## NO . 0 7- 13 -0 01 30 -C V

I N T H E 

### C O U R T O F 

### A P P E A L S F O R T H E 

### S E V E N T H 

### D I S T R I C T O F 

### T E X A S A T 

### A M A R I L L O 

### , T E X A S

J A C K S O N W A L K E R , L.L.P., M. K E I T H B R A N Y O N , J A N E O. L I N D S E Y , I N D I V I D U A L L Y A N D A S F O R M E R T R U S T E E O F T H E L E S E Y B. K I N S E L

T R U S T , A N D R O B E R T N. O L I V E R , App el la nt s , v. V I R G I N I A O. K I N S E L , A S E X E C U T R I X O F T H E E S T A T E O F J. F R A N K K I N S E L , J. F R A N K KI N S E L , J R ., C A R O L E K. E D W A R D S , A N D C A T H E R I N E C O L L I N S , App el le es . On Ap pe al fr om the 15 3 Ju di ci al

Dis tr ic t Co ur t o

f r d Ta rr an t Co un ty, Texa s, Ca us e No . 15 3- 23 26 68 -0 8, th e Hon or ab le Su sa n Mc Co y, Pres id in g 

### J A N E 

### O . L I N D S E Y A N D 

### R O B E R T 

### N . O L I V E R 

### ’ S 

### R E P L Y 

### T O 

### T H E 

### K I N S E L S 

### ’ R

E S P O N S E T O 

### M O T I O N S F O R 

### R E H E A R I N G

Wi ll ia m L. Ki rk m an Sta te Ba r No. 1 15 18 70 0 Ki rk m an La w Firm, P LLC 20 1 Ma in Stre et, Sui te 1 16 0 For t Wo rth, Te xa s 7 61 02 Tel epho ne: (8 17 ) 33 6- 28 00 Fac si m il e: (8 17 ) 87 7- 18 63 ATTO RNEYS FOR APPELLANTS JANE O . LINDSE Y AND ROBE RT N. OLI VERTAB LE OF CONT ENT S Page

TAB LE OF CON TEN TS.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii INDEX OF AUT HOR ITIES.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv I. In tro du ction

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. The K ins els Are N ot Ent itled to Money D am ages fro m Movant s fo r Lac k of

Ca pacity or Undu e Influ ence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. Mov ants’ s Brief

Express ly Attac ked and Adequ ately Challenged P aragraph 4 (f) Contain ed in th e T rial Cour t’s Ju dg m ent.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B. Mon ey

Dam ages Are Not Rec ov erable in Te xas fo r Undu e Influ ence or Lac k of Me ntal Capac ity.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 C. The K ins els Are N ot Ent itled to Money D am ages fro m Mov ants u nd er the T EXAS D ECL ARATORY J UDGMENT A CT
. . . . 4 D. The K ins els Are N ot Ent itled to Re cover Mon ey Dam ages fro m Movant s fo r Undue Inf

luence or Lac k of

Ca pacity a s a “S pecies of Fr aud”.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 E. The K ins els Are Prec lud ed fro m Re coverin g Mon ey

Dam ages fo r Undue Inf

luence a ndLa ck of Capac ity Be ca us e T here Wa s No Ju ry Fin din g That the Kinsels Were Dam aged by Any Undu e Influ ence over Lesey Kinsel orLe sey Kins el’s Lac k of Me ntal Capac ity.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 III

. Ju dg m ent Sh ou ld Be R endered th at T he Kinsels Are Not Entit led to Trial orAppellate Attorn ey s’ F ee s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

