Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: What is one for the Morning? The King of Rock
Speaker 1: and Roll, Elvis Prasley is a cultural icon, instantly recognizable
Speaker 1: to generations of music fans. His former home, grace Land,
Speaker 1: was declared a National Historic Monument, hosting half a million
Speaker 1: people every year, and more than forty five years after
Speaker 1: his death, Elvis earns tens of millions of dollars a year.
Speaker 1: A recent biopic has put his name in legacy back
Speaker 1: in the mainstream. Unfortunately, so has the death of his
Speaker 1: only child, Lisa Marie Presley at the age of fifty four.
Speaker 1: Her mother, Priscilla Presley, spoke at her daughter's funeral at Graceland.
Speaker 1: Our heart is broken, Lisa. We all love you now.
Speaker 1: Priscilla Presley is challenging the validity of her daughter's will,
Speaker 1: specifically a sixteen amendment to the document that out did
Speaker 1: Priscilla and a former business manager, Barry Siegel, as co trustees,
Speaker 1: replacing them with Lisa Marie's eldest daughter, Riley Kyo and
Speaker 1: her late son Benjamin Keio. Priscilla claims there are several
Speaker 1: problems with the amendment, including a mismatched signature joining me
Speaker 1: as trust and a state's attorney. Sarah Wentz, a partner
Speaker 1: at Fox Rolph Child Sarah Priscilla Presley, said she found
Speaker 1: this amendment, which is dated in March of after her
Speaker 1: daughter's death. Is it unusual that after all these years,
Speaker 1: no one has talked about this, and all of a
Speaker 1: sudden she finds this. It is and I think that
Speaker 1: it probably indicates that there is a decision not to
Speaker 1: make it effective, because if she really did chinance, and
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of questions about whether her
Speaker 1: signature and whether the document that was prepared was signed
Speaker 1: because there's no there's no provisions on the signature pages.
Speaker 1: But if she really did sign it, the way that
Speaker 1: her trust was created that was fully amended and restated
Speaker 1: in two thousand and ten, it said that delivery to
Speaker 1: the trustees was required to make a change effective. So
Speaker 1: it indicates, you know that she never delivered it, and
Speaker 1: she clearly knew that her mom and very single were
Speaker 1: serving as the trustees. So I think the court would
Speaker 1: look at it and say, well, she must have known
Speaker 1: or decided against it, and which is why she didn't
Speaker 1: deliver it. Think it's hard to argue that she intended
Speaker 1: it to be effective but then held onto it all
Speaker 1: these years. There are several things that Priscilla Presley alleges
Speaker 1: were problematic with this amendment. Just tell us what they are. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think the first thing is really what I just explained,
Speaker 1: that if you create a trust document and you state
Speaker 1: that there's a specific way in which it must be amended,
Speaker 1: then that is the exact and only way that the
Speaker 1: trust can be amended. And there's a lot of ways
Speaker 1: that a trust can be amended if you don't have
Speaker 1: that language in there. But the primary question is if
Speaker 1: it says that it has to be amended in a
Speaker 1: particular way, which includes effective delivery to the existing trustees
Speaker 1: of the change, then a court will generally just say
Speaker 1: it's not effective, no matter if she signed it, if
Speaker 1: she intended it to be the case. If she didn't
Speaker 1: effectively deliver it to the trustees, then she didn't do
Speaker 1: what she herself wrote in the trust document was required.
Speaker 1: So that's the first issue. It's the court just stops
Speaker 1: there and says it's not effective. They probably won't go
Speaker 1: any further to look at the other issues. But I
Speaker 1: think the second issue is there's a presumption that if
Speaker 1: you don't have any witnesses and any notary and there's
Speaker 1: a signature on a page that has no content the
Speaker 1: rest of the document, that it's possible there was some
Speaker 1: sort of fraud involved. I mean, it's not unusual that
Speaker 1: their signature page maybe doesn't have substantive language on it,
Speaker 1: but to also have it not witnessed and not notarized,
Speaker 1: plus to have that separate signature page with nothing on it,
Speaker 1: I think that creates a problem for them. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe if there was no question about this trust, that
Speaker 1: could possibly pass because it's not required to have witnesses
Speaker 1: and an odorian a trust's amendment unless the trust required
Speaker 1: it to. It's just that it's really suspects given a situation.
