Showing posts with label legal filings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal filings. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 12, 2022

Wyoming Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal In Disney Heir Lawsuit

By Jim Angell

A lawsuit filed by the grandson of Walt Disney over the disposition of land in Teton County should be decided in California, Wyoming’s Supreme Court has ruled.

The court on Wednesday turned down Brad Lund in his attempt to have a lawsuit over the sale of a plot of land known as Eagle South Fork Ranch near Wilson heard in Teton County.

Justices unanimously upheld a state district court’s ruling that justice would be better served if Lund’s challenge was heard in a California court rather than one in Wyoming.

“The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the California court was an available and adequate alternate forum,” said the ruling written by Chief Justice Kate Fox.

The ruling is the latest in a long series of legal battles between Lund, his sister Michelle Lund and the trustees for both of the trusts maintained for the two.

Brad and Michelle Lund are the children of Sharon Disney-Lund, the daughter of Walt Disney.

Their father bought the 110-acre ranch and after their mother’s death, the ranch was placed in residuary trusts for the two children, with each trust owning 50% of the land.

According to the ruling, since 2009, Brad Lund and the trustees have been involved in a lawsuit in California probate court over numerous elements of the trust, including ways assets should be divided between the trusts of Brad and Michelle.

In 2019, trustees agreed to let Bradford buy his sister’s interest in the Eagle South Fork Ranch for $9.7 million rather than sell the land to an outside party.

In September 2020, the trustees announced they had received an offer of $35 million for the property, which they intended to accept. Michelle withdrew her consent to her brother’s purchase of the land.

Brad then filed a complaint against his sister and the trustees in state district court in Teton County, saying they breached the terms of an agreement for the purchase of the land.

The trustees and Michelle asked that the lawsuit be dismissed because all of the other legal actions surrounding the trusts were taking part in California.

The state district court granted the request and Brad challenged it to the Wyoming Supreme Court, saying the action involved a Wyoming property, so it made sense to hear the challenge in Wyoming.

But the Supreme Court which agreed it made more sense to pursue legal action in California because it was actually part of a larger probate case in that state.

“The California court has an extensive history with these parties and their trust disputes, and the district court reasonably concluded that the more efficient course was to have that court preside over this dispute as well,” the ruling said.

In addition, all of the parties, witnesses and evidence in the case are located outside of Wyoming, the ruling said.

Full Article & Source:
 
See Also: 
 

Sunday, October 24, 2021

Wyoming Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Disney Ranch Sale

By Ellen Fike

The attorneys for the grandson of Walt Disney will argue their case to block the sale of his family’s ranch in Teton County until his appeal of a lower court’s decision on the issue can be heard in front of the Wyoming Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The case involves Bradford Disney Lund’s appeal of a lower court’s decision in January to dismiss his lawsuit challenging the sale of the ranch near Wilson he owns with his sister. The ranch has been in the family since Lund’s father, William Lund, purchased it more than 40 years ago.

Jackson attorney Chris Hawks told Cowboy State Daily on Tuesday that the legal team expected to hear a decision from the Wyoming Supreme Court within six months of the hearing, but that timeline could change.

“We’re arguing that Bradford Lund is one of the beneficial owners of the ranch,” Lund attorney Sandra Slaton told Cowboy State Daily. “He has a vested interest in that ranch. The trust legally owns the ranch, but the trustees are supposed to do what is in the beneficiary’s best interest.”

This appeal is the latest in Lund’s attempt to keep trustees from selling the 110-acre Eagle South Fork ranch near Wilson against his will.

The ranch has remained in residuary trusts for Lund and his sister following the death of their mother, Sharon Disney Lund.

“To keep the ranch means a lot to me,” Lund told Cowboy State Daily on Tuesday. “It would be a very big loss for the family history to sell that ranch.”

The trustees include L. Andrew Gifford, Robert L. Wilson, Douglas Strode, and the financial trustee bank, the First Republic Trust Co.

