More and more information is coming out in regards to the Graceland estate and Priscilla Presley’s lawsuit involving Lisa Marie’s will.

It was discovered that Priscilla was making $900k a year from Elvis Presley Enterprises (EPE) despite not having a stake in the company.

The salary was appointed to Priscilla—unbeknownst to Lisa—by Lisa’s former business manager, Barry Siegel, who Lisa filed an amendment for him and Priscilla to be removed from the trust of Elvis’ estate in 2016, which previously named himself and Priscilla as co-trustees (along with Lisa’s daughter, Riley Keough, named co-trustee in 2010 alongside her grandmother).

Priscilla now has taken to court to invalidate the 2016 amendment, claiming “a failure to notify Priscilla Presley of the change as required, a misspelling of Priscilla Presley’s name in a document supposedly signed by her daughter, an atypical signature from Lisa Marie Presley, and a lack of a witness or notarization,” per CBS MoneyWatch.

Removing Priscilla and Siegel from the trust had appointed Lisa’s children, Riley and Ben Keough, as “adult children of the beneficiary”. Following Ben’s death in 2020, the trust would be in sole control of Riley, which includes the Graceland property and 15% of Elvis’ estate.

Benny Roshan, a probate, trusts, and estates litigation attorney in LA, told People that Priscilla may have a legitimate case and a good chance of winning her lawsuit filed last week.

“The law basically says follow whatever is in the document, and then the document says this is what you have to do,” Roshan explains, regarding the fact that the 2010 stipulation required any changes to the trust must be presented to Priscilla, which she claims did not happen. “So if the court is looking at it and truly those procedures were not followed, Priscilla has a good case of arguing that this new document that essentially replaces her is not valid. That’s a good point if it was never followed.”

Priscilla is arguing for the original 2010 document to hold up, naming herself and Riley as co-trustees, without the changes made from the 2016 amendment. It is believed that Siegel will remain out of the trust.

“In the 2010 document, if Barry Siegel is not available to serve as a successful trustee, then Riley steps in to serve along with Priscilla,” Roshan added, “because the intention of the document as it’s written, is that there’ll be two co-trustees acting at any given point.”

A hearing for the case is set for April 13. If there are no objections, it should be a pretty straightforward trial, lasting only a few months. However, any objections can lead to a years-long case.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *