Priscilla Presley Challenges Her Daughter's Will

in the mainstream. Unfortunately, so has the death of his only child, Lisa Marie Presley at the age of fifty four. Her mother, Priscilla Presley, spoke at her daughter's funeral at Graceland. Our heart is broken, Lisa. We all love you now.

Priscilla Presley is challenging the validity of her daughter's will, specifically a sixteen amendment to the document that out did Priscilla and a former business manager, Barry Siegel, as co trustees, replacing them with Lisa Marie's eldest daughter, Riley Kyo and her late son Benjamin Keio. Priscilla claims there are several problems with the amendment, including a mismatched signature joining me

as trust and a state's attorney. Sarah Wentz, a partner at Fox Rolph Child Sarah Priscilla Presley, said she found this amendment, which is dated in March of after her daughter's death. Is it unusual that after all these years, no one has talked about this, and all of a

sudden she finds this. It is and I think that it probably indicates that there is a decision not to make it effective, because if she really did chinance, and I think there's a lot of questions about whether her signature and whether the document that was prepared was signed because there's no there's no provisions on the signature pages. But if she really did sign it, the way that her trust was created that was fully amended and restated in two thousand and ten, it said that delivery to

the trustees was required to make a change effective. So it indicates, you know that she never delivered it, and she clearly knew that her mom and very single were serving as the trustees. So I think the court would look at it and say, well, she must have known or decided against it, and which is why she didn't deliver it. Think it's hard to argue that she intended it to be effective but then held onto it all these years. There are several things that Priscilla Presley alleges

were problematic with this amendment. Just tell us what they are. Yeah. I think the first thing is really what I just explained, that if you create a trust document and you state that there's a specific way in which it must be amended, then that is the exact and only way that the trust can be amended. And there's a lot of ways that a trust can be amended if you don't have

that language in there. But the primary question is if it says that it has to be amended in a particular way, which includes effective delivery to the existing trustees of the change, then a court will generally just say it's not effective, no matter if she signed it, if she intended it to be the case. If she didn't effectively deliver it to the trustees, then she didn't do what she herself wrote in the trust document was required. So that's the first issue. It's the court just stops

there and says it's not effective. They probably won't go any further to look at the other issues. But I think the second issue is there's a presumption that if you don't have any witnesses and any notary and there's a signature on a page that has no content the rest of the document, that it's possible there was some

sort of fraud involved. I mean, it's not unusual that their signature page maybe doesn't have substantive language on it, but to also have it not witnessed and not notarized, plus to have that separate signature page with nothing on it, I think that creates a problem for them. You know, maybe if there was no question about this trust, that could possibly pass because it's not required to have witnesses and an odorian a trust's amendment unless the trust required

it to. It's just that it's really suspects given a situation. Does seem unusual that Lisa Marie was battling with Barry Siegel, who was listed as a co trustee since and so it seems logical that you wouldn't want him to be a co trustee. Right in somewhere the documents indicated that he was going to be stepping down as trustee, So maybe that was an agreement that they had reached. Put

your right if if you're battling with somebody. And remember this is a revocable trust, So this is a trust that she could have changed at any time as long as she did it in the right way. It's unusual that he would have continued to serve during those years when they were having a debt dispute. You know, I don't really know the background on that, but that is wholly unusual. Lisa Marie is survived by three daughters, Riley Kio, who is thirty three, and twin girls who are fourteen.

So why does Priscilla's petitions say that Riley would be substituted for Singer as a trustee. It is in a petition on page six where it says that since Riley is over the age of thirty, she could act as a coach trustee on her sub trust upon delivering a

written instrument to the trustee consenting that she acts. So it sounds like the trust creates a share for each of the children and then over their particular sub trusts, they could become at it as a co trustee at age thirty, which is somewhat normal if you have minor children or younger children. There's been no comment from Riley about her grandmother's challenge to the will. But just supposed that Riley doesn't want to serve as co trustee, what

kind of problems would that cause. I don't think she's going to have much of a choice, you know, based on this document, and you know, from a trust lawyer's perspective, Priscilla Pressley has done a pretty amazing job of revising the Elvis Presley estates. You know, there's a lot of case law and a lot of things that happened with that estate that you know is essentially broke at one time,

and so she's got a lot of experience. So I think having a co trustee that can at least educate the new trustee who hasn't historically been involved in the business feelings is a really important thing to have in the transition along the way. Because it's Riley we're to just take over and doesn't have the business experience and the knowledge of what is required to keep the museums and grace land and all those things afloat. The estate

could be dwindled down back to nothing. And I think with these minor beneficiaries, the other daughters that are also beneficiaries, I think that a court would be concerned putting somebody who's young and doesn't have any business experience to take this over when there's other people that have as taken this. I'm just curious as to whether or not there would be any way for her to challenge her grandmother being trusty, not that there's any indication she intends to do that.

I think right now, the only way that she could really argue that Priscilla was not an appropriate trustee is if she had some sort of proof or evidence that she couldn't be fair and impartial to her, that she

wouldn't be acting in her best interests. You know, maybe if there was a strange relationship and she had done things in the past that would evidence that she couldn't be control Because as a trustee, there's a fiduciary duty to that beneficiary, and if she could not be impartial and do her duty to that beneficiary, then that is when Riley could say, hey, this isn't the right trustee. Here's the examples that I have showing that she's breached

her fuduciary duty to me. But short of breaching fuduciary duty, it's really hard to remove a trustee that's been put in the document, not just after recently passed away, But it's highly unusual in the first place to put somebody in as a trust fee over your revocable trust during

your lifetime. Now, that would indicate that she felt like she needed the involvement and help of Polucionary back in two thousand ten when she added her on this document, and Lisamary could have just served as her sole trustee until her death, which would be more typical, and then had mom step in. And in that case, Riley could say, you know, Grandma's not qualified to do it and make

other arguments. But in this case, she's been acting and hadn't been removed up until Lisa's death, so I think it would be very difficult for her to remove her. Lisa Marie sold off of Elvis Presley Enterprises assets for about a hundred million in two thousand four. Do we know what's actually in the trust besides of that company?

I don't think we know that. So because it's a revocable trust and reasonably could assign her assets to that trust during her lifetime, there's no requirements that approbate happened with those assets. So the only thing we really have

is what ends up in a court dispute. So you know, there are certain provisions that are quoted in the petition, but I don't believe at least the petition I received did not have a copy of the trust attached to it, or did it haven't indication of exactly all the assets that are within it, because apparently there's some kind of dynamic tim at going on because Joel weinshank Or, who's the managing partner of the Elvis Presley Enterprises, has said that,

you know, it was clear that Lisa Mury wanted her two children at the time her son has died since then, to be the co trustees. Now, Priscilla Presley alludes to an individual that bought their way into the family enterprise that is trying to speak on behalf of our family. So do you think that's where the dispute is arising from? Since we haven't heard from Lisa Marie's children, you know, I have heard that various things about you know, people

within that enterprise indicating that Lisa had said that. But and perhaps her children haven't come forward. But Priscilla is just trying to cut this off, you know, and maybe what's happened is Priscilla has been making decisions and getting pushed back from them saying, you know, we think someone else is going to be the trustee and you're going to be removed, and she just wants to clear that up.

That's possible that it's come from their side. It's um a little unusual that they would choose to speak on this issue, because you know, the courts will say people have an opportunity to put down their wishes in a state planning document, and when there's rumors of other people saying, well, they wanted this and they wanted that, it's like, we have an opportunity to do that, and that's why we draft the trust And I just think that the fact that her mother was acting as trusty up until the

day that she died, and she was well aware of that, and she hadn't delivered any documents to her saying I want you to be the moved when I passed away, I think that really indicates that maybe she thought the kids were about ready to take over, but not ready enough to actually remove her mom. So I just don't think that a court is going to do that. Well, the court looked just at the document itself and what

Priscilla Presley alludes to. Or will the court go beyond that and try to divine the inti engins of Lisa Marie Presley. It's unlikely if they look at the intentions unless there's an allegation that there was delivery of this document and it just wasn't acknowledged, or you know, if somebody can prove that there was an email center, or you know, some lawyers says, you know, I sent it to them, I delivered it to them, we had a conversation about it, and then there was a fight about

them stepping down and it just never happened. Or you know, if something like that comes out in court testimony that she really did try to remove them and you know they just said no, then I think there could be a question about what was her real intent, and they

could take testimony from witnesses on that issue. But I really think there's going to have to be some indication that she did effectively deliver this because otherwise the court is you know that the law says that if you state in your trust documents how it has to be amended, then it has to be done in that way or it's just effective, So they don't even get there unless somebody can show that she really did deliver it. But now that's possible. All we have is their word saying

that it was never delivered. But also there's this issue that at least in the petition, they indicate that the original had not been located, and that's another hurdles that someone in need to prove, is that there is an original out there and that recentarly didn't intentionally destroy it because she could have signed a document decided I really don't want to remove them and ShredIt it, and then somebody finds a copy of it and tries to use

it after the fact. So you know, that's going to be an issue if they if they get that far, that's going to be an issue. They're going to have to address why and where is the original exists and who drafted it. How long will it take do you think for a court to resolve this? It really depends if the court decides that on the primary issue of effective deliveries. If they don't decide it on that issue, they couldn't schedule it on for evidentiary hearings to talk

to more witnesses and a little more discovery. But if they do decided on the primary issue, which is my inclination from at least what I've read in the petition, then they would probably decided at the core hearing over and over again. You know, you have these high profile individuals and they haven't tied up all the loose ends of you know, what might happen after they dine. It seems so unusual when they're surrounded by business advisors and lawyers.

I mean, these questions often arise with big celebrities. Yeah. I couldn't agree with you more. I worked with a lot of actors, musicians, NFL athletes, you know, people who have such busy lives that this is kind of the last thing they want to deal with, and it tends to be pushed down the line of you know, and and people also feel like they're they're going to live forever.

But you know, I was just having a conversation with the musician last week and um, you know, somebody who was a little younger, and they're like, why why are you asking all these questions about when I die? And you know it, it's like it's just it's such so

unpalatable for them to think about. And um, you know, one of the things that I pointed out is listen, you have creative work, if you care about the works that you've built during your lifetime, then we really need to put a plan together of how they're going to get managed to make sure that you're creative intent is

followed through by whoever you put in charge. And you know, I think talking to him about that made him a little more interested in actually trying to, um, you know, put a plan together because it wasn't focused as much on I'm going to be I'm going to die. It was more of if something happens to me, you know, what does this look like? And I think that especially with LUSA Marie and everything that's happened with the Elvis to state, there's so many questions there about, um, you know,

what things should they get involved in? What type of advertising should they let the creative you know, name enlightness and image be involved in that. You know, it's somewhat surprising to me that she wouldn't have spent a little more time on that because that issue has been so hotly contested with a lot of celebrities estates. So I

agree with you, but I would say it's not uncommon. Unfortunately, apparently though what I've been reading is she may actually have creditors and all the I R S money, So that's something that the estate will have to deal with, right, that's right, And um, you know, whether or not they could actually see the assets if they're in an entity you know, will be a question that gets looked at.

But generally, the first thing that happens when somebody is administering in a state when somebody passed away is they have to pay any lawful creditors and you deal with those issues and any estate tax owed to the I R S within nine months of somebody passing away, So

that needs to be handled off the top. So if there aren't other assets to pay those predators, then it's the case where sometimes you have to loan against the assets that are in the trust, and there are some companies out there that would be that, or you would need to sell assets off in order to create the

cash to pay the debt. Somebody has to take care of that, and I think that also is something that is a ton of work and for somebody to handle that who has never done it before without the help of managers and people who you know, understand how this works. I think it would be a pretty big undertaking for her director step into because I saw these articles that said, oh, it's a money grab or does it depend on the trust how much the trustee makes um. It does depend

on the trust. There can be um a provision in the trust that actually dictates how much the trust he has paid UM. But California has a statutory amounts that individual who's being the executor of an estate or trustee can be charged, and it's a sliding scale, so it's four percent of the first hundred thousand, three percent of the next hundred and it's calculated based on the total value of the estate. So it's hard to say exactly

what it is. But again, somebody can put into a trust document different provisions if they choose to, for the work that's being done by that role, and it sometimes

lose some money grabbed for people. You know, I would be curious as to whether her mom had been charging for that role as trustee in the past, because if she had, the fees would probably be along the same lines, and the court would probably be inclined to keep them as to what they were being paid during her lifetime because it might indicate that was you know, the arrangement that they wanted, so she may not have been charging at all, and she may not charge in the future.

It's not uncommon for family members who are serving trustee to to not charge for them. Thanks so much for being on the show, Sarah, that's true us in a State's attorney. Sarah Wentz, a partner at Fox Rothschild. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg