arenot The above judicial admissionsare onlyconclusive againstPlaintiffs herein, not only conclusive against Plaintiffs herein, butTHEY ALSO RELIEVE THE OPPOSING PARTIES'BURDEN but THEY ALSO RELIEVE THE OPPOSING PARTIES' BURDENOF OF PROVINGTHE ADMITTED FACT, AND BARS THE PLAINTIFFS PROVING THE ADMITTED FACT, AND BARS THE PLAINTIFFS FROMDISPUTING IT.Id FROM DISPUTING IT. Id.
12. Basedontheabove judicialadmissions, itisconclusively thatRuby 12. Based on the above judicial admissions, it is conclusively established that Ruby S.Peterson lacked therequisite mentalcapacity toprotect herself make S. Peterson lacked the requisite mental capacity to protect herselfor or make
Silverado Appx. 0206 No. 1-15-586-CV 3324 decisions decisions that are inthebest that are in the bestiinterest nterestofherpersonal or financialaffairs of her personalor affairsoon n November November 15, 15, 22013, 013,which whichw ouldiinclude, would nclude, without withoutlimitation, limitation,thecapacity the capacityto to
contract, andPlaintiffs contract, arelegally and Plaintiffs are legally barredfrom disputingit. fromdisputing it.
13. 13. Therefore, Therefore,thepurported the purportedbutdenied but deniedR evocation RevocationofPrior DurablePowerofof of Prior DurablePower Attorney Attorney dated datedNovember November 15, 15, 2013isnull, is null,void voidand ando offn noolegaleffect. effect. Likewise, Likewise,the butdenied the purportedbut StatutoryDurable deniedStatutory Powerof DurablePower ofAttorney Attorneydated dated
15, 2013 November 15, 2013 isnull, is null,void void andof Asaaresult, no legal effect.' As ofno result,the theoonly nly persons with persons withlawful lawfulauthority authoritytoact onbehalf to acton behalfofRuby of RubyS.Peterson's S. Peterson'sestate rtoto estateoor
make m make edical medical orhealthcare or healthcaredecisionsonherbehalf decisionson areCarol her behalfare AnnManley CarolAnn Manleyand and David David T royPeterson, Troy Peterson,acting actingiin ntheir theirccapacity apacity asRuby as RubyS.Peterson's S. Peterson'sduly duly appointed appointed aand nddesignated gentsunder designatedaagents Mrs. Peterson's1993 underMrs.Peterson's 1993Durable DurablePPower oweroof f Attorney. Attorney.
III. III. P LAINTIFFS' PLAINTIFFS' LACK OFSTANDING LACK OF & LACKOF STANDING&LACK OFSUBJECT SUBJECTMATTER MATTER JURISDICTION JURISDICTION 14. 14. Lacking legalauthority any legal authoritytorepresent Lacking any RubyS. Peterson,an to represent RubyS.Peterson, Incapacitated an Incapacitated Person,Plaintiffs Donny LesliePeterson, Mackey GlenPeterson andLonny Person, Plaintiffs Donny Leslie Peterson, Mackey Glen Peterson and Lonny Petersonlackstandingobring Peterson lack standingtto bringor maintain thislawsuit inthepurported but or maintain this lawsuit in the purported but deniedcapacity denied capacityas Next ofRubyS.Peterson. as Next Friend of Ruby S. Peterson.
Indeed, RubyPetersonwasmanipulated intosigningitbased promises thatby Indeed, Ruby Petersonwas manipulatedwould basedon sodoing,Plaintiffs Donny Peterson andMack Petersoninto signing m ove hiterout on promises that by oftheSilverado so doing, medical Plaintiffsand facility - - a Donny Peterson healthcare and Mack decision Peterson expressly would move her durable denied out of the Silverado toa statutory powerof facility - a medical and healthcare decision expressly denied to a statutory durable power of attomey. attorney.
Silverado Appx. 0207 No. 1-15-586-CV 3325 15. 15. isan Standing is integral anintegral component of, andisimplicit component in,the and is implicit in, concept ofsubject the concept of subject . matter jurisdiction. Ass'n o Tex.Ass'n jurisdiction. Tex. offBus. v. Tex. Bus. v. Air Control Tex.Air Control Bd, 852 S.W.2d 852S.W.2d 440, 440,
443(Tex. 443 (Tex.1993). 1993). Subject Subject matter matter jurisdiction isisessential to theauthority tothe authority of of a C. decide todecide court to a case. Id.Whether acase. a trial Id. Whether a trial c ourthhas court assubject matter jurisdiction subject matter jurisdiction is is
questionof