- 4 -
17. 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 the TMP
Trust.
18. Petitioner has provided no evidence that Mr.
Wilde’s appointment as Co-Trustee is valid or autho-
rized under the terms of the TMP trust indenture (as-
suming one exists).
* * * * * * *
20. * * * petitioner has failed to demonstrate
that John P. Wilde was legally appointed as Co-Trustee
authorized to act on behalf of the TMP trust and bring
the instant case before this Court. See T.C. Rule
60(c).
Petitioner filed an objection to respondent’s motion in
which it asks the Court to deny that motion. That objection
asserts in pertinent part:
3. The Respondent’s objection goes to the manage-
ment of the Trust, its internal affairs, concerns about
its administration, the declaration of rights and the
determinations of matters involving the trustee. As
the Respondent concedes that these [sic] are “Arizona
Trusts” [sic] * * *, 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 Petitioner need not remind the Court of
the consequences of taking any action over which sub-
ject 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
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 if the Superior Court finds that the Trusts
are valid, then the Respondent will be barred by res
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011