Presley v. Presley-Lockwood [Eliza Presley/Vernon’s Daughter]

Case No: CH-09-1696-2 (Tenn. Ch. Shelby Cty)
Eliza Presley

In this case, the “Presley” is Eliza Presley (aka Alice Elizabeth Tiffin) and “Presley-Lockwood” is Lisa-Marie. Eliza claims she is Vernon’s illegitimate daughter and wants to be declared as such, so that she can take her share of his estate.

This case, which was pursued for a while, has now been dropped after evidence proved Eliza is not related to the Presleys. Earlier, the case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds but Eliza was trying to find the funding to reopen the case in the correct court.

Eliza had claimed she had obtained DNA evidence from Elvis (who is still living under the name of Jessie Presley!) confirming she is Vernon Presley’s biological daughter. It also appears that Eliza, under the name Alice Elizabeth McFarland has quite a long criminal history. Her criminal records in Washington state (free) and Texas (for a fee) can be searched online.

Also, as someone who has studied legal writing, I’m pretty appalled at the quality of the documents produced by Eliza’s attorney. There are so many inconsistencies in formatting, grammar, punctuation, etc. – pretty shoddy for court documents!

Having said all that, this case is actually pretty interesting and has been documented extensively on The Probate Lawyer Blog. Below are links to these blog posts, as well as various other web pages and documents that provide details of this case.


The Probate Lawyer Blog Posts

Other Online Articles


Documents Available Below


Eliza Presley’s Complaint (08/14/2009)


IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
FOR THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS


ELIZA A. PRESLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

LISA MARIE PRESLEY-LOCKWOOD,
the SURVIVING HEIRS OF VERNON E. PRESLEY
and UNKNOWN HEIRS OF VERNON E. PRESLEY,

Defendants.

CASE NO:____________________


COMPLAINT


Come now the Plaintiff, Eliza A. Presley, by and through her counsel of record, Glenwood P. Roane, Sr., and files this Complaint against Defendants, Lisa Marie Presley-Lockwood, and other unknown heirs of Vernon E. Presley, and would show the Court the following:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff will show to this Court that jurisdiction and venue is appropriate in this court inasmuch as the original action arose in Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee in the Probate Court of Shelby County, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is an adult resident citizen of Spokane County, Washington with a mailing address of 407 South Ferrall Street, Spokane, Washington 99202.

2. The Defendant, Lisa Marie Presley-Lockwood, resides in the State of California, whose address is unknown, and may be reached with service of process by publication.

3. The Defendant, unknown heirs of Vernon E. Presley, whose identity and addresses are unknown, may be reached with service of process by publication.

II. FACTS

1. The Plaintiff herein filed her Petition to Reopen Estate, to Appoint Administrator C.TA., to Determine Heirship, and to Redistribute Net Estate timely with the Probate Court of Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee, Cause No. D-5830. An Order Dismissing Without Prejudice Claimant’s Claims and Vacating Order Re-Open Estate was entered on January 26, 2009.

Lisa Marie Presley and Michael Lockwood

2. The Plaintiff would show to this Court, through the attached DNA test results that she is the biological daughter of Vernon Elvis Presley, who died on the 26th day of June, 1979, a citizen and resident of Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee.

3. The Plaintiff would show to this Court, through the attached DNA test results, that she is the half-sister of Elvis A. Presley.

4. That on June 29, 1979, the Last Will and Testament of Vernon Elvis Presley and the First Codicil to his Last Will and Testament of Vernon Elvis Presley, respectively, as the whole, true Last Will and Testament and First Codicil to Last Will and Testament of Vernon Elvis Presley, in Cause No. A-4206 was admitted to the Probate Court of Shelby County. Tennessee. Said estate was fully administered, and closed by Order of the Court on September 11, 1985.

5. Said Last Will and Testament and said Codicil did not recognize Eliza A. Presley as his daughter.

6. Eliza A. Presley was born in Pasadena, Texas on January 23, 1962.

7. During Plaintiff’s early years as an adult. Eliza A. Presley began to search for her father, to learn his identity.

8. Finally, in mid-summer, 2008, Eliza A. Presley learned for the first time who her biological father was, namely Vernon Elvis Presley; same and known father of Elvis A. and Jessie G. Presley. (See attached DNA test results).

9. This Petition filed in the Probate Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, was filed within 70 days of learning the identity of her father. Petitioner has been diligent in her search, and it is only after recent DNA testing results that she has proof of her parentage. DNA technology was non-existent at the time of Vernon E. Presley’s death.

10. Eliza A. Presley is the biological daughter of Vernon Elvis Presley, and is entitled to be recognized as his daughter, and should be determined by this Court, through the attached DNA test results, that she is the daughter of Vernon Elvis Presley and the half-Sister of Elvis A. Presley.

11. Notice of this Petition should be served by Summons to the known and unknown surviving heirs of Vernon Elvis Presley, and by publication, namely: Lisa Marie Presley-Lockwood, the only known surviving heir of Vernon Elvis Presley, and other unknown heirs.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff asks for the following relief:

A. That proper process issue in accordance with law, giving notice to the known and unknown surviving heirs of Vernon Elvis Presley (by publication) and requiring them to show cause if any they might have why relief should not be granted as prayed for;

B. That Eliza A. Presley be declared the daughter of Vernon Elvis Presley and the half-sister of Elvis A. Presley;

C. That Eliza A. Presley be awarded all other relief to which she may be entitled under the premises, including award of her reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.

D. That the attachments of the DNA results be placed under seal until process issues and the matter is before the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

 
By: /s/Glenwood P. Roane
Glenwood P. Roane, Sr. #021358
217 Exchange Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 526- 1889
Facsimile: (901) 526-1894


1. ep-complaint

Download Eliza Presley’s Complaint (PDF)



Eliza Presley’s Motion for Default Judgment (08/06/2010)


IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
FOR THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS


ELIZA A. PRESLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

LISA MARIE PRESLEY-LOCKWOOD,
the SURVIVING HEIRS OF VERNON E. PRESLEY
and UNKNOWN HEIRS OF VERNON E. PRESLEY,

Defendants.

CASE NO: CH-09-1696-2


NOTICE OF APPLICATION
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT


Plaintiff, Eliza A. Presley, pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 55.01 hereby gives Notice to Defendants, Lisa Marie Presley-Lockwood, the Surviving Heirs of Vernon E. Presley and Unknown Heirs of Vernon E. Presley, of this her Application/Motion to the Court for Default Judgment and in support states:

1. On August 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed her Complaint to Determine Parentage and Heirship against Defendants, Lisa Marie Presley-Lockwood, the Surviving Heirs of Vernon E. Presley and Unknown Heirs of Vernon E. Presley. Proper process against all Defendants was issued by the Clerk of the Court, namely notice by publication through The Daily News Publishing, Inc. which ran August 21, August 28, September 4, and September 11, 2009.

2. No answer or responsive pleading has been filed by Defendants and more than thirty (30) days have expired since the last notice was published to Defendants.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff hereby applies for entry of Default Judgment as to each and every Defendant seeking an order of Default Judgment.

 
Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/Kathleen Caldwell
Kathleen L. Caldwell, #9916
2670 Union Avenue Ext., Suite 110
Telephone: (901) 458-4035
Facsimile: (901) 458-4037

CERTIFICATE OF NON-SERVICE

I hereby certify that Plaintiff and the undersigned attorney do not have last known addresses for the Defendants, after diligent search and inquiry.

This 6th day of August 2010.

