independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > The Estate - Part 3
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 36 <123456789>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 08/05/16 3:18pm

luv4u

Moderator

avatar

moderator

Mumio said:

luv4u said:



According to the source posted in this thread http://prince.org/msg/7/430379 it is false.

But my source isn't TMZ, it's a legitimate affidavit filed in the court system.


See that twitter source ...............

canada

Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture!
REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince
"I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 08/05/16 3:23pm

Mumio

avatar

luv4u said:

Mumio said:

But my source isn't TMZ, it's a legitimate affidavit filed in the court system.


See that twitter source ...............



I did see the Twitter source...but what's false about the statement, that PP is to be sold or that the family is fighting about it? Like I said, the source is a court document, an affidavit...it's not just gossip and 7801 Audubon Rd is listed as real estate to be sold.

Welcome to "the org", Mumio…they can have you, but I'll have your love in the end nod
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 08/05/16 3:24pm

morningsong

Militant said:

My vote right now says that Star Tribune are NOT to be trusted.



Since they are in a legal battle against Bremer Trust, trying to force the uncovering of private documents, why should we trust anything they have to say?

A headline such as "Paisley Park could go on sale" is meaningless anyway. Take away the fact that it's Paisley Park, which is the clickbait, and the headline would be "Property could go on sale". Well whoop-de-doo. You could have said that at any time since it was built. People who own or look after a property have the right to sell it if they want to. That's not news.


That affidavit simply says that they retain the right to sell it if they want to, and it lists the valuation of all of Prince's properties. They need to know the market valuation so they can figure out the total asset value. To ascertain the market value of the property they first have to have the permission to sell the property if they choose to. That's my take on it.....

Anyway, Londell just tweeted that the story about it being sold is false.




It's listed on the spreadsheet known as Exhibit A on the court papers. The court papers read as though the things on that spreadsheet are going up for sale. Need someone well versed in legal ligo to straighten that out.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 08/05/16 4:02pm

morningsong

Mumio said:



luv4u said:




Mumio said:





But my source isn't TMZ, it's a legitimate affidavit filed in the court system.




See that twitter source .....





I did see the Twitter source...but what's false about the statement, that PP is to be sold or that the family is fighting about it? Like I said, the source is a court document, an affidavit...it's not just gossip and 7801 Audubon Rd is listed as real estate to be sold.



Yeah I'm going to have to agree those few words were not specific, they were vague. break it down in juvenile terms if need be. I like clarity.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 08/05/16 4:12pm

luv4u

Moderator

avatar

moderator

canada

Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture!
REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince
"I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 08/05/16 4:14pm

morningsong

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 08/05/16 4:21pm

babynoz

Its only an affidavit in support of Bremer's request to sell some or all of the properties listed in the attached exhibit and PP is on the list, meaning that Bremer could opt to sell it if the judge signs their proposed order, which he has not done. The judge could modify their order or even draft his own.

Londell and co can either address this by filing a motion in opposition and request a hearing or as I suspect from Londell's twitter comment, they can negotiate a resolution privately.

No denying it's included in the exhibit though.

Prince, in you I found a kindred spirit...Rest In Paradise.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 08/05/16 4:28pm

Mumio

avatar

babynoz said:

Its only an affidavit in support of Bremer's request to sell some or all of the properties listed in the attached exhibit and PP is on the list, meaning that Bremer could opt to sell it if the judge signs their proposed order, which he has not done. The judge could modify their order or even draft his own.

Londell and co can either address this by filing a motion in opposition and request a hearing or as I suspect from Londell's twitter comment, they can negotiate a resolution privately.

No denying it's included in the exhibit though.



Thanks babynoz smile

Welcome to "the org", Mumio…they can have you, but I'll have your love in the end nod
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 08/05/16 4:37pm

rogifan

Militant said:

My vote right now says that Star Tribune are NOT to be trusted.



Since they are in a legal battle against Bremer Trust, trying to force the uncovering of private documents, why should we trust anything they have to say?

A headline such as "Paisley Park could go on sale" is meaningless anyway. Take away the fact that it's Paisley Park, which is the clickbait, and the headline would be "Property could go on sale". Well whoop-de-doo. You could have said that at any time since it was built. People who own or look after a property have the right to sell it if they want to. That's not news.


That affidavit simply says that they retain the right to sell it if they want to, and it lists the valuation of all of Prince's properties. They need to know the market valuation so they can figure out the total asset value. To ascertain the market value of the property they first have to have the permission to sell the property if they choose to. That's my take on it.....

Anyway, Londell just tweeted that the story about it being sold is false.


Just more reason to hate the local media here. rolleyes
Paisley Park is in your heart
#PrinceForever 💜
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 08/05/16 4:39pm

babynoz

Mumio said:

babynoz said:

Its only an affidavit in support of Bremer's request to sell some or all of the properties listed in the attached exhibit and PP is on the list, meaning that Bremer could opt to sell it if the judge signs their proposed order, which he has not done. The judge could modify their order or even draft his own.

