Not sure daddy would be proud.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/business/media/whats-in-a-name-just-ask-frank-zappas-feuding-heirs.html?_r=0
 

P.S. Am i the only one who sees every one of their posts "last updated 30 minutes ago" immediately after posting?

Sometimes I am bizarrely comforted by the fact that both my parents were killed in separate accidents when I was a toddler and I am an only child. My widowed grandmother, who raised me, has long since passed and I am left to watch such petty, vindictive self serving nonsense among other "families" take place. What is it with the human animal?

It seems that the only thing that's important any more is money.  Sad.
 
P.S., No you're not the only one.  Everything is posted 30 minutes ago I guess - a time parallax caused by Bubba I believe. 

i just came to post the same thing, also 30 minutes ago, it's all a bit sad really

I know a guy that's been through a very similar thing. I can't tell you how brutal it becomes once the lawyers get going. Something about money turns anyone into a heartless bit of excrement once the sum is large enough. 
 

Legal insanity. When a guy can't use his own last name, nor display a photograph of his own father due to legal restrictions, that's just plain nuts. And to make it even more surreal, the entity enforcing the prohibitions has the disingenuous name of "Zappa Family Trust". With mom 'n dad gone, that leaves only the two kids to comprise the Zappa family, which apparently the family trust does not represent. Insanity.
 
And you're right; Frank would not approve.

What is totally stupid about this is that Dweezil has greatly enhanced the value of the Zappa Trust/Estate by keeping the best of his dad's excellent and varied oeuvre in regular performance, with his superb Zappa Plays Zappa concerts and recordings. They ought to let DZ perform Frank Zappa music for some minimal amount.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6YKJX-dXIM

Back OT.
 
Bollocks I say.

What kind of convoluted legalese and logical somersaults does it take to prevent someone from using their legal, birth-given last name as they see fit? And I don't want to think about the kind of language necessary to prevent someone from being able to legally present themselves as their father's son. The whole thing is ridiculous. 
 
From the article:
 
"I’m not allowed to use my own connection with him without some sort of deal to be struck.”
 
What happens if he has to present his birth certificate somewhere? Is he in breach of contract just by existing?