FIRST REPUBLIC TRUST COMPANY ("FRTC"), A FORMER TRUSTEE WITHOUT STANDING, CHALLENGED FOR ITS CONTINUED ATTEMPT TO DELAY DISNEY GRANDSON BRADFORD LUND'S RIGHT TO A COURT HEARING ALLOWING HIM TO ACCESS HIS OWN PERSONAL ASSETS FROM HIS SELF SETTLED TRUST, ACCORDING TO LANNY J. DAVIS

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 2, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Following the LA Probate Court's December 3, 2021 order lifting the stay on the distribution of the Bradford Disney Lund 1992 Trust ("1992 Trust") assets, FRTC, a former trustee and now self-alleged creditor, has made a back-door attempt to have the Probate Court reconsider its order.  FRTC, without any standing to object to a distribution or the hearing itself, attempts to now have the Probate Court concurrently hear other collateral issues which would have the effect of further delaying a hearing to determine the 1992 Trust's request to immediately distribute the funds to him.  This procedural attempt at reconsideration is simply FRTC's attempt to deny Bradford Lund access to his own assets for years to come.  FRTC lacks any standing to even attempt to interfere with when a hearing is held, or any other issue related to the 1992 Trust, as it is not even a party to the issue before the court. 

The 1992 Trust consists of Mr. Lund's own assets which he placed in trust for himself until he reached the age of 45.  Mr. Lund reached the age of 45 in June of 2015, over six and one-half years ago.  The distribution that should have occurred was only impeded because of a 2016 stay regarding Michelle Lund's Petition objecting to the new trustees.  Lund stated, "Michelle was not a beneficiary and had no standing to bring a case before the court in the first place."  In 2018, the 1992 Trust and Michelle settled wherein she withdrew her petition with prejudice and agreed to not dispute any distribution.  At that point, the stay should have been lifted by the court.  As stated in the 1992 Co-Trustees' Opposition to FRTC's Motion to Lift Stays: "No stay, no impediment to distribution." 

As Lund's lead counsel, Sandra Slaton, wrote in the filed Joinder to the 1992 Co-Trustees' Opposition: "Pursuant to the Trust itself, created by Mr. Lund, he should have had his assets back when he turned 45 years old. He is now 51 years old, but still, he does not yet have them back. Therefore, as already ordered by this Court, Mr. Lund respectfully submits that the Co-Trustees' Distribution Petition alone must be heard first."  FRTC should not be permitted to have a position or to try to prevent Mr. Lund from receiving his own assets.

Mr. Lund stated that "The court is supposed to protect me from this kind of abuse, and it has not done its job. Trust companies should not be able to violate the law and get away with it."

Lanny Davis, a legal advisor to Mr. Lund, submits this FRTC attempt at a "second bite of the apple" after it lost the first time before the same judge is yet another example of FRTC's breach of fiduciary duty owed to Brad Lund.  Davis quoted from the December 3, 2021 filing by the attorney for the 1992 Trust, the experienced LA probate court attorney Lauriann Wright.  Wright wrote: "As present Trustee to Mr. Lund in other cases, and a former one in this case, FRTC has a fiduciary duty to its own beneficiary – their Opposition [to allowing Lund to gain access to his own assets under a trust that he himself established] denotes the antithesis of such a duty."  

SOURCE Lanny Davis