A trust could potentially prevent the sale of the Lakers if the trust’s terms, a prior court order, or the trustees’ fiduciary duties restrict the trustees’ authority to sell the family’s shares. The dispute illustrates how trust documents and probate court orders can affect even high-value business transactions.
Key Takeaways
A trust could prevent the sale of the Lakers if the document’s terms, the trustees’ fiduciary duties, or a prior court order restricts the trustees’ authority to sell the family’s shares.
- Trustees, not beneficiaries, control trust assets. A majority vote among beneficiaries cannot necessarily authorize a sale when the shares are held in a trust and managed by trustees, who are subject to separate duties and limitations.
- Probate courts do more than administer estates. They can resolve disputes involving trusts, including interpreting trust terms, determining trustee authority, and, when appropriate, modifying or terminating a trust.
- Estate plans must address control and ownership. The Lakers dispute illustrates why trusts should clearly state who controls an asset, who may sell it, and how to handle beneficiary disputes.
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Why Might the Probate Court Decide Lakers Ownership?
The probate court might ultimately decide whether the sale of the Buss family’s minority 17.8% stake in the Los Angeles Lakers to Bob Iger and Josh Kushner can proceed because the family’s remaining shares are held in a trust, and California probate courts have jurisdiction over disputes concerning a trust’s internal affairs.
The ownership dispute centers on whether co-trustees Janie Buss and Joey Buss have authority to manage and sell the Buss family’s remaining shares over the objection of fellow co-trustee Jeanie Buss, whose position as controlling owner is jeopardized by the proposed sale.
“This is not a probate proceeding involving the Lakers themselves,” explains Roee Kaufman, a Partner at Keystone Law Group. “Rather, it is an ordinary trust administration dispute that happens to concern one of the most renowned sports franchises in the world.”
How Did the Lakers Ownership Dispute Start?
All six Buss siblings are equal beneficiaries of the Buss Family Trust, but only Jeanie, Janie, and Joey serve as trustees. Recently, five of the six siblings allegedly voted to activate their “tag-along” sales rights to sell the family’s remaining stake in the Lakers, with Jeanie abstaining.
If the sale proceeds, Jeanie would lose her position as controlling owner because NBA rules require a team governor to own at least a 15% stake in the franchise.
Mark Walter acquired a controlling stake in the Lakers in late 2025 in a transaction that reportedly gave the Buss family tag-along rights, allowing them to sell their minority stake if Walter later sold his. When Walter agreed to sell his controlling stake to Iger and Kushner in August 2026, five of the six Buss siblings sought to exercise those rights and sell the family’s remaining 17.8% stake as part of the transaction.
Jeanie is contesting the proposed sale, arguing that the co-trustees cannot proceed without her approval because a 2017 court order explicitly requires the trustees to take all necessary steps to ensure she remains the controlling owner and governor of the franchise for her lifetime.
“This isn’t a fight about $12.5 billion,” says Kaufman. “It’s a fight about a chair.”
Where Does the Lakers Ownership Dispute Stand Now?
Jeanie’s legal counsel, Adam Streisand, sent a letter to the five siblings asserting that any such vote would be “void” under a 2017 Los Angeles Superior Court order. According to Streisand, the order requires the co-trustees “to take all reasonable actions to keep Jeanie Buss as the controlling owner and Lakers governor for her lifetime.”
Streisand further warned that any “attempt by the co-trustees to do otherwise, and any attempt to aid or abet the co-trustees as such, would constitute a breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty and be in contempt of court.”
Escalating the standoff, Streisand filed an explosive 97-page formal petition in Los Angeles Superior Court on Jeanie’s behalf seeking five core court orders:
- Enforce the 2017 court order: A judicial mandate requiring the co-trustees of the family trust to fully comply with the 2017 court order and take all necessary steps to ensure Jeanie remains the controlling owner and governor of the franchise.
- Void the vote: A judicial declaration that the siblings’ recent vote to activate their tag-along sales rights is “completely illegal, invalid, and void.” The petition accused Jeanie’s siblings of “brazenly, knowingly and intentionally” violating the existing court mandate.
- Remove the co-trustees: An order immediately removing and surcharging fellow co-trustees Janie and Joey Buss for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties.
- Hold the trustees in contempt: An order holding Joey and Janie Buss in contempt of court for allegedly knowingly violating the 2017 court order.
- Hold remaining siblings liable: An order holding Jeanie’s other siblings, Jim, Johnny, and Jesse Buss, in contempt and “liable for damages” for allegedly aiding and abetting the trust violation. The petition characterized the siblings’ conduct as “devious behavior.”
With the newly filed petition invoking the 2017 court order to challenge Jeanie’s siblings’ proposed sale of the family’s remaining 17.8% stake, the probate court is ultimately being asked to enforce the order and impose legal consequences on any party whose conduct allegedly violated its terms.
“The important thing to remember is that voting isn’t selling,” Kaufman explains. “The 2017 order reportedly governs how the trustees vote the shares. It doesn’t obviously govern whether they may sell them. Jeanie is arguing that you can’t keep her installed while disposing of the very shares that qualify her.”
Trust Property Disputes: What Happens When Owners Disagree?
A trust’s terms often provide instructions for handling trust property and resolving disputes when beneficiaries or trustees disagree. For example, a trust may require unanimous consent from beneficiaries before a trustee can sell certain property or allow co-trustees to make decisions by majority vote.
When the trust is silent, California trust law generally governs. A trustee typically has authority to sell trust property without beneficiary consent but is still bound by fiduciary duties owed to the beneficiaries. Co-trustees, meanwhile, generally must act unanimously unless the trust provides otherwise.
If a disagreement among co-trustees prevents the trust from being properly administered, a trustee or beneficiary may petition the probate court for instructions. The court may be asked to interpret the trust, clarify the trustee’s authority, or provide guidance concerning the administration of trust assets.
In the Lakers dispute, five of the six Buss siblings reportedly support selling the family’s remaining 17.8% stake. That majority, however, doesn’t necessarily determine whether the sale can proceed.
“With three siblings serving as co-trustees, there are three critical questions here,” says Kaufman. “First, does the trust give beneficiaries the power to force a sale of the Lakers’ interests, or is that authority vested in the trustees? Second, if the trustees hold the power, must their decision be unanimous? Finally, does the prior court order restrict their ability to sell those shares?”
Can Beneficiaries Override a Trustee?
Generally, trust beneficiaries cannot override a trustee simply because they disagree with the trustee’s decisions concerning the trust unless the trust provides them with that authority. When beneficiaries believe a trustee is violating the trust terms, breaching fiduciary duties, or otherwise harming the trust, they can ask the probate court to intervene.
Depending on the circumstances, beneficiaries may seek the following remedies:
- Request an injunction or an order instructing the trustee not to act. Beneficiaries may ask the court to prevent a trustee from taking an action that could harm the trust or its beneficiaries.
- Compel the trustee to act. If a trustee improperly refuses to take an action required by the trust or their fiduciary duties, beneficiaries may ask the court to order the trustee to act.
- Demand an accounting. Beneficiaries may ask the court to require the trustee to provide an accounting of trust assets and transactions.
- Suspend or remove the trustee. Beneficiaries may petition the court to suspend or remove a trustee for misconduct, breach of fiduciary duty, or other legal grounds.
- Surcharge the trustee for breach of trust. Beneficiaries may ask the court for an order that forces a trustee to pay money from their own pocket to recover the financial losses they caused to the trust.
- Modify or terminate the trust. Under certain circumstances, beneficiaries may petition the court to modify or terminate a trust, including in some cases without the trustee’s consent.
“If the trust gives the beneficiaries the right to vote on whether to sell the Lakers shares, they may be able to exercise that right,” says Kaufman. “If the beneficiaries believe Jeanie’s refusal to proceed with the sale is harming the trust or their interests, they could also ask the probate court to intervene.”
Can a Trustee Sell Property Without Consent From Beneficiaries?
Whether a trustee can sell trust property without the beneficiaries’ consent generally depends on the terms of the trust and what California law allows.
