- 17 -- 17 -
or if it is, how and why petitioner’s domicile and governing law
were changed from Nevada to Delaware to California.
We resolve this problem by assuming for argument’s sake
that, if Mr. Chisum was petitioner’s trustee as he claims, he had
authority to institute litigation on behalf of petitioner under
relevant State law.13
Mr. Chisum claims he is the latest in a long line (or chain)
of entities who have served as petitioner’s trustee. According
to Mr. Chisum, the following entities (or persons) served as
petitioner’s trustee, from petitioner’s formation in 1990 until
the time of the hearing:
Period Claimed Trustee
June 15, 1990, to Oct. 1, Four WS TT01
1991
Oct. 1, 1991, to May 19, Hamilton Florida
1993
May 19, 1993, to sometime Hamilton Arizona
in 1997
Sometime in 1997 to time Mr. Chisum (personally)
of hearing
As shown in the foregoing table, Mr. Chisum claims that he
has served as petitioner’s trustee since 1997. Accordingly, he
13 See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. sec. 14-7233.C.25 (West
1995) (trustee may commence litigation on behalf of trust); Cal.
Probate Code sec. 16249(a) (West Supp. 2000) (same); Nev. Rev.
Stat. Ann. secs. 163.260, 163.375 (Michie 1993) (trustee may
commence litigation on behalf of trust if trust instrument so
provides); Del. Ch. R. 17(a) (trustee of express trust may sue);
Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 17(a) (same).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011