- 4 -
Arizona under the name of, or in reference to, an
individual named John P. Wilde.
12. There is absolutely no evidence from which
the Court can adduce that there has been a legal as-
signment of John P. Wilde as the Co-Trustee of either
of the petitioner trusts.
13. Petitioners have provided no evidence that
Mr. Wilde’s appointment as Co-Trustee is valid or
authorized under the terms of the trust indentures
(assuming they exist).
14. At a minimum, petitioners should be required
to provide complete copies of the original trust docu-
ment(s) wherein the initial trustee is appointed.
Petitioners should also provide any and all documents
in the chain of appointments of subsequent trustees.
If the initial trustees or any successor trustees
thereafter were, in fact, an entity called D & E Sword
Company, petitioners should be required to produce
credible evidence establishing legal existence and
validity of that entity.
15. Without the evidence described above in
paragraph 14., petitioners have failed to demonstrate
that John P. Wilde was legally appointed as Co-Trustee
authorized to act on behalf of the 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. Petitioners’ response to
respondent’s motion 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. Wilde [is] the duly authorized
Trustee. The Petitioners need not remind the Court of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011