Lund is challenging efforts by the trustees to sell the ranch to a third party, saying it would be a violation of his mother’s wishes that the ranch remain available for the use of her children.

Lund filed a lawsuit in state district court in Teton County to stop the trustees from selling the ranch and seeking a court order to make trustees comply with an earlier agreement to have the trust set up for Lund’s benefit pay $9.79 million to buy the half of the ranch held in the trust set up for his sister. The purchase would make Lund sole owner of the ranch.

The trustees then moved to dismiss the case to California instead of Wyoming because they claimed it was more convenient. The court granted that motion and dismissed the case.

Immediately after the decision was announced in January, the trustees announced they had an offer from a third party to buy the ranch.  If the ranch is sold, the trustees will each get a 2% commission, nearly $700,000, from the sale.

Lund is appealing the state district court’s decision, saying the judge abused his discretion when it found that “the private- and public-interest factors strongly outweighed the deference owed to (Lund’s) choice of forum,” according to a brief filed with the Supreme Court.

In his appeal Lund insists that the decision on the sale of Eagle South Fork be determined by Wyomingites that are close to the property and understand its true value and worth.

The legal action is one of several involving Lund and the trustees. He is suing in California courts over their management of five separate trusts established for his benefit.

Full Article & Source:
 
See Also: 
 

Wednesday, July 21, 2021

Grandson files appeal to return Disney ranch dispute in Wyoming

Bradford Lund, grandson of Walt Disney.


 by Ellen Gerst

The grandson of Walt Disney is continuing his legal battle with his own trustees for the ownership of a family ranch in Teton County.

Since September 2020, Bradford Lund has been attempting to keep Eagle South Fork, a 110-acre ranch in Wilson, in the family in keeping with his father’s wishes.

Lund’s trustees are reportedly in the process of selling the ranch for an estimated $35 million to an undisclosed buyer, after the first potential buyer backed out in the midst of the litigation.

Right now, the case has been dismissed to Los Angeles County Superior Court, after Lund’s trustees argued it would be more convenient for them to have it tried in California. A motion to keep the case in Wyoming was denied in April.

On July 7, Lund and his attorneys filed an appeal of that decision in Wyoming Supreme Court, in hopes of keeping the ongoing case nearer to the ranch itself.

“It’s a Wyoming ranch,” said Sandra Slaton, Lund’s attorney based in Arizona. “It should be tried before a Wyoming jury.”

Slaton said keeping the case in California serves the trustees interests, since Wyoming is one of only a handful of states that don’t recognize out-of-state lis pendens, or notices of pending litigation. In most states, a lis pendens clouds the title of land to be sold and often delays the sale. Moving the case to Wyoming would likely discourage a buyer from going through with the disputed deal.

Currently, the sale is slated to go through this fall.

According to Slaton, an attempt to file a temporary restraining order in Los Angeles to pause the sale was denied earlier this year.

“It has been very traumatic for me,” Lund said last week. “It’s got some great memories and a lot of good scenery that everybody loves up there. It’s prime property.”

Lund has been locked in a dispute with his trustees for years over the distribution of his inheritance. Every five years between Lund’s 35th and 45th birthdays — all of which have now passed — he was intended to receive around $20 million of that money.

But based on the trustees’ claims that he is mentally incompetent, the money has been withheld. While rejecting a settlement in 2019 which would have awarded Lund around $200 million, a judge in California ruled to appoint a guardian ad litem for Lund in the case — a move usually reserved for children or those who can’t understand the proceedings themselves.

“Do I want to give 200 million dollars, effectively, to someone who may suffer, on some level, from Down syndrome?” Judge David Cowan said in the hearing, according to court filings. “The answer is no.”

Lund does not have Down syndrome, according to a test of his genes often cited by his attorneys. Two other judges in California and Arizona, where Lund spends most of his time, also previously ruled he was competent enough to handle the matter.