Speaker 1: Does seem unusual that Lisa Marie was battling with Barry Siegel,
Speaker 1: who was listed as a co trustee since and so
Speaker 1: it seems logical that you wouldn't want him to be
Speaker 1: a co trustee. Right in somewhere the documents indicated that
Speaker 1: he was going to be stepping down as trustee, So
Speaker 1: maybe that was an agreement that they had reached. Put
Speaker 1: your right if if you're battling with somebody. And remember
Speaker 1: this is a revocable trust, So this is a trust
Speaker 1: that she could have changed at any time as long
Speaker 1: as she did it in the right way. It's unusual
Speaker 1: that he would have continued to serve during those years
Speaker 1: when they were having a debt dispute. You know, I
Speaker 1: don't really know the background on that, but that is
Speaker 1: wholly unusual. Lisa Marie is survived by three daughters, Riley Kio,
Speaker 1: who is thirty three, and twin girls who are fourteen.
Speaker 1: So why does Priscilla's petitions say that Riley would be
Speaker 1: substituted for Singer as a trustee. It is in a
Speaker 1: petition on page six where it says that since Riley
Speaker 1: is over the age of thirty, she could act as
Speaker 1: a coach trustee on her sub trust upon delivering a
Speaker 1: written instrument to the trustee consenting that she acts. So
Speaker 1: it sounds like the trust creates a share for each
Speaker 1: of the children and then over their particular sub trusts,
Speaker 1: they could become at it as a co trustee at
Speaker 1: age thirty, which is somewhat normal if you have minor
Speaker 1: children or younger children. There's been no comment from Riley
Speaker 1: about her grandmother's challenge to the will. But just supposed
Speaker 1: that Riley doesn't want to serve as co trustee, what
Speaker 1: kind of problems would that cause. I don't think she's
Speaker 1: going to have much of a choice, you know, based
Speaker 1: on this document, and you know, from a trust lawyer's perspective,
Speaker 1: Priscilla Pressley has done a pretty amazing job of revising
Speaker 1: the Elvis Presley estates. You know, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: case law and a lot of things that happened with
Speaker 1: that estate that you know is essentially broke at one time,
Speaker 1: and so she's got a lot of experience. So I
Speaker 1: think having a co trustee that can at least educate
Speaker 1: the new trustee who hasn't historically been involved in the
Speaker 1: business feelings is a really important thing to have in
Speaker 1: the transition along the way. Because it's Riley we're to
Speaker 1: just take over and doesn't have the business experience and
Speaker 1: the knowledge of what is required to keep the museums
Speaker 1: and grace land and all those things afloat. The estate
Speaker 1: could be dwindled down back to nothing. And I think
Speaker 1: with these minor beneficiaries, the other daughters that are also beneficiaries,
Speaker 1: I think that a court would be concerned putting somebody
Speaker 1: who's young and doesn't have any business experience to take
Speaker 1: this over when there's other people that have as taken this.
Speaker 1: I'm just curious as to whether or not there would
Speaker 1: be any way for her to challenge her grandmother being trusty,
Speaker 1: not that there's any indication she intends to do that.
Speaker 1: I think right now, the only way that she could
Speaker 1: really argue that Priscilla was not an appropriate trustee is
Speaker 1: if she had some sort of proof or evidence that
Speaker 1: she couldn't be fair and impartial to her, that she
Speaker 1: wouldn't be acting in her best interests. You know, maybe
Speaker 1: if there was a strange relationship and she had done
Speaker 1: things in the past that would evidence that she couldn't
Speaker 1: be control Because as a trustee, there's a fiduciary duty
Speaker 1: to that beneficiary, and if she could not be impartial
Speaker 1: and do her duty to that beneficiary, then that is
Speaker 1: when Riley could say, hey, this isn't the right trustee.