iiA. The K ins els Present ed “No Evid ence ” of Their Trial

Attor neys’ Fees at Trial, So a R em and of Such I s Not Appr op riate andRe m and of the Kinsels’ Trial Attorn ey s’ Fees to Allo w Segregatio n Wou ld Be Futi le andCond on e False Te sti m on y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 B. The C ou rt’ s Dete rm inatio n That the Kinsels Are Not Enti tled to App ellate Attor neys’ Fees Wa s Corr ec t and Rem and of Su ch Is In appr op riate.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 IV. The Fou rth Am endme nt to Le sey Kins el’s Trus t Sh ou ld Not Have Be en Set Aside And Drs . C ole’s and Clayton ’s Testimony Wa s In adm iss ibl e or Did Not S up po rt S uch a De term inatio n. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A. Under th e FortWort h Cou rt o f App ea ls’ De cisio n in Hort on v. Horto n , T here Wa s No Credib le E vid ence That Le sey Kins el Ha d Bee n Diagno sed with a Cond itio n Affecting Her C apac ity That Wa s Pers ist ent and Likely Present o n th e Date She Exec uted th e Four th Am endme nt to He r Trus t on Febru ary 23 , 200 7.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 B. Dr. Cole Shou ld Not Have Be en Allowed to Testif y B ec ause His Non -Exp ert Te sti m on y Wa s Irrelevant and Cou ld Not Have Supp or ted a Find ing That L esey Kinsel Lac ked Capac ity at Any Tim e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 C. Dr. Clayton S ho uld Not Have Be en Allowed to Testif y B ec ause Her T estim on y C ou ld NotHave Sup po rted, Nor Didit Supp or t, a Find ing That L esey

Kinsel Lac ked Capac ity to Execute the Fo ur th Am endme nt o n February 23, 20 07 , or on Any O ther Critical Date.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 CER TIFI CAT E O F COMPLIANC E.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 CER TIFI CAT E O F SERVICE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

iiiINDEX OF AUT HORITIES Page CASES: Heat Shr ink In no vatio ns , LLC v. Me d. Ex tru sio n Techno log ies-T ex as , Inc. , No. 02- 12 -0 05 12 -CV, 2014 WL 53 07 19 1 (Tex. App.–F or t Wor th Oct. 16 , 201 4) (m em . op.).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Hort on v. Horto n , 96 5 S.W.2d78 ( Te x. App.– Fo rt Wo rth 199 8, no pet.).

. . . . . . . . . . 8, 9 Metro A, LLC v. Polley , No. 02- 09 -0 00 25 -CV, 2011 WL 44 13 23 3 (Tex. App.–F or t Wor th Sept. 22 , 201 1, pet. denied)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

RUL ES AND STATU TES: T EX . C I V . P RAC
. & REM . C ODE § 37 .004

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 T EX . R. A PP . P. 38 .1(i ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.4( i)( 1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.4( i)( 3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

iv

## NO . 0 7- 13 -0 01 30 -C V

I N T H E 

### C O U R T O F 

### A P P E A L S F O R T H E 

### S E V E N T H 

### D I S T R I C T O F 

### T E X A S A T 

### A M A R I L L O 

### , T E X A S

J ACK SON W ALKER , L.L .P. , M. KEITH B RANYON , J ANE O. L INDSEY , I NDIVIDUA LLY AND AS F ORMER T RUSTEE OF THE L ESE Y B. KINSEL

T RUST , AND R OBERT N. O LIVER , Appella nts ,
v. V IRG INIA O. KINSEL , AS E XECUTRIX OF THE E STATE OF J. F RANK K INSEL , J. F RANK KINSEL , J R ., C AROLE K. E DWARDS , AND C ATHERINE C OLLI NS , Appellees

. On Appeal

fro m the 153 rd

Judicial Distri ct C

ou rt o f Ta rra nt Cou nty, Texas, Cause No. 153 -2 32 66 8- 08 , the Hono ra ble Su sa n McCoy, Presidin g


### J A N E 

### O. L I N D S E Y A N D 

### R O B E R T 

### N. O L I V E R 

### ’ S 

### RE P L Y T O 

### T H E 

### KI N S E L S 

### ’ RE S P O N S E T O 

### M O T I O N S F O R 

### RE H E A R I N G

TO THE HON ORAB LE COUR T O F A PPE ALS: NOW COME Jane O. Lind sey, In div idu ally, and as the Fo rm er Trus tee of the Le sey B. Kins el Trus t, and Robert N. Oliver, two of the Appellant s in the

ca pti on ed m atter (coll ec tiv ely “Mo vant s ”) , and in supp or t of their Moti on for