A civil rights claim filed against Cowan was dismissed last week, since he is protected by judicial immunity and the case moved to another judge’s docket. The guardian ad litem was also removed from Lund’s case.

Lund and his twin sister, Michelle, each own 50% of the ranch through their respective trusts.

In January, Lund’s team of trustees gave him about a week’s notice to come up with $35 million of his own money — not drawn from his trust — to buy the ranch outright, or else it would be eligible for sale.

The trustees also said they would be taking a 2% “marketing fee” for facilitating the sale, which lawyers say is extremely unusual. Under trust law, trustees are obligated to make decisions with only the good of their beneficiary in mind — in this case, Lund.

Full Article & Source:
 
See Also: 
 

Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Disney Grandson Bradford Lund Demands "Hostile" Trustees Not Pay Legal Fees to Their Law Firm From His Trust Funds

Court of Appeal upholds Lund's petition in one sentence - rejecting Trustees and their counsel's opposition to the right to replace a judge as a matter of law

Lund sees "negligence" and "indifference" to the law in filing by Trustees' law firm, Mitchell Silberberg and Knupp

 
News provided by
Lanny Davis

LOS ANGELES, March 5, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Walt Disney's grandson, Bradford D. Lund, today sent a letter to his four trustees – L. Andrew Gifford, Robert L. Wilson, Douglas M. Strode, and the First Republic Trust Company (collectively "the Trustees") – demanding that they refrain from using any trust funds for which he is the beneficiary to pay any legal fees to the Trustees' law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp ("MSK").  

Lund won a decisive victory on February 23, 2021 when the California Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the Trustees' and MSK's attempt to block Lund's request for a new judge and issued an alternative writ ordering the lower court judge to vacate his prior order denying the peremptory challenge and issue an order granting the same. Alternatively, the appellate panel issued an Order to Show cause why it should not issue a Writ of Mandate. The appellate panel's decision in favor of Lund was made in a single sentence, rejecting the 33-page filing by MSK at the behest of the "hostile" Trustees, as Lund referred to them in his letter. In its decision, the Court of Appeal cited the clear California precedent virtually ignored by the Trustees' attorneys, MSK, but cited by Lund's lawyers: 

"Opposing counsel on behalf of the [Trustees] were finally forced to admit the indisputable precedent of Truck Insurance Exchange and Grant (of which they were aware when Mr. Lund initially requested Judge Suzuki to correct his original denial) that: A previously denied § 170.6 challenge does not remove that party's one opportunity to duly and timely file another." – Lund's Reply to Trustees' Opposition to Writ.

Lund wrote in his letter to the Trustees: "MSK should not be paid legal fees out of my or my sister's trust," citing the summary dismissal of MSK's opposition to his motion. 

He continued: "You are also on notice that I continue to believe that each of you individually and collectively have again taken actions hostile to my interests in what I feel is clear violation of your fiduciary duties owed to me.  I am still seriously considering taking additional legal action for this and past violations of your duties." 

Lund wrote that the Trustees and MSK "should be embarrassed" by the Court of Appeal's summary dismissal and repeated his demand that the Trustees "not use any trust funds associated with the trust of which I am the beneficiary to pay MSK."

Contact: Alex Lange
alange@tridentdmg.com 
(202) 480-4309

SOURCE Lanny Davis

Full Article & Source:
 
See Also:

Wednesday, March 3, 2021

Disney family Jackson Hole property subject of legal battle

Photo by Ryan Dorgan, Jackson Hole News&Guide The Disney family’s Eagle South Fork ranch off Fall Creek Road is made up of 110 acres of meadows, including Fish Creek and the Snake River bottoms. The land is at the center of a dispute between two grandchildren of the famous Walt Disney and the trustees who control their estate.

By: Mark Huffman

JACKSON — Trustees for two grandchildren of Walt Disney have taken the first steps leading to development on Fall Creek Road property that is the object of a legal battle.

