- 4 -
signify that they accepted the appointment as trustees.
In petitioner’s response, it further argues:
the issue concerning Mr. Wilde’s capacity as Trustee
falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the superior
court here in the State of Arizona. * * * At this
point, this court is without jurisdiction to examine
the matter beyond the minute[s] appointing Mr. Wilde as
Trustee and determine whether he is the duly authorized
Trustee. In absence of evidence to the contrary the
appointment of John P. Wilde as a Trustee, in the
minute[s] * * * is presumptively valid unless some
provision of Arizona Law or a court of competent
jurisdiction under the laws of the State of Arizona
have found that the appointment to be invalid. The
Petitioner need not remind the Court of the
consequences of taking any action over which subject
matter is completely lacking.
On March 15, 2000, respondent replied to petitioner’s
response. On June 5, 2000, we held a hearing on respondent’s
motion wherein Mr. Wilde appeared on behalf of petitioner.2 At
the hearing, Mr. Wilde submitted a document entitled “Trustee
Declaration and Certification” (certification) which was prepared
by Mr. Chisum, an alleged current trustee of petitioner. The
certification purports to describe petitioner’s chain of trustees
beginning with Morgan, Kramer and ending with Mr. Wilde and Mr.
Chisum. The certification also included an incomplete document
purporting to be the trust document of petitioner (purported
trust document).
2 At the hearing, the Court informed Mr. Wilde that its
allowing him to appear at the hearing as the alleged trustee of
petitioner did not mean that the Court agreed that he in fact was
a duly appointed and authorized trustee of petitioner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011