Speaker 1: Here's the examples that I have showing that she's breached
Speaker 1: her fuduciary duty to me. But short of breaching fuduciary duty,
Speaker 1: it's really hard to remove a trustee that's been put
Speaker 1: in the document, not just after recently passed away, But
Speaker 1: it's highly unusual in the first place to put somebody
Speaker 1: in as a trust fee over your revocable trust during
Speaker 1: your lifetime. Now, that would indicate that she felt like
Speaker 1: she needed the involvement and help of Polucionary back in
Speaker 1: two thousand ten when she added her on this document,
Speaker 1: and Lisamary could have just served as her sole trustee
Speaker 1: until her death, which would be more typical, and then
Speaker 1: had mom step in. And in that case, Riley could say,
Speaker 1: you know, Grandma's not qualified to do it and make
Speaker 1: other arguments. But in this case, she's been acting and
Speaker 1: hadn't been removed up until Lisa's death, so I think
Speaker 1: it would be very difficult for her to remove her.
Speaker 1: Lisa Marie sold off of Elvis Presley Enterprises assets for
Speaker 1: about a hundred million in two thousand four. Do we
Speaker 1: know what's actually in the trust besides of that company?
Speaker 1: I don't think we know that. So because it's a
Speaker 1: revocable trust and reasonably could assign her assets to that
Speaker 1: trust during her lifetime, there's no requirements that approbate happened
Speaker 1: with those assets. So the only thing we really have
Speaker 1: is what ends up in a court dispute. So you know,
Speaker 1: there are certain provisions that are quoted in the petition,
Speaker 1: but I don't believe at least the petition I received
Speaker 1: did not have a copy of the trust attached to it,
Speaker 1: or did it haven't indication of exactly all the assets
Speaker 1: that are within it, because apparently there's some kind of
Speaker 1: dynamic tim at going on because Joel weinshank Or, who's
Speaker 1: the managing partner of the Elvis Presley Enterprises, has said that,
Speaker 1: you know, it was clear that Lisa Mury wanted her
Speaker 1: two children at the time her son has died since then,
Speaker 1: to be the co trustees. Now, Priscilla Presley alludes to
Speaker 1: an individual that bought their way into the family enterprise
Speaker 1: that is trying to speak on behalf of our family.
Speaker 1: So do you think that's where the dispute is arising from?
Speaker 1: Since we haven't heard from Lisa Marie's children, you know,
Speaker 1: I have heard that various things about you know, people
Speaker 1: within that enterprise indicating that Lisa had said that. But
Speaker 1: and perhaps her children haven't come forward. But Priscilla is
Speaker 1: just trying to cut this off, you know, and maybe
Speaker 1: what's happened is Priscilla has been making decisions and getting
Speaker 1: pushed back from them saying, you know, we think someone
Speaker 1: else is going to be the trustee and you're going
Speaker 1: to be removed, and she just wants to clear that up.