The heirs, their trustees and lawyers are contending for control of an estate said to be worth near $400 million.

The local angle in the yearslong fight is 110 acres south of Wilson near Mosquito Creek, occupied by a single house and barn, and also about what can be done on neighboring subdivided lots.

It pits Bradford Disney Lund against his twin sister, Michelle Lund, and trustees who control their estate, set up by their mother, Sharon Disney Lund, a daughter of Mickey Mouse and Disneyland creator Walt Disney. Bradford Lund claims his sister and the trustees are trying to cut him from any control of the Fall Creek property and perhaps sell it.

Lund said over the weekend that there is “no other piece of property like it in the county” and that his parents hoped to see it stay as it is for the use of their children. Lund, 50, said his father “wanted the ranch to be kept in the family for generations to come.”

“I like keeping it the way it is, simple,” Lund said. “It’s quiet and peaceful; you’ve got wildlife all around you.”

One of the lawyers involved on Lund’s behalf is Lanny Davis, a special counsel to Bill Clinton for three years, including during Clinton’s 1998 impeachment trial. Davis called the situation a “family civil war.” Other lawyers are Sandra Slaton, an Arizona attorney long involved in the case, and, in Jackson, Chris Hawks.

Though the legal battle remains undecided, one of the trustees, California developer Doug Strode, has hired Jackson consulting firm Y2 Consultants and taken steps to allow development of a large part of the disputed land.

Lund is fighting efforts by trustees to sell the land, which he visits several times a year, in spite of what he says are recent attempts to deny him use. He was told in January that he had five days to come up with $35 million to buy all the land or the trustees could go ahead with their plans to sell. Davis said that price was a big boost from an earlier agreement that put the value of Lund’s half of the parcel at $9.76 million.

Attorney Davis said “the sale of this family ranch against Mr. Lund’s wishes by these trustees is part of a long pattern of alleged violations of their fiduciary duties and alleged self enrichment.”

He also criticized the price and 2 percent fee they want to charge. The higher, $35 million price, Davis said, is designed to benefit the trustees and neither of the Lunds.

In an Arizona court filing, Davis and his colleagues said, “trustees” did not explain that the higher price, under the terms of the trust, will not benefit Mr. Lund or his twin sister, beneficiaries of the trust.

“But the higher price does benefit Mr. Strode and his three trustees because they are taking a 2 percent additional commission on the sale, in addition to the 2.5 percent real estate commission they are paying — both out of trust funds.”

The filings also charge that the sale and 2 percent fee trustees would pay themselves “is part of a long pattern of alleged violations of their fiduciary duties and alleged self-enrichment.”

Bradford Lund told the News&Guide that the sale the trustees intend is “to make a profit off it, which is wrong ... it benefits them and not us.

“I have strong feelings about how the trustees have treated me,” he said. “It’s a disgrace.”

Trustees for the Lund estate did not respond to requests for comment.

Davis said in filings that the trustees and their attorneys “have given false and slanderous statements about Mr. Lund and his family to several media outlets, causing Mr. Lund and his Arizona family extreme stress.”

The estranged siblings have — or at least their representatives have — each claimed the other is incompetent to handle their own affairs. In Bradford’s case the insinuation has been that he has Down syndrome, which he denies, a rebuttal endorsed by a DNA test and an Arizona judge in a separate clash in the family war. Sister Michelle has at times been said to be being manipulated by trustees after a 2009 brain aneurysm.

In California legal action the trustees have blocked Bradford from receiving payouts from the family trust that were due when he turned 35, 40 and 45. He receives about $120,000 a year from trusts set up for him; the trustees he is fighting are said in one court filing to “receive fees exceeding $500,000 year ... more as a fee than Bradford receives as a beneficiary.” Lund’s representatives also claim trustees have paid $8 million from the trust to lawyers to fight his claims and maintain their control.

The Fall Creek land was purchased as a trust for Bradford and Michelle by their parents, Bill and Sharon, both now dead. Bill Lund was a real estate man who married into the Disney family in 1968 and who listed among his deals scouting the site that became Walt Disney World near Orlando, Florida. He adopted Bradford and Michelle, the children of Sharon and her ex-husband.

Lund’s case to stop any sale of the Fall Creek land was filed in Jackson in Ninth District Court. Judge Tim Day later allowed the case to be transferred to California when the trustees argued it would be “convenient” for them to have it heard there.

Hawks, Lund’s Jackson attorney, filed to have any sale put off, and Lund’s attorneys have fought to have the case decided in Wyoming. There’s currently a stay in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Full Article & Source:
 
See Also:

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

Walt Disney’s grandson fights to save family Wyoming ranch

by Vince Bodiford

The Code of the West says, “Remember that some things aren’t for sale,” but Disney heir’s California trustees have different designs on the ranch

(CHEYENNE, WY) A picturesque 110-acre Wyoming ranch in Teton County is at the center of a multi-million-dollar battle by Walt Disney's grandson, Bradford Disney Lund, to secure control of the inheritance put in trust for Lund by his mother, Sharon D. Lund.

The Code of the West seems to elude Lund, who hopes that the Wyoming ranch will continue to be retained by the trust as was intended for use and enjoyment by him and his family. Lund is ensnarled in California's notoriously abusive-prone probate system. As full as Walt Disney was with imagination, he likely would have never dreamt that such an unhappy circumstance would unfold for his grandson.

Hanging in the balance is "Eagle South Fork," the family ranch that is located in Wilson, Wyoming, in Teton County, in the shadow of Grand Teton, not far from Jackson Hole. It's been a Disney family treasure for decades.

But the California trustees of the estate have different designs on that ranch and recently sent Lund a letter demanding that he buy the very ranch of which his trust already owns one-half, or they'll sell it to other outside buyers for millions, which would be contrary to his mother's clear intent according to Lund's filings. In that letter, his trustees – who by law should only act in his best interests – gave him just a few days to pay up with his personal funds at a higher price than would be the case if the ranch were restricted to family uses and contrary to what the trustees and his sister had previously agreed.

In an exclusive interview with The Cheyenne Post, Lund said that "the ranch isn't for sale, I don't want it sold," making it clear that he wants the ranch to stay in the family to continue to enjoy, and not break up and develop. The California trustees apparently have never heard of one of the Codes of the West – "Remember that some things aren't for sale."

Concerning the sale of the Wyoming ranch, Lund objects to any such sale, stating that it would be in violation of the family's long history over 40 years of wanting to keep the 110-acre ranch for the children's use and enjoyment during their lifetimes.

So, Lund went into the district court in Teton County to stop the trustees from selling the ranch to outsiders against Lund's wishes. The Trustees attempted to move the case to California instead of Wyoming because they claimed it was more convenient. The trustees apparently believe that a California court might be more friendly and certainly a world away from understanding Wyoming and better to decide the fate of that little patch of Wyoming ground. The court agreed to transfer the case to California and dismiss Lund's case.

However, Lund recently filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which would, in effect, allow the judge to take another look at his decision to transfer the case to California. If the judge does not change his transfer ruling, Lund intends to appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court.

In our exclusive interview with Bradford Lund this week, he shared ranch stories– most stories were happy, and some were sad.

Happy stories recall his father, Bill Lund, developing and building the ranch decades ago, and Lund helped his father set fenceposts (a Wyoming art form), fly-fishing on Fish Creek (the ranch is on the banks of the creek, itself on the edge of Snake River), horseback and ATV adventures and more.

Among the most moving is Brad's desire to establish a permanent memorial for his father on the ranch that Brad says his dad loved so much and always intended to remain with the family. "I'd like for my father's ashes to rest on this ranch (allowed in Wyoming)," Lund said.

