WEBVTT - Priscilla Presley Challenges Her Daughter's Will

0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloombird Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:11.119 --> 0:00:21.760
<v Speaker 1>What is one for the Morning? The King of Rock

0:00:21.840 --> 0:00:26.800
<v Speaker 1>and Roll, Elvis Prasley is a cultural icon, instantly recognizable

0:00:26.920 --> 0:00:30.840
<v Speaker 1>to generations of music fans. His former home, grace Land,

0:00:30.920 --> 0:00:34.559
<v Speaker 1>was declared a National Historic Monument, hosting half a million

0:00:34.560 --> 0:00:37.960
<v Speaker 1>people every year, and more than forty five years after

0:00:38.000 --> 0:00:41.680
<v Speaker 1>his death, Elvis earns tens of millions of dollars a year.

0:00:42.080 --> 0:00:45.200
<v Speaker 1>A recent biopic has put his name in legacy back

0:00:45.200 --> 0:00:48.960
<v Speaker 1>in the mainstream. Unfortunately, so has the death of his

0:00:49.080 --> 0:00:52.880
<v Speaker 1>only child, Lisa Marie Presley at the age of fifty four.

0:00:53.400 --> 0:00:57.800
<v Speaker 1>Her mother, Priscilla Presley, spoke at her daughter's funeral at Graceland.

0:00:58.440 --> 0:01:01.880
<v Speaker 1>Our heart is broken, Lisa. We all love you now.

0:01:01.920 --> 0:01:05.640
<v Speaker 1>Priscilla Presley is challenging the validity of her daughter's will,

0:01:06.080 --> 0:01:10.160
<v Speaker 1>specifically a sixteen amendment to the document that out did

0:01:10.240 --> 0:01:14.760
<v Speaker 1>Priscilla and a former business manager, Barry Siegel, as co trustees,

0:01:15.200 --> 0:01:19.080
<v Speaker 1>replacing them with Lisa Marie's eldest daughter, Riley Kyo and

0:01:19.120 --> 0:01:23.000
<v Speaker 1>her late son Benjamin Keio. Priscilla claims there are several

0:01:23.040 --> 0:01:26.800
<v Speaker 1>problems with the amendment, including a mismatched signature joining me

0:01:26.800 --> 0:01:29.800
<v Speaker 1>as trust and a state's attorney. Sarah Wentz, a partner

0:01:29.800 --> 0:01:33.960
<v Speaker 1>at Fox Rolph Child Sarah Priscilla Presley, said she found

0:01:34.000 --> 0:01:38.920
<v Speaker 1>this amendment, which is dated in March of after her

0:01:39.000 --> 0:01:43.440
<v Speaker 1>daughter's death. Is it unusual that after all these years,

0:01:43.480 --> 0:01:45.680
<v Speaker 1>no one has talked about this, and all of a

0:01:45.760 --> 0:01:48.920
<v Speaker 1>sudden she finds this. It is and I think that

0:01:49.720 --> 0:01:53.720
<v Speaker 1>it probably indicates that there is a decision not to

0:01:53.920 --> 0:01:57.760
<v Speaker 1>make it effective, because if she really did chinance, and

0:01:57.760 --> 0:02:00.360
<v Speaker 1>I think there's a lot of questions about whether her

0:02:00.440 --> 0:02:04.800
<v Speaker 1>signature and whether the document that was prepared was signed

0:02:04.880 --> 0:02:07.720
<v Speaker 1>because there's no there's no provisions on the signature pages.

0:02:07.920 --> 0:02:10.480
<v Speaker 1>But if she really did sign it, the way that

0:02:10.560 --> 0:02:14.560
<v Speaker 1>her trust was created that was fully amended and restated

0:02:14.560 --> 0:02:17.720
<v Speaker 1>in two thousand and ten, it said that delivery to

0:02:17.760 --> 0:02:22.280
<v Speaker 1>the trustees was required to make a change effective. So

0:02:22.560 --> 0:02:24.880
<v Speaker 1>it indicates, you know that she never delivered it, and

0:02:24.880 --> 0:02:27.440
<v Speaker 1>she clearly knew that her mom and very single were

0:02:27.440 --> 0:02:30.200
<v Speaker 1>serving as the trustees. So I think the court would

0:02:30.200 --> 0:02:32.600
<v Speaker 1>look at it and say, well, she must have known

0:02:32.840 --> 0:02:35.480
<v Speaker 1>or decided against it, and which is why she didn't

0:02:35.480 --> 0:02:38.160
<v Speaker 1>deliver it. Think it's hard to argue that she intended

0:02:38.200 --> 0:02:41.480
<v Speaker 1>it to be effective but then held onto it all

0:02:41.480 --> 0:02:46.160
<v Speaker 1>these years. There are several things that Priscilla Presley alleges

0:02:46.240 --> 0:02:51.440
<v Speaker 1>were problematic with this amendment. Just tell us what they are. Yeah.

