- 6 -
Respondent filed an objection to petitioner’s motion (re-
spondent’s objection). That objection asserts in pertinent part:
4. In response to respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Jurisdiction, petitioner provided to this
Court copies of documents alleging that Prudent Man
Trustee Co. was removed as trustee and that Jimmy C.
Chisum and John P. Wilde have been appointed successor
trustees of the petitioner trust.
5. There is absolutely no evidence from which the
Court can adduce that the documents referred to in
paragraph 4., above, create a legal assignment of
either Mr. Chisum and/or Mr. Wilde as successor trust-
ees. The documents petitioner submitted appear to be
self-serving and created solely in response to respon-
dent’s original Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdic-
tion.
6. Petitioner has provided no evidence that said
assignments are valid or authorized under the terms of
the trust indenture (assuming one exists).
7. If the initial trustee or any successor trust-
ees thereafter were, in fact, an entity called Prudent
Man Trustee Co., petitioner should be required to
produce credible evidence establishing the legal exis-
tence and validity of that entity.
8. Without the evidence described above in para-
graph 7., petitioner has failed to demonstrate that
either Mr. Chisum and/or Mr. Wilde were legally
appointed as subsequent trustees authorized to act on
behalf of the trusts [sic] and bring the instant case
before this Court. See T.C. Rule 60(c).
9. The capacity of Mr. Chisum and/or Mr. Wilde to
bring the instant suit in this Court has not been
established.
The Court held a hearing on respondent’s motion and peti-
tioner’s motion (hearing), at which Mr. Chisum appeared on behalf
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011