detrimentsmust maketthe tomake the partiesto hepromises andthepromises promisesand the promisesmust inducethe mustinduce the
parties to incur partiesto incur thedetriments. Roark, the detriments. Roark, 813 S.W.2d 813 at 496. S.W.2dat A contractthatlacks 496. Acontract that lacks
consideration, lacks mutualityofobligation consideration,lacksmutuality andisunenforceable. of obligationand SeeTexasFarmBureau, is unenforceable. See Texas Farm Bureau,
253 S.W. 1 253S.W. 101at 1101 1105. If at 1105. contract lacks a purported contract If a mutuality ofobligation, such here,itis lacks mutuality of obligation, such as here, it is
not enforceable not and void.T enforceableandvoid. hisisisthe This casewhere thecase whereone promise isillusorys nothing one party's promise is illusoryaas of nothing of valueis givento value is given thepromisee. to the promisee. Notably, DEFENDANTS Notably,DEFENDANTS failed failedto honoreventheillusory to honoreven the illusory
made - of moving promises made - of promises moving R UBYPETERSON RUBY PETERSONfrom SILVERADO from SILVERADOto suitable facility and/or toaa suitable facility and/or
not objecting not o PLA1NTIFFS' objectingtto feeapplication. PLAINTIFFS' fee application.
15.Anillusorypromiseanpotentially becomeconsideration ifvalueisgiventosupportit, 15. An illusory promise ccan potentially become consideration if value is given to support it, but occurredhere.Light that neveroccurred CellularCo. Tex.,883S.W.2d642,647 but that never here. Lightvv.. Centel Cellular Co. of Tex., 883 S.W.2d 642, 647 (Tex.1994).DEFENDANTS nevermovedRUBYPETERSON as agreedto intheRule11and (Tex.1994). DEFENDANTS never moved RUBY PETERSON as agreed to in the Rule 11 and violatedtheirpromisenot toobject PLAINTIFFS' feesbydoingjustthat.Thereisnothing of violated their promisenotto objectto to PLAINTIFFS' fees by doing just that. There is nothing of value flowingo thePLAINTIFFS thatiscapable ofenforcement. Assuch,theContract failed value flowing tto the PLAINTIFFS that is capable of enforcement. As such, the Contract failed and isvoid forlack ofconsideration and is void for lack of consideration
15.TheTexasSupreme Courthasheldthatanagreement containing illusory promisesis notan 15. The Texas Supreme Court has held that an agreement containing illusory promises is not an enforceablecontractandcanonlypotentially become enforceable ifthepromised valueisgiven enforceable contract and can only potentially become enforceable if the promised value is given to thepromisee. Lightv. CentelCellularC0.ofTex.,883S.W.2d642,647(Tex.1994). It is to the promisee. Light v. Centel Cellular Co. of Tex., 883 S.W.2d 642, 647 (Tex.1994). It is
Silverado Appx. 0606 No. 1-15-567-CV 2085 indisputable indisputable thatDEFENDANTS that DEFENDANTSnever avePLAINTIFFS neverggave and in fact,ssought of valueandinfact, PLAINTIFFS anythingofvalue ought to denythem to deny attorneys them attorneys feesafterpromising not to object fees after promisingnotto objecttto them. F o them. irstandforemost, First and foremost,an an li agreementnot to object agreementnotto toPLAINTIFFS' objectto attorneysfees, PLAINTIFFS' attomeys venifkept, fees,eeven if kept,is not"value" isnot "value"sufficient sufficientto to
er support the "mutualityooff obligation" the "mutuality obligation" requirement requirementfor foraa contract contract tto beenforceable. o be enforceable. DEFENDANTS neverhad DEFENDANTSnever haddiscretion overwhetherPLAINTIFFS discretionover were whether PLAINTIFFS paid were feesininthe paidfees the guardianship or tortaction guardianshipor actionandcould and couldonly agreeaffirmatively onlyagree paytheirfeesin affirmativelytotopay termsof their fees interms of consideration, consideration,whichtheydid which they didnot. Second, aa promise not. Second, promise tto o move RUBYPETERSON moveRUBY PETERSON from from SILVERADO SILVERADOw ithoutaadeadline without deadlinebby ywhichDEFENDANTS wereobligated which DEFENDANTSwere obligatedtotodo so,isisillusory doso, illusory because because iitt is is incapable incapable ofenforcement. of enforcement.Assuch, ovalidconsideration As such,nno valid considerationexisted existedto supportthe tosupport the nakedpromises, naked promises, suchthatPLAINTIFFS such that PLAINTIFFShave no obligation haveno o release obligationtto