0:02:51.480 --> 0:02:54.200
<v Speaker 1>I think the first thing is really what I just explained,

0:02:54.240 --> 0:02:58.160
<v Speaker 1>that if you create a trust document and you state

0:02:58.280 --> 0:03:01.359
<v Speaker 1>that there's a specific way in which it must be amended,

0:03:01.960 --> 0:03:06.240
<v Speaker 1>then that is the exact and only way that the

0:03:06.280 --> 0:03:08.280
<v Speaker 1>trust can be amended. And there's a lot of ways

0:03:08.320 --> 0:03:10.520
<v Speaker 1>that a trust can be amended if you don't have

0:03:10.639 --> 0:03:14.079
<v Speaker 1>that language in there. But the primary question is if

0:03:14.080 --> 0:03:15.720
<v Speaker 1>it says that it has to be amended in a

0:03:15.760 --> 0:03:21.040
<v Speaker 1>particular way, which includes effective delivery to the existing trustees

0:03:21.200 --> 0:03:25.160
<v Speaker 1>of the change, then a court will generally just say

0:03:25.320 --> 0:03:27.960
<v Speaker 1>it's not effective, no matter if she signed it, if

0:03:28.000 --> 0:03:30.799
<v Speaker 1>she intended it to be the case. If she didn't

0:03:31.120 --> 0:03:34.400
<v Speaker 1>effectively deliver it to the trustees, then she didn't do

0:03:34.440 --> 0:03:37.320
<v Speaker 1>what she herself wrote in the trust document was required.

0:03:37.680 --> 0:03:41.440
<v Speaker 1>So that's the first issue. It's the court just stops

0:03:41.520 --> 0:03:44.960
<v Speaker 1>there and says it's not effective. They probably won't go

0:03:45.000 --> 0:03:48.040
<v Speaker 1>any further to look at the other issues. But I

0:03:48.040 --> 0:03:52.400
<v Speaker 1>think the second issue is there's a presumption that if

0:03:52.440 --> 0:03:56.720
<v Speaker 1>you don't have any witnesses and any notary and there's

0:03:56.720 --> 0:04:00.160
<v Speaker 1>a signature on a page that has no content the

0:04:00.160 --> 0:04:03.520
<v Speaker 1>rest of the document, that it's possible there was some

0:04:03.600 --> 0:04:06.320
<v Speaker 1>sort of fraud involved. I mean, it's not unusual that

0:04:06.320 --> 0:04:09.960
<v Speaker 1>their signature page maybe doesn't have substantive language on it,

0:04:10.320 --> 0:04:13.240
<v Speaker 1>but to also have it not witnessed and not notarized,

0:04:13.640 --> 0:04:17.280
<v Speaker 1>plus to have that separate signature page with nothing on it,

0:04:17.720 --> 0:04:20.039
<v Speaker 1>I think that creates a problem for them. You know,

0:04:20.600 --> 0:04:23.479
<v Speaker 1>maybe if there was no question about this trust, that

0:04:23.520 --> 0:04:27.640
<v Speaker 1>could possibly pass because it's not required to have witnesses

0:04:27.640 --> 0:04:30.800
<v Speaker 1>and an odorian a trust's amendment unless the trust required

0:04:30.839 --> 0:04:34.600
<v Speaker 1>it to. It's just that it's really suspects given a situation.

0:04:35.760 --> 0:04:41.840
<v Speaker 1>Does seem unusual that Lisa Marie was battling with Barry Siegel,

0:04:41.920 --> 0:04:47.000
<v Speaker 1>who was listed as a co trustee since and so

0:04:47.400 --> 0:04:49.640
<v Speaker 1>it seems logical that you wouldn't want him to be

0:04:49.680 --> 0:04:53.880
<v Speaker 1>a co trustee. Right in somewhere the documents indicated that

0:04:53.960 --> 0:04:57.320
<v Speaker 1>he was going to be stepping down as trustee, So

0:04:57.400 --> 0:04:59.720
<v Speaker 1>maybe that was an agreement that they had reached. Put

0:04:59.839 --> 0:05:02.680
<v Speaker 1>your right if if you're battling with somebody. And remember

0:05:02.720 --> 0:05:04.880
<v Speaker 1>this is a revocable trust, So this is a trust

0:05:04.960 --> 0:05:09.400
<v Speaker 1>that she could have changed at any time as long

0:05:09.440 --> 0:05:12.000
<v Speaker 1>as she did it in the right way. It's unusual

0:05:12.120 --> 0:05:14.640
<v Speaker 1>that he would have continued to serve during those years

0:05:14.680 --> 0:05:16.800
<v Speaker 1>when they were having a debt dispute. You know, I

0:05:16.839 --> 0:05:18.839
<v Speaker 1>don't really know the background on that, but that is

0:05:18.839 --> 0:05:24.359
<v Speaker 1>wholly unusual. Lisa Marie is survived by three daughters, Riley Kio,

0:05:24.440 --> 0:05:27.400
<v Speaker 1>who is thirty three, and twin girls who are fourteen.

0:05:27.960 --> 0:05:32.000
<v Speaker 1>So why does Priscilla's petitions say that Riley would be

0:05:32.080 --> 0:05:36.880
<v Speaker 1>substituted for Singer as a trustee. It is in a

0:05:36.960 --> 0:05:41.000
<v Speaker 1>petition on page six where it says that since Riley

0:05:41.040 --> 0:05:42.720
<v Speaker 1>is over the age of thirty, she could act as

0:05:42.720 --> 0:05:46.200
<v Speaker 1>a coach trustee on her sub trust upon delivering a

0:05:46.240 --> 0:05:49.920
<v Speaker 1>written instrument to the trustee consenting that she acts. So

0:05:50.520 --> 0:05:53.599
<v Speaker 1>it sounds like the trust creates a share for each

0:05:53.640 --> 0:05:57.760
<v Speaker 1>of the children and then over their particular sub trusts,

0:05:57.880 --> 0:06:00.160
<v Speaker 1>they could become at it as a co trustee at

0:06:00.200 --> 0:06:03.839
<v Speaker 1>age thirty, which is somewhat normal if you have minor

0:06:03.920 --> 0:06:08.039
<v Speaker 1>children or younger children. There's been no comment from Riley

0:06:08.080 --> 0:06:11.760
<v Speaker 1>about her grandmother's challenge to the will. But just supposed

0:06:11.800 --> 0:06:15.400
<v Speaker 1>that Riley doesn't want to serve as co trustee, what

0:06:15.600 --> 0:06:18.680
<v Speaker 1>kind of problems would that cause. I don't think she's

0:06:18.680 --> 0:06:20.479
<v Speaker 1>going to have much of a choice, you know, based

0:06:20.520 --> 0:06:24.360
<v Speaker 1>on this document, and you know, from a trust lawyer's perspective,

0:06:24.680 --> 0:06:29.080
<v Speaker 1>Priscilla Pressley has done a pretty amazing job of revising

0:06:29.120 --> 0:06:31.279
<v Speaker 1>the Elvis Presley estates. You know, there's a lot of

0:06:31.320 --> 0:06:33.520
<v Speaker 1>case law and a lot of things that happened with

0:06:33.640 --> 0:06:37.479
<v Speaker 1>that estate that you know is essentially broke at one time,

0:06:37.720 --> 0:06:40.479
<v Speaker 1>and so she's got a lot of experience. So I

0:06:40.480 --> 0:06:43.479
<v Speaker 1>think having a co trustee that can at least educate

0:06:43.839 --> 0:06:46.839
<v Speaker 1>the new trustee who hasn't historically been involved in the

0:06:47.040 --> 0:06:50.200
<v Speaker 1>business feelings is a really important thing to have in

0:06:50.240 --> 0:06:53.279
<v Speaker 1>the transition along the way. Because it's Riley we're to

0:06:53.320 --> 0:06:56.480
<v Speaker 1>just take over and doesn't have the business experience and

0:06:56.560 --> 0:06:59.800
<v Speaker 1>the knowledge of what is required to keep the museums

0:06:59.839 --> 0:07:03.440
<v Speaker 1>and grace land and all those things afloat. The estate

0:07:03.520 --> 0:07:06.640
<v Speaker 1>could be dwindled down back to nothing. And I think

0:07:06.880 --> 0:07:12.040
<v Speaker 1>with these minor beneficiaries, the other daughters that are also beneficiaries,

0:07:12.080 --> 0:07:15.800
<v Speaker 1>I think that a court would be concerned putting somebody

0:07:15.880 --> 0:07:19.520
<v Speaker 1>who's young and doesn't have any business experience to take

0:07:19.600 --> 0:07:22.880
<v Speaker 1>this over when there's other people that have as taken this.

0:07:23.520 --> 0:07:26.600
<v Speaker 1>I'm just curious as to whether or not there would

0:07:26.600 --> 0:07:31.600
<v Speaker 1>be any way for her to challenge her grandmother being trusty,

0:07:31.720 --> 0:07:34.120
<v Speaker 1>not that there's any indication she intends to do that.

