real gossip fodder.

HOWEVER, I'm now more curious about the heir thing.
We never did hear confirmation of the "emergency hearing" that Tyka insisted on, after the heir thing was publicized.
.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

If it was a Trust Agreement for a child that P was funding it would be necessary to disclose this on the Court's financial disclosure forms. This person probably hasnt come forward to file a claim against the Estate because A Trust Agreement may contain language that would prohibit this individual from filing a claim against the Estate. Its also telling that the Star Tribune filed because they love Prince from the articles I have read. They have heard something through the grapevine. They dont care about the settlement agreement. They are looking for something else.