Priscilla Presley faces new lawsuit over Graceland rights

A California lawsuit accuses Priscilla Presley of fraud and breach linked to her name and the Graceland brand.

Priscilla Presley Faces Lawsuit Over Name Rights and Graceland Control

A California state court case filed by Brigitte Kruse and Kevin Fialko of Priscilla Presley Partners alleges that Priscilla Presley misrepresented ownership of her last name and brand, leaving their group on the hook for damages and seeking at least 50 million dollars. The complaint ties the dispute to a broader power struggle over the Presley family trust surrounding Graceland and related intellectual property. It also notes a prior settlement that included a payment to Presley, and recounts ongoing tensions over control of the Promenade Trust after Lisa Marie Presley’s health crisis.

The filing details how Priscilla Presley allegedly leveraged name, image, and likeness rights for high profile appearances and promotional work while excluding her business partners from proceeds. It also mentions Keya Morgan, a former associate with ties to the estate, and describes disputes that socialized into a public argument about who should oversee Presley assets. A spokesperson for Presley did not respond to requests for comment, and the case adds to a series of public disagreements surrounding the family’s branding strategy and legacy.

The case highlights how celebrity branding can become a high-stakes business embedded in family governance. When trusts and intellectual property collide, disagreements over control can threaten a brand that rests on a fragile balance of legacy and profit. The evolving narrative around Graceland and the Presley name shows how investors, partners, and fans watch carefully for governance clarity.

Beyond the courtroom, the dispute raises questions about transparency in estate management, the role of external managers, and how much of a previously agreed plan can be renegotiated under pressure. If the judges side with the plaintiffs, it could force a wider reckoning about disclosure, accountability, and how celebrity estates handle licensing, film projects, and merchandising during periods of family transition.

Highlights

Legacy power and business risk collide as the case unfolds