Londell and co can either address this by filing a motion in opposition and request a hearing or as I suspect from Londell's twitter comment, they can negotiate a resolution privately.

No denying it's included in the exhibit though.



Thanks babynoz smile



No prob....this judge takes forever to make his rulings. He is erring on the side of caution, dotting his i's and crossing his t's.

Prince, in you I found a kindred spirit...Rest In Paradise.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 08/05/16 5:07pm

rogifan

I looked up some of these addresses on Google street view and three of them (Red Fox Circle addresses) are houses in a nice residential area. I wonder who lives in those houses? I'll have to walk over there some day and check them out.
Paisley Park is in your heart
#PrinceForever 💜
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 08/05/16 5:54pm

laurarichardso
n

Militant said:

My vote right now says that Star Tribune are NOT to be trusted.



Since they are in a legal battle against Bremer Trust, trying to force the uncovering of private documents, why should we trust anything they have to say?

A headline such as "Paisley Park could go on sale" is meaningless anyway. Take away the fact that it's Paisley Park, which is the clickbait, and the headline would be "Property could go on sale". Well whoop-de-doo. You could have said that at any time since it was built. People who own or look after a property have the right to sell it if they want to. That's not news.


That affidavit simply says that they retain the right to sell it if they want to, and it lists the valuation of all of Prince's properties. They need to know the market valuation so they can figure out the total asset value. To ascertain the market value of the property they first have to have the permission to sell the property if they choose to. That's my take on it.....

Anyway, Londell just tweeted that the story about it being sold is false.


-/// They have the ability to sell all of the property but I know from the earlier court docs the family is consulted first and they do have to list all of the assets. Common sense should make most people figure this out but common sense is not so common. See the thing about TMZ is that only tell a portion of the story to get a click and the idiot people who read it believe it because it is on the internet. I would think they would start selling the residential property first and any sell of Paisley could be a long way off.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 08/05/16 6:31pm

laurarichardso
n

rogifan said:

I looked up some of these addresses on Google street view and three of them (Red Fox Circle addresses) are houses in a nice residential area. I wonder who lives in those houses? I'll have to walk over there some day and check them out.

-/I think some of his family members may live in them. I wish the media focus on what a great portfolio he had so good to see how he made good investments. I can understand why he did leave this property to his siblings. My guess is they would have been able to manage the properties or pay the property taxes. If the need to sell everything but music so be it.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 08/05/16 6:40pm

rogifan

laurarichardson said:

Militant said:

My vote right now says that Star Tribune are NOT to be trusted.



Since they are in a legal battle against Bremer Trust, trying to force the uncovering of private documents, why should we trust anything they have to say?

A headline such as "Paisley Park could go on sale" is meaningless anyway. Take away the fact that it's Paisley Park, which is the clickbait, and the headline would be "Property could go on sale". Well whoop-de-doo. You could have said that at any time since it was built. People who own or look after a property have the right to sell it if they want to. That's not news.


That affidavit simply says that they retain the right to sell it if they want to, and it lists the valuation of all of Prince's properties. They need to know the market valuation so they can figure out the total asset value. To ascertain the market value of the property they first have to have the permission to sell the property if they choose to. That's my take on it.....

Anyway, Londell just tweeted that the story about it being sold is false.


-/// They have the ability to sell all of the property but I know from the earlier court docs the family is consulted first and they do have to list all of the assets. Common sense should make most people figure this out but common sense is not so common. See the thing about TMZ is that only tell a portion of the story to get a click and the idiot people who read it believe it because it is on the internet. I would think they would start selling the residential property first and any sell of Paisley could be a long way off.

If they need a lot of money for taxes or whatever sell the large parcel near lake Ann. There's no property on it. It's basically trees/wetland.
Paisley Park is in your heart
#PrinceForever 💜
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 08/05/16 8:37pm

FlyOnTheWall

Does anyone know what Londell and Koppelman are doing with regard to monetizing Prince's vast music catalogue? It's been weeks since they were appointed and I have yet to see any evidence of movement on their part, other than vague tweets from Londell. Moreover, are they working on an inventory of the vault? I sure hope Londell can be trusted...

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 08/05/16 9:00pm

tmo1965

The way that I read the property court document is that Exhibit A is a list of properties owned by Prince, not that they all will be sold.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 08/05/16 9:09pm

YaThink

FlyOnTheWall said:

Does anyone know what Londell and Koppelman are doing with regard to monetizing Prince's vast music catalogue? It's been weeks since they were appointed and I have yet to see any evidence of movement on their part, other than vague tweets from Londell. Moreover, are they working on an inventory of the vault? I sure hope Londell can be trusted...



For the record, the only folks who know are them, Bremer Bank Special administrators, Bremers lawyers, and whomever they are striking deals with.

The way I see it, they are taking a plum (Prince's estate) and turning it into a prune (sucking it dry) - and until they run out of their allocated time, can only be approved and/or rejected by the court - which is RARE.

Much is misunderstood by those following the story, because lies have been mixed cleverly with truth to form a 'smoke and mirrors' view.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 08/05/16 9:11pm

YaThink

tmo1965 said:

The way that I read the property court document is that Exhibit A is a list of properties owned by Prince, not that they all will be sold.



The bigger issue is the bank seeking pre approval to sell any or all of the listed properties. Which includes Paisley.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 08/05/16 9:27pm

morningsong

babynoz said:

Its only an affidavit in support of Bremer's request to sell some or all of the properties listed in the attached exhibit and PP is on the list, meaning that Bremer could opt to sell it if the judge signs their proposed order, which he has not done. The judge could modify their order or even draft his own.

Londell and co can either address this by filing a motion in opposition and request a hearing or as I suspect from Londell's twitter comment, they can negotiate a resolution privately.

No denying it's included in the exhibit though.




So technically everything is still up in the air?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 08/05/16 9:45pm

FlyOnTheWall

YaThink said:

FlyOnTheWall said:

Does anyone know what Londell and Koppelman are doing with regard to monetizing Prince's vast music catalogue? It's been weeks since they were appointed and I have yet to see any evidence of movement on their part, other than vague tweets from Londell. Moreover, are they working on an inventory of the vault? I sure hope Londell can be trusted...

For the record, the only folks who know are them, Bremer Bank Special administrators, Bremers lawyers, and whomever they are striking deals with. The way I see it, they are taking a plum (Prince's estate) and turning it into a prune (sucking it dry) - and until they run out of their allocated time, can only be approved and/or rejected by the court - which is RARE. Much is misunderstood by those following the story, because lies have been mixed cleverly with truth to form a 'smoke and mirrors' view.

I'm getting that same feeling YaThink. Bremer Trust was only given, what six months? They appointed Londell and Koppelman to supposedly monetize his music assets, but I have yet to see any evidence of any such activity. When are they going to begin selling remasters and reissues? The estate taxes are due in January, for Chrissakes. I hate to say it, and I hope I'm wrong, but I'm starting to think the fix is in...

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 08/05/16 10:06pm

babynoz

morningsong said:

babynoz said:

Its only an affidavit in support of Bremer's request to sell some or all of the properties listed in the attached exhibit and PP is on the list, meaning that Bremer could opt to sell it if the judge signs their proposed order, which he has not done. The judge could modify their order or even draft his own.

Londell and co can either address this by filing a motion in opposition and request a hearing or as I suspect from Londell's twitter comment, they can negotiate a resolution privately.

No denying it's included in the exhibit though.

So technically everything is still up in the air?



Yes.

Any of the parties can file motions, make requests and submit exhibits but nothing happens unless the judge signs an order. Bremer has submitted an affivavit with an exhibit attached and a proposed order that hasn't been signed.

PP is among the properties listed in Bremer's exhibit but apparently Londell ain't having it.


Prince, in you I found a kindred spirit...Rest In Paradise.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 08/05/16 10:12pm

babynoz

YaThink said:

tmo1965 said:

The way that I read the property court document is that Exhibit A is a list of properties owned by Prince, not that they all will be sold.

The bigger issue is the bank seeking pre approval to sell any or all of the listed properties. Which includes Paisley.




nod

Pre-approval seems to give them cart blanche and PP even appearing on the list at all is worrisome.

I'm going to read the pleadings again.

Prince, in you I found a kindred spirit...Rest In Paradise.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 08/05/16 10:17pm

FlyOnTheWall

babynoz said:

YaThink said:

tmo1965 said: The bigger issue is the bank seeking pre approval to sell any or all of the listed properties. Which includes Paisley.




nod

Pre-approval seems to give them cart blanche and PP even appearing on the list at all is worrisome.

I'm going to read the pleadings again.

yeahthat In the grand scheme of things, Londell's tweets mean zilch.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 08/05/16 10:25pm

FlyOnTheWall

FlyOnTheWall said:

YaThink said:

FlyOnTheWall said: For the record, the only folks who know are them, Bremer Bank Special administrators, Bremers lawyers, and whomever they are striking deals with. The way I see it, they are taking a plum (Prince's estate) and turning it into a prune (sucking it dry) - and until they run out of their allocated time, can only be approved and/or rejected by the court - which is RARE. Much is misunderstood by those following the story, because lies have been mixed cleverly with truth to form a 'smoke and mirrors' view.