1Re hear ing (“MRH ”), fil e thi s Re

ply to the Kins els’ Re

sp on se to the Moti on s for Re hear ing , a

ndwouldrespectful ly sho w the C ou rt as fo llo ws: I. I NTRODUCTION The K ins els have filed a sing le Re sp on se to th e A

pp ellants’ Moti on s fo r Re hear ing in which they inapp ro pr iately raise new argu m ents, dis cu ss pr eviou sly un m entio ned ca se law, and fail to adequately addr ess the argu m ents mad e b y Mov ants in their MRH

. This Re ply addr esses the po int s raised in t h e Kins els’ Re

sp on se applicable to Mov ants. II. T HE K INSEL S A RE N OT E NTITLE D TO M ONEY D AMAG ES FROM M OVANTS FOR L ACK OF C AP ACITY OR U NDUE I NF LUENCE Paragraph 4( f) of the tri al cour t’s jud gme nt awa rd ed the Kins els the sam e dam ages f

or“ un du e in flu ence o r the lack o f ca pacity of Lesey B. Kins el” that the jur y awa

rd ed the Kins els fo r fraud and tor tio us int erference with inh eritance rig hts

. The Kins els arg u e i n t h eir Re sp on se to the Appellant s’ Moti on s for Re hear ing that the Cour t affir m ed that po rti on of the tri al cour t’s jud gme nt. The Kins els’ argu m ent and paragraph 4( f) of the tri al cour t’s jud gme nt are incorrect fo r th e fourseparate reasons set outbelow.

2A. Mov an ts’ s Brief Expressly Atta ck ed an d Adequa tely Chal lenged

Paragrap h 4( f) Con ta ined in the Tr ial Court’s Jud gm ent In their Re

sp on se , the Kins els state that the “Cou rt correctly conclud ed [in fo otn ote 6 of its Opin ion ] t h at Defend ants did no t ad equa tely chall enge the dam ages awa

rd ed un der paragraph 4( f) and thu s waived the po int .” Kins el Re sp . 1 (em ph asis added)

. That statem ent is simply incor rect. The Cour t did no t state

or im ply that any of the Appellant s’ challenges in their Briefs to paragraph 4( f)

were inadequ ate. What the Cour t s ai d in fo otn ote 6 was that no ne of the Appellant s “exp ressl y attac ked” paragraph 4( f) of the jud gme nt. M em o Op

. 43 –4 4, n.6. Mo v an t s believe thi s statem ent of the Cour t to be incor rect. See Mov ants’ MRH

2 –3 . Mo v an t s pr esented a clea r and concise argu m ent in their Brief that m on ey dam ages are no t recoverable fo r un du e inf luence un der Te xas law, with citation s to appli ca ble ca se law and to the record. Mov ants’ Br

. 45 –4 6. Mov ants also cited two critical Te xas ca ses in their Brief which were dir ec tly on po int and which supp or ted that pr op os it io n— on e from the Te xas Supr em e Cour t and on e from thi s Cour t—awa rd ing rescissio n rath er than m on ey dam ages for

un du e inf luence. Id

. Mov ants therefo re satisf ied T EX . R. A PP . P. 38 .1(i ) (a br ief “must contain a clear an d concise ar g u men t fo r the content ion s m ade, with appr op riate citati on s to au tho rit ies an d to the record ” (em ph asis added) ). And,

3the Kins els’ reliance on Metro A, LL C v. Polley and the oth er ca ses they cite are

inapp po sit e. See Jackson Walker Parti es’ (“ JW’s ”) Re ply to the Kins els’ MRH at p. 4, n.4. B. Mon ey Dam ag es Are Not Rec ov er ab le in Te xa s fo r Undu e In flu ence or Lack of Menta l Capa city Undu e inf

lu en ce an d lack of m ental ca pacity are no t ac tio nable tor ts in Te xas. Cons equentl y, t h er e is no rig ht to dam ages based on su ch claim s. Mov ants’ Br . 45– 46 and the ca ses cited i n JW’s Re plyt o th e K ins els’ MRH

at p . 5

. F u r ther, the fiv e ca ses the Kins els cite in their Re sp on se , which they say

supp or t their ar g u ment, do no t; they supp or t Appellant s’ po sit ion that m on ey dam ages are notrec ov erable in this ins tance. JW’s Re ply to th e K ins els’ MRH at pp. 6– 7. C. The Kins els Are Not Entit led to Mon ey Dam ag es from Mov an ts un der the T EXAS D ECLARATORY J UDG MENT A CT The Kins els’ last-minut e attem pt to claim they are entitl ed to dam ages

un der § 37 .004 of the T EXAS D ECL ARATORY J UDGMENT S A CT is sp ec iou s. The T EXAS D ECL ARATORY J UDGMENTS A C T do es no t allow fo r a recovery of

m on etary dam ages. Mov ants adop t the argu m ent of the Jackson Walker Parti es

on this poi nt in their Re

plyto th e K ins els’ Re

sp on se at VA on pp . 9–1 0.

4D. The Kins els Are Not Entit led to Rec ov er Mon ey Da m ag es from

Mov an ts fo r Undu e In flu ence or Lack of Ca pa city as a “S pecies of Fr au d” The Kin sels co n t en d in their Re sp on se t hat dam ages are r ec ov erable fo r

un du e inf luence beca

us e it is a “s pecies of legal fraud .” Kins el Re sp . at 5. This po sit ion i s witho ut m erit. F o r t h e sam e reason s the Kins els’ dam age claim f or fraud fails (

Mem o. Op. 11 –1 5) , the Kins els’ attem pts to seek su ch dam ages fo r

un du e influ ence and lack of ca pacity fail. Mov ants also adoptthe argume nt o f the Jackson Walker Parti es in their Re ply to the Kins els’ Re

sp on se at p. 8 as to thi s po int

. E. The Kins el s Are Pr ec lud ed from Rec ov er ing Mon ey Dam ag es fo r Undu e In flu ence an d L ack of Capa city B ec au se Ther e Was No Ju ry Fi nd ing That th e Kins els Wer e Dam ag ed by Any Undu e In f l u en ce ov er Le sey Kins el or L esey Kinsel’s Lack of Menta l Capa city Fin ally, the Kins els did no t requ est a dam ages qu estio n fo r un du e inf luence or lack of ca

pacity. [CR 49 85 -9 2]. Th u s , ev en if the Kins els could

so m ehow recover su ch dam ages, the absence of a sp ec ifi c dam ages fin din g fo r

un du e inf luence or lack of ca

pacity is fatal to the Kins els’ claim and paragraph 4( f) s ho uldbe s et asid e fo r that reason. Heat S hr ink In no vatio ns , LLC v. Me d. Ex tru sio n Techno log ies-T ex as , In c. , No. 02 -1 2- 00 51 2- CV, 20 14 WL 53 07 19 1, at *1 2 (Tex. App.– Fo rt Wor th Oct. 16 , 20 14 ) (m em . op .) (“ With ou t a fin din g on

5the am ou nt of dam ages... , M ET T failed to pr ov e an essential elem ent of its

ca us e of ac tio n.”). III . J UDG MENT S HOULD B E RENDERED THAT T HE KINSEL S A RE N OT E NTITLE D TO T RIAL OR A P P ELL ATE A TTORNEYS ’ F EES A. The Kins els Pr esented “No Evid ence ” of Their Tr ial Atto rneys’ Fe es at Tr ial , So a Rem an d of Su ch Is Not Approp riate an d Rem an d of th e Kins els’ Tr ial Atto rneys’ Fe es to Allow Segregat ion Wou ld Be Futil e an d Con do ne False Te sti m on y The Kins els’ Re

sp on se to the Mov ants’ Moti on for Re hear ing as to the Kins els’ tri al attorneys’ fees m iss es the po int m ade by Mov ants in their Moti on f o r Re hear ing

. There are two separate and dis tin ct reasons why the Co u r t

erron eous ly rem anded the Kins els’ claim fo r tri al attor neys’ fees fo r a new tri al. One, un der the rece nt Supr em e Cour t decisio ns cited on pp . 16 –1 8 of Mov ants’ M

o t i o n f or Re hear ing , the Kins els’ testimony as to their tri al attorneys’ fees cons titu ted “n o evidence” of su ch. The Kins els fail to addr ess in their Re sp on se , the resul tin g legal p r o p os itio n Mov ants cite in their Moti on . When the party with the bu r d en of p ro of o n an i ssu e (t he Kin sels in thi s ca se) pr esents “n o evidenc e” to satisf y that bu rd en, an appellate cour t do es no t

o r d inari ly rem and the m atter to the tri al cour t fo r a second chance

. Mo v an t s ’ MRH 20. 6Two, the Kins els’ Re sp on se ign or es the ef

f ec t of their attor neys’ swor n testimony at tri al. The attorneys testif ied un equiv ocally that it was “impos sib le” to segregate their tri al attorneys’ fees. Mov ants’ MRH 19

– 2 0

. Th e ef fect of a

rem and to allow the Kins els’ attor neys to segregate their tri al attor neys’ fees is to cond on e the fu tur e un tru thf ul testimony by the Kins els’ lawy ers on rem and. B. Th e Co urt’s Dete rm ina tio n That th e Kins els Are Not Entit led to Appella te Atto rneys’ Fe es Was Corre ct an d Rem an d o f Su ch Is In ap prop riate The Kins els argu e in their Re sp on se that fo otn ote 5 was no t an error , bu t fail to e xp lain why the Cour t, in the sec tio n fo llo wing the foo tno te, denied the Kins els’ claim fo r appellate attorneys’ fees. Fu rth er, the Kins els’ fo otn ote 15 on p. 14 of their Re

sp on se sup po rts the Mov ants’ po sit ion that atto rn ey s’ fee s are dis cretion ary un der the D ECL ARATORY J UDGMENT A CT and that the int erests of jus tice do no t warr an t a s ec o n d bit e at the apple when there is no legal entitl em ent to th at sec on d bi te. M ov ants’ Re sp . 17– 18

.

7IV.

T HE F OURTH A MENDM ENT TO L ESE Y K INSEL ’ S T RUST S HOULD N OT H AVE B EEN S ET A SIDE A ND D RS . C OLE ’ S AND C LAYTON ’ S T EST IMONY W AS I NADM ISS IBLE OR D ID N OT S UP P ORT S UCH A D ETE RMINA TION A. Und er th e Fort Worth Court of Appeal s’ Dec isi on in Hort on v. Hort on , Ther e Was No Cre dib le Ev idence That Le sey Kins el Had Be en Diag no sed w ith a Cond iti on Affecting Her Capa city That Was Pe rsist ent an d Lik ely Pr es en t o n th e Date Sh e Exec ut ed th e Fourth Am endm ent to He r T rust o n February 23 , 200 7 That po rti on of the tri al cour t’s jud gme nt fo un d at paragraph s 3( a) and 4( e) relative to the Fo urth Am endmen t mu s t be reversed and rend ered. It is

un dis pu ted that there was no evidence that Le sey Kins el had “b ou ts of conf us ion

or d ementia” on the day sh e exec uted the Fo ur th Am endme nt to her Trus t—February 23 , 20 07

. Any argu m ent by the Kins els to the contr ary or the adop tio n by the Cour t of any su ch argu m ent to the contr ary is simply wron g. In fact, the on ly evidence on that poin t was un contr ov erted. Le sey Kins el did no t po ssess any su ch condi tio ns on th at date, but wa s fu lly aw are of wh at s he was do ing

. Mov ants’ Brief 10 –1 5. Be yond that reality, ho wever, the Kins els fail to addr ess in their Re

sp on se , the key passage f r om the Fo rt Wor th Cour t of Appeals’ Opin ion in Hort on v. Hort on , 96 5 S.W.2d 78 , 8 6 ( Te x . App.– Fo rt Wor th 19 98 , no pet.), up on which Mov ants relied in their Moti on for Re hear ing

.

8The Fo rt Wor th Cour t states in Hort on v. Hort on that evidence of the testator ’s

state of m ind on a date oth er than the date the ins tru m ent was exec uted m ay be

cons id er ed in determ ini ng ca pacity “o nly if it dem on str ates that a cond itio n

a ff e cting the ind ivi du al’s testam entary ca pacity was persi stent and li ke ly pr e se nt at the time the will was exec uted.” Id

. at 85

. There is no t on e sh red of evidence in the record, and ce rtain ly no ne cited by the Kins els in their Re sp on se or in any of their Briefs , that Le sey Kins el had been diagn os ed with dem entia or any oth er

m ental inf

irmity or cond itio n that was “p ersis tent and lik ely pr esent” on the date the Fo ur th Am endme nt was exec uted. In fact, there was no diagn os is contain ed in any m edical record that Le sey Kins el su ffered fro m dem entia at any time

. The Kins els’ citation to testimony fro m Dr. Clay ton on pp . 16 –1 7 of their Brief do es

no t change that factual reality, whether Dr. Clayton fo un d 50 0 or a t h o us and item s to tag in Lesey ’s me dical rec or ds

. B. Dr. Cole Sh ou ld Not Have Be en Allow ed to Te sti fy Be caus e His NonExpert Te sti m on y Was Irre levan t an d Coul d Not Have Su pp orted a Find ing That Lesey Kinsel Lack ed Capa city a t Any Tim e Allowin g Dr. Cole to testif y was a gr ievou s error the tri al cour t m ade and Mov ants adequately dem on str ated its devastatin g effect on them in their Briefs

. He was no t pr op erly desig nated as an ex p er t. His m edical records on Le sey Kins el d o no t m entio n that sh e had dem entia o r lacked me ntal ca pacity i n any 9m anner at any time

. Dr. Cole did no t even s ee Le sey Kins el un til well after

February 23 , 20 07 —the date the Fo ur th Am endme nt was exec uted. The Kins els of fer no evidence in their Re sp on se to rebut thos e un contr ov erted facts. Given thi s factual ce rtain ty, the adverse effect of allowin g Dr. Cole to testif y could no t be any m or e ob vio us than when the Kins els’ coun sel im pr op erly qu estio ned Dr. Cole abou t his “o pin ion ” of Le sey’s “d em entia.” Then , when that attor ney argu ed to the jur y that Dr. Cole had testif ied that Le sey had dem entia when Dr. Cole did no t so testif

y, the har m t o M o v an t s of allowin g Dr. Cole to testif y becam e irretrievabl e. C. Dr. Clay to n Sh ou ld Not Have Be en Allow ed to Te sti fy Be caus e He r Te sti m on y Coul d Not Have Su pp orted, Nor Did it Su pp ort, a Find ing That Le sey Kins el Lack ed Capa city to Exec ut e th e Fo u rt h Am endm ent on Fe brua ry 23, 20 07 , or on Any Oth er Cr iti cal Date The on ly fu nctio n Dr. Clayton perfo rm ed was to review Le sey’s m edical records lon g after Le sey had died. Sh e did no t treat Le sey Kins el. The m edical records Dr. Clayton reviewed contain ed no diagn os is whatso ever that Le sey had dem entia or any m edical cond itio n or inf irmity affecting her ca

pacity “th at was persi stent and lik ely pr esent” on February 23 , 20 07 , or any oth er of the crucial dates. Acc or din gly, allowin g Dr. Clay ton to testif y as to Le sey Kins el’s ca

pacity sank Mov ants’ ho pe that the jur y woul d rend er a decisio n based on the evidence.

10This po int is parti cularly br ou gh t ho m e giv en t his Cour t’s statem ent in its

Opin ion that expert testimony was no t needed to assis t the jur y in their determ inatio n of

wh ether Le sey wa s i ncapac itated at any p oin t in time

. Mem o Op. 19. WHEREFO RE, PRE MIS ES CONSIDERE D, Lind sey and Ol i v er respectfu lly pr ay that the Cour t deny the Kins els’ Moti on for Re hear ing , gr ant theirown Moti on for

Re hear ing , and rend er jud gme nt acc or din gly.

Re sp ec tfu lly sub m itted, KIRKMA

N L AW FIRM, P.L. L.C

. By:/s / W illi am L. Kirkman WILLIAM L . KIRKMAN State Ba r No. 11 51 87 00 bil lk@k irk m anlawfirm. com 20 1 Main St reet, Su ite 116 0 Fo rt Wo rth , T exas 761 02 Te lepho ne: (8 17 ) 33 6- 28 00 Facsim ile: (8 17 ) 87 7- 18 63 ATT ORN EYS FOR A PP ELL ANT S, JANE O . L INDSEY AN D ROB ERT N. OLIVE R

11CER TIFICAT E O F C OMPL IANCE

Pu rsu an t t o T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.4( i)( 3) , I hereby ce rti fy that thi s Jane O. Lin ds ey a nd Ro bert N. Oliver’s Reply to the Kinsels’Respo ns e to Mo tio ns f or Re hear ing contain s 2,06 9 word s, excludi ng the parts of the Re ply exem pted by T EX . R. A PP . P. 9. 4( i)( 1)

. This is a com pu ter-g enerate d do cum ent created in Corel Wor dP erfect X5 us ing a 15 -p oin t pr op or tio nal typefac e fo r text and a 13

- po int typefac e fo r fo otn otes. In m aking t his Ce rti ficate of Com pli ance , I am relying on the wo r d co u nt pr ov ided by the so ftware us ed to pr epare the do cum ent.

/s/ W illi am L. Kirkman Willi am L. Kirkma

n

12CER TIFICAT E O F SERV ICE

I HEREBY CER TIFY that, pu rsu ant to the T EXAS R UL ES OF A PPEL L ATE P ROCEDURE , o n Ap r i l 8, 20 15 , a tru e and correct copy of the fo rego ing was elec tro nically served concurrent with its elec tro nic fil ing upo n th e follo wing : Mr. Craig T. Enoch ce no ch@enochk ever.c om Ms. Am y L . Saberian asaberian@enochk ever.c om Enoch Kever P.L.L .C. 60 0 Con gr ess Avenue, Sui te 280 0 Aust in, Texas 787 01 Attor neys for Pla int iffs on App eal Messrs . J. L yndell Kirk ley and andSean R . L oo ney kir kley@kbb lawy ers.com slo on ey @kb blawye rs.com Kirk ley & B errym an, L .L. P. 10 0 N. For est Park Blv d., Sui te 220 Fo rt Wo rth , T exas 761 02 Attor neys for Virg ini a O. K ins el, J. Fran k K

ins el, J r., Carol e K

. Edward s, an d Cath erine Collin s Mr. Lindy Jon es ljo nes@jo nesallen.com Jo nes, Allen & Fuq uay, L.L .P. 88 28 Gree nv ille Avenue Dallas, Te xas 76 24 3- 71 43 Attor ney for J. Fran k K

ins el, J r. Messrs . Joh n H. C ay ce , Jr.,

FrankP. Gree nh aw, IV, andJoe Gree nh ill joh n.cay ce @kellyhart.com pete.greenhaw@kellyhart.com joe.gr ee nh ill@k ellyhart.com Kelly Hart & Hallm an LL P 20 1 Main St reet, Su ite 250 0 Fo rt Wo rth , T exas 761 02 Attor neys for J ac kson W alker, L.L.P. an d M. Ke ith Branyon Ms. Aliso n H. Moore Am oo re@tho m

ps on coe.c om Thompson , C oe, C ou sin s & Iro ns , L .L. P. 70 0 Nor th P earl S treet 25 Flo or– Plaza of

the Am erica s th Dallas, Te xas 75 20 1 Attor ney for Terr

y S. W hid do n Mr. Scott C. Kinsel sk ins el@m ac .com ScottC. Kinsel, P.C. 87 08 Sou th Con gr ess, Sui te B 20 0 Aust in, Texas 787 45 Attor ney for Joe B ob Kinsel, Jr.

13Ms. Ida Ca sti llo , Pro Se

54 37 FM 54 1 McC oy, T exas 781 13 VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL ONL Y Ms. Frances Garza, Pro Se 54 35 FM 54 1 McC oy, T exas 781 13 VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL ONL Y

/s/ W illi am L. Kirkman Willi am L. Kirkma

n bil lk@k irk m anlawfirm. com (8 17 ) 87 7- 18 63 (Facsim ile)

14