duress thatleftPLAINTIFFS duress asififtheyhad feelingas they hadno rationalcchoice norational hoicebut tosignthe butto sign theonerous, onerous,
distasteful Rulell distasteful Rule 11 Agreement. Agreement. 5. Nevertheless, 5 Nevertheless, the"promises" the made,however "promises"made, wereillusory however fraudulently,were illusoryat best. Illusory at best. Illusory promises promisescannot cannotsserve as consideration erveas considerationto tosupport bindingontractbecause supportaa bindingccontract they arenot because theyare not enforceable. enforceable. 6. Finally,the Rulell is voidand mustbe 6. Finally, the purported Rule 11 is void andmust be set asidefor illegality. Texaslawis set aside for illegality. Texas law is
unambiguous inproviding unambiguous thatillegalcontractsare in providing that illegalcontracts voidas amatter are voidasa oflaw. matter of law. 7. Fortheforegoing PLAINTIFFSrespectfully reasons, PLAINTIFFS respectfullypray thatthe attached Rulell 7. For the foregoing reasons, pray that the purported attached Rule 11 Agreementbedeclared voidandsetaside Agreement be declared void and set accordingly. aside accordingly. II. II. ARGUMENTAND AUTHORITIES ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 8. This Rulell Agreement isvoidforallofthesereasons: fraud,emotional andfinancial 8. This purported Rule 11 Agreement is void for all of these reasons: fraud, emotional and financial duress,illegality, andlackofconsideration. Furthermore, itisvoid,ratherthanvoidable. duress, illegality, and lack of consideration. Furthermore, it is void, rather than voidable.
Silverado Appx. 0601 No. 1-15-567-CV 2080 9. 9. Contract law agreementsmade governs agreements law govems madeppursuant ursuant torule11. to oninvv.. Lerner,7S.W.3d rule 11.RRooth 7 S.W.3d 0 883, 883, 8 886 (Tex. App. - Houston 86(Tex. [1st Dist.] 1 App. - Houston [lstDist.] 999,no 1999, pet.).A nopet.). Acontract is legallybbinding contractislegally inding nlyifits oonly if its
terms sufficientlydefinite resufficiently terms aare toenable definiteto enableaacourt ounderstand courttto the parties'obligations. understandtheparties' obligations.SeeFort See Fort
Worth Indep. S Worth Indep. ch.Dist. Sch. Dist. v. City of Fort Worth,222 v. CityofFortWorth, S.W.3d831,846(Tex. 2S.W.3d 000)."EEach 831, 846 (Tex.22000)." achcontract contract should b should beeconsidered considered separately todetermine separately to its materialterms." determineitsmaterial T.O.SStanley terms."T.O. tanleyBoot o.,Inc. BootCCo., Inc.vv. . Bank ofElPaso, Bank of El Paso, 8 47S.W.2d 847 S.W.2d 2218, 18,2221 (Tex. 1 21(Tex. 992). 1992).
A.IILLEGALITY A. LLEGALITY 10. The purportedRulell 10.The Rule 11 Agreement violatesthe void becauseititviolates Agreementisisvoidbecause thelawwith the respecttoto the law withrespect
Texas aand Texas ndHealth Health aand Safety Code ndSafety on medical Code on powersoof medicalpowers attorneyaand f attomey ndthe theestates code,which estates code, which
presumes capacity presumes capacityiin the absenceofclear ntheabsence and convincingevidence of clearandconvincing evidenceby juryfinding. The net byaa jury finding. Thenet effect effect iis sthatRuby that Ruby Peterson Petersonw aspresumed was presumedto tohavecapacity ndasassuch, have capacityaand it was errorforthe such, itwaserror for the Court to assignRussJones Court to assign Russ Jonesor JillW. orJill W. Youngto sign onher Young to signon behalf. Furthermore, the 1993 her behalf. Furthermore, the 1993 medical owerof medical ppower of attorney was revoked attorney was andforeverterminatedn November revoked and forever terminatedoon 15,2013and as November 15, 2013 andas such, annotbbee revived such, ccannot evenbyRubyPeterson's revivedeven by Ruby Peterson'sagreement. It was alegalfiction agreement. Itwasa forthe legal fiction for the PARTIES to pretendthatthe 1993powerof attomeygrantedDEFENDANTS had any PARTIES to pretend that the 1993 power of attorney granted DEFENDANTS had any continuingvalidityandtheCourtshouldnothaveratified the same.TTo odo violated Ruby continuing validity and the Court shouldnot have ratified thesame. doso so violated Ruby Peterson'srights. Peterson's