I'm getting that same feeling YaThink. Bremer Trust was only given, what six months? They appointed Londell and Koppelman to supposedly monetize his music assets, but I have yet to see any evidence of any such activity. When are they going to begin selling remasters and reissues? The estate taxes are due in January, for Chrissakes. I hate to say it, and I hope I'm wrong, but I'm starting to think the fix is in...

Perhaps when we see Londell and Koppelman's billable hours, we will have some idea of what they are doing in the realm of monetizing P's music assets. Le sigh... sigh confuse

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 08/05/16 11:03pm

Eileen

bump for sub

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 08/05/16 11:03pm

Mumio

avatar

FlyOnTheWall said:

babynoz said:




nod

Pre-approval seems to give them cart blanche and PP even appearing on the list at all is worrisome.

I'm going to read the pleadings again.

yeahthat In the grand scheme of things, Londell's tweets mean zilch.


Glad other people seem concerned about this too.

Welcome to "the org", Mumio…they can have you, but I'll have your love in the end nod
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 08/05/16 11:06pm

Mumio

avatar

YaThink said:

FlyOnTheWall said:

Does anyone know what Londell and Koppelman are doing with regard to monetizing Prince's vast music catalogue? It's been weeks since they were appointed and I have yet to see any evidence of movement on their part, other than vague tweets from Londell. Moreover, are they working on an inventory of the vault? I sure hope Londell can be trusted...

For the record, the only folks who know are them, Bremer Bank Special administrators, Bremers lawyers, and whomever they are striking deals with. The way I see it, they are taking a plum (Prince's estate) and turning it into a prune (sucking it dry) - and until they run out of their allocated time, can only be approved and/or rejected by the court - which is RARE. Much is misunderstood by those following the story, because lies have been mixed cleverly with truth to form a 'smoke and mirrors' view.


nod

Welcome to "the org", Mumio…they can have you, but I'll have your love in the end nod
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 08/05/16 11:14pm

Mumio

avatar

rogifan said:

I looked up some of these addresses on Google street view and three of them (Red Fox Circle addresses) are houses in a nice residential area. I wonder who lives in those houses? I'll have to walk over there some day and check them out.



If I put addresses in www.whitepages.com, I almost always get a name to go with them.

[Edited 8/5/16 23:17pm]

Welcome to "the org", Mumio…they can have you, but I'll have your love in the end nod
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 08/06/16 1:54am

Jessica55

I saw the tweets but as an attorney, here's how I read the affidavit (using direct language from the document). They're looking for advance approval to immediately begin to list and market the properties on Exhibit A which they currently anticipate will be sold to take advantage of the current market and allow sufficient time for preparation and sale. They've already done due diligence on the properties (including appraisals) and they've done due diligence and selected agents/brokers to sell those properties. The costs of repair and ongoing maintenance are such that carrying these properties are not in the Estate's best interests. They've already shared this information with counsel for the interested parties. They've redacted the names of the agents/brokers they've selected because that would be detrimental to the Estate in negotiating listing agreements.

I’d be interested to see if someone agrees/disagrees with me on this point: I see a conflict in the language of Paragraph 6 which says the properties they are currently anticipating will be sold, and their appraised values, are listed on Exhibit A. In Paragraph 12, however, it says that the public disclosure of the appraisals would hamper the agents ability to negotiate favorable sales terms.

On Exhibit A, the heading reads “Estimated Market Values” (and not appraised values as stated in Paragraph 6). It says they need the $$ to pay taxes and the ongoing administrating expenses.

I’ve not read any of the other legal agreements - Tyka Nelson is listed as the petitioner. Is she listed as petitioner on other documents?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 08/06/16 3:42am

YaThink

Jessica55 said:

I saw the tweets but as an attorney, here's how I read the affidavit (using direct language from the document). They're looking for advance approval to immediately begin to list and market the properties on Exhibit A which they currently anticipate will be sold to take advantage of the current market and allow sufficient time for preparation and sale. They've already done due diligence on the properties (including appraisals) and they've done due diligence and selected agents/brokers to sell those properties. The costs of repair and ongoing maintenance are such that carrying these properties are not in the Estate's best interests. They've already shared this information with counsel for the interested parties. They've redacted the names of the agents/brokers they've selected because that would be detrimental to the Estate in negotiating listing agreements.



I’d be interested to see if someone agrees/disagrees with me on this point: I see a conflict in the language of Paragraph 6 which says the properties they are currently anticipating will be sold, and their appraised values, are listed on Exhibit A. In Paragraph 12, however, it says that the public disclosure of the appraisals would hamper the agents ability to negotiate favorable sales terms.



On Exhibit A, the heading reads “Estimated Market Values” (and not appraised values as stated in Paragraph 6). It says they need the $$ to pay taxes and the ongoing administrating expenses.



I’ve not read any of the other legal agreements - Tyka Nelson is listed as the petitioner. Is she listed as petitioner on other documents?




Yes, by default.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 36 <123456789>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > The Estate - Part 3