Speaker 1: That's possible that it's come from their side. It's um
Speaker 1: a little unusual that they would choose to speak on
Speaker 1: this issue, because you know, the courts will say people
Speaker 1: have an opportunity to put down their wishes in a
Speaker 1: state planning document, and when there's rumors of other people saying, well,
Speaker 1: they wanted this and they wanted that, it's like, we
Speaker 1: have an opportunity to do that, and that's why we
Speaker 1: draft the trust And I just think that the fact
Speaker 1: that her mother was acting as trusty up until the
Speaker 1: day that she died, and she was well aware of that,
Speaker 1: and she hadn't delivered any documents to her saying I
Speaker 1: want you to be the moved when I passed away,
Speaker 1: I think that really indicates that maybe she thought the
Speaker 1: kids were about ready to take over, but not ready
Speaker 1: enough to actually remove her mom. So I just don't
Speaker 1: think that a court is going to do that. Well,
Speaker 1: the court looked just at the document itself and what
Speaker 1: Priscilla Presley alludes to. Or will the court go beyond
Speaker 1: that and try to divine the inti engins of Lisa
Speaker 1: Marie Presley. It's unlikely if they look at the intentions
Speaker 1: unless there's an allegation that there was delivery of this
Speaker 1: document and it just wasn't acknowledged, or you know, if
Speaker 1: somebody can prove that there was an email center, or
Speaker 1: you know, some lawyers says, you know, I sent it
Speaker 1: to them, I delivered it to them, we had a
Speaker 1: conversation about it, and then there was a fight about
Speaker 1: them stepping down and it just never happened. Or you know,
Speaker 1: if something like that comes out in court testimony that
Speaker 1: she really did try to remove them and you know
Speaker 1: they just said no, then I think there could be
Speaker 1: a question about what was her real intent, and they
Speaker 1: could take testimony from witnesses on that issue. But I
Speaker 1: really think there's going to have to be some indication
Speaker 1: that she did effectively deliver this because otherwise the court
Speaker 1: is you know that the law says that if you
Speaker 1: state in your trust documents how it has to be amended,
Speaker 1: then it has to be done in that way or
Speaker 1: it's just effective, So they don't even get there unless
Speaker 1: somebody can show that she really did deliver it. But
Speaker 1: now that's possible. All we have is their word saying
Speaker 1: that it was never delivered. But also there's this issue
Speaker 1: that at least in the petition, they indicate that the
Speaker 1: original had not been located, and that's another hurdles that
Speaker 1: someone in need to prove, is that there is an
Speaker 1: original out there and that recentarly didn't intentionally destroy it
Speaker 1: because she could have signed a document decided I really
Speaker 1: don't want to remove them and ShredIt it, and then
Speaker 1: somebody finds a copy of it and tries to use
Speaker 1: it after the fact. So you know, that's going to
Speaker 1: be an issue if they if they get that far,
Speaker 1: that's going to be an issue. They're going to have
Speaker 1: to address why and where is the original exists and
Speaker 1: who drafted it. How long will it take do you
Speaker 1: think for a court to resolve this? It really depends
Speaker 1: if the court decides that on the primary issue of
Speaker 1: effective deliveries. If they don't decide it on that issue,
Speaker 1: they couldn't schedule it on for evidentiary hearings to talk
Speaker 1: to more witnesses and a little more discovery. But if
Speaker 1: they do decided on the primary issue, which is my
Speaker 1: inclination from at least what I've read in the petition,
Speaker 1: then they would probably decided at the core hearing over
Speaker 1: and over again. You know, you have these high profile
Speaker 1: individuals and they haven't tied up all the loose ends
Speaker 1: of you know, what might happen after they dine. It
Speaker 1: seems so unusual when they're surrounded by business advisors and lawyers.
Speaker 1: I mean, these questions often arise with big celebrities. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I couldn't agree with you more. I worked with a
Speaker 1: lot of actors, musicians, NFL athletes, you know, people who
Speaker 1: have such busy lives that this is kind of the
Speaker 1: last thing they want to deal with, and it tends
Speaker 1: to be pushed down the line of you know, and
Speaker 1: and people also feel like they're they're going to live forever.
Speaker 1: But you know, I was just having a conversation with
Speaker 1: the musician last week and um, you know, somebody who
Speaker 1: was a little younger, and they're like, why why are
Speaker 1: you asking all these questions about when I die? And
Speaker 1: you know it, it's like it's just it's such so
Speaker 1: unpalatable for them to think about. And um, you know,
Speaker 1: one of the things that I pointed out is listen,
Speaker 1: you have creative work, if you care about the works
Speaker 1: that you've built during your lifetime, then we really need
Speaker 1: to put a plan together of how they're going to
Speaker 1: get managed to make sure that you're creative intent is
Speaker 1: followed through by whoever you put in charge. And you know,
Speaker 1: I think talking to him about that made him a
Speaker 1: little more interested in actually trying to, um, you know,
Speaker 1: put a plan together because it wasn't focused as much
Speaker 1: on I'm going to be I'm going to die. It
Speaker 1: was more of if something happens to me, you know,
Speaker 1: what does this look like? And I think that especially
Speaker 1: with LUSA Marie and everything that's happened with the Elvis
Speaker 1: to state, there's so many questions there about, um, you know,
Speaker 1: what things should they get involved in? What type of
Speaker 1: advertising should they let the creative you know, name enlightness
Speaker 1: and image be involved in that. You know, it's somewhat
Speaker 1: surprising to me that she wouldn't have spent a little
Speaker 1: more time on that because that issue has been so
Speaker 1: hotly contested with a lot of celebrities estates. So I
Speaker 1: agree with you, but I would say it's not uncommon. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: apparently though what I've been reading is she may actually
Speaker 1: have creditors and all the I R S money, So
Speaker 1: that's something that the estate will have to deal with, right,
Speaker 1: that's right, And um, you know, whether or not they
Speaker 1: could actually see the assets if they're in an entity
Speaker 1: you know, will be a question that gets looked at.
Speaker 1: But generally, the first thing that happens when somebody is
Speaker 1: administering in a state when somebody passed away is they
Speaker 1: have to pay any lawful creditors and you deal with
Speaker 1: those issues and any estate tax owed to the I
Speaker 1: R S within nine months of somebody passing away, So
Speaker 1: that needs to be handled off the top. So if
Speaker 1: there aren't other assets to pay those predators, then it's
Speaker 1: the case where sometimes you have to loan against the
Speaker 1: assets that are in the trust, and there are some
Speaker 1: companies out there that would be that, or you would
Speaker 1: need to sell assets off in order to create the
Speaker 1: cash to pay the debt. Somebody has to take care
Speaker 1: of that, and I think that also is something that
Speaker 1: is a ton of work and for somebody to handle
Speaker 1: that who has never done it before without the help
Speaker 1: of managers and people who you know, understand how this works.
Speaker 1: I think it would be a pretty big undertaking for
Speaker 1: her director step into because I saw these articles that said, oh,
Speaker 1: it's a money grab or does it depend on the
Speaker 1: trust how much the trustee makes um. It does depend
Speaker 1: on the trust. There can be um a provision in
Speaker 1: the trust that actually dictates how much the trust he
Speaker 1: has paid UM. But California has a statutory amounts that
Speaker 1: individual who's being the executor of an estate or trustee
Speaker 1: can be charged, and it's a sliding scale, so it's
Speaker 1: four percent of the first hundred thousand, three percent of
Speaker 1: the next hundred and it's calculated based on the total
Speaker 1: value of the estate. So it's hard to say exactly
Speaker 1: what it is. But again, somebody can put into a
Speaker 1: trust document different provisions if they choose to, for the
Speaker 1: work that's being done by that role, and it sometimes
Speaker 1: lose some money grabbed for people. You know, I would
Speaker 1: be curious as to whether her mom had been charging
Speaker 1: for that role as trustee in the past, because if
Speaker 1: she had, the fees would probably be along the same lines,
Speaker 1: and the court would probably be inclined to keep them
Speaker 1: as to what they were being paid during her lifetime
Speaker 1: because it might indicate that was you know, the arrangement
Speaker 1: that they wanted, so she may not have been charging
Speaker 1: at all, and she may not charge in the future.
Speaker 1: It's not uncommon for family members who are serving trustee
Speaker 1: to to not charge for them. Thanks so much for
Speaker 1: being on the show, Sarah, that's true us in a
Speaker 1: State's attorney. Sarah Wentz, a partner at Fox Rothschild. And
Speaker 1: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 1: week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg