- 9 -
act on behalf of the trusts and bring the instant case
before this Court. * * *
12. The capacity of Mr. Chisum and/or Mr. Wilde
to act under Arizona law and bring the instant suit in
this Court has not been established. For the foregoing
reasons, and the reasons detailed in respondent’s
original Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
filed with the Court on or about November 27, 1998, and
incorporated herein by this reference, the Court should
dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners filed a reply to respondent’s objection to
petitioners’ motion. In that reply, petitioners contend in
pertinent part:
The Respondent’s objection goes to the management
of the trusts, their internal affairs, concerns about
their administration, the declaration of rights and the
determinations of matters involving the trustees. This
issue falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
superior court here in the State of Arizona. See
A.R.S. � 14-7201. Under the circumstances, this court
is powerless to determine whether the Petitioner’s
change of Trustees is valid. The Petitioners need not
remind the Court of the consequences of taking any
action over which subject matter is completely lacking.
The internal affairs, administration and the rights and
determinations of matters involving the Trustees is
just one of those areas where this court is completely
lacking in subject matter jurisdiction. Any objection
the Respondent or Respondent’s counsel has in this area
must be taken up in the Superior Court, assuming of
course the Respondent or Respondent’s counsel has
standing. The irony is of course, if Respondent or
Respondent’s counsel does take the matter up with the
Superior Court, where the Respondent will have the
burden of proof, and the Superior Court finds that the
Trusts are valid, then the Respondent will be barred by
res judicata from asserting the sham trust claim that
forms the basis for his deficiency determination.
What this court really faces, in dealing with the
Respondent’s claims in the objection to the substitu-
tion of fiduciary and in the Motion to Dismiss, is that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011