- 6 -
Banana Moon Trust and Purple Passion Trust jointly filed a
petition in this Court. That petition was signed on behalf of
each petitioner by J.C. Chisum as “Trustee”.
Respondent’s motion contends in pertinent part:
14. There is absolutely no evidence from which
the Court can adduce that Mr. Chisum is the current
trustee of either of the petitioner trusts.
15. Petitioners have provided no evidence that
the appointment of Mr. Chisum (as trustee) was valid or
authorized under the terms of the respective trust
indentures * * *.
16. * * * petitioners have failed to demonstrate
that Mr. Chisum was legally appointed as trustee of
either of the petitioner trusts and therefore, [is]
authorized to act on behalf of the petitioner trusts
and bring the instant case before this Court. See T.C.
Rule 60(c).
Petitioners filed a response to respondent’s motion in which
they ask the Court to deny that motion. That response asserts in
pertinent part:
3. The Respondent’s objection goes to the manage-
ment of the trusts, their internal affairs, concerns
about their administration, the declaration of rights
and the determinations of matters involving the trust-
ees. As the Respondent concedes that these are “Ari-
zona Trusts” * * *, this issue falls within the exclu-
sive jurisdiction of the superior court here in the
State of Arizona. See A.R.S. � 14-7201. At this
point, this court is without jurisdiction to determine
whether * * * Mr. Chisum is the duly authorized Trus-
tee. The Petitioners need not remind the Court of the
consequences of taking any action over which subject
matter is completely lacking.
4. Any objection the Respondent or Respondent’s
counsel has in this area must be taken up in the Supe-
rior Court here in Arizona, assuming of course the
Respondent or Respondent’s counsel has standing. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011