If the trust requires beneficiary approval before certain assets can be sold, the trustee generally must follow that requirement. However, if the trust does not require beneficiary consent, a trustee may have authority to sell trust property without it, provided the sale is otherwise authorized and the trustee complies with their fiduciary duties.
While trustees typically have broad authority to manage family assets, the trust document in the Buss dispute does contain some language indicating a desire that the family retain the Lakers shares for as long as the trust exists; however, the Trust also appears to grant the Buss children with the right to vote to terminate the Trust through a sale of the Lakers stock. “Whether the beneficiaries have the right to force a sale of the Lakers stock is not clear cut, particularly after the 2017 Court Order, which Jeannie’s attorneys claim restricts the beneficiaries’ ability to force a sale of the stock,” Kaufman notes.
Can a Co-Trustee Sell Property Without the Other Trustees’ Approval?
Whether a co-trustee can sell trust property without the other trustees’ approval depends on the trust’s terms or, if the trust is silent on the matter, California law.
A trust may establish its own rules for resolving disagreements among co-trustees. For example, it may allow a majority of co-trustees to approve a sale or give one co-trustee final authority over certain decisions. If the trust does not address the issue, however, California’s default rules generally require co-trustees to act unanimously.
The Buss Family Trust departs from California’s default rules by providing that a simple majority of the trustees can make trust decisions. With three trustees serving, this means a two-to-one vote could be enough to potentially authorize the proposed sale of Lakers shares.
“Majority rule may give Janie and Joey a path to approve the sale without Jeanie, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they can sell the Lakers shares,” explains Kaufman. “The 2017 court order and the trust’s stated intent to retain the Lakers shares for the life of the trust could impose separate restrictions on the sale.”
What If a Buyer Knows a Trustee Is Exceeding Their Authority?
Any transaction involving trust property may be subject to challenge if a buyer knows that the trustee is exceeding or improperly exercising their authority. California law generally protects third parties who purchase trust property from a trustee in good faith and without actual knowledge that the trustee lacks authority to make the transaction. Those protections may not apply, however, when a buyer has actual knowledge of the trustee’s lack of authority.
Jeanie’s counsel publicly released the demand letter he sent to the other Buss siblings, asserting that any transaction that would compromise Jeanie’s position as controlling owner would be void under the 2017 court order.
“A letter reported by every outlet in the country makes that protection considerably harder to claim,” says Kaufman.
If Janie and Joey proceed with the sale despite Jeanie’s objection, questions could therefore arise about whether Iger and Kushner had actual knowledge that the trustees lacked authority to complete the transaction. If they did, they may be unable to rely on the protections generally afforded to good-faith purchasers.
When Can the Probate Court Intervene in Trust Disputes?
A probate court can intervene in a trust dispute when a beneficiary, trustee, or other person with a legally recognized interest in the trust asks the court to resolve a conflict involving the trust.
These disputes may concern interpreting ambiguous trust terms, clarifying a trustee’s responsibilities and powers, addressing alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, providing instructions concerning trust administration, or modifying or dissolving a trust, among other matters.
Decisions in these cases can have far-reaching consequences beyond the beneficiaries’ personal interests — as this dispute illustrates, a probate court’s ruling could ultimately determine whether the Buss family’s remaining 17.8% stake in one of the world’s most beloved basketball teams can be sold.
“Most people don’t associate probate courts with major business transactions,” Kaufman notes. “But the most consequential Lakers transaction of the summer may not be decided by a general manager. It may ultimately be decided by a probate judge.”
Where Does the Lakers Ownership Standoff Go From Here?
With the newly filed petition invoking the 2017 court order to challenge Jeanie’s siblings’ proposed sale of the family’s remaining 17.8% stake, the probate court may ultimately have to decide whether to enforce the order and impose legal consequences on any party whose conduct allegedly violated its terms.
Shortly after the primary petition was filed, Jeanie’s legal counsel sought a continuance of the hearing on the petition because Streisand was unable to return to Los Angeles in time for the hearing due to prior engagements abroad. As a result, the hearing has been moved from November 5 to December 8, 2026.
The siblings have reportedly discussed dissolving the existing family trust and placing the family’s shares in a new trust for four years. dissolving the existing family trust and placing the family’s shares in a new trust for four years.
“It has not been disclosed what the terms and purpose of the proposed arrangement are, but it could allow the family to keep its shares together and restrict their transfer or sale during that four-year period,” Kaufman speculates. “Whether a new trust could alter the effect of the 2017 court order is a separate legal question.”
While Jeanie has strong legal grounds to block the sale, the other siblings may have a potential escape hatch. According to reports, a 2017 Los Angeles Superior Court order binds the trustees “absent a further order of this Court.” However, that clause was written when the Buss family still controlled the Lakers, a stark contrast to today’s reality where the family owns a minority share of someone else’s team.
“Do changed circumstances justify modifying or terminating the court order or the trust itself?” asks Kaufman. “Someone may file a petition with the probate court to find out.”
Trust Litigation Lessons from the Lakers Ownership Dispute
What could a high-profile trust dispute involving the Los Angeles Lakers have to do with everyday trust administration? More than you might expect.
“Strip away the mechanics, and this is an ordinary estate planning problem in purple and gold,” notes Kaufman. “Six children, equal shares, one chair.”
When a trust does not clearly address who has authority to make decisions, how trust property should be managed or sold, or how disagreements should be resolved, conflicts can arise.
The real clash at the heart of this dispute comes down to a possible contradiction between the terms of the Trust and the 2017 Court Order.
“When two of the Buss siblings tried to use their majority voting power in a way that would strip Jeanie of her leadership role, it became inevitable that family tensions would hit a breaking point,” Kaufman says. “The vote, while possibly legitimate based on the terms of the trust, also arguably undermined the intent of the 2017 Court Order to keep Jeanie in charge.”
Here are some key lessons from the Lakers trust dispute:
- Beneficiaries don’t typically control trust assets. A majority of beneficiaries may agree that an asset should be sold, but that does not necessarily give them authority to direct the trustee to make the sale.
- A trustee’s powers have limits. Trustees may have broad authority to administer trust assets, but their powers can be limited by the trust instrument, their fiduciary duties, court orders, or applicable law.
- Beneficiaries can challenge a trustee’s conduct. Although beneficiaries generally do not control trust assets, they are not powerless. They can ask the court to intervene when a trustee exceeds their authority, breaches their fiduciary duties, or improperly manages trust property.
- Changed circumstances can warrant court intervention. When circumstances affecting a trust materially change, trustees or beneficiaries may be able to seek further instructions or, when legally appropriate, modification or termination of the trust.
- Court guidance may be necessary when the proper course is unclear. Trustees can petition the court for instructions when they are uncertain about how to administer the trust, helping them avoid taking action that could expose them to personal liability.
- The trust document is often the most important document in the room. When questions arise about a trustee’s authority, a beneficiary’s rights, or whether a particular transaction is permitted, the trust instrument is often the starting point for finding the answer. Although court intervention may still be necessary, an experienced California trust attorney can review the document and help determine how its terms apply to a given situation.
Lakers Ownership Dispute FAQs
Can co-trustees act independently in California?
In California, co-trustees may act independently only when the terms of a trust authorize them to do so. If the trust is silent about how co-trustees should make decisions, California law provides that “a power vested in two or more trustees may only be exercised by their unanimous action.”
Put simply, a trust creator can establish their own rules for how co-trustees make decisions. However, when the trust does not specify otherwise, California law generally requires co-trustees to act unanimously when exercising a power involving trust assets.
Does a trustee or beneficiary have more power?
A trustee generally has greater authority than a beneficiary to manage and control trust assets, but the two roles serve entirely different purposes.
A trustee administers the trust and may have authority to sell trust property, invest assets, and make distributions. Those powers, however, may be limited by the trust’s terms, the trustee’s fiduciary duties, court orders, or beneficiary challenges.
Beneficiaries generally cannot challenge a trustee’s decisions simply because they disagree with them. They can, however, seek court intervention when a trustee exceeds their authority, breaches fiduciary duties, or mismanages trust assets. In some circumstances, beneficiaries may even petition to have a trustee removed.
Ultimately, neither role is inherently “more powerful.” Trustees control trust administration, while beneficiaries have legal rights to protect their interests in the trust and hold trustees accountable.
Can a trustee override beneficiaries?
Generally, yes. Depending on the circumstances, a trustee may have authority to act contrary to a beneficiary’s preferences when managing a trust, including deciding whether to sell trust property or how to invest trust assets. This is because trustees must follow the trust’s terms and fulfill their fiduciary duties, rather than simply follow beneficiaries’ wishes.
Beneficiaries can communicate their preferences to the trustee, but doing so doesn't guarantee the trustee can honor them. For example, if a trust needs to sell property to pay valid debts, a beneficiary generally could not prevent the sale.
At the same time, trustees cannot disregard beneficiaries’ rights. For example, when the trust requires a distribution to a beneficiary, the trustee generally must follow those instructions. A trustee cannot withhold a required distribution simply because they disagree with the beneficiary or are in conflict with them.
When is legal action against siblings necessary?
Legal action against a sibling may become necessary when a sibling is financially exploiting a vulnerable parent, breaching fiduciary duties, mismanaging or misappropriating assets, or creating disputes over the family’s inheritance.
Although suing a sibling is rarely anyone’s first choice, it may be necessary when a sibling’s actions have harmed, or are at risk of harming, you or a loved one financially. In some cases, mediation may offer an alternative to litigation, particularly when the family wants to keep the dispute private or avoid a contentious trial.
The Buss siblings’ dispute requires legal intervention because neither side appears willing to compromise. Five siblings reportedly want to sell the family’s remaining Lakers shares, while Jeanie Buss opposes the sale.
How much did Jerry Buss originally buy the Lakers for?
Jerry Buss, the father of the six Buss siblings, purchased the Los Angeles Lakers, the NHL’s Los Angeles Kings, the Forum in Inglewood, and a 13,000-acre California ranch from Jack Kent Cooke for $67.5 million in May 1979.
Just one month later, the Lakers selected Michigan State’s star point guard, Magic Johnson, with the No. 1 overall pick in the 1979 NBA Draft. Johnson helped lead the team to an NBA championship in Buss’ first season as owner.
Why is the Buss family seeking to sell their Lakers shares?
Five of the six Buss siblings are seeking to sell the family’s remaining 17.8% stake in the Lakers franchise to presumably capitalize on its record $12.5 billion valuation following Mark Walter’s sale of his controlling stake.
The siblings have said they want to “move on and exit gracefully” from the franchise after nearly five decades of ownership due to family conflict and power struggles.
What percentage of the Lakers does Jeanie Buss still own?
Jeanie Buss and her five siblings collectively own the remaining 17.8% stake in the Lakers, while Bob Iger and Josh Kushner hold the majority stake acquired from former majority owner Mark Walter in August 2026.
Iger and Kushner are seeking to purchase the Buss family’s remaining stake, which would give them full ownership of the franchise.
Why is Jeanie Buss blocking her family’s sale of the Lakers?
Jeanie Buss opposes her siblings’ proposed sale of the family’s remaining Lakers shares because doing so would likely jeopardize her position as the team’s controlling owner and governor.
NBA rules require a controlling owner or team governor to hold at least a 15% stake in the franchise. If the Buss family sells its remaining 17.8% stake, Jeanie would no longer meet that threshold.
Jeanie’s position as controlling owner is reportedly protected by a 2017 court order. However, the circumstances have changed significantly since that order was issued. At the time, the Buss family owned the entire franchise; today, the family holds only a minority stake. If the dispute reaches the probate court, the court could be asked whether the changed circumstances warrant modifying or providing further instructions concerning the 2017 order or the trust.
Struggling to navigate a family trust dispute. We can guide you.
Learn how Keystone helps trustees and beneficiaries resolve conflicts, or tell us what’s happening by contacting us.
