be affirmativeor fraud or fraud bynondisclosure ofmaterial facts - it isclearthatDEFENDANTS madethe promise by nondisclosure of material facts - it is clear that DEFENDANTS made the illusory promise withnointention tokeepit.Evidence tosupport thisliesintheirfailureto demonstrate good with no intention to keep it. Evidence to support this lies in their failure to demonstrate good
Silverado Appx. 0609 No. 1-15-567-CV 2088 faith to performtheir faith to theirppurported urported obligations.Not oncedidthey Notonce did theyevidence evenaascintilla evidenceeven scintillaofgood of good
faithin faith in theiractions. their actions. DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTSdid notkeep didnot of theirpromises anyof keepany their promisesandclearly and clearlynnever ever intendedto do intendedto do so. Were it so. Were it not so, SARAH not so, SARAH PACHECO PACHECOwouldnothave wouldnothavedisputed disputedPLAINTIFFS' PLAINTIFFS' fees after ppromising fees after romising not todothis notto as"consideration" do thisas "consideration"forthesettlement. for the settlement. D.E D. MOTIONAL EMOTIONAL AND ANDFINANCIAL FINANCIALDURESS DURESS 20.Finally, 20. Finally, where where dduress uresseexists, xists,emotionally contractisvoid. or financially,aacontract emotionallyor exaslawdefines is void.TTexas law defines duress duress iin nfourelements: four elements:(1)there isaathreat (1) thereis o do threattto actwhich someact do some whichthethreatening partyhas the threateningparty hasno no legalright to do;(2)the legal right to threatmust do; (2) the threat mustbe ofsuch beof character suchcharacter to destroy to destroy tthe hefree agencyoof free agency fthe the threatened arty;(3)therestraint threatenedpparty; (3) the restraintccaused ausedbythethreat by the threatm must beimminent; ustbe imminent;and(4)thethreat and (4) the threatmust must besuchthatthethreatened partyhas be such that the threatenedparty no present has no present m means of protection. eansof protection. McCallum McCallumH ighlands, Highlands, Ltd. Ltd. v. Washington v. Washington CapitalDus,Inc.,66F.3d89,92 Capital (5th Cir. 1995); Dus, Inc.,66 F.3d 89, 92(SthCir. v.Alcoa 1995); Perezv. AlcoaFujikura, Fujikura,
F. Supp.991, Ltd.,969F. 1012(W.D.Tex. Supp. 991, 1012 1997);King (W.D. Tex. 1997); v. Bishop,879 Kingv. Bishop, 879 S.W.2d222,223-24 S.W.2d 222,223-24 (Tex.App.-Houston (Tex.App.-Houston 1994, 1994,N NOOwrit). writ). 21.RUSSJONES 21. RUSS JONEShad to threaten no right to had no sanctions nd costs threaten sanctions aand against LAINTIFF S, asasthere costs against PPLAINTIFFS, there
was basisforeither.Infact,heviolated Texas RuleofProfessional 4.04 no basis for either. In fact, he violated Texas Disciplinary Rule of ProfessionalConduct was no Conduct 4.04 bythreatening actionsolelyforthe purposeooff obtaining by threatening action solely for the purpose advantageto thePLAlNTIFFS' an advantageto obtainingan the PLAINTIFFS' detriment - andhisown cclient, detriment - and his own lient, RUBYPETERSON. Thecombination offinancial duress and RUBY PETERSON. The combination of financial duress and emotionalduress,watching theirmotherslowlydiefromdrugsandneglect,astheir emotional duress, watching their mother slowly die from drugs and neglect,as legalfees their legal fees piled piled up whileCAROL ANNMANLEY ANDDAVID PETERSON engaged inpersistent self- up while CAROL ANN MANLEY AND DAVID PETERSON engaged in persistent self- dealingwiththeirinheritance, dealing with their inheritance,was sufficient todestroy PLAINTlFFS' freewillandduressthem was sufficient to destroy PLAINTIFFS' free will and duress them intosigning theRulel1.MACK PETERSON testifies thathewouldnothavesigned butforthis into signing the Rule 11. MACK PETERSON testifies that he would not have signed but for this duress,norwouldLONNY ORDONPETERSON havesigned.PLAINTIFFS left duress, nor would LONNY OR DON PETERSON have signed. PLAINTIFFSwere werewere were left withnoreasonable choicebuttosignthedistasteful Rule11,iftheyhopedto savetheir mother's with no reasonable choice but to sign the distasteful Rule 11, if they hoped tosave their mother's
Silverado Appx. 0610 No. 1-15-567-CV 2089 life.Yet,despite life. Yet,