 
/s/Kathleen Caldwell
Certifying Attorney


2. ep-motion-for-default

Download Eliza Presley’s Motion for Default Judgment (PDF)



Eliza Presley’s Motion for Stay on Motion for Summary Judgment (10/08/2010)


IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
FOR THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS


ELIZA A. PRESLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

LISA MARIE PRESLEY-LOCKWOOD,
the SURVIVING HEIRS OF VERNON E. PRESLEY
and UNKNOWN HEIRS OF VERNON E. PRESLEY,

Defendants.

CASE NO: CH-09-1696-2


MOTION FOR STAY ON MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO ALLOW DISCOVERY
RELEVANT TO SAID MOTION


Plaintiff hereby moves the Court to stay Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, to allow Plaintiff discovery relevant to said motion.

 
Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/Kathleen Caldwell
Kathleen L. Caldwell, #9916
2670 Union Avenue Ext., Suite 110
Telephone: (901) 458-4035
Facsimile: (901) 458-4037

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been mailed by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following:

William R. Bradley, Jr., Esq.
1700 Once Commerce Square
Memphis, TN 38103

This 7th day of October 2010.

 
/s/Kathleen Caldwell
Certifying Attorney


4. eliza-presley-motion-for-stay-on-motion-for-summary-judgment

Download Eliza Presley’s Motion for Stay on Motion for Summary Judgment (PDF)



Lisa-Marie Presley-Lockwood’s Amendment to Her Motion for Summary Judgment (01/05/2011)


IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
FOR THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS


ELIZA A. PRESLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

LISA MARIE PRESLEY-LOCKWOOD,
the SURVIVING HEIRS OF VERNON E. PRESLEY
and UNKNOWN HEIRS OF VERNON E. PRESLEY,

Defendants.

CASE NO: CH-09-1696-2


AMENDMENT TO LISA-MARIE PRESLEY-LOCKWOOD’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT


On August 16, 2010, counsel for Lisa Marie Presley filed a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. Pro. 12.02 and 56.02 seeking dismissal of this action because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The motion was styled as one for summary judgment because the movant intended to rely on matters outside of the pleadings on file in this action. Movant’s counsel set forth with particularity the grounds for the motion based on the premise that the Plaintiff sought a determination of heirship pursuant to T.C.A. § 31-2-105.

The Court conducted a status conference on December 14, 2010, during which Plaintiff’s counsel advised the Court and the movant’s counsel that the Plaintiff was not seeking a determination of heirship pursuant to T.C.A. § 31-2-105 and that Plaintiff was not seeking a determination of parentage pursuat to T.C.A. § 36-2-101 et seq.

In light of the statements made by Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant’s counsel now amends the named defendant’s motion to expressly state with particularity that complaint fails to state a claim for relief for additional reasons that include: (a) the provisions of Title 36, Chapter 2 of the Tennessee Code (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-301 et seq.) set forth the only cause of action available to an adult seeking a determination of parentage for any purpose other than heirship, and the movant, a grandchild of the alleged putative father of the plaintiff, is not a proper defendant in this purported parentage action. The movant continues to rely on the grounds set forth in the motion as originally filed.

 
Respectfully submitted,

GLANKLER BROWN, PLLC

/s/WR Bradley
William R. Bradley, Jr. (10911)
6000 Poplar, Suite 400
Memphis, TN 38119-3955
(901) 525-1322
Attorney for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed on January 5, 2011 via U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid to:

Kathleen L. Caldwell
2670 Union Avenue Ext., Suite 110
Memphis, TN 38104

/s/WR Bradley


2011-01-05-Lisa Marie - amendment-to-motion-to-dismiss

Download Lisa-Marie Presley-Lockwood’s Amendment to Her Motion for Summary Judgment (PDF)



Eliza Presley’s Memorandum In Opposition to Lisa-Marie’s Motion for Summary Judgment (01/13/2011)


IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
FOR THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS


ELIZA A. PRESLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

LISA MARIE PRESLEY-LOCKWOOD,
the SURVIVING HEIRS OF VERNON E. PRESLEY
and UNKNOWN HEIRS OF VERNON E. PRESLEY,

Defendants.

