- 19 -- 19 -
was over and the Court had pointed out the inconsistencies in
Mr. Chisum’s prior documents.
Second, Mr. Chisum has not shown that he ever had authority
to act for Four WS TT01, petitioner’s claimed first trustee. The
record does not contain any documentary evidence establishing the
existence of Four WS TT01, describing Four WS TT01, or stating
who had authority to act on Four WS TT01's behalf. Moreover, we
did not find credible Mr. Chisum’s testimony about Four WS TT01
and his authority to act for Four WS TT01.
Mr. Chisum’s failure to show his authority to act for Four
WS TT01 is alone fatal to petitioner’s position. The record
contains a document that purportedly evidences Four WS TT01's
resignation as trustee and its consent to the appointment of
Hamilton Florida as successor trustee. However, this document
was signed by Mr. Chisum, purportedly on behalf of Four WS TT01.
If Mr. Chisum did not have authority to act for Four WS TT01,
then none of the entities Mr. Chisum claims were successor
trustees of petitioner was properly appointed, including Mr.
Chisum himself.
Third, there are problems with the proof relating to Mr.
Chisum’s claimed chain of trusteeship, in addition to the
problems relating to Four WS TT01. For example, the record does
not contain any original documents demonstrating the appointment
of Mr. Chisum as trustee in 1997. Mr. Chisum claims the document
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011