Big Shakeup in Bombshell Priscilla Presley Lawsuit Drama

Has Priscilla Presley just been accused. of tax fraud in connection with a brand. new filing from the people suing her in. this already bombshell legal battle? That's what we want to talk about. It's. time to break down all of these details. and allegations with the lawyer. representing the two former business. associates suing Elvis's ex-wife. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and. Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. [Music]. Okay, we have another development in the. Priscilla Presley legal saga that we.

need to talk about. And in a little bit, I'm going to be bringing back on the. lawyer who's representing the people. suing her to get a better sense of what. exactly is going on. Because there is. this brand new filing with new details, new allegations that may change what. this whole case is about. But first, I. got to give you the backstory. Little. complicated. Stay with me. I'll try to. break it down. You have Breijit Cruz and. Kevin Fial. They are self-described. entrepreneurs who were really big in the. world of Elvis Presley memorabilia. They. apparently started working with. Priscilla Presley. This is Elvis's.

ex-wife years ago, helping her manage. her brand and use her name, her image, her likeness to make money. That's what. the lawyer says. But they also allege. that Priscilla was making moves behind. their backs to get more money for. herself and basically cut the two of. them out of future deals. So, they have. sued her for fraud, breach of contract, intentional interference with a. contract, misappropriation of name and. likeness. By the way, this is in. response to Priscilla's own claims.

against them, including elder abuse. We'll talk about that a little bit more, but this was their response. Now, in. these filings, they make a lot of. allegations, including regarding Elvis. and Elvis and Priscilla's daughter, Lisa. Marie. So Elvis died in 1977 and as Lisa. Marie grew up, she and her mother, according to these filings, had a. reportedly tumultuous relationship. Now, Elvis had apparently left his entire. estate in a trust to Lisa Marie, which. she inherited when she turned 25. The.

original filing says that Lisa Marie. ended up listing Priscilla and Barry. Seagull, this is Priscilla's financial. manager, as co-rustees. But when Lisa. Marie found out that they were allegedly. mismanaging her money, she changed the. trust to make herself trustee and listed. her son Ben and her daughter Riley Kio. as the ones who would inherit. Now Riley. being a famous actress. Again, these are. the allegations from the filing. By. January of 2023, this is when things.

according to the filing became really. bad between Priscilla and Lisa Marie. Quote, "Priscilla was aware that Lisa. was getting ready to remove her as the. sole trustee of Lisa's irrevocable life. insurance trust and was otherwise. threatening to sue her. Cruz and Fialo. nevertheless worked to keep the family. together." Goes on to say, "Lisa. suffered cardiac arrest on Thursday, January 12th, and she was rushed to West. Hills Hospital. Priscilla, who knew that. Lisa was in the process of taking steps. to remove her as the sole trustee of. Lisa's Revocical Life Insurance Trust,

saw an opportunity to regain control. Priscilla rushed to West Hills Hospital. and despite Lisa's clear directive to. prolong her life, Priscilla pulled the. plug within hours of Lisa being admitted. and before her granddaughter Riley was. able to get to the hospital demanding. that Cruz issue a statement to the media. so she could control the narrative. Priscilla demanded that a statement be. released immediately stating, "It is. with a heavy heart that I must share the. devastating news that my beautiful. daughter Lisa Marie has left us." And. then they claimed that the following.

week, Priscilla said, "I'm the queen. I'm in charge of Graceand." Quote, "Cruz. and Fialo were heartbroken by the. unsettling behavior." Now, Cruz and. Fialo also say that Priscilla not only. defrauded Elvis during their divorce, but maybe contributed or drove him to. his death. Yeah. So, in this amended. filing, it says Priscilla's first victim. was Elvis, 1968. After just over 5 years. of marriage, Elvis and Priscilla.

divorced, entering into a property. settlement agreement and marital. termination agreement. Under the marital. dissolution agreements, Priscilla. unequivocally waved the right to inherit. anything from Elvis's estate. Then, in. bold, Priscilla knew she was entitled to. inherit nothing from Elvis. By the way, you know why we're able to bring you. stories like this? It's not only because. of the amazing support that we get from. all of you out there, but also from our. incredible sponsor, Morgan and Morgan, America's largest injury law firm, a. firm with over a,000 attorneys. You know. why they're so big? Because they win a.

lot. They have recovered over $25. billion for more than $500,000 clients. In fact, in the past few months, a. client in Florida received $12 million. after the insurance company offered just. $350,000. Out in Pennsylvania, a client was. awarded $26 million. That is 40 times. the insur's $650,000 offer. You have. another client in Pennsylvania who. received $29 million after being offered. only $500,000. And even if you think. that your case isn't worth millions of. dollars, why not start a claim and fight.

for it? You deserve Morgan andorggan. makes it so simple. You can start a. claim from your phone in just eight. clicks. So, if you're injured, you can. easily start a claim at. forthepeople.com/lcsidebar. by clicking the link below or scanning. the QR code on screen. According. to the filing, it was agreed that. Priscilla would be paid $100,000, that. she would receive cars, child support, spousal support, medical insurance, education. But the allegation was that.

Priscilla wasn't happy, that she wanted. more. Quote, "Out of pure greed, Priscilla claimed that what she received. was not enough for her to live on.". Priscilla claimed that Elvis defrauded. her, asserting that Elvis promised to. always take care of her. So, the former. couple apparently went back to the. negotiating table. And the lawsuit. claims that Elvis was quote forced into. entering into a modified settlement and. marital termination agreement on October. 4th, 1973. And from there, according to.

this suit, the payouts grew. considerably. Quote, Elvis was forced to. pay Priscilla $725,000. within 10 days of court approval. So. equal to about $5,274,995.50. presently. And then there was an. additional $720,000. So that's equal to about $5,238,61622. presently broken down into installments.

of $6,000 per month. Elvis was also. forced to pay Priscilla 50% of the. proceeds of the sale of the residence at. 144 Monovail Drive in Los Angeles, California, and up to one year of. spousal support in the amount of $4,200. per month. again in bolded letters. Priscilla's thirst for power and money. was insatiable. Okay. But the complaint. claims that Priscilla didn't stop there. Despite enriching herself and extorting. millions of dollars from Elvis, she then.

placed a lean on Graceand on or around. April 29th, 1977 in the amount of. $494,249. So more than $2.2 million adding. pressure to Elvis. Less than 4 months. before he died on August 16th, 1977 from. a heart attack and drug complications, Priscilla exerted undue pressure on. Elvis, pushing him to his death. That's. the allegation. That's what it says. And.

this is how it may lead to the claims of. Cruz and Fiago. Let's bring it back to. them. That it's related to Priscilla's. name and likeness and trying to grow her. brand for money. Because according to. them, it turns out she isn't even. supposed to be using the Presley name at. all. According to their filing, since. Priscilla divorced Elvis, she was. entitled to nothing as she was not. mentioned in the will. And in fact, pursuant to her divorce agreement, she. was supposed to stop using the surname. Presley. After Elvis died in 1977,

however, Priscilla continued to use the. Presley name as she needed to exploit. the name for her own financial gain. despite Elvis's wishes otherwise. So in. other words, so in other words, the. allegation is is that Presley told Cruz. and FiO she owned the rights to use her. name and image, but actually she had. already sold those rights to someone. else and didn't say so. Her. representations or alleged. misrepresentations were made to get them. to invest money to help her financially. and because they believed her and spent. a lot of money helping her grow her. brand. If they had known the truth, they.

wouldn't have done that. Now she owes. them. They're out of pocket. Okay, so. that brings us to what was just filed, this cross complaint. And for that, I. want to bring on Jordan Matthews, who is. representing Cruz and FiCo in this case. We've had him on before. Jordan, thanks. so much for taking the time to come back. here on Sidebar. Appreciate it. >> Thanks very much for having me, Jesse. Appreciate it. >> Got it. Of course. So, let's clear this. up first. You filed this cross complaint. on your client's behalf. Let's start. here. What is a cross complaint? What is.

that? How is it different from the. original complaint that you filed if I'm. understanding it correctly? >> Well, a few things. A cross complaint is. basically a response to a complaint with. claims. So, it's my client's claims. against Priscilla. There's with respect. to your question about the difference in. the other lawsuit, there's certain. substantive claims. Uh I'm happy to go. into the specifics in terms of the. specific allegations, but essentially it.

is a responsive and offensive claim to. the. >> So we will go through specifics of this. new filing. I I I think just for our. viewers so they understand, right? First. it was Priscilla who initiated. litigation against your clients and then. they filed a suit against her or am I. misunderstanding? >> So it's a fairly accurate but there's a. slight distinction. So actually my. client actually initiated litigation. against Priscilla in 2023. That was in.

Florida. Priscilla then filed what we. believe is a retaliatory claim in 2024. This is our offensive response to this. claim in California. >> Okay. And what was she claiming her. retaliatory claim? Just real quickly. summarize it. >> She had a variety of claims. Um there is. a claim that she claims which we believe. is completely false. Uh that she claims. elder abuse and things of that nature. We've seen no evidence of that. But this. is our offensive.

uh claim and actually offensive claims. It's about 20 claims, 20 causes of. action against that complaint. >> Got it. Okay. Now, I want to talk about. this new filing. And there are some. specific paragraphs that I think are. important to highlight. There's one. paragraph, it's paragraph 30. It's about. uh Lisa uh allegedly demanding that. Priscilla resign as the only trustee of. her life insurance policy because Lisa. had apparently wanted to sell the policy.

off. Why is this significant? >> It's significant for a few specific. reasons. What's very crucial here is we. had previously alleged that when Lisa. passed away on January 12th of 2023 that. at that time she was threatening to sue. Priscilla and demanding that she resign. that Priscilla resign as the sole. trustee of the irrevocable life. insurance policy. But what's new and. what's crucial is that she was. attempting Lisa was attempting to. withdraw the cash value of that policy.

So the allegation is that when Lisa. ultimately passed away and when. Priscilla was with her in the hospital, which is something she writes about in. her book and where she directed, according to what's in her book, the. doctors to take her off of life support. The allegation is that she did that. knowing that she was stopping Lisa from. from withdrawing the cash value of that. policy. Why that's crucial is that that. meant that that $25 million policy was.

still active and that's what allowed her. to interject herself and create a. dispute with Riley that ultimately. resulted in a payout of $2.4 million to. Priscilla. >> And to be clear, Lisa had wanted to sell. this to pay off a tax lean. from the records that we've reviewed. which include actually uh there is a tax. liability that she had actually one of. the exhibits in the cross complaint um.

it's not to state anything uh negative. with respect to Lisa but it's to paint a. very clear picture of the evidence that. we have is that as of March of 2023 so. shortly after her passing there was a. notice that she had a tax liability for. one notice in particular of in excess of. $900,000 So the withdrawing the cash. value of the policy would have allowed. her and was intended to allow her from. what we know or what we've seen to. resolve that tax liability because her.

passport had been revoked. And so she. was attempting to resolve that issue. Talking taxes, this is this is a big. bombshell here. So you got to have a. bunch of paragraphs here that are about. how Cruz and Fiala were working to. finalize a settlement between Priscilla. and Riley and how Priscilla allegedly. submitted paperwork to the IRS that was. false that this was about her jewelry. What what is this allegation about? If. you can expand upon it. >> So this actually is actually even why.

the allegations that we just went into. are actually crucial because it it shows. character. Character and credibility is. always at issue in the context of. litigation. But the simple point is. this. When my clients had started their. relationship with Priscilla, it was. known in prior uh filings that Priscilla. had a tax liability of around $700,000. So my clients came in to the. relationship. They paid for her to. retain a tax attorney so she could.

negotiate that. the allegation and what's supported by. the documents which actually we actually. submitted the documents in this filing. is that in May of 2023 she submitted. documents under penalty of perjury. stating for example the value of. different property the fair market value. for example of jewelry. She listed that. the fair market value of her jewelry was. $6,000. The evidence that we have is. that she has jewelry worth in excess of.

$5 million and she also has. collectibles, personal property that's. currently in storage or at the time. certainly was in storage at Graceand. such as her wedding dress, uh, a. Mercedes jewelry, different items that. are worth in excess of millions of. dollars. So simply that was a. misrepresentation to the IRS that she. made. That's the allegation when she was. attempting to negotiate a resolution, a. payment plan, a lower payment with the.

IRS. >> Essentially, I don't want to put words. of mouth. Are you accusing Priscilla of. committing a crime? And is this have you. issued a criminal referral in some way? >> That's that's not for me to make a. decision on. This is how it's relevant. to our claims. It's very simple. In this. cross complaint, there are employment. claims. And one of the employment claims. is wrongful termination and violation of. public policy. So, when our clients were. attempting to get her to comply with her.

legal requirements and saying, "You need. to actually submit the appraised value, the correct value of your assets to the. IRS, so you are fulfilling your. obligations." The allegation is that she. then terminated them. And to support. that, we have a letter that came from. tax counsel that my client forwarded to. Priscilla on August 23rd of 2023. And. the very next day, they were terminated. Now, aside from that letter, um you say. you have evidence to support this and.

when you look at the paragraphs, it. mentions a number of different exhibits. What are those exhibits? What is the. evidence that you have to support this. claim regarding the tax liability uh. regarding the the alleged tax. misrepresentations? >> So, it's it's the actual filing that she. submitted to the IRS signed by her under. penalty of perjury. It's an attachment. that lists the value of the various. assets, one of which uh some of a lot of. it is redacted. we actually focus. specifically on what was the the.

specific issue which was her jewelry. that she had valued the fair market. value of $6,000. So that's the uh. submission to the IRS. Additionally, there is correspondence with Graceand. about attempting to obtain the property. such as um her wedding dress and and. Mercedes uh that is there. There are. various other items and also the fact. that there is that letter that is from.

August 23rd of 2023 from tax counsel in. addition to a text message from my. client to Priscilla that has the letter. stating, you know, this is something. that obviously needed to be discussed. and we have other evidence to support. that as well. >> By the way, has has she or her council. responded to that claim specifically. ever? Not to my knowledge. Uh this is a new. allegation in the cross complaint. Obviously, it was just accepted by the. court earlier this week. So, they'll.

have to respond to that. >> There's another part of your filings. that involves a uh a Kia Morgan. First, let's start. Who is Kia Morgan? If I'm. pronouncing the name correctly, >> Kia Morgan, from our understanding, that's the name that he ultimately goes. by. Um he is known uh or his history was. known as u someone who was involved with. Stanley the comic book creator. There. were allegations of elder abuse against. him years ago. Um I'm not going to speak. to those. I know he went through the uh.

I believe a criminal process with that. Um and I do believe that that was. resolved where you know there was um it. was ultimately resolved. can't really. speak to that. Uh but what happened here is that. shortly actually after my clients. resolved the trust dispute between. Priscilla and Riley uh in around May or. June of 2023. It was actually about May.

or so of 2023. Kia Morgan introduced. himself or interjected himself, that's. the allegation, um into Priscilla's life and uh they had. conversations or he had conversations. with my clients. But ultimately, I've. reviewed a lot of text correspondence. between Kia Morgan and my client, and. I've seen very clearly that uh he. engaged in a way where the relationship.

turned sour, and the timeline indicates. that he was very much so involved in um. tarnishing and creating a major wedge uh. between my clients and Priscilla. And. therefore there's a claim against him, two claims, one for Torch's interference. with contract and also for Torch's. interference with prospective economic. advantage. >> And Kim Morgan's mentioned again in this. cross complaint when it comes to uh the. IRS when it comes to valuing the assets.

uh at Graceand, right? >> Uh no. So he's not actually, it's a good. question, but he's not actually uh. involved in the allegation of valuing. the assets that was going on at the same. time. So the time lines up. Correct. >> Got it. Okay. Glad you glad you. clarified that. Okay. Now, I don't think. there's a substantive change when it. comes to the circumstances surrounding. Lisa's death, but there is something. that's called out. There's a little bit. in the cross complaint about this,

right? Well, the the distinction, just to be. clear, is what I believe I'd referenced. before, but just for clarity, is that we. had mentioned before that when Lisa. ultimately passed, the allegation is. that Priscilla was with her that she. directed the doctors to take her off of. life support and that was counter to a. healthcare advanced healthcare directive. where Lisa had stated previously in. writing that she wanted anything and. everything to be done to make sure that. her life was prolonged.

But the addition here, the new. information is that when that happened. that Lisa was attempting to. uh cash out the the value of her life. insurance policy. And so again, when. Priscilla made that decision, she did. that knowing that's the allegation that. she was stopping Lisa from cashing in. the value of the policy, which meant. that that $25 million policy that she.

ultimately made a claim against was. still basically in play. It was. something that she could still go after, and she ultimately did because that. resulted in a $2.4 $4 million payout. which my clients negotiated pursuant to. Priscilla's demands. So that's the. distinction. >> Substantively, is there anything else in. the cross complaint that is a. significant difference from what we've. seen before? So aside from the allegations that we've. referenced with regards to the tax issue.

in particular, which is really the. biggest focus substantively, we. obviously also have claims for uh. various employment claims such as the. wrongful termination and violation of. public policy that is also tied into a. claim against Priscilla's company uh. GLDE Inc. and that is a new defendant in. this cross complaint. >> Outside of the cross complaint, I wanted. to ask you about something else. So, Priscilla Presley's son, uh, Navon. Garcia, he's been sued, too. He's now.

part of this litigation. Uh, my. understanding is the main allegation is. that he benefited from the services of. your clients and didn't pay them. >> In short, correct? to clarify that is that when my clients. were working for Priscilla, she. demanded, again, these are are. allegations and we have a lot of. evidence to support that, that she work. for Navaron, her son. And specifically, they were also tasked with negotiating a. very large, ultimately multi-million.

dollar settlement for Navaron, in the. dispute between Priscilla and Riley. So. they worked extensively hard to resolve. that issue, but they also did things. like working for his band. So they did. all of these things, their employment. claims against him. There's also claims. for the value of their services against. him. And there's also claims for Torch's. interference with contract and Torch's. interference with prospective economic. advantage because the allegation is that.

he also interfered with our client's. agreements with Priscilla. >> Have you heard anything from his side? Have you heard anything from Priscilla's. side? And where is the case currently? What's the status of it? So what I can. say is there's obviously very active and. pretty aggressive litigation going on. specifically with our side and with. Priscilla's side. Navon's complaint is. uh an active litigation as well. The. short answer is that we're in discovery. at this time.

>> Got it. Well, listen, um I really. appreciate you taking the time to. explain this because it can get a little. uh complicated. There's a lot of. different players. There's a lot of. different events. I wanted to get a. little bit more clarity as to what was. going on, what the current status of it. is. Um, but Jordan Matthews, thank you. so much for taking the time as always. >> Of course. Thanks, Jesse. Appreciate it. >> And that is all we have for you right. now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank. you so much for joining us. And as. always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you. should get your podcasts. You can follow. me on X or Instagram. I'm Jesse Weber.

I'll see you next time. [Music].