CASE NO: CH-09-1696-2


PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT


Plaintiff seeks in this matter to be recognized as the daughter of Vernon E. Presley. Plaintiff brought this action in equity, naming Defendants: Lisa Marie Presley-Lockwood, the Surviving Heirs of Vernon E. Presley and the Unknown Heirs of Vernon E. Presley. Plaintiff hereby responds to Defendant Lisa Marie Presley-Lockwood’s Motion for Summary Judgment as follows:

The opposing counsel, William R. Bradley, on behalf of the “named defendant,” has filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. He asserts that his client is Lisa Marie Presley-Lockwood. He has represented to the Court that he has represented both Mrs. Presley-Lockwood and Elvis Presley Enterprises for many years.

In any case, this Court must construe the Answer and pending Motion for Summary Judgment as filed only on behalf of Mrs. Presley-Lockwood. Whatever the Court rules, as to Mrs. Presley-Lockwood, the plain fact remains: no unknown heirs have filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Defendant has spent considerable effort outlining “facts” about Elvis A. Presley, most of which are irrelevant. What is relevant is that Vernon E. Presley died testate on June 26, 1979. His Last Will and Testament was admitted to probate on June 26, 1979 (the very date of his death[)]. Vernon E. Presley left a Residuary Trust. Defendant suggests that Elvis A. Presley also left a Residuary Trust. What is omitted in Defendant’s Statement of Fact is that Vernon E. Presley was a named beneficiary under Elvis Presley’s Residual Trust.  Plaintiff contends said trust still exists. Therefore, even though Vernon E. Presley’s estate was closed on September 1, 1985, Vernon E. Presley’s interest in the Residual Trust under Elvis A. Presley’s will has not been distributed.

ALICE ELIZABETH TIFFIN

Plaintiff admits that most of this paragraph is true as far as stated. She denies, however, the blatant hearsay as purportedly stated by Florence Juanita Sharp. [Preslaw: This is her biological mother, she was given up for adoption.] Said statements are not made under oath, nor by deposition. Plaintiff has never been treated well by her natural mother, but instead with actual loathing.

STATEMENT OF [PROBATE] PROCEEEDINGS

Plaintiff did file a Petition before the Probate Court of Shelby County, Tennessee. What Defendant did not relate to the Court in the instant matter is that before any process was served or published, indeed at the first hearing before the Court, William Bradley appeared on behalf of Elvis Presley Enterprises, armed with a motion to dismiss the petition. The issues were never truly joined. No ruling was made by the Probate Court. Plaintiff non-suited the matter before the Probate Court.

CONTENTIONS

The “factual” assertions regarding whether Elvis A. Presley is alive are not relevant to the issues before this Court. Indeed the testimony proffered by Defendant was irrelevant and immaterial to the Probate Court. The transcript below shows that Mr. Bradley made his appearance in Court on behalf of Elvis Presley Enterprises, with no pleading having been filed prior to said hearing. He was allowed by the Probate Judge to participate in said hearing, including to cross-examine the Petitioner, against Plaintiff’s attorney’s strenuous objections. He had no standing to participate. He insisted on asking questions to Eliza Presley about Elvis A. Presley. She answered truthfully to the best of her knowledge.

It is correct that Eliza A. Presley was given away for adoption by her natural mother. What is not correct is that her natural father also did so. Her natural father [whoever he is] never released her for adoption.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Plaintiff does not repeat the standard for summary judgment in Tennessee but relies on the same cases cited by Defendant.

ISSUE OF PARENTAGE IS MATERIAL

The case of Presley v. Hanks, 782 S.W. 2d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) is not determinative in the instant matter.

Plaintiff brings this action to determine if she is the biological child of Vernon E. Presley. Her claim is the direct opposite of the claim in the Hanks case.

