Home : Michael Jackson : Rowe's Lawyer -- Debbie Doesn't Want MJ's Money

Rowe's Lawyer -- Debbie Doesn't Want MJ's Money

Posted Jul 14th 2009 3:00PM by TMZ Staff

Debbie Rowe's lawyer just fired off a letter to the New York Post ... demanding a retraction of its story that Rowe has accepted $4 million to walk away from Michael Jackson's two eldest kids.

Debbie Rowe - Launch docs

The letter -- written by Rowe's lawyer Eric George -- says "Among the several contenders for overzealous and inaccurate sensationalism, the New York Post has now seized top honors."

George says "Ms. Rowe has not accepted -- and will not accept -- any additional financial consideration beyond the spousal support she and Michael Jackson personally agreed to several years ago." This is a very significant statement and we've confirmed it with another Jackson source.


Debbie Rowe Click to view!

Tags: child custody, ChildCustody, debbie rowe, DebbieRowe, lawsuit, michael jacksons kids, MichaelJacksonsKids, payoff

Comments [314]
SHARE |
4ie6

Relevant Posts

Reader Comments

(Page 1 of 21) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

1. Of course she wants his money

Posted at 3:04PM on Jul 14th 2009 by One Mike

2. We'll see how true that is when a deal has been reached.

And TMZ your new show sucks with those two idiots talking in between the videos. They have no charisma and do not deserve to be on television. Please send them back to their cubicles before your new program gets canceled.

Posted at 3:05PM on Jul 14th 2009 by LakersFan1118

3. New York post must be owned by the Globe. Go get em' D!

Posted at 3:05PM on Jul 14th 2009 by Brian

4. Debbie Rowe "wants" "her" kids?? Is she kidding? A REAL mother does not sell her eggs and rent her womb, then hand over the resulting product to someone else for a price and walk away--let alone TWICE!!!! Hmmm...sounds like selling cattle to the best buyer. Debbie Rowe told the entire world time, that these were MJs kids. Her actions and her words over the years proved this time and again. She was paid handsomely for her services and should continue to walk on. She's a big girl. She knew the consequences. Why change anything now? She still has no real emotional or loving connection to the children and vice versa. MJ was a loving father to these children who nurtured and raised them, and MJs family is whom they know and love and who truly love them. It is in the best interest of all of MJs children to remain with the Jacksons and continue the bond they share with this strong, loving, supportive family. It would be criminal tear the children away from all whom they know and love and the only true family unit they have remaining.

P.S. IF Debbie Rowe is owed an outstanding balance from MJ for her surrogate services, then just like in any other business dealing, she can stand in line with all the other creditors. Otherwise, keep walking, Debbie.

Posted at 3:32PM on Jul 14th 2009 by Me

5. SHE DOESN'T WANT HIS MONEY...YEAH RIGHT! UHUUMMM...

Posted at 3:06PM on Jul 14th 2009 by I will always love you MJ!

6. Go for it, Debbie! Get those kids away from that freak family! Look what they did to Michael.

Posted at 3:07PM on Jul 14th 2009 by samo

7. The New Yorker must be owned by the Globe.

Posted at 3:09PM on Jul 14th 2009 by Brian

8. The kids are around a huge family that loves them... Janet is going great! Just DONT let Debbie near them!

Posted at 3:09PM on Jul 14th 2009 by Mhmmm

9. It's about the children. The children damn it. The children.

Posted at 3:11PM on Jul 14th 2009 by Strong, Independent Woman Seeking Child Support

10. Again, I am so amused by the posters (onemike) who obviously are using their moral standards to judge what Debbie Rowe will do.

Just because you low lives would suck the pattern off a dinner plate for money, doesn't mean everyone is like that.

Like I said before, you people need to get a life. Especially if your only claim to fame is that you sit at your computers and wait for each new story to come up, so you can tell the whole world what the real truth is that only you know, and have the dubious distinction of being "FIRST"!



Posted at 3:12PM on Jul 14th 2009 by Nyte Tyger

11. SPOUSAL SUPPORT FOR WHAT? Married for 2 years now entitles you to spousal support, come on we all know it was payment for the children "SURROGATE SUPPORT"! And by the way, since the children are over the age of 10, it is not the law that they can decided at age 11 where it is they want to live? Does this not apply in California, it's applicable in ATL..............

Posted at 3:11PM on Jul 14th 2009 by Mimi

12. That's a good statement for her kids at least. I wish the media could stop with all their insane stuff. He is dead now, media have achieved what they aimed to, what else still ?

Posted at 3:13PM on Jul 14th 2009 by Myriam (Paris, France)

13. After what Joe Jackson has said about how he wants to exploit the kids by making them the new Jackson 3, I say...GO DEBBIE!!! If you take the $$$ then you really don't give a crap!!!.

Posted at 3:13PM on Jul 14th 2009 by Lori

14. *Nyte Tyger* Yeah including yourself!

Posted at 3:14PM on Jul 14th 2009 by bree

15. Spousal support??? Doesn't that end the day the spouse dies?

Posted at 3:15PM on Jul 14th 2009 by Lori

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments