Litem & Attorney Ad Litem to Execute Peterson Rulel 1Agreement at ExhibitA, Peterson Rule 11 Agreement at Exhibit A, ¶2. SeePlaintiffs' FifthAmended Petitionat 5 See Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Petition at ¶25.
4841-3975-3249.1 4841-3975-3249.1
Silverado Appx. 0508 No. 1-15-567-CV 1526 refuse take, aand o take, refusetto ndthey exercise completecontrol to exercise they wantedto overRuby controlover Peterson's placeof RubyPeterson's of
Interestingly, residence."6 Interestingly, all Plaintiffs allPlaintiffs joinin theseallegations join in these yet thethreebrothers allegations yet the three brothers
acknowledged that the 1993POA acknowledgedthatthe1993 waseffective, POAwas effective,chose leaveititinplace chosetotoleave partofthe aspart in placeas of the
settlement, and leftttheir settlement, andleft heirm other motherunder undertthe careofCarol hecare Manelyaand of CarolManely ndDavid eterson.lfthere DavidPPeterson. If there
nymerit were aany were tothese meritto theseh ollow hollowaallegations, llegations, onewould one wouldthink thinktthe brothersand hebrothers theirwives andtheir wiveswould would
have been have more interested beenmore inobtaining interested inobtainingcontroloverMrs. controlover Peterson'smedical Mrs.Peterson's carethan medicalcare accessto thanaccess to
her her estate.'
6. Because 6. Because itisclear romPlaintiffs' it is clear ffrom Plaintiffs' pleadings pleadingsthatnewly oinedPPlaintiffs that newlyjjoined laintiffs also lackstanding alsolack standingto to bring any claims bring any nbehalf claims oon behalf o offRuby the Courtddoes Peterson,theCourt Ruby Peterson, oesnot havejurisdiction nothave tohear jurisdictionto hear Plaintiffs' Plaintiffs' claim, claim, a ndtheCourt and the Courtm ismissPPlaintiffs' ustddismiss must laintiffs' breach breachof duty and/orbbreach of fiduciarydutyand/or reachoof f breach breach of of trust cause ofaction trust cause matteroof as amatter of actionasa flaw. law.H Heckmanvv.. Williamson eckman 369 S.W.3d137, Williamson Cty.,369S.W.3d 137,
150(Tex.2012); ee also,Scanlan 150 (Tex. 2012); ssee Tex. A v. Tex. also, Scanlan v. A&M Univ., 3343 &MUniv., F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir.2003) 43F.3d533,536(5thCir. 2003) (Dismissal (Dismissal isappropriate as Plaintiffs is appropriate as Plaintiffscanprove setoffacts oset can provenno of factstto osupport standing). support standing). 7. Thepleadings andevidence permitted byRule59requiredismissal ofPlaintiffs' breachof 7. The pleadings and evidence permitted by Rule 59 require dismissal of Plaintiffs' breach of
duty and/or fiduciary duty breach of and/or breach of trust ofaction as a matter cause of action asa trust cause oflaw.TEX. R.CIV. P.91 a. matter of law. TEX. R. Civ. P. 91a. APPLICATION APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
8. As theCourt 8. As the Court is aware, itmust isaware, wardrreasonable it mustaaward easonable andattomeys' feestotheprevailing costs and attorneys' feesto costs party the prevailing party with with respect respect to thechallenged to the challenged causes ofaction. TEX. R. P.9la.7; 2014Tex.App. causes of action. TEx. R. Civ. P. 91a.7; Drake, 2014 Tex. App. Lexis 12572 (Tex.App.-FortWorth Nov.20,2014,nopet. Lexis 12572 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2014,no h.);Longv. Griffin,No.11-1021, pet. h.); Longv. No. 11-1021, 2014Tex.LEXIS 304(Tex.April25,2014)(percuriam).Inlightofthe narrowscope ofthis 2014 Tex. LEXIS 304 (Tex. April 25, 2014) (per curiam). In light of thenarrowscope of this
at Id at 1126. SeeOrderGranting Authority forGuardian AdLitem&Attomey AdLitemtoExecute 7 See Order Granting Authority for Guardian Ad Litem & Attorney Ad Litem to Execute PetersonRule 11Agreement at Exhibit A. Plaintiffs' Fourth A mendedOriginalPetition Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Original Petition atat Peterson Rule 11 Agreement at Exhibit A. Compare Breach ofTrustandBreach ofFiduciary Duty(related toCarolManley andDavidPeterson) toFifth Breach of Trust and Breach of Fiduciary Duty (related