How Buss Family Infighting Drove the $10B Sale of the Lakers: An Estate Planning Cautionary Tale
While checking a sports app on an entirely unrelated matter, I came across an article that veered well outside traditional sports reporting and squarely into the realm of estate planning for family-owned businesses. The headline immediately caught my attention: “How Buss Family Infighting Drove the $10B Sale of the Lakers.” Naturally, I clicked.
What followed was a story filled with intrigue, family conflict, and—at its core—an estate plan that failed to function as intended. I knew I had my next blog topic.
The Original Vision
To understand how we got here, we need to rewind to 1979, when Dr. Jerry Buss purchased the Los Angeles Lakers, the Los Angeles Kings, the Forum arena, and a 13,000-acre California ranch from Jack Kent Cooke for $67.5 million. This is the same Lakers franchise that drafted Magic Johnson and won an NBA Championship in his rookie season.
From the outset, Jerry made it clear that selling the Lakers was never the goal. He famously stated that if he had unlimited funds, he would buy the team all over again. That conviction never wavered—even during financial strain, despite lucrative purchase offers, and as he faced his own mortality.
According to his children, Jerry viewed both them and the Lakers as his legacy. Unfortunately, his intense focus on keeping the team in the family—without fully accounting for governance, control dynamics, and human nature—ultimately undermined that vision. Just twelve years after his death, the Buss family no longer holds a majority controlling interest in the Lakers. By any reasonable estate planning standard, the legacy failed.
The Estate Plan
Jerry died on February 18, 2013, at age 80, survived by six children: Johnny, Jim, Jeanie, Janie, Joey, and Jesse.
Through a series of family trusts holding his 66% ownership interest, each child effectively inherited an 11% stake in the Lakers. Jerry spent significant time crafting an estate plan designed to preserve family ownership. The trust:
Included standard buy-sell provisions
Required the acting trustees (Johnny, Jim, and Jeanie) to support Jeanie as the controlling owner
Functioned as a pooled investment vehicle
The structure included a “last individual standing” provision: upon a sibling’s death, that sibling’s ownership interest would be redistributed among the surviving siblings. To protect the next generation, the trust required payment of the value of the deceased sibling’s interest to that sibling’s children, thereby preserving generational wealth.
On paper, the plan was sophisticated. In practice, it proved unworkable.
Control vs. Ownership
Shortly after Jerry’s death, the siblings discussed a possible sale of the team. Jim—who was serving as Executive Vice President of Operations and oversaw basketball operations—along with Johnny, was open to selling. Jeanie, named successor controlling owner and President of the Lakers, was not.
Because a sale required four of six votes, the proposal stalled.
For several years, the siblings maintained a fragile coexistence within the organization. That truce collapsed in February 2017 when Jeanie fired Jim. Jim responded by aligning with Johnny in an effort to remove Jeanie from the Board of Directors by calling an annual shareholder meeting.
What they failed—or refused—to acknowledge was that the trust required them, as trustees, to support Jeanie’s role as controlling owner. Removing her would have violated both the trust instrument and the Lakers’ governing documents.
Jeanie sought and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order.
At that point, the structural weaknesses of the estate plan were undeniable.
The Inevitable Outcome
Eight years later, the family sold all but 17% of its interest in the Lakers.
In the interim, tensions escalated, relationships deteriorated, and the trust’s structure amplified the conflict. The “last individual standing” provision created a perverse incentive: eventual control would pass to the youngest siblings, increasing pressure on the older siblings to push for a sale.
Although ownership percentages were equal, control was not. Jeanie held operational authority. The remaining siblings were bound by a trust that restricted their ability to exit, influence governance, or independently monetize their interests.
That imbalance is a recipe for litigation—and ultimately, liquidation.
Estate Planning Lessons for Family-Owned Businesses
This case offers several critical lessons for business owners:
1. A plan that achieves the goal on paper may fail in practice.
Placing one sibling in control of another’s inheritance almost invariably invites resentment, litigation, or both. No matter how harmonious a family appears, giving one child authority over another’s financial future creates structural tension.
2. Estate planning requires candid discussion of worst-case scenarios.
“I don’t see that happening” and “My children get along” are common refrains. Family, money, and legacy are a volatile combination—particularly when a closely held business employs multiple family members.
3. Ownership and governance must align.
Equal economic ownership combined with unequal control is inherently unstable. If one heir has decision-making authority, the governance framework must clearly define authority, dispute resolution mechanisms, and exit strategies.
4. Succession planning requires objective evaluation.
Leadership succession should be based on competence and temperament—not simply birth order or preference. Estate planning means relinquishing control. That transition must be structured with discipline and realism.
The Bottom Line
Jerry Buss made several classic estate planning mistakes. He attempted to preserve both business success and family harmony without adequately prioritizing one over the other. He underestimated the impact of governance design. And he underestimated the destabilizing effect of his absence.
The result was the unraveling of the very legacy he worked so hard to protect.
If you own a closely held business, particularly one involving multiple children, your estate plan must address governance, succession, liquidity, and human dynamics—not just tax efficiency.
Thoughtful, realistic estate planning—guided by experienced counsel—can mean the difference between preserving a legacy and watching it dissolve under the weight of internal conflict.
- Still Fighting: The Estate Planning Legacy of Shannen Doherty - July 16, 2026
- Declare Your Independence From Intestacy - July 1, 2026
- The Living Trust “Lock-Down”: What Happens When a Spouse Passes Away? - June 3, 2026