WHETHER PARENTAGE CLAIM IS BARRED BY T.C.A. § 36-2-305

Plaintiff did not discover who her father was until the Summer of 2008. She filed within three (3) months of learning that Vernon E. Presley was her father. T.C.A. § 36-2-306 (a) provides:

An action to establish the parentage of a child may be instituted before or after the birth of the child and until three (3) years beyond the child’s age of majority. The provisions of this chapter shall not affect the relationship of parent and child as established in 31-2-105.

She then filed in Probate, then dismissed or non-suited. She then re-filed in Chancery within one (1) year. The instant case was timely filed.

WHETHER CLAIM BARRED BECAUSE OF ADOPTION AND UNTIMELINESS

There is no dispute apparently: Plaintiff was a child born out of wedlock. Plaintiff filed her action in Probate, and thereafter in Chancery, quite quickly after learning who her father was.

Plaintiff contends that she is among the “issue” of Vernon Presley. She relies on the definition of issue, per Tenn. Code Ann. § 31-1-101(6), which in pertinent part reads:

“Issue of a person means all the person’s lineal descendants (adopted as well as natural born) . . .

This section is vital, because under the Tennessee statutes governing intestacy, the intestate person’s heirs are defined as his “surviving issue.” T.C.A. § 31-2-104

One other statute is vital in the instant matter: T.C.A. § 36-1-121(e) provides:

An adopted child shall not inherit real or personal property from a biological parent or relative thereof when the relationship between them has been terminated by final order of adoption, nor shall such biological parent or relative thereof inherit from the adopted child. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), if a parent of a child dies without the relationship of parent and child having been previously terminated and any other person thereafter adopts the child, the child’s right of inheritance from or through the deceased biological parent or any relative thereof shall be unaffected by the adoption.

Vernon E. Presley never took affirmative action to release his parental rights to Eliza Presley. Only her mother did so. See Affidavit of Eliza A. Presley. Therefore, Plaintiff contends that absent a full and correct termination, or release of rights, Eliza does have the right of inheritance from Vernon E. Presley.

CLAIM NOT BARRED BECAUSE INHERITANCE RIGHTS VESTED

Plaintiff has already addressed the timeliness issue. Plaintiff was not a “creditor.” She had no knowledge that she was related to Vernon E. Presley in 1979. Only in 2008 did she learn he was her father. She acted promptly to assert that Vernon E. Presley was her father.

As demonstrated above, Vernon E. Presley’s estate still holds assets, namely a portion of assets left to him by his son Elvis A. Presley. Said “portion” still exists, and has not been distributed. It continues to grow, with additional funds coming into it on a regular basis. Thus, the right of inheritance have [sic] not fully vested.

Plaintiff agrees that she is not a pretermitted child.

VERNON E. PRESLEY DIED TESTATE

It is correct that Vernon E. Presley died testate. Plaintiff does not attempt to make a claim against the Estate of Elvis A. Presley.

SERVICE OF PROCESS ISSUE

Although not addressed in Defendant’s Memorandum, there are allegations of insufficiency of process. Plaintiff contends that she served all Defendant’s by publication.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, there exist material issues of fact precluding summary relief as to Lisa Marie Presley-Lockwood. Plaintiff files herewith her Affidavit. Further, Plaintiff contends that without amply [sic] time for discovery as requested in the status conference, she is essentially facing a dispositive motion under circumstances which prejudice her claims greatly.

 
Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/Kathleen Caldwell
Kathleen L. Caldwell, #9916
2670 Union Avenue Extended
Suite 110
Telephone: (901) 458-4035
Facsimile: (901) 458-4037

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been hand delivered to the following:

William R. Bradley, Jr., Esq.
1700 Once Commerce Square
Memphis, TN 38103

This 13th day of January 2011.

 
/s/Kathleen Caldwell
Certifying Attorney


2011-01-13-eliza-presleys-response to Lisa Marie's motion to dismiss

Download Eliza Presley’s Response to Lisa Marie’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (PDF)


 

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*