Sad stories were – frankly – shocking. Previously able to use and enjoy the ranch whenever he and his family wished, Lund said they have been essentially alienated and deterred from enjoying the ranch due to the trustees' conduct.

"I feel that we were treated viciously by the trustees," he said. Lund also claimed, "the trustees have shown hostility towards me by demanding I move my personal items contained in my bedroom at the ranch to the garage contrary to my custom for the previous 25 years. Also, the trustees ordered that the property of my family, who visit the ranch with me, be removed from the ranch completely. I believe that these actions by the trustees are for the sole purpose of harassing and exerting control over me, demonstrating their consistent hostility towards me. They boxed up all of our possessions and sent them to us."

When Lund tried to place some personal items back at the ranch, "they put my stuff in trash bags and threw it all away."

In my conversation with him that lasted over an hour, Lund very clearly and concisely articulated stories and long-ago memories of enjoying the ranch over the years with his family and the details of his dispute with the trustees that go back years.

"All I want is my freedom, to have what is mine," he said. He clearly has a firm understanding of the complexities of his estate and how he wants to preserve and manage it. Lund said the trustees have kept control of his estate by falsely asserting he isn't competent to manage it himself, despite the fact that an Arizona judge after an extensive trial found that he was competent to handle his personal and financial affairs. This finding was confirmed all the way up to the Arizona Supreme Court. His twin sister Michelle Lund in sworn court testimony, agreed.

When reached by telephone and asked about the issues, Newport Beach, CA. based Douglas M. Strode, one of the trustees, answered questions about the ranch and Mr. Lund with a simple answer, "no comment."

Disney's grandson was recently forced to file court papers in the Los Angeles County Superior Court asking to block his four trustees: L. Andrew Gifford, Robert L. Wilson, Douglas M. Strode, and the First Republic Trust Company, from selling the ranch, according to an attorney representing him - Lanny J. Davis.

For nearly the past decade, Lund has battled estranged family members, trustees, and probate court officials, proving again and again that he ismentally fit to manage an inheritance worth over $400-million. He's had to prove that he doesn't have Down syndrome, as a California judge wrongfully asserted, despite being presented with DNA evidence contradicting his speculation. A court in Arizona even agreed and found Lund capable of handling his affairs.

In representing the Disney heir, attorney Lanny Davis is no stranger to complex legal matters. He served as special counsel to then-President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s and as privacy and civil liberties advisor to President George W. Bush from 2006-2007 and represented President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Davis chose to join the Lund legal team out of his concern for the injustices done to Lund.

Mr. Lund's choice of attorney, also including renowned Scottsdale litigator Sandra Slaton, might alone quash any doubts about his ability to manage his affairs.

According to legal filings, the four trustees themselves agreed that the ranch had special personal value to the Lund family – that it was of a "particular nature" with a "connection to the Lund family."

Lund asserted in his court papers that the new proposed sale would be a violation of a prior deal for him to acquire his twin sister's other half of the ranch share, and the 40-year intent of Mr. Lund's parents to keep the Ranch in the Trust for the children's lifetime use and enjoyment. "Our family has always treasured the pristine environment – the rivers and streams and forests and wildlife – of our ranch over many years. We do not want it to be changed."

In his filings, Lund asserted: "An undeniable benefit will be to the Trustees based upon their Real Estate Fee. The Trustees will receive 2% of the purchase price." The trustees have described this fee as "extraordinary." According to the terms of Lund's and his twin sister's trusts, as explained in the legal filings, neither Mr. Lund nor his sister would personally receive an economic benefit if the ranch were sold at the higher price based on commercial subdivisions of the ranch.

Saving the Wyoming ranch would be one step closer for Bradford Lund toward putting the family disputes the trustees created behind him and living his life in peace and freedom.


Full Article & Source:
 
See Also: