Priscilla Presley, widow of Elvis Presley, faces a $50 million lawsuit from former business partners who claim she defrauded them and mishandled her daughter Lisa Marie’s death. The accusations, dripping with Hollywood drama, paint her as a scheming opportunist, but Presley’s sharp rebuttal exposes the plaintiffs as the real opportunists. This legal saga reeks of greed dressed up as grievance, a classic tactic to exploit the Presley legacy.
According to the Daily Mail, Brigitte Kruse and Kevin Fialko, heads of Priscilla Presley Partners, filed the suit on Monday, alleging fraud, breach of contract, and a plot to seize control of the Presley estate, including the Promenade Trust and Graceland. Their claims hinge on Priscilla’s actions following Lisa Marie Presley’s death in January 2023 from a small bowel obstruction caused by weight-loss surgery. The lawsuit’s sensational narrative feels like a script from a B-movie, conveniently ignoring inconvenient truths.
Before Lisa Marie’s death, she and Priscilla attended the 2023 Golden Globes to support the Elvis biopic, a rare public moment of unity. Despite Kruse and Fialko’s claim that they worked to “keep the family together,” Lisa Marie reportedly had no desire to be near her mother and was planning to sue her. This contradiction suggests the plaintiffs are cherry-picking facts to fuel their narrative.
The lawsuit accuses Priscilla of ignoring Lisa Marie’s 2010 Advance Health Care Directive, which stated her wish to prolong life as long as possible, by removing her from life support hours after her cardiac arrest at age 54. Kruse and Fialko claim this was done before Lisa Marie’s daughter, Riley Keough, could reach the hospital, implying a rushed and sinister motive. Yet, medical decisions in emergencies often demand swift action, and painting Priscilla as a villain here feels like a cheap shot at a grieving mother.
Priscilla allegedly ignored Lisa Marie’s health complaints at the Golden Globes, opting to take her to the Chateau Marmont for drinks instead of seeking medical help. The lawsuit’s portrayal of this as neglect conveniently glosses over the unpredictability of Lisa Marie’s condition, a small bowel obstruction not easily diagnosed on a red carpet. It’s a stretch to pin her death on a single outing, but the plaintiffs seem eager to sensationalize.
The lawsuit further claims Priscilla saw Lisa Marie’s death as a chance to neutralize her daughter’s efforts to remove her as sole trustee of an irrevocable life insurance trust. This accusation assumes a cold calculation that’s hard to swallow without evidence, especially given the emotional weight of losing a child. Kruse and Fialko’s narrative leans heavily on speculation, not substance.
Priscilla fired back, calling the lawsuit “shameless and salacious” in a statement to the Daily Mail, accusing Kruse and her associates of elder abuse and fraud. She claims they pressured her, at 80 years old, into signing 20 agreements in a 27-minute session without prior review, a move that smells of predatory coercion. This flips the script, exposing the plaintiffs as potential grifters targeting a vulnerable widow.
According to Priscilla, Kruse and her co-conspirators closed her bank accounts, opened new ones with themselves as signatories, and siphoned off funds. They allegedly took $120,000 in commissions from a deal tied to the motion picture “Priscilla” and renegotiated another deal to pocket nearly $300,000. These accusations suggest a calculated effort to exploit Priscilla’s trust, not the other way around.
Priscilla also alleges Kruse demanded control of her cell phone and communications, a controlling tactic straight out of a con artist’s playbook. The plaintiffs even reportedly secured rights to attend Priscilla’s future memorial service to boost their public profiles, a detail so brazen it’s almost comical. This paints Kruse and Fialko as fame-hungry opportunists, not victims.
The lawsuit claims Priscilla exclaimed, “I’m the queen. I’m in charge of Graceland,” at her home before Lisa Marie’s funeral, suggesting a power grab over the Presley estate. Yet, this quote, if true, could just as easily reflect a grieving mother’s attempt to assert control in chaos, not a calculated scheme. The plaintiffs’ flair for drama undermines their credibility.
Two weeks after Lisa Marie’s death, Priscilla challenged a 2016 amendment to her daughter’s will, which had removed her and former business manager Barry Siegel as trustees of the Promenade Trust, appointing Riley Keough and her late brother Benjamin instead. The matter was settled five months later, but the lawsuit spins this as evidence of Priscilla’s greed. Legal challenges to wills are common in high-stakes estates, and this one was resolved quietly, suggesting no grand conspiracy.
Riley Keough, Lisa Marie’s daughter, stands firmly behind Priscilla, dismissing Kruse’s lawsuit as a “vicious attempt” to ruin her grandmother’s life. This family solidarity undercuts the plaintiffs’ narrative of a fractured dynasty. It’s telling that Riley, the heir to the Promenade Trust, sees through the lawsuit’s theatrics.
Kruse and her associates allegedly duped Priscilla into shipping valuable personal property and confidential financial records to Florida, promising free storage but charging over $30,000. When Priscilla discovered the deception, she closed bank accounts controlled by Kruse, which had dwindled from hundreds of thousands to under $3,000. This financial trail points to the plaintiffs’ greed, not Priscilla’s.
The lawsuit’s claim that Priscilla sought to control Graceland and the Promenade Trust ignores the reality that Lisa Marie’s death shifted dynamics, not motives. Kruse and Fialko’s accusations seem designed to capitalize on the Presley name, a tired tactic in a world obsessed with celebrity scandals. Their $50 million demand feels like a shakedown, not justice. Priscilla’s counterclaims reveal a story of betrayal, not fraud by her hand, but by those who exploited her trust and age. The anti-woke lens sees this lawsuit for what it is: a progressive-style victimhood play, weaponizing accusations to smear a conservative icon while chasing a payday. The Presley legacy deserves better than this tabloid-tier attack.