0:07:34.680 --> 0:07:38.200
<v Speaker 1>I think right now, the only way that she could

0:07:38.240 --> 0:07:43.360
<v Speaker 1>really argue that Priscilla was not an appropriate trustee is

0:07:43.400 --> 0:07:47.000
<v Speaker 1>if she had some sort of proof or evidence that

0:07:47.440 --> 0:07:50.200
<v Speaker 1>she couldn't be fair and impartial to her, that she

0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:53.320
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't be acting in her best interests. You know, maybe

0:07:53.600 --> 0:07:56.480
<v Speaker 1>if there was a strange relationship and she had done

0:07:56.520 --> 0:07:59.560
<v Speaker 1>things in the past that would evidence that she couldn't

0:07:59.640 --> 0:08:03.920
<v Speaker 1>be control Because as a trustee, there's a fiduciary duty

0:08:03.960 --> 0:08:08.160
<v Speaker 1>to that beneficiary, and if she could not be impartial

0:08:08.200 --> 0:08:11.560
<v Speaker 1>and do her duty to that beneficiary, then that is

0:08:11.600 --> 0:08:14.240
<v Speaker 1>when Riley could say, hey, this isn't the right trustee.

0:08:14.480 --> 0:08:17.200
<v Speaker 1>Here's the examples that I have showing that she's breached

0:08:17.200 --> 0:08:20.760
<v Speaker 1>her fuduciary duty to me. But short of breaching fuduciary duty,

0:08:20.800 --> 0:08:24.320
<v Speaker 1>it's really hard to remove a trustee that's been put

0:08:24.360 --> 0:08:28.000
<v Speaker 1>in the document, not just after recently passed away, But

0:08:28.520 --> 0:08:31.800
<v Speaker 1>it's highly unusual in the first place to put somebody

0:08:31.800 --> 0:08:34.959
<v Speaker 1>in as a trust fee over your revocable trust during

0:08:35.000 --> 0:08:38.760
<v Speaker 1>your lifetime. Now, that would indicate that she felt like

0:08:38.840 --> 0:08:43.160
<v Speaker 1>she needed the involvement and help of Polucionary back in

0:08:43.200 --> 0:08:46.920
<v Speaker 1>two thousand ten when she added her on this document,

0:08:47.400 --> 0:08:51.520
<v Speaker 1>and Lisamary could have just served as her sole trustee

0:08:51.559 --> 0:08:54.200
<v Speaker 1>until her death, which would be more typical, and then

0:08:54.280 --> 0:08:57.000
<v Speaker 1>had mom step in. And in that case, Riley could say,

0:08:57.040 --> 0:09:00.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, Grandma's not qualified to do it and make

0:09:00.320 --> 0:09:03.640
<v Speaker 1>other arguments. But in this case, she's been acting and

0:09:03.840 --> 0:09:07.240
<v Speaker 1>hadn't been removed up until Lisa's death, so I think

0:09:07.240 --> 0:09:10.080
<v Speaker 1>it would be very difficult for her to remove her.

0:09:10.679 --> 0:09:17.719
<v Speaker 1>Lisa Marie sold off of Elvis Presley Enterprises assets for

0:09:17.760 --> 0:09:20.880
<v Speaker 1>about a hundred million in two thousand four. Do we

0:09:20.960 --> 0:09:25.520
<v Speaker 1>know what's actually in the trust besides of that company?

0:09:25.880 --> 0:09:28.440
<v Speaker 1>I don't think we know that. So because it's a

0:09:28.480 --> 0:09:32.360
<v Speaker 1>revocable trust and reasonably could assign her assets to that

0:09:32.480 --> 0:09:37.320
<v Speaker 1>trust during her lifetime, there's no requirements that approbate happened

0:09:37.360 --> 0:09:39.840
<v Speaker 1>with those assets. So the only thing we really have

0:09:40.080 --> 0:09:43.360
<v Speaker 1>is what ends up in a court dispute. So you know,

0:09:43.360 --> 0:09:46.280
<v Speaker 1>there are certain provisions that are quoted in the petition,

0:09:46.400 --> 0:09:49.160
<v Speaker 1>but I don't believe at least the petition I received

0:09:49.200 --> 0:09:52.360
<v Speaker 1>did not have a copy of the trust attached to it,

0:09:52.840 --> 0:09:56.480
<v Speaker 1>or did it haven't indication of exactly all the assets

0:09:56.480 --> 0:09:59.520
<v Speaker 1>that are within it, because apparently there's some kind of

0:09:59.640 --> 0:10:02.880
<v Speaker 1>dynamic tim at going on because Joel weinshank Or, who's

0:10:02.920 --> 0:10:07.360
<v Speaker 1>the managing partner of the Elvis Presley Enterprises, has said that,

0:10:07.600 --> 0:10:10.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, it was clear that Lisa Mury wanted her

0:10:10.360 --> 0:10:13.800
<v Speaker 1>two children at the time her son has died since then,

0:10:14.160 --> 0:10:18.120
<v Speaker 1>to be the co trustees. Now, Priscilla Presley alludes to

0:10:18.160 --> 0:10:21.920
<v Speaker 1>an individual that bought their way into the family enterprise

0:10:21.960 --> 0:10:24.480
<v Speaker 1>that is trying to speak on behalf of our family.

