A bone of contention…The late Masaaki Hirao’s “inheritance dispute”: Sons ordered to pay 89 million yen to his future wife’s side.
A bone of contention: “Act 2” that had been going on behind the scenes.
Masaaki Hirao was a composer who set a milestone in the history of Showa-era songs and created immortal classics such as “Seto no Bride” and “Yokohama Tasogare (Twilight).
More than eight years have passed since his death at the age of 79, and behind his brilliant achievements, a bitter dispute over his inheritance, estimated at 6 billion yen, has been raging.
At first, the relationship between his future wife, Mrs. A, and his three sons from his previous marriage was amicable. However, after Mr. Hirao’s death, they were deeply at odds, leading to multiple court battles. What exactly is going on between Mr. A and his sons?
Since Mr. Hirao’s death in July 2005, his family has been involved in several court cases. However, in the beginning, there was not the intense conflict that has surfaced today.
At the funeral, the second son referred to Mr. A as “mother,” and the third son, singer and actor Yuuki Hirao (44), assured the family that there was “no inheritance dispute,
The third son, Yuki Hirao, 44, a singer and actor, assured the family that there would be no inheritance disputes and that they would carry on their father’s spirit so as not to tarnish the name “Masaaki Hirao.
He said, “I will carry on my father’s spirit with my family so as not to tarnish the name of Masaaki Hirao. However, after only one year, the relationship between the sons and Mr. A collapsed.
In September 2006, Yuuki held a press conference and announced that he had applied to the Tokyo District Court for a provisional injunction against Mr. A to “suspend the execution of his duties. This was a rejection of Mr. A’s position as “representative director” of the company left to him by his father and “representative of the heirs” as the point of contact for the management of copyright fees (royalties).
At the same time, Mr. Yuuki’s side vehemently denounced Ms. A in the extreme language of “a diabolical version of the back-wife business. This comment led to a nationwide scandal that made headlines daily, and the confrontation between Ms. A and her own children, centering on Mr. Yuuki, continued to attract the public’s attention as a “bone fight.
For those who wish to know more details about the turmoil at that time, please refer to the September 28, 2008 and November 30, 2010 editions of Friday Digital.
The turmoil seemed to have died down after that, but behind the scenes, a legal battle was ongoing. One of them was a lawsuit over a huge “loan” that was recently ruled upon.
Defense on the part of the sons
This lawsuit was filed in ’23 by the “Masaaki Hirao Music Office” represented by Mr. A against his three sons and their company.
The firm was suing for the return of a loan to each of the three sons (totaling approximately 20 million yen), in addition to the portion of corporate and other taxes (approximately 35 million yen) owed by FBI Planning, a company represented by one of the sons, which was in arrears.
The sons’ side defended themselves against the lawsuit on two main points. The first was,
“There was an agreement that repayment of the loan would be made only after the division of the estate was completed.
The first was that “there was an agreement that repayment would be made only after all the division of the estate was completed. As the basis for this argument, they submitted to the court the exchange of messages on a group line in which Mr. A and his three sons participated.
In the group LINE in which the plaintiff’s representative (editor’s note: Ms. A) and four of the defendant’s children participated, (editor’s note: one of the sons) sent the message, “The loan from the firm for inheritance tax is a promise to pay after the division of the estate!” while the plaintiff’s representative did not specifically object to the message sent by the plaintiff’s representative”) (from the defendants’ allegations as stated in the judgment. Hereinafter, the words in [ ] are from the judgment text).
The claim is that they “promised that the debt would be repaid after the division of the estate” on line. However, the court did not accept this claim and concluded that the legal obligation stated in the “loan agreement” signed and sealed by both parties was all that mattered.
The loan agreement was drawn up… (omitted)… setting the repayment period as “the time when the copyright royalties are paid by JASRAC to the representative of the heirs of Masaaki Hirao, and repayment shall be made from the full amount of the copyright royalties acquired by B (defendant child) and the others. If repayment cannot be made at one time, repayment shall be made from the next payment. It is reasonable to find that an agreement was made to the effect that the repayment shall be made when the copyright royalties are paid by JASRAC to the representative of Masaaki’s heirs.
In other words,
In other words, “As long as the time of payment of royalties is written in the agreement as the ‘due date for repayment,’ even if the division of the estate has not yet been completed, there is an obligation to use the royalties for repayment as soon as they are received.
In other words, the court ruled that the son’s side’s claim was rejected at every turn.
The “Missing 300 Million Yen” Allegation and the Denial of the Ability to Prove the Allegation
The second point of contention was the battle over withdrawal records, which Shukan Shincho once reported extensively as the “missing 300 million yen” allegation. The son’s side submitted to the court a list of Mr. Hirao’s personal receipts and disbursements. The list showed that between June 2000 and July 2005, cash had been withdrawn every day in increments of 500,000 yen, the daily limit for ATM withdrawals.
This list was once described in the context of “improper withdrawals by the wife’s side,” but in this trial, the son’s side developed a completely different logic. The son’s side presented the list not as evidence of embezzlement, but as proof that Masaaki Hirao had personally paid the office’s taxes and other expenses as an advance. The argument was based on the logic that the debts were canceled (offset).
The defendant children claim that Masaaki personally paid the property tax, car tax, corporate tax, and other expenses owed by the plaintiff (editor’s note: Masaaki Hirao Music Office) for many years since 2010, and that he has a right to claim unjust enrichment or refund of advances against the plaintiff, etc. The sons claim that they are entitled to set off Masaaki’s right to claim return of unjust enrichment or return of advances against the plaintiff in equal amounts as a right of self-assertion.
In other words, the sons,
In other words, the sons allege that the father paid the taxes and other expenses that the office should have paid out of his own pocket money before his death. Since we have inherited the right to have the firm return the amount of the replacement payment, we want our debt (approximately 55 million yen), which the firm is now demanding to be returned, to be deducted from the inherited right and the payment to be reduced to zero.
The court, however, rejected this argument. However, the court rejected this argument.
It is difficult to find that the disbursements were made as described in B8 and B9 without any support, since it appears that B8 and B9 are documents compiled by the parties to the dispute who commissioned a tax accountant to compile them. Without any corroboration, it is difficult to find that the expenditures were made as described in B8 and B9.
In the first place, the credibility of the evidence submitted by the sons was not accepted. Furthermore, the court denied the allegation that “Mr. Hirao had advanced the money.
In the plaintiff’s income tax returns for the fiscal year from February 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017, the plaintiff did not record any outstanding payments or liabilities for advances to Masaaki.
If Mr. Hirao had really invested his personal funds with the intention of “getting them back from the company later,” then the company’s official books must have recorded that he borrowed money from Mr. Hirao. However, there was no such entry in the company’s tax return.
Thus, the court completely rejected the son’s claims, which lacked objective support, and made a harsh ruling that the evidence was unreliable with regard to the “300 million yen” allegations that had been picked up by the media.
The “September Losing Judgment” that followed
In fact, the trouble with the office was not the only reason the sons were ordered to pay up. In September of the same year, prior to the December judgment, the Tokyo District Court had issued a harsh judgment against the sons in another loan repayment lawsuit.
The plaintiff in the trial concluded in September was not the firm but Ms. A herself. The plaintiff in the case, which concluded in September, is not the firm, but Ms. A. She filed a lawsuit seeking the return of a total of approximately 34 million yen that she had personally loaned to Hirao’s three sons.
In addition to the cash loans to the sons (6 million yen each), the debt consists of “unpaid taxes and delinquent taxes” that should have been paid by the sons, as well as “tax attorney fees for inheritance procedures,” which Ms. A had paid on their behalf.
The court found that these were all “debts to be repaid. When combined with the lawsuit filed by the firm last December (approximately 55 million yen), the total amount owed by the sons to Mr. A’s side (the firm) was a massive 89 million yen for the principal amount alone.
In addition, the sons have already lost a defamation lawsuit over the expression “back-wife business,” which the sons once mentioned at a press conference.
Looking over these court battles over the years, the judiciary has consistently ruled in favor of Mr. A.
Friday Digital requested interviews with the offices of both sides regarding the ruling. A representative from the office that serves as the point of contact for the son’s side said,
“We can’t give you an interview because some of the court cases are still ongoing.
The person in charge at the office that handles the son’s side responded, “We are unable to give you an interview because some trials are still ongoing. On the other hand, Mr. A’s side, through his office, responded, “We don’t have anything in particular to tell you,
“We have nothing in particular to say to you.
Mr. A, on the other hand, only replied through his office, “I have nothing to tell you. Mr. Hirao was passionate about charity activities throughout his life, and in his last will and testament, he wrote, “I will not be able to talk about anything in particular,
I would like 2/10 (editor’s note: 2/10) of his estate to be used for the promotion of music and charity. I would like you to establish a new Masaaki Hirao Award for composition.
He wrote, “I would like to see a new Masaaki Hirao Award for composition. Will the day ever come when the Showa-era song king’s handwritten wishes are truly fulfilled?
Reporting and writing： Shinsuke Sakai PHOTO： Kyodo News