0:10:25.240 --> 0:10:28.880
<v Speaker 1>So do you think that's where the dispute is arising from?

0:10:28.920 --> 0:10:32.400
<v Speaker 1>Since we haven't heard from Lisa Marie's children, you know,

0:10:32.520 --> 0:10:37.760
<v Speaker 1>I have heard that various things about you know, people

0:10:37.840 --> 0:10:41.520
<v Speaker 1>within that enterprise indicating that Lisa had said that. But

0:10:41.880 --> 0:10:45.439
<v Speaker 1>and perhaps her children haven't come forward. But Priscilla is

0:10:45.559 --> 0:10:48.880
<v Speaker 1>just trying to cut this off, you know, and maybe

0:10:49.120 --> 0:10:52.560
<v Speaker 1>what's happened is Priscilla has been making decisions and getting

0:10:52.600 --> 0:10:55.760
<v Speaker 1>pushed back from them saying, you know, we think someone

0:10:55.800 --> 0:10:57.680
<v Speaker 1>else is going to be the trustee and you're going

0:10:57.720 --> 0:10:59.800
<v Speaker 1>to be removed, and she just wants to clear that up.

0:11:00.040 --> 0:11:03.640
<v Speaker 1>That's possible that it's come from their side. It's um

0:11:04.120 --> 0:11:07.000
<v Speaker 1>a little unusual that they would choose to speak on

0:11:07.280 --> 0:11:10.520
<v Speaker 1>this issue, because you know, the courts will say people

0:11:10.559 --> 0:11:13.079
<v Speaker 1>have an opportunity to put down their wishes in a

0:11:13.120 --> 0:11:17.680
<v Speaker 1>state planning document, and when there's rumors of other people saying, well,

0:11:17.720 --> 0:11:19.559
<v Speaker 1>they wanted this and they wanted that, it's like, we

0:11:19.840 --> 0:11:21.640
<v Speaker 1>have an opportunity to do that, and that's why we

0:11:21.720 --> 0:11:24.920
<v Speaker 1>draft the trust And I just think that the fact

0:11:25.000 --> 0:11:27.559
<v Speaker 1>that her mother was acting as trusty up until the

0:11:27.640 --> 0:11:29.920
<v Speaker 1>day that she died, and she was well aware of that,

0:11:30.679 --> 0:11:34.640
<v Speaker 1>and she hadn't delivered any documents to her saying I

0:11:34.679 --> 0:11:37.040
<v Speaker 1>want you to be the moved when I passed away,

0:11:37.520 --> 0:11:40.559
<v Speaker 1>I think that really indicates that maybe she thought the

0:11:40.640 --> 0:11:43.559
<v Speaker 1>kids were about ready to take over, but not ready

0:11:43.640 --> 0:11:46.520
<v Speaker 1>enough to actually remove her mom. So I just don't

0:11:46.600 --> 0:11:49.040
<v Speaker 1>think that a court is going to do that. Well,

0:11:49.040 --> 0:11:53.800
<v Speaker 1>the court looked just at the document itself and what

0:11:54.040 --> 0:11:58.160
<v Speaker 1>Priscilla Presley alludes to. Or will the court go beyond

0:11:58.200 --> 0:12:01.400
<v Speaker 1>that and try to divine the inti engins of Lisa

0:12:01.440 --> 0:12:06.160
<v Speaker 1>Marie Presley. It's unlikely if they look at the intentions

0:12:06.320 --> 0:12:10.640
<v Speaker 1>unless there's an allegation that there was delivery of this

0:12:10.840 --> 0:12:15.080
<v Speaker 1>document and it just wasn't acknowledged, or you know, if

0:12:15.080 --> 0:12:18.199
<v Speaker 1>somebody can prove that there was an email center, or

0:12:18.240 --> 0:12:20.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, some lawyers says, you know, I sent it

0:12:20.440 --> 0:12:21.920
<v Speaker 1>to them, I delivered it to them, we had a

0:12:21.960 --> 0:12:23.920
<v Speaker 1>conversation about it, and then there was a fight about

0:12:23.920 --> 0:12:26.560
<v Speaker 1>them stepping down and it just never happened. Or you know,

0:12:26.600 --> 0:12:30.439
<v Speaker 1>if something like that comes out in court testimony that

0:12:30.559 --> 0:12:33.400
<v Speaker 1>she really did try to remove them and you know

0:12:33.480 --> 0:12:36.360
<v Speaker 1>they just said no, then I think there could be

0:12:36.400 --> 0:12:39.480
<v Speaker 1>a question about what was her real intent, and they

0:12:39.520 --> 0:12:43.240
<v Speaker 1>could take testimony from witnesses on that issue. But I

0:12:43.280 --> 0:12:46.360
<v Speaker 1>really think there's going to have to be some indication

0:12:46.600 --> 0:12:50.640
<v Speaker 1>that she did effectively deliver this because otherwise the court

0:12:51.000 --> 0:12:53.480
<v Speaker 1>is you know that the law says that if you

0:12:54.280 --> 0:12:57.840
<v Speaker 1>state in your trust documents how it has to be amended,

0:12:57.880 --> 0:12:59.480
<v Speaker 1>then it has to be done in that way or

0:12:59.520 --> 0:13:02.560
<v Speaker 1>it's just effective, So they don't even get there unless

0:13:02.559 --> 0:13:04.880
<v Speaker 1>somebody can show that she really did deliver it. But

0:13:05.120 --> 0:13:08.520
<v Speaker 1>now that's possible. All we have is their word saying

0:13:08.559 --> 0:13:11.440
<v Speaker 1>that it was never delivered. But also there's this issue

0:13:11.480 --> 0:13:14.520
<v Speaker 1>that at least in the petition, they indicate that the

0:13:14.559 --> 0:13:18.960
<v Speaker 1>original had not been located, and that's another hurdles that

0:13:19.440 --> 0:13:21.600
<v Speaker 1>someone in need to prove, is that there is an

0:13:21.640 --> 0:13:25.840
<v Speaker 1>original out there and that recentarly didn't intentionally destroy it

0:13:26.000 --> 0:13:29.640
<v Speaker 1>because she could have signed a document decided I really

0:13:29.679 --> 0:13:33.240
<v Speaker 1>don't want to remove them and ShredIt it, and then

0:13:33.280 --> 0:13:36.360
<v Speaker 1>somebody finds a copy of it and tries to use

0:13:36.440 --> 0:13:38.679
<v Speaker 1>it after the fact. So you know, that's going to

0:13:38.720 --> 0:13:40.600
<v Speaker 1>be an issue if they if they get that far,

0:13:40.840 --> 0:13:42.160
<v Speaker 1>that's going to be an issue. They're going to have

0:13:42.240 --> 0:13:45.520
<v Speaker 1>to address why and where is the original exists and

0:13:45.520 --> 0:13:48.760
<v Speaker 1>who drafted it. How long will it take do you

0:13:48.800 --> 0:13:53.280
<v Speaker 1>think for a court to resolve this? It really depends

0:13:53.280 --> 0:13:55.720
<v Speaker 1>if the court decides that on the primary issue of

0:13:56.400 --> 0:13:59.839
<v Speaker 1>effective deliveries. If they don't decide it on that issue,

0:14:00.000 --> 0:14:04.600
<v Speaker 1>they couldn't schedule it on for evidentiary hearings to talk

0:14:04.640 --> 0:14:08.080
<v Speaker 1>to more witnesses and a little more discovery. But if

0:14:08.120 --> 0:14:10.880
<v Speaker 1>they do decided on the primary issue, which is my

0:14:10.960 --> 0:14:13.160
<v Speaker 1>inclination from at least what I've read in the petition,

0:14:13.360 --> 0:14:16.840
<v Speaker 1>then they would probably decided at the core hearing over

0:14:16.880 --> 0:14:19.400
<v Speaker 1>and over again. You know, you have these high profile

0:14:19.480 --> 0:14:23.720
<v Speaker 1>individuals and they haven't tied up all the loose ends

0:14:23.760 --> 0:14:26.240
<v Speaker 1>of you know, what might happen after they dine. It

0:14:26.320 --> 0:14:31.200
<v Speaker 1>seems so unusual when they're surrounded by business advisors and lawyers.

0:14:31.720 --> 0:14:36.840
<v Speaker 1>I mean, these questions often arise with big celebrities. Yeah.

0:14:37.120 --> 0:14:39.960
<v Speaker 1>I couldn't agree with you more. I worked with a

0:14:39.960 --> 0:14:44.720
<v Speaker 1>lot of actors, musicians, NFL athletes, you know, people who

0:14:45.200 --> 0:14:48.560
<v Speaker 1>have such busy lives that this is kind of the

0:14:48.680 --> 0:14:52.040
<v Speaker 1>last thing they want to deal with, and it tends

0:14:52.080 --> 0:14:55.360
<v Speaker 1>to be pushed down the line of you know, and

0:14:55.480 --> 0:14:58.440
<v Speaker 1>and people also feel like they're they're going to live forever.

0:14:58.880 --> 0:15:01.880
<v Speaker 1>But you know, I was just having a conversation with

0:15:01.960 --> 0:15:05.960
<v Speaker 1>the musician last week and um, you know, somebody who

0:15:06.000 --> 0:15:08.760
<v Speaker 1>was a little younger, and they're like, why why are

0:15:08.760 --> 0:15:10.680
<v Speaker 1>you asking all these questions about when I die? And

0:15:10.880 --> 0:15:13.840
<v Speaker 1>you know it, it's like it's just it's such so

0:15:13.920 --> 0:15:17.280
<v Speaker 1>unpalatable for them to think about. And um, you know,

0:15:17.360 --> 0:15:19.600
<v Speaker 1>one of the things that I pointed out is listen,

0:15:20.000 --> 0:15:23.040
<v Speaker 1>you have creative work, if you care about the works

0:15:23.040 --> 0:15:25.480
<v Speaker 1>that you've built during your lifetime, then we really need

0:15:25.520 --> 0:15:27.520
<v Speaker 1>to put a plan together of how they're going to

0:15:27.560 --> 0:15:30.960
<v Speaker 1>get managed to make sure that you're creative intent is

0:15:31.000 --> 0:15:33.640
<v Speaker 1>followed through by whoever you put in charge. And you know,

0:15:33.720 --> 0:15:37.800
<v Speaker 1>I think talking to him about that made him a

0:15:37.800 --> 0:15:41.160
<v Speaker 1>little more interested in actually trying to, um, you know,

0:15:41.240 --> 0:15:43.720
<v Speaker 1>put a plan together because it wasn't focused as much

0:15:43.760 --> 0:15:46.080
<v Speaker 1>on I'm going to be I'm going to die. It

0:15:46.200 --> 0:15:49.600
<v Speaker 1>was more of if something happens to me, you know,

0:15:49.800 --> 0:15:52.680
<v Speaker 1>what does this look like? And I think that especially

0:15:52.720 --> 0:15:55.520
<v Speaker 1>with LUSA Marie and everything that's happened with the Elvis

0:15:55.520 --> 0:15:59.720
<v Speaker 1>to state, there's so many questions there about, um, you know,

0:15:59.800 --> 0:16:02.840
<v Speaker 1>what things should they get involved in? What type of

0:16:02.880 --> 0:16:07.200
<v Speaker 1>advertising should they let the creative you know, name enlightness

0:16:07.240 --> 0:16:11.440
<v Speaker 1>and image be involved in that. You know, it's somewhat

0:16:11.440 --> 0:16:13.880
<v Speaker 1>surprising to me that she wouldn't have spent a little

0:16:13.880 --> 0:16:16.600
<v Speaker 1>more time on that because that issue has been so

0:16:16.680 --> 0:16:21.960
<v Speaker 1>hotly contested with a lot of celebrities estates. So I

0:16:22.000 --> 0:16:24.960
<v Speaker 1>agree with you, but I would say it's not uncommon. Unfortunately,

0:16:25.320 --> 0:16:27.920
<v Speaker 1>apparently though what I've been reading is she may actually

0:16:27.960 --> 0:16:31.720
<v Speaker 1>have creditors and all the I R S money, So

0:16:31.800 --> 0:16:34.720
<v Speaker 1>that's something that the estate will have to deal with, right,

0:16:35.360 --> 0:16:38.400
<v Speaker 1>that's right, And um, you know, whether or not they

0:16:38.440 --> 0:16:42.680
<v Speaker 1>could actually see the assets if they're in an entity

0:16:42.880 --> 0:16:45.200
<v Speaker 1>you know, will be a question that gets looked at.

0:16:45.320 --> 0:16:49.280
<v Speaker 1>But generally, the first thing that happens when somebody is

0:16:49.320 --> 0:16:52.440
<v Speaker 1>administering in a state when somebody passed away is they

0:16:52.440 --> 0:16:56.560
<v Speaker 1>have to pay any lawful creditors and you deal with

0:16:56.600 --> 0:16:59.480
<v Speaker 1>those issues and any estate tax owed to the I

0:16:59.640 --> 0:17:02.120
<v Speaker 1>R S within nine months of somebody passing away, So

0:17:02.160 --> 0:17:05.000
<v Speaker 1>that needs to be handled off the top. So if

0:17:05.040 --> 0:17:08.880
<v Speaker 1>there aren't other assets to pay those predators, then it's

0:17:08.920 --> 0:17:11.440
<v Speaker 1>the case where sometimes you have to loan against the

0:17:11.480 --> 0:17:13.240
<v Speaker 1>assets that are in the trust, and there are some

0:17:13.280 --> 0:17:16.480
<v Speaker 1>companies out there that would be that, or you would

0:17:16.480 --> 0:17:19.639
<v Speaker 1>need to sell assets off in order to create the

0:17:19.680 --> 0:17:21.720
<v Speaker 1>cash to pay the debt. Somebody has to take care

0:17:21.720 --> 0:17:24.520
<v Speaker 1>of that, and I think that also is something that

0:17:24.960 --> 0:17:28.480
<v Speaker 1>is a ton of work and for somebody to handle

0:17:28.520 --> 0:17:31.160
<v Speaker 1>that who has never done it before without the help

0:17:31.240 --> 0:17:34.879
<v Speaker 1>of managers and people who you know, understand how this works.

0:17:34.920 --> 0:17:36.840
<v Speaker 1>I think it would be a pretty big undertaking for

0:17:36.960 --> 0:17:40.520
<v Speaker 1>her director step into because I saw these articles that said, oh,

0:17:40.640 --> 0:17:42.680
<v Speaker 1>it's a money grab or does it depend on the

0:17:43.080 --> 0:17:46.960
<v Speaker 1>trust how much the trustee makes um. It does depend

0:17:46.960 --> 0:17:50.439
<v Speaker 1>on the trust. There can be um a provision in

0:17:50.480 --> 0:17:53.280
<v Speaker 1>the trust that actually dictates how much the trust he

0:17:53.359 --> 0:17:58.520
<v Speaker 1>has paid UM. But California has a statutory amounts that

0:17:58.720 --> 0:18:02.760
<v Speaker 1>individual who's being the executor of an estate or trustee

0:18:02.800 --> 0:18:05.880
<v Speaker 1>can be charged, and it's a sliding scale, so it's

0:18:05.880 --> 0:18:08.199
<v Speaker 1>four percent of the first hundred thousand, three percent of

0:18:08.200 --> 0:18:11.240
<v Speaker 1>the next hundred and it's calculated based on the total

0:18:11.359 --> 0:18:14.159
<v Speaker 1>value of the estate. So it's hard to say exactly

0:18:14.200 --> 0:18:17.760
<v Speaker 1>what it is. But again, somebody can put into a

0:18:17.760 --> 0:18:22.080
<v Speaker 1>trust document different provisions if they choose to, for the

0:18:22.160 --> 0:18:25.360
<v Speaker 1>work that's being done by that role, and it sometimes

0:18:25.359 --> 0:18:27.960
<v Speaker 1>lose some money grabbed for people. You know, I would

0:18:28.000 --> 0:18:31.360
<v Speaker 1>be curious as to whether her mom had been charging

0:18:31.480 --> 0:18:34.600
<v Speaker 1>for that role as trustee in the past, because if

0:18:34.640 --> 0:18:38.440
<v Speaker 1>she had, the fees would probably be along the same lines,

0:18:38.520 --> 0:18:41.159
<v Speaker 1>and the court would probably be inclined to keep them

0:18:41.280 --> 0:18:43.520
<v Speaker 1>as to what they were being paid during her lifetime

0:18:43.560 --> 0:18:46.120
<v Speaker 1>because it might indicate that was you know, the arrangement

0:18:46.200 --> 0:18:49.679
<v Speaker 1>that they wanted, so she may not have been charging

0:18:49.720 --> 0:18:51.840
<v Speaker 1>at all, and she may not charge in the future.

0:18:51.880 --> 0:18:55.480
<v Speaker 1>It's not uncommon for family members who are serving trustee

0:18:55.480 --> 0:18:58.119
<v Speaker 1>to to not charge for them. Thanks so much for

0:18:58.160 --> 0:19:00.280
<v Speaker 1>being on the show, Sarah, that's true us in a

0:19:00.400 --> 0:19:04.840
<v Speaker 1>State's attorney. Sarah Wentz, a partner at Fox Rothschild. And

0:19:04.920 --> 0:19:07.080
<v Speaker 1>that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

0:19:07.400 --> 0:19:09.720
<v Speaker 1>Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

0:19:09.800 --> 0:19:14.080
<v Speaker 1>our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:19:14.280 --> 0:19:19.320
<v Speaker 1>and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,

0:19:19.720 --> 0:19:22.359
<v Speaker 1>and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

0:19:22.359 --> 0:19:25.840
<v Speaker 1>week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June

0:19:25.840 --> 0:19:28.040
<v Speaker 1>Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg