Court Opinion

ID: 4057792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 08:50:19.359868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:32:15.835340
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                                        06-15-00032-CV
                                                                             SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                   TEXARKANA, TEXAS
                                                                                  6/25/2015 11:10:59 AM
                                                                                       DEBBIE AUTREY
                                                                                                 CLERK

                          No._________________________
                                                                      FILED IN
                                                               6th COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                 TEXARKANA, TEXAS
                              In the Court of Appeals          6/25/2015 11:10:59 AM
                                                                    DEBBIE AUTREY
                               Sixth Judicial District                  Clerk

                                 Texarkana, Texas

                        In re CARLTON SEWELL, Relator

     Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law of Hopkins County, Texas

______________________________________________________________________________

                     PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

                                      J. Brad McCampbell
                                      Attorney for Relator
                                      State Bar No. 13358000
                                      CURTIS, ALEXANDER & McCAMPBELL, P.C.
                                      Number One Planters Street
                                      P.O. Box 38
                                      Emory, Texas 75440
                                      Telephone: (903)473-2297
                                      Facsimile: (903)473-3069
                                      bmccampbell@cammpclaw.com

                         ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
                                  Identity of Parties and Counsel
       The following is a list of all parties and all counsel in this matter:

       RELATOR in this matter is Carlton Sewell and he is a Proponent/Contestant in the

underlying case. The attorney representing Relator is:

J. Brad McCampbell
CURTIS, ALEXANDER & McCAMPBELL, P.C.
Number One Planters Street
P.O. Box 38
Emory, Texas 75440

       RESPONDENT in this matter is the Honorable Amy Smith, Judge of the County Court at

Law of Hopkins County, Texas.

       THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST in this case are Janet Neal Stanley, Applicant, and

Contestants, Truitt Sewell, Sue Neal, Melanie Wells, Robert Wells, Harold Wells, Tracy Wright,

Cynthia Terrell, Nick Wells, Alleen Neal, Nicholas Maryol, Anita Counts, and Troy Sewell, and are

represented by counsel as indicated:

Mr. Chad Cable
CHAD CABLE LAW OFFICE
323 Gilmer Street
Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482
Tel: (903) 885-1500
Fax: (903) 885-7501

                                                Page i
Table of Contents
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page i

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page iii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1

STATEMENT OF THE JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

ISSUE PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5

PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 14

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 15

                                                                Page ii
Index of Authorities
CASES                                                                                                                   PAGE

Employer’s Ins. of Wausau v. Halton,
      792 S.W.2d 462 (Tex.App. - Dallas 1990, writ denied) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

FDIC v. Prusia,
      18 F.3d 637 (8th Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

In re Ford Motor Company,
        165 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

In re Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc.,
       45 S.W.3d 772 (Tex.App. - Tyler 2001, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

In re Rozelle,
       229 S.W.3d 775 (Tex.App. - San Antonio 2007, orig. proceeding) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 7

Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals,
      700 S.W.2d 916 (Tex. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn,
      573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Marino v. King,
      355 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

National Hockey League,
427 U.S. at 642-643, 96 S.Ct. at 2780-81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Sanders v. Harder,
       148 Tex. 593, 227 S.W.2d 206 (1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Stelly v. Papania,
        927 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 10

                                                           Page iii
Trans-American National Gas Corp.,
       811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 10

U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Gundeau,
       272 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Wheeler v. Green,
      157 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 11
Walker v. Packer,
      827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs,
     968 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

STATUTES, AND RULES

TEX. GOV. CODE, § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

TEX.R.CIV.P. 198.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 10

                                                              Page iv
                                      Statement of the Case
       The underlying action is a will contest regarding the probate of the Last Will and Testament

of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald. Velma Ruth Fitzgerald, Decedent, a resident of Hopkins County, Texas,

died on December 31, 2007.

       On January 2, 2008, RELATOR (hereafter referred to as “C. SEWELL”) filed an Application

to Probate Will of Decedent dated August 8, 2007 in the County Court of Hopkins County, Texas

(Vol. 1, Tab 1). C. SEWELL’S Application was heard and the Will offered by C. SEWELL was

admitted to probate as a Muniment of Title on January 15, 2008 (Vol. 1, Tab 2).

       The REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST, JANET NEAL STANLEY (hereafter referred to as

“STANLEY”) and TRUITT SEWELL (hereafter referred to as “T. SEWELL”), respectively filed

an Application to Probate a Last Will and Testament dated April 26, 1993 and an Opposition to C.

SEWELL’s Application to Probate (Vol. 1, Tabs 3, 4 & 7).

       After a lengthy period, the case was set to proceed to trial with jury selection on January 12,

2015. On that date, just hours before the commencement of trial, STANLEY and T. SEWELL, by

their attorney, Mr. Chad Cable, filed with the Court a “Certificate of Deemed Admissions” notifying

the Court of the failure of C. SEWELL, who was representing himself pro se at the time, to respond

to Request for Admissions delivered to C. SEWELL in 2010 (over 4½ years before trial) (Vol. 1, Tab

20). C. SEWELL’s subsequent attorneys of record, Mr. Frank Bauer (2nd counsel) and Mr. J. Brad

McCampbell (3rd/present counsel) were totally unaware that their client had been served with

Request for Admissions in 2010 (Vol. 2). As a result of Cable’s filing, at attorney McCampbell’s

request, the Court canceled the jury setting and allowed C. SEWELL to file a Motion to Withdraw

Deemed Admissions (Vol. 1, Tabs 21 & 23). STANLEY and T. SEWELL filed a Response to the

Motion to Withdraw Deemed Admissions (Vol. 1, Tab 22). A hearing on the Motion was held on

April 7, 2015 (Vol. 2). Respondent, The Honorable Amy Smith, denied the Motion to Withdraw

Deemed Admissions as evidenced by Order entered on April 14, 2015 (Vol. 1, Tab 24).

       This Petition for Writ of Mandamus follows.

                                              Page -1-
                                      Statement of Jurisdiction
         The Court has jurisdiction over this Petition for Writ of Mandamus under Section 22.221(b)

of the Texas Government Code.

                                           Issue Presented
         Issue: Did RESPONDENT abuse her discretion in denying RELATOR’s Motion to

Withdraw Deemed Admissions?

                                         Statement of Facts
         This case was commenced on January 2, 2008 by C. SEWELL’s filing an “Application to

Probate Will (of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald, dated August 8, 2007) as a Muniment of Title” (Vol. 1, Tab

1).

         Said Application was heard by the Judge of the County Court of Hopkins County, Texas on

January 15, 2008 which resulted in said Will being admitted to probate as a muniment of title (Vol.

1, Tab 2).

         On January 30, 2008, Janet Neal Stanley (hereafter referred to as “STANLEY”) filed a

competing Application to probate a Will executed on April 26, 1993 by Velma Ruth Fitzgerald (Vol.

1, Tabs 3 & 7).

         Both sides filed respective oppositions to the probate applications filed (Vol. 1, Tabs 4, 6,

& 16).

         On February 14, 2008, the “Will contest” was transferred to the Hopkins County Court at

Law by order of the County Judge of Hopkins County (Vol. 1, Tabs 5 & 11). 1

                                               Page -2

         1
        Counsel for C. SEWELL does not know the reason for the two (2) transfer orders dated
February 14, 2008 and May 20, 2010 respectively.
          Representing C. SEWELL in the “Will contest” was Mr. Eddie Northcutt. Representing

STANLEY on her Application and T. SEWELL et al on their Opposition was Mr. Chad Cable. Mr.

Northcutt filed an opposition to STANLEY’s application to probate on February 14, 2008 (Vol. 1,

Tab 6).

          As part of the discovery performed in the case, the oral deposition of C. SEWELL was taken

by Chad Cable on May 13, 2008. Eddie Northcutt was present during the deposition. Regarding

discovery in the case, there was no Discovery Control Plan entered by the Court. That being the

case, the applicable Discovery Control Plan for this probate matter is TRCP 190.3, where

discovery is mandated to be completed no later than nine months after the earlier of the date of the
first oral deposition or the due date of the first response to written discovery. The deposition of C.

SEWELL on May 13, 2008, was the commencement of the discovery period (Vol. 1, Tab 21; Vol.

2).

          On January 23, 2009, the Court signed an order allowing Eddie Northcutt’s withdrawal from

the representation of C. SEWELL (Vol. 1, Tabs 8 & 9).

          On June 17, 2010, C. SEWELL retained the services of Mr. Frank Bauer to represent him

in the “Will contest” (Vol. 1, Tab 13).

          In the interim between the withdrawal of Mr. Northcutt and the engagement of Mr. Bauer,

it appears that on May 13, 2010, Mr. Cable served Requests for Admission on C. SEWELL, who,

at the time, was acting pro se (Vol. 1, Tab 19).

          C. SEWELL did not respond to said Requests for Admission (Vol. 1, Tabs 21 & 23).

          The parties thereafter continued to engage in various forms of discovery, i.e., Requests for

Disclosure, Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and additional depositions (Vol. 1, Tab 21 &

23; Vol. 2).

                                               Page -3-
        On April 22, 2013, Frank Bauer filed a motion to withdraw from the representation of C.

SEWELL. An order allowing Mr. Bauer’s withdrawal was signed by this Court on April 23, 2013

(Vol. 1, Tab 17).

        In July, 2013, C. SEWELL retained the services of J. Brad McCampbell, attorney, to

represent C. SEWELL in the matter. Mr. McCampbell’s representation continues to date (Vol. 1,

Tab 19). Since being engaged by C. SEWELL, Mr. McCampbell began preparation to try this case

in front of a jury.

        This case was set on various jury dockets only to be continued each time. On January 12,

2015, the case was finally set to commence with jury selection at 1:00 p.m. At 9:20 a.m. on January

12, Mr. Cable filed a document titled “Certificate of Deemed Admissions” notifying the Court of the

failure of C. SEWELL to respond to the Requests for Admission submitted by Mr. Cable over 4½

years before (Vol. 1, Tab 20).

        Neither attorneys Bauer nor McCampbell knew of the existence of these requests for

admission until the filing of the Certificate of Deemed Admissions by Mr. Cable literally hours

before jury selection. Based on that filing, this Court excused the jury panel prior to commencement

of trial and allowed Mr. McCampbell, on behalf of C. SEWELL, time to file a Motion for

Withdrawal of Deemed Admissions (Vol. 1, Tabs 21 & 23; Vol. 2).

        On February 10, 2015, C. SEWELL filed his Motion to Withdraw Deemed Admissions with

his attached Responses to the Requests for Admission (Vol. 1, Tabs 21 & 23).

        On April 6, 2015, T. SEWELL and STANLEY filed their Response to C. SEWELL’s Motion

to Withdraw Deemed Admissions (Vol. 1, Tab 22).

        On April 7, 2015, a hearing was held on the Motion to Withdraw Deemed Admissions and

after hearing, the Court entered an order denying the motion (Vol. 1, Tab 24).

                                             Page -4-
                                    Argument and Authorities

         A court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus, “agreeable to the principles of law

regulating those writs,” against a judge of a county court. TEX.GOV.CODE §22.221(b)(1) (Vernon

2004).

No Adequate Remedy of Appeal
         A mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct a clear abuse of

discretion or a violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In

re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex. 2005). “A trial court clearly abuses its discretion

if ‘it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error

of law’ ” (quoting Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985). “A clear

failure to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion, and may result

in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992).

In Walker, the Texas Supreme Court held that an appeal will be inadequate where the relator’s . . .

“ability to present a viable claim or defense at trial is vitiated or severely compromised by the trial

court’s discovery error . . . The relator must establish the effective denial of a reasonable

opportunity to develop the merits of his or her case, so that the trial would be a waste of judicial

resources.” Id. at 843. In In re Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc., 45 S.W.3d 772 (Tex.App. - Tyler

2001, no pet.), the Tyler Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Brown &

Root’s motion to strike, withdraw or amend its deemed admissions, and that Brown & Root lacked

an adequate remedy by appeal. See Page 777. Likewise, in In re Rozelle, 229 S.W.3d 757 (Tex.

App - San Antonio 2007, orig. proceeding), the San Antonio Court held that the trial court abused

its discretion in denying Rozelle’s request to withdraw deemed admissions received by Rozelle when

he was acting pro se, and therefore conditionally granted a Writ of Mandamus. See Page 764; see

also TransAmerican National Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.3d 913, 919 (Tex. 1991) (orig.

                                               Page -5-
proceeding) (“Whenever a trial court imposes sanctions which have the effect of adjudicating a

dispute, but by striking pleadings, dismissing an action or rendering a default judgment, but which

do not result in rendition of an appealable judgment, then the eventual remedy by appeal is

inadequate.”)

        In Walker, the Court stated there is no adequate remedy by appeal for a merits-preclusive

discovery sanction, unless “the sanctions are imposed simultaneously with the rendition of a final,

appealable judgment.” Walker at 843. No such judgment has been rendered in our case.

The Substance of TRCP Rule 198.3
        The applicable Texas Rule of Civil Procedure (TRCP) regarding the effect of deemed
admissions and their withdrawal is Rule 198.3. The pertinent language of Rule 198.3 is as follows:

       “ . . . a matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established as to the party making the
admission unless the court permits the party to withdraw or amend the admission. The court may
permit the party to withdraw or amend the admission if:
       (a)       the party shows good cause for the withdrawal or amendment; and
       (b)       the court finds that the parties relying upon the responses and deemed admissions
                 will not be unduly prejudiced and that the presentation of the merits of the action will
                 not be subserved by permitting the party to amend or withdraw the admission.”

        Breaking down the requirements of subsections (a) & (b) of 198.3, it is C. SEWELL’s

position that in seeking withdrawal of deemed admissions he must show (1) good cause for the

withdrawal; (2) that such withdrawal will not unduly prejudice the party relying on the deemed

admissions; and (3) that the merits of the case will be benefitted or promoted by permitting the

withdrawal.

Good Cause Exists to Withdraw the Deemed Admissions

        “Good cause” is established by showing the failure involved was an accident or mistake, not

intentional or the result of conscious indifference. Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex.

1996). While C. SEWELL recognizes that trial courts have broad discretion to permit or deny

withdrawal of deemed admissions, but they cannot do so arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without

reference to guiding principles. Id. at 622.

                                               Page -6-
There does exist good cause for withdrawal of the deemed admissions:

(1)    At the time of delivery of the requests for admission to C. SEWELL, he was

       representing himself pro se, (attorney Northcutt having withdrawn as counsel of

       record in January of 2009 and before attorney Bauer undertook his representation)

       (Vol. 1, Tabs 9 & 13; Vol. 2).

(2)    Representing himself, C. SEWELL did not have an understanding of the effect of

       admissions and the consequences of not responding to them (Vol. 1, Tabs 21 & 23;

       Vol. 2). As in the Rozelle case previously cited, and the Wheeler case hereafter

       discussed, the fact that the party receiving the Requests for Admission, not being a
       lawyer, is significant to the Court’s determination under Rule 198.3.

(3)    While C. SEWELL does not deny that his signature is affixed to the certified

       mailing’s return receipt card at the time of delivery of the Requests for Admission,

       he does not have recollection of the Requests for Admission and has not been able

       to locate said document (Vol. 1, Tabs 21 & 23; Vol. 2).

(4)    The deposition of C. SEWELL was taken in May 2008. In said deposition, C.

       SEWELL took a position entirely contrary to the substance of the requested

       admissions delivered to him in 2010 (Vol. 1, Tab 21, Page 4 & 5, Tab 23; Vol. 2).

       Upon taking this deposition, attorney Cable became acutely aware of C. SEWELL’s

       position in the case (Vol. 1, Tab 21, Page 4, Tab 23; Vol. 2). Additionally, attorney

       Cable was aware that C. SEWELL’s opposition filed by attorney Northcutt in

       February 2008, a date over two years before the Requests for Admission, denied

       allegations that Decedent lacked testamentary capacity and that C. SEWELL exerted

       undue influence over Decedent (Vol. 1, Tab 21, Page 5, Tab 23; Vol. 2). The subject

       Requests for Admission, as deemed, are in direct contradiction to S. SEWELL’s

       position in the case.

                                     Page -7-
       (5)     Attorneys Bauer & McCampbell were never made aware of the delivery of Requests

               for Admission to C. SEWELL, either by C. SEWELL himself or by attorney Cable,

               until the morning of jury selection in January of 2015.

               Neither did the Court’s file contain any evidence that Requests for Admission had

               been sent to C. SEWELL.2 Had either attorney been made aware, one of two things

               would have happened: (1) Responses to the Request for Admissions would have been

               immediately prepared and submitted; or (2) a Motion to Withdraw Deemed

               Admissions would have been filed shortly after being made aware of them (Vol. 1,

               Tab 21, Page 4, Tab 23; Vol. 2).
       (6)     Over 4½ years elapsed from the deadline for responding to the Requests for

               Admission and the filing of the Certificate of Deemed Admissions (Vol. 1, Tab 20).

       (7)     While our rules do not mandate if or when a Certificate of Deemed Admissions

               should be filed in a given case, the effect of attorney Cable’s chosen course was to

               allow C. SEWELL to hire not one but two more attorneys, spending thousands of

               dollars in preparation for trial when attorney Cable knew all along that C. SEWELL’s

               case was effectively “gutted” by the deemed admissions (Vol. 1, Tabs 21 & 23; Vol.

               2).

       Based on the foregoing, C. SEWELL’s failure to respond was not intentional or the result of

conscious indifference, bad faith, or a callous disregard for the rules.

Real Parties in Interest Will Not be Unduly Prejudiced

by the Withdrawal of the Deemed Admissions
       (1)     This case commenced in January of 2008. Approximately (7) seven years passed

               between that date and the trial setting of January 12, 2015. During that time, both

                                              Page -8-

       2
          At the time of delivery of the Requests for Admission by the attorney Cable, no Certificate
of Written Discovery was filed with the Court (which is customarily done by attorneys) nor was any
other type of notice filed with the Court that the Requests were being sent. This is significant
because attorney McCampbell’s thorough review of the Court’s file and previous attorney Bauer’s
file did not reveal any hint of the Requests for Admission (Vol. 1, Tab 21, Pages 2, 3, & 4).
      sides have conducted discovery, i.e., depositions, requests for disclosure,

      interrogatories and requests for production (Vol. 1, Tabs 21 & 23; Vol. 2). The

      position of the REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST is that they will be prejudiced if the

      admissions are withdrawn because they would have conducted and completed more

      discovery had they known. This position is not supported by case law. As already

      stated, over 4½ years have passed between the deadline to respond to the Requests

      for Admission and the trial setting, more than ample time for all discovery to be

      conducted.

             In Employer’s Ins. of Wausau v. Halton, 792 S.W.2d 462, 467 (Tex.App. -
      Dallas 1990, writ denied), the Dallas Court, in allowing the withdrawal of deemed

      admissions, stated that:

           “Defendant’s counsel pointed out that Plaintiff had almost a month before trial
      to conduct additional discovery the matters previously admitted. We reiterate that
      Plaintiff had known since early July. When Defendant filed its Original Answer, that
      Defendant contested almost all material issues in the case . . . It is hard to find
      prejudice where the parties had almost a month before the trial in which they could
      conduct additional discovery about the injury and the disputed fact issues.
      Moreover, as we have stressed, Plaintiff knew that Defendant contested the very
      ‘injury’ upon which Plaintiff’s Industrial Accident Board award was based. He
      cannot now claim prejudice by its ‘reliance’ on the deemed admissions when he knew
      that Defendant disputed almost every issue in the lawsuit.” See Page 467.

(2)   As already stated, STANLEY and T. SEWELL, by Attorney Cable, had previously

      deposed C. SEWELL in 2008. Their theories of the case were not dependent upon

      the deemed admissions. These facts are similar to those in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.

      Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. 1998). In Deggs, the Court held that because Plaintiff

      Deggs had taken the deposition of Defendant Smith before the Requests for

      Admission to Smith were due, Deggs would not be unduly prejudiced if the deemed

      admissions were withdrawn. Id. at 357. That Court further held that deemed

      admissions should be withdrawn if presentation of the merits of the action will be

      served thereby. Deggs at 356.

                                    Page -9-
       (3)     During the pendency of this case, both sides either requested or agreed to several

               continuances regarding trial of the case (Vol. 2).

       (4)     The term “prejudice” does not include the fact that, if the admissions were

               withdrawn, the party who obtained that admission would then have to convince the

               fact finder of its truth. See FDIC v. Prusia, 18 F.3d 637, 640 (8th Cir. 1994).

Withdrawal of the Deemed Admissions Would Promote
Presentation of the Merits of the Case
       TRCP 198.3 includes as part of the undue prejudice inquiry whether presentation of the

merits will be served by permitting withdrawal of deemed admissions.
       “The discovery rules were not designed as traps for the unwary, nor should we construe them

as preventing a litigant from presenting the truth.” See Stelly at 622; see also Marino v. King, 355
S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. 2011) (quoting U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Gundeau, 272 S.W.3d 603, 610

(Tex. 2008): “Requests for Admission should be used as a ‘tool not a trap door’ ”). “The primary

purpose [of Rule 169 (now 198)] is to simplify trials by eliminating matters about which there is no

real controversy, but which may be difficult or expensive to prove. Is was never intended to be used

as a demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of

defense.” See Sanders v. Harder, 148 Tex. 593, 227 S.W.2d 206, 208 (1950).

       When a party uses deemed admissions to try to preclude presentation of the merits of a case,

due process concerns should arise. See Trans-American National Gas Corp., 811 S.W.2d 913, 918

(Tex. 1991) (quoting National Hockey League, 427 U.S. at 642-643, 96 S.Ct. at 2780-81:

“Sanctions which are so severe as to preclude presentation of the merits of the case should not be

assessed absent a party’s flagrant bad faith or counsel’s callous disregard under the rules.”)

       In the case at bar, T. SEWELL alleges by his pleading that Decedent did not have

testamentary capacity to execute the August 8, 2007 Will and that C. SEWELL unduly influenced

                                             Page -10-
Decedent in her execution of that Will (Vol. 1, Tab 4). The deemed admissions, as a whole, have

the effect of either precluding C. SEWELL’s presentation of the merits of his case or precluding his

ability to present a ground of defense to the allegations (undue influence and lack of testamentary

capacity) in his opponent’s pleadings (Vol. 1, Tab 22). Furthermore, several of the requests in

question ask C. SEWELL to admit or deny a purely legal issue, i.e., that C. SEWELL exercised

undue influence over Decedent; that the August 8, 2007 Will is invalid; and that C. SEWELL is

liable for damages and attorney’s fees (Vol. 1, Tab 22). Similarly, in Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d
439 (Tex. 2005), a custody modification case, the Court found that . . . “of the 64 deemed

admissions, none sought to discover information: nine deemed circumstances changed so
modification was proper, twenty-seven deemed modification in the child’s best interest, twenty-seven

deemed Sandra liable for malicious prosecution, and three deemed her liable for child support,

attorney’s fees, and exemplary damages.” Wheeler at 443. The Supreme Court in Wheeler held

that there was good cause for withdrawing the deemed admissions and that withdrawal would not

cause undue prejudice to the father. Id. at 444. The Court in Wheeler, while agreeing that pro se

litigants were not exempt from the rules of procedure (see Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573
S.W.2d 181, 184-185 (Tex. 1978) ), stated that:

       “When a rule itself turns on an actor’s state of mind (as these do here), application may

       require a different result when the actor is not a lawyer. Recognizing that

       Sandra did not know what any lawyer would does not create a separate rule, but

       recognizes the differences the rule itself contains.” Wheeler at 444.

       The due process concern voiced in Wheeler arises here because of the very nature of the

admissions requested in the case at bar, and the trial court’s subsequent denial of the Motion to

Withdraw Deemed Admissions has a merits-preclusive effect on C. SEWELL’s case and the case

as a whole.

                                             Page -11-
                                             Prayer
       RELATOR prays that this Court issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding RESPONDENT,

the Honorable Amy Smith, to vacate her Order denying RELATOR’S Motion to Withdraw Deemed

Admissions and to enter an order granting RELATOR’s Motion to Withdraw Deemed Admissions

and permitting RELATOR to substitute his late responses, and for such other and further relief to

which RELATOR may be entitled.

                                            Respectfully submitted,

                                            CURTIS, ALEXANDER & McCAMPBELL, P.C.
                                            Number One Planters Street
                                            P.O. Box 38
                                            Emory, Texas 75440
                                            Tel. (903) 473-2297
                                            Fax. (903) 473-3069

                                            //s// J. Brad McCampbell
                                            bmccampbell@cammpclaw.com
                                            Texas Bar No. 13358000
                                            ATTORNEYS FOR CARLTON SEWELL

                                           Page -12-
                                           VERIFICATION

STATE OF TEXAS                X

COUNTY OF RAINS               X

       BEFORE ME, the undersigned notary public, on this day personally appeared J. Brad

Mccampbell, Relator's attorney, who being duly sworn by me deposed and said:

       1.     "I am counsel of record for CARLTON SEWELL, Relator in this case. I am over 21
              years of age and am competent to make this affidavit. I have read the Petition for
              Writ ofMandamus to which this Verification is attached, which is filed on behalf of
              CARLTON SEWELL and every factual statement contained in the petition is within
              my personal knowledge and is true and correct.

      2.      "The petition is accompanied by a two-volume record and an appendix. I have
              personal knowledge that the pleadings, motions, and orders contained in Volume 1
              of the record and those contained in the appendix are true and correct copies. I also
              have personal knowledge that the reporter's transcript contained in Volume 2 of the
              record is a true and correct copy of the electronic recording of the hearing on
              CARLTON SEWELL's Motion to Withdraw Deemed Admissions that has been
              transcribed by Jana Atchison Rushing, CSR."

       Further Affiant sayeth not.

      SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFOREMEonJune23, 2015, to certify which witness
my hand and official seal.

                             SUSAN PEREZ
                         My Commission Expires
                            August24,2018

                                                 Page -13-
                                      Certificate of Service
       I certify that a true copy of this Petition for Writ of Mandamus was served in accordance with

Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on each party or the attorney for such party

indicated below by hand delivery on this 25th day of June, 2015.

                                              /s/ J. Brad McCampbell
                                              __________________
                                               Attorney for Relator
Honorable Amy Smith
Presiding Judge of the
Hopkins County Court at Law
118 Church Street
Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482
By Hand Delivery

Mr. Chad Cable
CHAD CABLE LAW OFFICE
323 Gilmer Street
Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482
Attorney for Applicant and Contestants
By Hand Delivery

                                             Page -14-
Appendix

      1.   Certified copy of the Trial Court’s Order dated April 14, 2015

      2.   Copy of TEX. GOV. CODE, § 22.221 (Vernon 2004)

      3.   Copy of TEX.R.CIV.P. 198.3

                                       Page -15-
                                   NO. P08 - 13,106
                                                                              7.015 1~PR I Lt P 2: ~-5
ESTATE OF                                   §                IN THE COUNTY GDERJ?~!r'·!-~Y
                                                                                      t_,:JUfof f 'f   L~f:R~{
                                            §
VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD,                      §                                By···••H. ·-·· ··-··--·---·-··-·-· 0E? uT'f
DECEASED                                    §                HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS

    ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW DEEMED ADMISSIONS,
            SHEDULING SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING
                            AND
                    REQUIRING MEDIATION

       The Court considered Probate Applicant Carlton Sewell's Motion to Withdraw

deemed Admissions and Contestant's response with argument of respective counsel on

       The Motion to Withdraw Deeded Admissions is hereby denied.

       Noting the Contestants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, a hearing on

that motion is hereby scheduled for May 21 5\ 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

       Finally, the parties are Ordered to mediation, to be completed prior to May 21 5\

2015 with a mediator to be agreed upon by the parties.

       Absent an agreement within five days the Court will name a mediator.

       The cost of the mediator shall be evenly divided between the parties.

       Signed this \ \..\   day of April, 2015.

ORDER DENYING MO'I'IONTO WITHDRAW
                                            Judge

                                       DE~SifffeX
                                                  z              >'      I

                                                                      ILUL!Ni
JUDGMENT HEARING AND RE UIRING MEDIA'lf{ip          7 ·l~      COPY OF ORIGINAL
                                            ·\--\   ~*         FILED IN 1--!0Pf GOVERNMENT CODE > TITLE 2. JUDICIAL BRANCH > SUBTITLE
A. COURTS > CHAPTER 22. APPELLATE COURTS > SUBCHAPTER C. COURTS OF APPEALS

§ 22.221. Writ Power
  (a) Each court of appeals or a justice of a court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus and all other writs necessary
      to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.
  (b) Each court of appeals for a court of appeals district may issue all writs of mandamus, agreeable to the principles
      of law regulating those writs, against a:
        (1) judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district; or
        (2) judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52, Code of Criminal
            Procedure, in the court of appeals district.
  (c) [Repealed by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 148 (S.B. 895), § 2.03, effective September 1, 1987.]
  (d)    Concurrently with the supreme court, the court of appeals of a court of appeals district in which a person is
        restrained in his liberty, or a justice of the court of appeals, may issue a writ of habeas corpus when it appears that
        the restraint of liberty is by virtue of an order, process, or commitment issued by a court or judge because of the
        violation of an order, judgment, or decree previously made, rendered, or entered by the court or judge in a civil case.
        Pending the hearing of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the court of appeals or a justice of the court of
        appeals may admit to bail a person to whom the writ of habeas corpus may be granted.

History

Enacted by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 480 (S.B. 1228), § 1, effective September 1, 1985; am. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch.
69 (S.B. 151), § 1, effective May 6, 1987; am. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 148 (S.B. 895), §§ 1.35, 2.03, effective
September 1, 1987; am. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 58 (H.B. 596), § 1, effective May 2, 1991; am. Acts 1995, 74th
Leg., ch. 839 (H.B. 3073), § 1, effective September 1, 1995.

LexisNexis ® Texas Annotated Statutes
Copyright © 2015 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group All rights reserved.

                                                    Philip D. Alexander
                                                Tex. R. Civ. P. 198
                                     This document is current through April 8, 2015

Texas Court Rules > STATE RULES > TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE > PART II. RULES
OF PRACTICE IN DISTRICT AND COUNTY COURTS > SECTION 9. Evidence and Discovery > B.
DISCOVERY

Rule 198 Requests for Admissions
   198.1. Request for Admissions. --A party may serve on another party - no later than 30 days before the end of the
       discovery period - written requests that the other party admit the truth of any matter within the scope of discovery,
       including statements of opinion or of fact or of the application of law to fact, or the genuineness of any documents
       served with the request or otherwise made available for inspection and copying. Each matter for which an
       admission is requested must be stated separately.
   198.2. Response to Requests for Admissions.
        (a) Time for Response. --The responding party must serve a written response on the requesting party within 30
            days after service of the request, except that a defendant served with a request before the defendant’s answer
            is due need not respond until 50 days after service of the request.
        (b) Content of Response. --Unless the responding party states an objection or asserts a privilege, the responding
            party must specifically admit or deny the request or explain in detail the reasons that the responding party
            cannot admit or deny the request. A response must fairly meet the substance of the request. The responding
            party may qualify an answer, or deny a request in part, only when good faith requires. Lack of information
            or knowledge is not a proper response unless the responding party states that a reasonable inquiry was made
            but that the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or
            deny. An assertion that the request presents an issue for trial is not a proper response.
        (c) Effect of Failure to Respond. --If a response is not timely served, the request is considered admitted without
             the necessity of a court order.
   198.3. Effect of Admissions; Withdrawal or Amendment. --Any admission made by a party under this rule may be
        used solely in the pending action and not in any other proceeding. A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively
        established as to the party making the admission unless the court permits the party to withdraw or amend the
        admission. The court may permit the party to withdraw or amend the admission if:
        (a) the party shows good cause for the withdrawal or amendment; and
        (b) the court finds that the parties relying upon the responses and deemed admissions will not be unduly
            prejudiced and that the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved by permitting the party to
            amend or withdraw the admission.

Texas Rules
Copyright © 2015 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved.

                                                   Philip D. Alexander
VOLUME 1

                       No. _____________________

                    In Re CARLTON SEWELL, Relator

                             RECORD OF
                        CERTIFIED COPIES OF
                   PLEADINGS, MOTIONS AND ORDERS

                   TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. P08-13106

IN THE ESTATE OF                *     IN THE COUNTY COURT
                                *
VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD           *     AT LAW OF
                                *
DECEASED                        *     HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS
                                             INDEX

1.    Certified copy of Application to Probate Will as Muniment of Title.

2.    Certified copy of Order Probating Will as Muniment of Title.

3.    Certified copy of Application for Probate of Will and for Letters Testamentary.

4.    Certified copy of Opposition to Probate of Will.

5.    Certified copy of Order of Transfer.

6.    Certified copy of Opposition to Application for Probate of Will and for Letters
      Testamentary and Answer to Opposition to Probate of Will.

7.    Certified copy of Amended Application for Probate of Will and for Letters Testamentary.

8.    Certified copy of Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel.

9.    Certified copy of Order Granting Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel.

10.   Certified copy of Motion for Appointment of Independent Executor.

11.   Certified copy of Order on Motion to Transfer Contested Probate Matter.

12.   Certified copy of Order Appointing Personal Representative (Temporary) Pending
      Contest.

13.   Certified copy of Notice of Appearance and Request for Notices and Service of Papers.

14.   Certified copy of Affidavit (with attachment) of Frank Bauer.

15.   Certified copy of Certificate of Written Discovery Directed to Chad Cable.

16.   Certified copy of Supplement to Opposition for Probate of Will and for Letters
      Testamentary and Answer to Opposition to Probate of Will.
17.   Certified copy of Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel.

18.   Certified copy of Order on Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel.

19.   Certified copy of Appearance of Counsel.

20.   Certified copy of Certificate of Deemed Admissions.

21.   Certified copy of Motion to Withdraw Deemed Admissions.

22.   Certified copy of Contestants’ Response to Carlton Sewell’s Motion to Withdraw Deemed
      Admissions.

23.   Certified copy of Affidavit in Support of Motion to Withdraw Deemed Admissions.

24.   Certified copy of Order Denying Motion to Withdraw Deemed Admissions, Scheduling
      Summary Judgment Hearing and Requiring Mediation.
                                 ..--......
                           NO.        tb~-        /3 JQ/p
ESTATE OF                                     §              IN THE COUNTY COURT OP.::
                                              §
VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD,                        §
DECEASED                                      §              HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS:~'

            APPLICATION TO PROBATE WILL AS MUNIMENT OF TITLE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

      Carlton N. Sewell applies to probate the Last Will and Testament of Velma Ruth

Fitzgerald, deceased, as muniment of title, and shows the Court as follows:
                                                   I.

      Applicant's domicile is in Hopkins County, Texas, where he resides at 107 Morris

Drive, Sulphur Springs, Texas, 75482. He was the decedent's cousin.
                                                  11.

      Velma Ruth Fitzgerald died in Hopkins County, Texas, on December 31, 2007, at

the age of eighty-six. At the time of her death, she was domiciled in Hopkins County,

Texas, where she resided at 890 Camp Street, Sulphur Springs, Texas, 75482.
                                                  111.

      At the time of her death, the decedent owned real and personal property whose

value applicant estimates to be less than $600,000.00.
                                                  IV.

      The decedent died testate. Her Last Will and Testament was dated August 8,

2007. A copy of such Will is attached to this application and is incorporated herein for

all purposes. The Will named Carlton N. Sewell as Independent Executor of the Will.

The said Carlton N. Sewell resides in Hopkins County, Texas. The subscribing wit-

nesses to the Will were Vicki Latimer, who is a resident of Hunt County, Texas, and

Tiffamy Bassham, who is a resident of Hopkins County, Texas.

                                                            TRUE AND CORRECT
                                                            COPY OF ORIGINAL

                                                                         - :/· S CFFICE
APPLICATION TO PROBATE WILL AS MUNIMENT OF TITLE - 1
                                              V.

          The Will does not name the state or a governmental agency of the state as a de-

vi see.
                                             VI.

          No child or children were born to or adopted by the decedent after she made the

aforesaid Will. She was never divorced.
                                             VII.

          The only debts of the Estate remaining to be paid are current bills for which the

funds of the Estate are more than adequate. There are no other debts of the Estate

remaining unpaid, exclusive of debts secured by liens on real estate. The subject Will

devises and bequeaths all of the decedent's Estate to her cousin, Carlton N. Sewell,

who is the applicant, and contains no special provisions requiring administration. There

is no necessity or reason, therefore, for administration of the decedent's Estate.

          WHEREFORE, applicant asks that citation be issued to all parties interested in

this Estate as required by law, that the aforesaid Will be admitted to probate as muni-

ment of title, and for such other and further orders as the Court may deem proper.

                                                       Ra mond R. John on
                                                       B r No. 107810
                                                       P. 0. Box 522
                                                       Sulphur Springs, Texas 75483-0522
                                                       Telephone 903-885-8691
                                                       Telefax 903-885-8692

                                                      Attorney for Applicant

                                                             :,           _,.;, __.   . i   .-   :

                                                      ,~)j            COPY OF ORid;'JAl .
                                                                      FILED IN HOPKINS
                                                   .!';~~
                                                    '.'/~Of"\'<-.;;   COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE
                                                                        · .. , ... -
APPLICATION TO PROBATE WILL AS MUNIMENT OF TITLE - 2
                              JLast WiU anb ~estament
                                                of
                               '.lJelma l\utb jfit~geralb

STATE OF TEXAS                §

COUNTY OF HOPKINS             §                        KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

       That I, VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD,' a resident of Hopkins County, Texas, being of

sound and disposing mind and memory and above the age of eighteen years, do hereby make,

publish and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament, hereby revoking all prior Wills, if

any, made by me.

                                                I.
       I direct that my just debts, funeral expenses and all taxes due as a result of my death, as
well as the costs and expenses of the administration of my estate, be paid as soon as practicable

without the unnecessary sacrifice of any of the properties of my estate.

                                                IL
       All of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, real, personal and mixed, of whatever
nature, wherever situated and however acquired, which I may own or have any interest in at the
time of my death, I give, devise and bequeath unto my cousin, CARLTON N. SEWELL, in fee
simple forever.
                                                III.
       lfmy cousin, CARLTON N. SEWELL, has predeceased me, or ifhe should die before

the expiration of ninety days following the day of my death, then I give, devise and bequeath
one-half of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate unto his wife, MARY J. SEWELL, and
the other one-half unto my cousin, TRUITT L. SEWELL, the brother of CARLTON N.
SEWELL, share and share alike, in fee simple forever.
                                                IV.

       In the event CARLTON N. SEWELL dies as set out above and in the event either the
said MARY J. SEWELL or TRUITT L. SEWELL has predeceased me or dies before the
expiration of ninety days following the day of my death, leaving a descendant or descendants
who survive my death and her or his death, then I give, devise and bequeath unto such
descendant or descendants per stirpes, in fee simple forever, the share which the decedent,
MARY J. SEWELL or TRUITT L. SEWELL, would have otherwise received, the division of
which shall be determined as if the deceased beneficiary had predeceased me. If.either the. said
MARY J. SEWELL or TRUITT L. SEWELL has predeceased me or dies befQ_i:cpka:
                    FebruMY" 200I

                                                   _,:;,..:.ivot:1y, . TRUE AND CORR'E·CT
                                                   'V~o..,,
                                                   - ·,,_J\~   ( \~ )co COPY
                                                                          .  OF ORIGINAL
                                                            , , /;\ · F!LED JN HOPK!f\JS
                                                              })   ~::             .·     F,efQre the expiration

of ninety days following the day of my death and leaves no des~i:Xidant who survives my death

and her or his death, then I give, devise and beque th in foe simple forever the share which
                                               'c~o.., TRUE AND CORRE; CT
                  .                                    _/1_ ·)~ COPY.-OF ORIGINAL '.
                                                  .    ;/~ ;; FILED IN HOPKJNS ·. ··
                               .                       _;5~Y, m!;zNTY CLERK'S CFFICE
Last Will and Testament of VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD -1         V   /f ~
MARY J. SEWELL or TRUITT L. SEWELL would have received unto the survivor between

MARY J. SEWELL or TRUITT L. SEWELL, and per stirpes to the descendant or descendants

of a deceased beneficiary, whose share or shares shall be determined as if the deceased

beneficiary had predeceased me.

                                                v.
       I hereby nominate and appoint CARLTON N. SEWELL, and if he is unable to serve,

then MARY J. SEWELL, and if she is unable to serve, then TRUITT L. SEWELL, Independent

Executor or Independent Executrix of this my Last Will and Testament, and direct that no

security be required of any of them as such Independent Executor or Independent Executrix and

that no other action be had in the administration of my estate than to probate and record this Will

and return an inventory and list of claims as required by law.

       IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed and signed these presents in

the presence of the witnesses whose names are affixed hereto and whom I have requested to sign

their names hereto as witnesses, and in the presence of said                       wit~esses   I have declared and
published the foregoing as my Last Will and Testament on the                      /1 L    day of August, 2007.

       The foregoing was on this day signed by VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD in our presence

and in the presence of each of us, and at the time ofher subscribing said instrument she declared

that it was her Will, and at her request and in her presence, and in the presence of each other, we

have subscribed our names as witnesses thereto on the             J. £1:           day of August, 2007.

                                                     ~ TRUE AND CORRECT
                                                      .'.·./-.,, ,·,·\:.u'j\   COPY 9F ORIGINAL
                                                                     "         FILED !N HOPr                    E ANO CORRECT
                                                "*
                                            .'~l~
                                            ·: ,~0f:. .,.
                                                                 h
                                                                C.OPY OF ORIGINAL
                                                                FILED JN HOPKINS
                                                                                             2
                                             'v!·        cl-~   CQI
                                              '-'1.?:°2f'"           Uf\JTY CLEW<'S CFFICE
the deceased at the time of the execution of the instrument in question, and the deceased

would not have executed that instrument but for that influence. This undue influence was

exercised in the following manner:

        The evidence will show that Carlton Sewell and his agents were systematically

engaged in gaining psychological control of the Decedent through a scheme of telling

Decedent untrue statements concerning her family members, the nature of her estate and

her living circumstances.

        By sequestering the Decedent from her other family members and even, on two

occasions, physically threatening and assaulting other family members, Carlton Sewell

prevented contact with the Decedent that might have endangered his goal of absconding

with the estate.

        Contestants will show that in furtherance of his greedy plan, Carlton Sewell

utilized the Decedent's power of attorney to convert certain of Decedent's assets to his

own benefit prior to Decedent's death.

                                           VII.

        Contestants have joined in the filing of Decedent's true and lawful will dated

April 26, 1993, along with this opposition and respectfully request the admission to

probate of that will contemporaneous with setting aside the offending will.

       WHEREFORE, Contestants request that upon trial hereof the instrument offered

by proponent Carlton Sewell be set aside, and that in the interim the Order Probating Will

as a Muniment of Title be withdrawn.

       Contestants pray for such other and ¥her relief as the Court may deem proper.

                                                         THUE AND CORRECT
                                                         COPY OF ORIGINAL
                                                         FILED IN HOPKINS                   3
                                                         COL)                 S CFFICE
Respectfully submitted,

Chad Cable
State Bar No. 03575300
323 Gilmer St.
Sulphur Springs, Texas 755482
Telephone (903) 885-1500
Telecopier (903) 885-7501

Attorney for Contestants

                                4
    =============================;;~;;=~;=;~=================================                     II
~~ ============================================================================ &'~IJI
    TO ALL PERSONS interested in the estate of FITZGERALD, VELMA RUTH DECD
    STANLEY, JANET NEAL             has filed in the County Court of
    Hopkins County, an application for the Probate of the Last Will and
    Testament of said FITZGERALD, VELMA RUTH DECD       said will filed
                                                          I

    on 30th day of January , 2008       with said application, and for
    Letters Testamentary.

         The file number of such application and the Probate Docket Number
~   being No.        P08-13106.

         ALL PERSONS interested in said estate ARE CITED TO APPEAR in the
    County Court of Hopkins County, Texas, in the Courthouse thereof at or
    before 10 o'clock a.m. on the first Monday after service is perfected by
    the completion of such posting, which is the 11th day of February ,
    2008   to contest said application if they desire to do so, by filing
    opposition in writing.
    The name and address of the attorney for applicant, or the address of
    applicant is:

    CHAD CABLE
    323 GILMER STREET

    SULPHUR SPRINGS, TX 75482

    The officer executing this citation shall post the copy of this Citation
    at the Courthouse door of. the County in which this proceeding is pending,
    or at the place in or near sai.dcourthouse where public notices customarily
    are posted, for not less'than lOdays before the return day thereof,
    exclusive of the date of posting ahd return the original copy of this
    Citation to the Clerk stating i.n a written return thereon the time and
    place where he posted such copy ..

    GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL, at Sulphur Springs, Texas
     31st day of January      2008 .
                                                                       V:J

    DEBBIE SHIRLEY, COUNTY CLERK                                     I"" !II f! ,/i!!
    ~~
    ADDRESS · OF CLERK:
                                            DEPUTY
                              P. 0. BOX 2 8 8
                                                                    j i! li;
                                                                       --. ,            ;:~J:f!
                              SULPHUR SPRINGS, TX 75483                        1::;>       ~,

                                SHERIFF'S RETURN        ·             2;               _:~7fj
    Came to hand on 1-30-2008 at     4~/I     o'clock,        _£_
                                                            M. and executed on
     1-30-2008, by posting a copy of the within Citation for ten days,
    exclusive of the day of posting, before the return day hereof.
    At the place in or near the Courthouse of Hopkins County, Texas, where
    public notices customarily are posted.
         ,~o'° TRUE AND CORRECT
          · ~~ COPY OF ORIGINAL                  CHARLES (BUTCH) ADAMS, SHERIFF

          ~;))i{r;J''i~: ~~EL~~~~~~~~~~\'S OFFICE     H~~
                                                      B,  EPUTY
                                             /):>;~ o
                                            JY /    X
                                                                     -;; l /i/ i-0I
                                                                   l )/ l
                           CAUSE NO.        if 1 ,I   ( \ --   I    ....J    v',r

IN THE ESTATE OF                              )                     IN THE COUNTY COURT
                                              )
                                              )
                                              )
                                              )                    HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS

                             ORDER OF TRANSFER

           >-
       0ntlfe14th day of February, 2008, the County Court of Hopkins County

Texas transfers the above-entitled cause to the County Court at Law for the purpose

of hearing any and all contested matters.

                                                            Judge A!J'y SMith

                                                       .,...Cl 'C
                                                        !l\'.JL_    AND··.
                                                                     I       ro· RRECT
                                                                             v
                                                       SOPY OF ORIGINAL
                                                       FILED IN HOPKINS
                                                       COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE
                                                                                                       Ff LED F
                                                 NO. POS-13,106                                              ',   '

                                                                                                  nnR Fen
                                                                                                 Z..,_.;JU LO 1L
                                                                                                                 PM Li= 09
                                                                                                                         ~

ESTATE OF                                                  §             IN THE COUNTY COURT

VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD,
                                                           §
                                                           §                                       L    •.   L:'i:;: :~. /~{iRk'·.
DECEASED                                                   §             HOPKINS COUNf,r,TEXAS ricnp~·-
                                                                                                              ---:::-·------ tit_,- i_J !   y

                 OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR PROBATE OF WILL
                         AND FOR LETTER TESTAMENTARY
                                      AND
                   ANSWER TO OPPOSITIDNTO PROBATE OF WILL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

         CARLTON SEWELL, for the purpose of opposing the Application for Probate of Will and

For Letters Testamentary, filed January 30, 2008, by Janet Neal Stanley, and further for the purpose

of answering the Opposition to Probate of Will filed on January 30, 2008, by Truitt Sewell, et al,

furnishes the following information to the Court:

                                                           I.

         Carlton Sewell is the Independent Executor named in the Last Will and Testament of Velma

Ruth Fitzgerald, executed by Ms. Fitzgerald on the 8th of August, 2008 1• Mrs. Fitzgerald passed

away on December 31, 2007. Application to pro bate the above referenced Last Will and Testament

was filed on January 2, 2008. The County Court for Hopkins County, Texas, hearing probate matters,

issued an order probating the will as a muniment of title on January 15, 2008.

                                                          II.

         Citation was served and returned in the manner and for the length of time required by law,

and no objection to the subject application was made or filed.

                                                          III.
         The Opposition to Probate of Will filed by Truitt Sewell, et al, was filed on January 30, 2008,

         1
          This will expressly revoked all prior wills,-fuciuding but not linlited to the will purportedly executed by
the decedent on or about April 26, 1993, which the opposing parties sponsor and seek to have admitted to probate.

OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR PROBATE OF WILL
AND FOR LETTERS TESTAMENTARY                 ,       ~y.1'1 OF;;.   TRUE AND CORRECT                                     -PAGE 1-
                                                    (J~o,,.,
                                                   ;!(   &
                                                   .. , ~*
                                                                 l~ COPY.OF ORIGINAL
                                                                    FILED IN HOPKINS
                                                     '~oF~.f'.      COUNTY CLER!<'S OFFICE
and was thus not timely filed and should be stricken. The Application for Probate of Will and For

Letter Testamentary filed by Janet Neal Stanley was also filed on January 30, 2008, and was thus

not timely filed and should be stricken.

                                                  IV.

       Carlton Sewell denies the allegation that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity when she

executed the will which has already been ordered probated as a muniment of title. Further, Carlton

Sewell denies the slanderous allegation in the above-referenced parties' pleadings that Velma Ruth

Fitzgerald's last will and testament, dated August 8, 2008, was executed as the result of undue

influence exerted over the decedent by Carlton Sewell and his agents.

                                                  v.
       Carlton Sewell prays for reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs as allowed under section

243 of the Texas Probate Code

       WHEREFORE, Carlton Sewell requeststhattheoffendingwilloffered by Janet Neal Stanley

be set aside by virtue of the later executed will which revoked it and because such filing was

untimely. Additionally, Carlton Sewell requests that the Opposition to the Probate ofthe Will filed

by Truitt Sewell, et al, be set aside as being untimely filed and void. Carlton Sewell further prays for

such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                LAW OFFICE OF EDDIE NORTHCUTT
                                                P.O. Box 308
                                                1331 South Broadway
                                                Sulphur Springs, Texas 75483-0308
                                                Tel: (903) 885-7577
                                                Fax: (90    85-7579

                                                By~·':.p--_;_~__,..,,_.~+--d-~--=--'-"'-~~~~~-
                                                      Eddie No .cutt ·
                                                      State Bar No. 24 26456
                                                      Attorney for Defendant

OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR PROBATE OF WILL

                                                 :_~.o TRUE AND CORRECT
AND FOR LETTERS TESTAMENTARY                                                                    -PAGE2-

                                                 '( "'f'? )~   COPY OF ORIGINAL
                                                  \  ~* FILED IN HOPKINS
                                                 .J>~lioF'f0~ COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE
                                  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I certify that on February 14, 2008 a true and correct copy of the Opposition to Application
for Probate of Will and For Letters Testamentary and swer to 'Position to Probate of Will was
 served on Chad Cable by facsimile 903-885-750           / /,
                                                       ,

OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR PROBATE OF WILL
AND FOR LETTERS TESTAMENTARY                                                                 -PAGE3-
                                                             TRUE AND CORRECT
                                                             COPY OF ORIGINAL
                                                             FILED IN HOP!
                      AMENDED APPLICATION FOR PROBATE OF WILL:J.J                                                    =                      --n
                                       AND                     ~                                  ()
                                                                                                                     =
                                                                                                                     =
                                                                                                                     ::ii:
                                                                                                                                    )

                                                                                                                                  ;;2,~
                                                                                                       ~.:r.;          ~          --· -:-c::;
                            FOR LETTERS TESTAMENTARY                                                   ;   ,.          ?O                   --n
                                                                                                           Pl           I                   CJ
                                                                                       li         --
                                                                                                                            c:>             ')
                                                                                                                                        '

               JANET NEAL STANLEY, applicant, for purpose of probating the written will of

    VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD, deceased, and for issuance of letters testamentary,

     furnishes the following information to the Court:

                                                     I.

               Applicant is interested in this estate and is an individual residing at 608

     Willowood Lane, Lancaster, Dallas County, Texas 75134.

                                                     IL

               Decedent died on December 31, 2007, in Sulphur Springs, Hopkins County,

     Texas, at the age of eighty six (86) years.

                                                    III.

               This Court has jurisdiction and venue because deceased was domiciled and had a
·--~~ ......

     fi)red_p!ace of residence in this county at the time of death.
               ·-~~

                                                    IV.

               Decedent owned personal and real property is excess of $600,000.00.

                                                                      TRUE AND CORRECT
                                                                      COPY OF ORIGINAL                                     1
                                                                      FILED IN HOPKINS
                                                                      cc:;       CLER'.<'S OFFICE
                                             V.

       Decedent executed a will dated April 26, 1993, a copy of which is attached to this

application as "Exhibit A".

       The original of the April 26, 1993 will has not been located but is believed to

have last been in the possession of Carlton Sewell who is the applicant in a competing

application.

       In that competing application, Carlton Sewell sponsors a will which applicant

herein together with other interested parties are contesting.

                                             VI.

       Decedent's will named your applicant's mother, Sue Neal, as independent

executrix and Woodrow Wells as an alternate. Sue Neal is incapacitated and Woodrow

Wells is deceased.

       Applicant is willing to serve as Executrix, is not disqualified and is the choice of

the other interested devisees aligned with her.

                                            VII.

       As shown in "Exhibit A", an original of the April 26, 1993 will would be self-

proving if found. Absent that, applicant will prove that the will was executed by

Decedent.

                                            VIII.

       No child was born to or adopted by Decedent during her lifetime. Decedent was a

widow at the time of her death.

                                                            TRUE AND CORRECT
                                                            COPY OF ORtGINAL                  2
                                                            FILED !f\! HOPK!f\.!S
                                            IX.

       The names and addresses of the devisees and their relationships to Decedent are

as follows:

       1.      Thru the Bible Radio Network is an organized ministry located at
               1095 East Green Street, Pasadena, California 91106.

       2.      Nicholas Ryan Maryol is a nephew of decedent who may be contacted
               in care of the Law Offices of Chad Cable, 323 Gilmer Street, Sulphur
               Springs, Texas 75482.

       3.      Crestview Baptist Church was an organized ministry located in
               Dallas, Texas, which may no longer exist.

       4.     . Lillian Sewell was an aunt of decedent but is deceased. Under the
                terms of the will her share would pass to her issue, or the heirs of
                those children not surviving. Lillian Sewell's children or their respective
                heirs are as follows:

               a)      Carlton Sewell
                       107 Morris Drive
                       Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482

               b)      Truitt Sewell
                       210 Sewell Lane
                       Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482

               c)      Truman Sewell is deceased. His children are:
                       (1)   Anita Counts
                             320 Craig Street
                             Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482

                       (2)    Troy Sewell
                              1032 N. Davis Street
                              Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482

               d)     O.C. Sewell is deceased. His child is:
                      (1)    Linda Dry
                             6700 Tenderfoot Ave.
                             Firestone, CO 80504

               e)     Royce Sewell is deceased and had no children.

                                                            TRUE ,A.ND CORRECT
                                                            COPY OF ORIGlf\J.AL               3
        5.        Sue Neal is a surviving aunt whose address is in care of Janet Neal
                  Stanley, 608 Willowood Lane, Lancaster, Texas 75134.

        6.        Alleen Neal is a aunt whose address is 2603 Lake Ridge
                  Road, Red Oak, Texas 75154.

        7.        Woodrow Wells was an uncle of decedent but is deceased. His five
                  children are:

                  a)     Robert Wells
                         101 Lassater
                         Red Oak, Texas 75154

                  b)     Harold Wells
                         714 Wayne Lee
                         Lancaster, Texas 75146

                  c)     Tracy Wright
                         2241 Mont Claire
                         Lancaster, Texas   7514~

                  d)     Cynthia Terrell
                         920 Sycamore Lane
                         Lancaster, Texas 75146

                  e)     Nick Wells
                         101 Mabry Lane
                         Red Oak, Texas 75154

        8.        Melanie Wells is a surviving cousin of decedent whose address is 6729
                  Lake Circle Drive, Dallas, Texas 75214.

                                              X.

        The original will provides that no action be had or taken by the Probate Court

other than probating the will and filing an inventory and appraisement of the estate and a

list of claims.

                                              XL

        Neither Texas, nor any governmental agency of Texas, nor any charitable

organization is named in the will as a devisee.

                                                                                          4
'''

              WHEREFORE, applicant requests that citation be issued to all persons interested

      in this estate as required by law, that the will be admitted to probate, that letters

      testamentary be issued to applicant and that such other and further orders be made as the

      Court may deem proper.

                                                      Respectfully submitted,

                                                      Chad Cable
                                                      State Bar No. 03575300
                                                      323 Gilmer St.
                                                      Sulphur Springs, Texas 755482
                                                      Telephone (903) 885-1500
                                                      Telecopier (903) 885-7501

                                                      Attorney for Applicant and Contestants

                                                                     H~JE /-\ND CORRECT
                                                                     COPY OF ORiGiNAL                          5
                                                                     FILED IN HOPl
                                                                                                                                                                          ~
                                                    J                    \                                                                            : -:                ;:::; ••

       Green Street, Pasadena/ Cal\fornia 91106;

2.     Subject       to   the    Trust/             provi\~'ii.ons                                        of          Paragraph                  V,   $25, 000.                           ~~ ~; ·~
                                              i                                      \
       to NICHOLAS RYAN MARYOL to help\with his college education;
                                          \                                                   ""~ ....~
3.     $10,000.00 to CRESTVIEW BAPTIST CHURcH., Dallas, Texas.
                            )                  ''.,
                                    III.           \

        All    the rest and          re~idue                                 of my estate, ;'e\al, personal or mixed,
                                                                                                                                       \
of    every        character,        of            which                         I           may              die          seized and possessed, or
                                                                                                                                \
to    which    I     may be  ent tled at or after                                                                          my de"ath, I hereby give,
                                                            \
                                \
devise       and    bequeath, in\ equal shares to L JLl.,IAN; SEWELL ,                                                                                                    SUE NEAL,

ALEEN NEAL,          WOODROW WELLS,                         and MELANIE WELLS; share and share alike,
                                                                                                                                       [   ::;    ;"r;R'ECl~

                                                                                                                           COPY OF ORiGlliAL
                                                                                                                           Fl.LED IN HOPKINS
                                                                                                                           COUNTY CLER!-\'S OFFICE
provided          that        if       any       of                  my                named       devisees                           die before me              leaving

issue        surviving,                then                  such                          deceased                      devisee's               share     shall         be

distributed to his, her or their issue, such idsue taking per stirpes

and not per capita.

                                                                                            IV.                          /I
                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                     /
        If    any      beneficiary                           or                beneficiaries                                    under       this       Will,     and     I,
                                                                                                                 f
                                                                                                             !

should       die         in        a     common                            accident                 9r                          disaster,         or     under       such

circumstances that it is\ doubtful w;h1ch of us died first,                                                                                                or within

thirty       (30)      days of my                    ~eath, /~.\Jjn                                 all                  of          the provisions            of    this
Will     shall      take           effect                    ~
                                                             \
                                                                               like
                                                                                       f
                                                                                             manner                      as          if   such beneficiary               or
                                                                 I                 I
                                                                 '             I
beneficiaries had predeceas~d1me.
                                                                     \     /

                                                                     v
                                                                     ' I
                                                                                            v.
       In    the event,                 NICHOL~b\ RYAN                                        MARYOL has not                                reached to age

of    eighteen         (18)        years,                    f tjereby
                                                             1  l
                                                                                                 give,                   devise           and bequeath           the

portion of my estate her~~n ~equeathed to him,                                                                                            to SUE NEAL,         such
                                                         f                 \

person       to    hold        such          es/ate\ as                                     Trustee                      and          manage       and    control

same    as    a     Trust          Estat~f                   for\ NICHOLAS                                   RYAN MARYOL,                        with     al 1      of

the     rights         and         power~                     and\ subject                                           to           all      the     limitations
                                             I                                 \
hereinafter enumerated                       }or                 the tollowing uses and purposes:

       A.     I direct my \Trustee frQm the income of such
              Trust, and so \far as neces's.~ry from the principal
              thereof, to p*ovide for tfr~ heal th and welfare
              of the benef:f,ciary of sud1 Trust so created
              as his needs I dictate,      sua,h expenditures   to
              be in the solE:? discretion of my said Trustee.
              Such expenditures may only o,e made in one of
              the following w4ys:               \
                                                 \                                                   \
                                                     \                                                   \
                  1) Directly to the                                                         petson\ or orgariization
              furnishing the medical                                                         care br /~ducation for       ','
              such beneficiary;·
                                                                                                                                 TRUE AND          RRECT
                                                                                                                                 COPY OF ORiGii•Jf\L
                                                                                                                                 FILED iN HOP~\if\JS
                                                                                                                                 COU         CLJ2RK'S CFF!CE
       2)    To  the  natural   guardian        or  legally
     appointed  guardian based     tJ':t}on ' receipts for
     actual expenditures for the ~~nficiary; or
       3)  Directly to such beneficiary~

B.   I authorize and empower         ~yTrustee to sell,
     exchange,   assign,   trans/fer   and   convey  any
     security or property, r~al or personal, which
     is a part of such Trus 1t Estate, at public or
     private sale, at such t'ime and price and upon
     such terms and conditjons,       including credit,
     as my Trustee may deterrrtine.  I further authorize
     my Trustee to incur ¢uch expenses or charges
     in the management of /such Trust Es ta te as my
     Trustee shall\ see fi;t, and to pay taxes and
     other charges fbr gov,rnmental assessments.
                         1       I
C.   Any Trust crea t:ed /herein shal 1 be governed,
     by the prov1s1ons cif the Texas Trust Act, in
     effect at my death/ except as herein otherwise
     provided, and I\ ~ereby give, to the Trustee
     all of the author~~y and powers in administering
     the said Trust ~,s is provided by said Texas
     Trust Act.    The /'i\rustee shall not be required
     to give bond f~ \the management of the Trust,
     nor .shall the ·.yrus,tee be liable for any error
     of Judgment, or fbr any acts done, or steps
     taken or omi tt~d, \.mder the advise of counsel,
     or for any misJtake \of fact or law, or for any
     thing my Trus~be might do or refrain from doing
     in good faith   j       \
D.   The Trustee /shall not recognize any transfer,
                    I       '
     mortgage,     pledge,  \ or    assignment    of    any
     beneficiary /by way \of anticipation of income
     or principa11J..   The 1\ income and principal of
     any Trust mereunder . shall not be subject to
     transfer by operatio~ of law, and shall be
     exempt from the claim~ of creditors or other
     claimants, ;' and from ot'~ers,     decrees,   levies,
     attachments,     garnishmen~s,      executions,    and
     other lega~ and equitable\process or proceedings
     to the ful~est extent perm~ssible by law.
                 \                   I
                 '                   \

E.   The    Trust shall continue. during the lifetime
     of    the beneficiary of such Trust, and until

                                                   UE AND CORRECT
                                                COPY OF ORiC';!NAL
                                                FILED IN HOP!
                                                                                              t   r-i

                                                                                             Page 1
                                                       COPY OF ORi(;:; L,L.
                                                       FILED !N HOPKiNS
                                                       COUNTYCLERK'S CFFICE
                                    Certificate of Service

       I certify that a true copy of the above was served on CARLTON SEWELL, 6940 TX

Hwy. 11 E, Sulphur Springs, TX 75482; and CHAD CABLE, 858 Gilmer, Sulphur Springs, TX

75482, in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on April   d, 2013.

                                           Frank Bauer

                                                      TRUE AND COFZRECT            Page2
                                                      COPY OF OF~iG!~lAL
                                                      FILED IN HOPKif'1S ·
                                                      COUNTY CLERK'S CFFICE
         J
IN THE ESTATE OF
                                          No. POS-13106

                                                       §     IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW

VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD,                                 §     OF

DECEASED                                               §     HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS

               ORDER ON MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL

       On   y)90    , 2013, the Court considered the Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel of

Frank Bauer.

      The Court finds that good cause exists for withdrawal of Frank Bauer as counsel.

      The Court finds that the withdrawal of Frank Bauer is not sought for delay only.

      IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Frank Bauer is permitted to withdraw as counsel of

record for CARLTON SEWELL in this case.

SIGNED on   4--'--+-"fd3~--' 2013.

                                                                                          I-"
                                                                               .....(     =         ·;:1-n
                                                                                          '-'-'     :--::::r=
                                                                               \          ::;::>-
                                                                                          -0
                                                                                          -::0
                                                                                                    -~rn
                                                                                                    ,_;10

                                                                                          r0
                                                                                \         w
                                                                                 \         u
                                                                                            ~
                                                                                             0       ::>
                                                                                             w        .'Jl

ORDER ON MOTION FOR WITHDRAW AL       -
           day of May, 2010.

        1L           Certified mail/Return receipt requested
                     Telecopier (fax)
                     Federal Express
                     Courier with Receipt
                     Registered mail/Return receipt requested
                     Regular Mail
                     Personal Hand Delivery

Date:   Mai~ 2010.

                                                  CHAD CABLE

CONTESTANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
                              REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

 1     ADMIT or DENY
       That you exercised undue influence over Velma Ruth Fitzgerald to induce her to change
       her will.

       RESPONSE:

2.     ADMIT or DENY
       That throughout the spring and summer of2007, Velma Ruth Fitzgerald was physically
       and mentally weak enough to be susceptible to undue influence.

       RESPONSE:

3.    ADMIT or DENY
      That you influenced Velma Ruth Fitzgerald to the point of subverting and overpowering
      her mind so that she would execute a new will naming you as sole beneficiary which she
      would not have done but for your influence.

      RESPONSE:

4.    ADMIT or DENY
      That you engaged in a campaign to keep other relatives of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald from
      having contact with her as part of your scheme to exert undue influence over her.

      RESPONSE:

5.    ADMIT or DENY
      That one of your techniques for exerting undue influence was to feign romantic love for
      Velma Ruth Fitzgerald in a seducing manner by physical affection and full on the mouth
      kissing.

      RESPONSE:

6.    ADMIT or DENY
      That you suggested to your brother Truitt Sewell, that the two of you get Velma Ruth
      Fitzgerald to change her will to benefit the two of you.

      RESPONSE:

7.    ADMIT or DENY
      That you told the White brothers in Vernon that Velma Ruth Fitzgenlld was not
      competent when she signed their lease contract.

      RESPONSE:
                                                       o~ +°-<>
                                              ur:s:-;:,Y..iY       TRUE Af\JD CORRECT

                                             ~,,-g;
                                             "-'             -t:   COPY OF ORIGINAL
                                                                   FILED IN HOPf
                                                                CHAD CABLE
                                                                          LAWYER

                                                                           323 GILMER
                                                               Sm..PHUR SPRINGS, TEXAS       75482                         TELE.COPIER:   (903) 885-7501

TELEPHONE:    (903) 885-1500

                   May 13, 2010

                   Via Certified Mail 7005 1820 0007 7656 6578
                   Return Receipt Requested & Regular Mail

                     Mr. Carlton Sewell
                     107 Morris Drive
                     Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482

                                    RE:      Cause No. P08-13106
                                             Estate of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald, Deceased
                                             Hopkins County, Texas

                      Dear Mr. Sewell:

                                     Enclosed are the following:
                                      1.      Motion for Appointment of Independent Executor; and

                                      2.      Order Setting Hearing.

                                                                  Sincerely,

 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION

    ~e.~                   o:i~ecy :;~plete
 • Complete items 1 2               d 3 Al
, •       4 if Restricted        is
.   s~~h~iur name and address on the ~verse
. • A.tt . . can return the card to vou
        ach t s card to th b k        J · •
    or on th front i"f     e ac of the mailpiece,
                       space permits.

  Mr. Carlton Sewell
  107 Morris Drive
  Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482                                3. ::/ervice Type
                                                                fr
                                                                rtl-certified
                                                                    R .
                                                                     eg1stered
                                                                              Mail    O Express Mail
                                                                                      D Return Recel. f fa
                                                                                                                .
                                                                                                                 . .. .
                                                                 D Insured Mail       0 C.O.D.       P · . r Merchapd1se

                                                              4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee'~           DYes
 2. Article Number                            7005                                                                               S CFF!CE
    (Transfer from service label)

  'S Form 3811, February 2004                   Domestic Return Receipt                                 102595-02-M-1540
                                                  CHAD CABLE
                                                         LAWYER

                                                         323   GILMER
                                                 SULPHUR SPRINGS, TEXAS   75482
TELEPHONE:   (903) 885-1500                                                              TELECOPIER:   (903) 885-7501

                 May 13, 2010

                Via Certified Mail 7005 1820 0007 7656 6578
                Return Receipt Requested & Regular Mail

                 Mr. Carlton Sewell
                 I 07 Morris Drive
                 Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482

                         RE:    Cause No. POS-13106
                                Estate of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald, Deceased
                                Hopkins County, Texas

                Dear Mr. Sewell:

                         Enclosed is the following:

                         I.     Request for Admissions

                                               Sincerely,

                                               Chad Cable

                CC/lar
                Enclosures

                                                                                  ''.\
                                            NO. POS-13106

IN THE ESTATE OF                                 §                      IN THE COUNTY COURT
                                                 §
VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD,                           §                      AT LAW OF
                                                 §
DECEASED                                         §                      HOPKINS cou,~TY, TE~S                                             23
                                                                                                              :                  4.1'1    :s.:.,,
                     MOTION TO WITHDRAW DEEMED ADMISSION$                                                            n::::i     ...,.,    ::.~r=
                                                                                                          j         ~~~!        :;;;:     i~ci
       . COMES NOW, Carlton Sewell, and moves the Court for an orderpertjiittin~~th~w~~
                                                                                i     -
                                                 I.

                                                 FACTS

1.      This case was commenced on January 2, 200 8 by Movant' s filing an "Application to Pro bate

Will (of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald, dated August 8, 2007) as a Muniment of Title".

2.      Said Application was heard by the Judge of the County Court of Hopkins County, Texas on

January 15, 2008 which resulted in said Will being admitted to probate as a muniment of title.

3.      On January 30, 2008, Janet Neal Stanley filed a competing Application to probate a Will

executed on April 26, 1993 by Velma Ruth Fitzgerald.

4.      Both sides filed respective oppositions to the probate applications filed.

5.      On February 14, 2008, the "\iVill contest" was transferred to the Hopkins County Court at

Law by order of the County Judge of Hopkins County.

6.      Representing Carlton Sewell in the "Will contest" was the Honorable Eddie Northcutt and

representing Janet Stariley et al was the Honorable Chad Cable. Mr. Northcutt filed an opposition

to Janet Stanley's opposition to probate on February 14, 2008.

7.      As part of the discovery performed in the case, the oral deposition of Carlton Sewell was

taken by Chad Cable on May 13, :2008. Eddie Northcutt was present during the deposition.

Regarding discovery in the case, there was no Discovery Control Plan entered by the Court. That

being the case, the applicable Disdovery Control Plan for this probate matter is TRCP 190.3, where

MOTION TO WITHDRAW DE~MED ADMISS~. TR. UE AND CORRECltage 1 of 9
               .                    '                 .   ,:-'~ W. COPY OF ORIGINAL
                                                           1-"'\ /;,"1 FILED IN HOPKINS
                                                             ,, . _;(:'./
                                                                   ~;~.-'
                                                                          (°' ;..-, ; ! HT'J ('; c: C) V'S
                                                                          v         ._J ;: \\ I 1 '-~ ;. - L_ • \I \..
                                                                               !,_...
                                                                                                                         c FFICE
                                                                                                                         ,J -
discovery is mandated to be completed no later than nine months after the earlier of the date of the

first oral deposition or the due date of the first response to written discovery. The deposition of Mr.

Sewell on May 13, 2008, was the commencement of the discovery period.

8.      On January 23, 2009, the Court signed an order allowing Eddie Northcutt' s withdrawal from

the representation of Carlton Sewell.

9.      On June 17, 2010, Carlton Sewell retained the services of the Honorable Frank Bauer to

represent him in the "Will contest".

10.     In the interim between the withdrawal of Eddie Northcutt and the engagement of Frank

Bauer's services, it appears that on May 13, 2010, Chad Cable served Requests for Admissions on

Mr. Sewell, who, at the time, was acting prose. A true copy of the Requests for Admissions are

attached hereto as Exhibit "A".

11.     Carlton Sewell did not respon~ to said Requests for Admissions.

12.     The parties tqereafter continued to engage in various forms of discovery, i.e., Requests for

Disclosure, Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and additional depositions.

13.     On April 22, 2013, Frank Bauer filed a motion to withdraw from the representation of

Carlton Sewell. An order allowing Mr. Bauer's withdrawal was signed by this Court on April 23,

2013.
                 I
14.     In July, 2013, Carlton Sewell retained the services of J. Brad McCampbell, attorney, to

represent Mr. Sewell in the matter. Mr. McCampbell's representation continues to date.

15.     Since being engaged by Mr. Sewell, Mr. Mccampbell began preparation to try this case in

front of a jury. This case was set on various jury dockets only to be continued each time.

16.     On January 12, 2015, the case was finally set to commence with jury selection at 1:00 p.m.

At 9 :20 a.m. on January 12, Chad Cable filed a document titled "Certificate of Deemed Admissions"

notifying the Court. of the failure of Carlton Sewell to respond to the Requests for Admissions

submitted by Mr. Cable over 4Vz years before.

           .                  /:~:-:-~-~·~·~   UE AND CORr:.--
                                                                   FILED IN HOPf\INS ,
                                                                   COUNTY CLEHK'S CFFICE
17.    Neither Frank Bauer nor J. Brad McCampbell knew of these existence of these request for

admissions until the filing of the Certificate of Deemed Admissions by Mr. Cable literally hours

before jury selection. Based on that filing, this Court excused the jury panel prior to commencement

of trial and has allowed Mr. McCan1pbell time to file this Motion for Withdrawal of Deemed

Admissions.

                                                 II.
                                           ARGUMENT

       Rule 198.3 of Tex. R. Civ. P. states in part:

               ... A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established as to the

       party making the admission unless the court permits the party to withdraw or amend

       the admission. The court may permit the party to withdraw or amend the admission

       if:
               '(a)       the party shows good cause for the withdrawal or amendment; and

               (b)        the court finds that the parties relying upon the responses and
                          deemed admissions will not be unduly prejudiced and that the
                          presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved by
                          permitting the party to amend or withdraw the admission.

       See Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.3; see also Wal-mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 356

(Tex. 1998).

       Subsections (a) and.(b) of 198.3 provide the requirements for one seeking withdrawal of

deemed admissions. Breaking those requirements down, one seeking withdrawal must show: (1)

good cause for the withdrawal; (2) that such withdrawal will not unduly prejudice the party relying

on the deemed admissions; and (3) that the merits of the case will be benefitted or promoted by

permitting the withdrawal.

       In support ofMovant's request for withdrawal, Movant shows:

1.     At the time of delivery of the requests for admissions, Mr. Sewell was not represented by

counsel. Representing himself pro se, Mr. Sewell did not have (ill understanding ofthe consequences

of not responding to the requests. Interestingly, during Eddie Northcutt's approxiinate one (1) year
                                                        .. ·~:r:,-;-.. .

MOTION TO WITHDRAW DEEMED ADMISSiO~,\
                          .                        .· '\ 7 )z; r~,_,op\J.·:EY Or-~.f\lfl.-:.:.·CC.'lHREC:ffage
                                                                                    Oi~IGiNAL
                                                                                                               3 of 9
                      ·                            '·>·-~,;;~              FlLED.!NHOVi\!NS
                                                       Deggs, 968 S.W.2d at 356, (Deggs,,the party relying on

the deemed admissions had deposed Smith, the party that failed to respond to admission requests.

MOTION TO WITHDRAW DEElVIED ADMIS~iq:~s     JE     D CORRECT Page 4 of 9
                               ". ~ 7 J~J COPY OF ORiGlrJAL
                                               \, '.J.--':">fJ   FILED IN :-:oPKINS :
                                                ., ·-t££:S"      COUf'~TY CLcRK'S OFFICE
The Court found that because Deggs was not dependent on the deemed admissions for developing

her theory of the case, she would not be unduly prejudiced if the deemed admissions were

withdrawn.) Sewell's position was in direction contradiction to the deemed admissions. The tenor

of the requests for admissions was to seek admissions from Mr. Sewell that he unduly influenced

Ms. Fitzgerald in her execution of the 2007 will and/or that Ms. Fitzgerald lacked testamentary

capacity to execute the 2007 will. At the time of his deposition, Mr. Sewell' s testimony and Mr.

Sewell's pleadings on file clearly put Mr. Cable's clients on notice that the requests for admissions

were not uncontroverted matters, and that they could not reasonably rely on the admissions in lieu

of other discovery. Of note, Mr. Sewell' s "Opposition to Application for Probate of Will and for

Letters Testamentary and Answer to Opposition to Probate Will", filed by Eddie Northcutt on

February 14, 2008, over two years before the requests for admissions, denies Mr. Cable's clients'

allegations that Decedent lacked testamentary capacity and that Mr. Sewell exerted undue influence

over Decedent.

5.      It is interesting that after the deadline for Mr. Sewell's response to the requests for

admissions, Mr. Cable did not file a motion for summary judgment based on the deemed admissions

which, if allowed to stand, essentially "gut" Mr. Sewell' s case. In fairness, our rules do not mandate

that a motion for summary judgment be filed in this instance. However, Mr. Cable, on behalf of his

clients, engaged in more discovery and allowed Mr. Sewell's subsequent counsel to engage in more

discovery and preparation for the jury trial in this case. In effect, Mr. Cable's chosen course allowed

Mr. Sewell to hire not one but two more attorneys, spending thousands of dollars in preparation for

trial only to be presented with "deemed" admissions on the morning of trial over 4llz years after the

fact.

6.      Movant's counsel respectfully submits that Mr. Cable's holding these deemed admissions

"close to the vest" only to spring them on opposing counsel on the day oftrial is inequitable and

constitutes ''trial by ambush". Movant is not asking the Court to co'ndone his failure to respond, but

asks the Court consider in fairness allowing withdrawal of the admissions and letting this case
proceed to trial on the merits. Based on the above, Movant believes he has presented a showing of

"Good Cause". "Good cause" is established by showing the failure involved was an accident or

mistake, not intentional or the result of conscious indifference. Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620,

622 (Tex. 1996). Since Mr. Sewell's position is and always has been so contrary to the deemed

admissions, it is clear that the failure to respond to them was not intentional or the result of

conscious indifference on his part. It is the position of Mr. Sewell that while the signature on the

green card to the certified mailing of the Requests for Admissions appear to be his, he does not have

recollection of the document nor has he been able to locate said document.

7.     Furthermore, allowing withdrawal of the deemed admissions will not unduly prejudice Mr.

Cable's clients for the following reasons:

       a.      Regardless of the discovery deadline, Mr. Cable has conducted discovery, i.e.,
               depositions, requests for disclosure, interrogatories, and requests for production, on
               behalf of his clients;

       b.      If it is Mr. Cable's position that he would have conducted additional discovery but
               for the deemed admissions and based on any agreed or extended discovery deadline,
               he has had over 41;2 yeaFs to conduct same. SeeEmployer 's Ins. of Wausau v. Halton.
               792 S.W.2d 462, 467 (Tex. App. - Dallas, writ denied) (finding lack of prejudice
               when the opposing party had almost a month to conduct additional discovery);

       c.      This case has been pending with both sides either requesting or agreeing to the
               several continuances thus far in this case;

       d.       Again, Mr. Cable did not seek to end the case by the usual method, motion for
               . summary judgment, based on the deemed admissions. The term "prejudice" does not
                 include the fact that, if the admissions were withdrawn, the party who obtained that
                 admission would then have to convince the factfinder of its truth. See FD.IC. v.
                Prusia, 18 F.3d 637, 640 (8 1h Cir. 1994).

8.     Additionally, withdrawal of the admissions wcmld promote the presentation of the merits of

the action. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.3(b).

       The plirpose of requests for admissions is predominantly to assist the trier of fact and to

reduce trial time by facilitating proof with respect to issues that cannot be eliminated from the case

and by narrowing the issues by eliminating those that can be. The discovery rules were not designed

as traps for the unwary, nor should we construe them as preveriting a litigant from presenting the

truth. Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d at 622. Likewise, they surely were not designed to trap a

                                                                                       rlage 6 of 9
layman, totally ignorant of the discove1y rules, and, in particular, the deadly import of the TRCP 198.

 The purpose of the Rules of Civil Procedure is to obtain a just, fair, equitable and impartial

adjudication of the litigant's rights under established principles of substantive law. Stelly at 927

S.W.2d at 622. In Stelly, the Supreme Court stated:

       The primary purpose of[Rule 198} is to simplify trials by eliminating matters about

       which there is no real controversy, but which may be difficult or expensive to prove.

       It was never rrztended to be used as a demand upon a plaintiffor defendant to admit

       that he had no cause of action or ground of defense.

       In Trans-American Nat. Gas Corp v. Powell, 811S.W.2d913, 918 (Tex. 1991), the Supreme

Court said that "S'anctions which are so severe as to preclude presentation of the merits of the case

should not be assessed absent a party's flagrant bad faith or counsel's callous disregard for the

responsibilities of discovery and the rules."

       9.      Movant recognizes that trial courts have broad discretion to permit or deny

withdrawal of deemed admissions, but that they cannot do so arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without

reference to guiding principles. Stelly, 927 S.W.2d at 622; see also Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d

439, 443 (Tex. 2005). When a party uses deemed admissions to try to preclude presentation of the

merits of a case, due process concerns arise. See Trans-American National Gas Corp., 811 S.W.2d

at 917-18; see also US.CA. Const. Amend. 14.

       In Wheeler, a custody modification case, of the 64 deemed admissions, none sought to

discover information: 9 deemed circumstances changed so modification was proper; 25 deemed

modification in tre child's best interest; 27 deemed Sandra (the mother) liable for malicious

prosecution; and 3 deemed her liable for child support, attorney's fees and exemplary damages.

Wheeler 157 S.W.3qat443. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Courtholdingthattherewas

good cause for withdrawing the deemed admissions and that withdrawal would not cause undue

prejudice to the father. Id at 444. The Court in Wheeler, while agreeing that prose litigants were

not exempt from the rules ofprocedure (see Mansfield State Bankv. Cohn, 573S.W.2d181, 184-185

                                                                                  ·~~ CFFlCE
(Tex. 1978) ), stated that:

        When a rule itself turns on an actor's state of mind (as these do here), application

       may require a different result when the actor is not a lawyer. Recognizing that

       Sandra did not know what any lawyer would does not create a separate rule, but

       recognizes the differences the rule itself contains. " Wheeler at 444.

In the case at bar, the requests for admissions are couched in such a way as to preclude Mr. Sewell

from disputing the allegations of undue influence exerted by him, the lack of testamentary capacity

of Ms. Fitzgerald, his allegedly converting assets of Ms. Fitzgerald, and his alleged liability for

damages and attorney's fees to contestants. Again, the effect of these deemed admissions amounts

to a "gutting" of Movant' s case. The issues covered by these deemed admissions are at the core of

this litigation; and that for justice to be done, these issues should be determined by the

preponderance of the evidence.

                                                III.
                                         CONCLUSION

       Based on the above, Movant respectfully submits that he has met the requirements of Rule

198.3 by showing good cause for the withdrawal ofthe deemed admissions, that said withdrawal will

not cause Contestants undue prejudice and will be subserved by (promote) presentation of the case

on the merits.

                                                IV.

                                            PRAYER

       WHEREFORE, Movant requests that the Court, after hearing this motion, order the

withdrawal of the admissions as set out above, order that Movant' s responses to the requests for

admissions, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and served with this Motion, be considered as Movant's

responses to the requests for admissions, and afford Movant such other and,further relief to which

Movant may be justly entitled.

                                                                                   E ,Af,lur',
                                                                                        ·"     rn     '.:;}r::crr'"'·Page 8 of 9
                                                                                                      1
                                                                                               ,..,,,_,,,!>.C'v>
                                                            COPY OF Oi~iGINAL
                                                            FILED lf\1 ~-IOPKi!\1~.s
                                                            ! ....•.·'~, \
                                                            ',-~< ·..__) '· .. i
                                                                                                               Fi CE
                              Respectfully submitted,

                              CURTIS, ALEXANDER, McCAMPBELL
                              & MORRIS, P.C.
                              Number One Planters Street
                              P.O. Box 38
                              Emory, Texas 75440
                              Tel: (903) 473-2297
                              Fax: (903) 473-3069
                                        1             /}
                                      11          "                      ,1.1 { ,,
                              By:. U-/~{//1-~~
                                  ,/iJ. Brad McCampbcl
                                 V State Bar No. 13358000
                              ATTORNEYS FOR MOV ANT

                       Certificate of Service

MOTION TO WITHDRAW DEEMED ADMI~~~ TRUE AND CORREc-fage 9 of 9
                                  .•·• -·~ 7 \", COPY
                                   ' ?··. ·. '.                               o:= ORIGINA.L
                                                      /
                                                          /l~G; F'.;.
                                                          ;:~,,
                                                                        ~::r; ~;.      r. i~
                                                                                  r
                                                  ~CHAD CABLE
                                                          LAWYER

                                                          323 GILMER
                                                 SULPHUR SPRINGS, TEXAS   75482
TELEPHONE:   (903) 885-1500                                                           TELECOPIER:   (903) 885-7501

                 May 13, 2010

                Via Certified Mail 7005 1820 0007 7656 6578
                Return Receipt Requested & Regular Mail

                Mr. Carlton Sewell
                107 Morris Drive
                Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482

                         RE:    Cause No. P08-13l'06
                                Estate of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald, Deceased
                                Hopkins County, Texas

                Dear Mr. Sewell:

                         Enclosed is the following:

                         1.     Request for Admissions

                                               Sincerely,

                                               Chad Cable

               CC/lar
               Enclosures

                                     U      CLERK'S GFFICE
                                        NO. P08 - 13,106

 IN THE ESTATE OF                             §        IN THE COUNTY COURT
                                              §
 VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD,                       §        OF
                                              §
DECEASED                                      §        HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS

                  CONTESTANTS, FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

TO:     Carlton Sewell, 107 Morris Drive, Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482.

       COMES NOW, Contestants of the will sponsored by Carlton Sewell, in the above styled

and numbered cause, and pursuant to Rule 198 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, makes the

following Requests for Admissions of Fact.

       These requests are being served upon, Carlton Sewell, and you are notified that

Contestants demand that within 30 days after the service of these requests, that Carlton Sewell

specifically admit or deny the facts requested. A failure to specifically answer any request or an

evasive answer to any request will be taken as an admission of truth of such request.

                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                    ~~
                                                    Chad Cable
                                                    State Bar No. 03575300
                                                    323 Gilmer
                                                    Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482
                                                    Telephone (903) 885-1500
                                                    Telecopier (903) 885-7501
                                                    COUNSEL FOR CONTESIANTS .
                                                                              \ \\ ,-"\   :~ .,::   - p   J "

                                                                                                           '.   ·'

CONTESTANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADM1SSJONS
                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has
beep.~rvedon Carlton Sewell in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on this
  \ ·
----+-
         day of May, 2010.

        iL          Certified mail/Return receipt requested
                    Telecopier (fax)
                    Federal Express
                    Courier with Receipt
                    Registered mail/Return receipt requested
                    Regular Mail
                    Personal Hand Delivery

Date:   May~ 2010.

                                                 CHAD CABLE

                                                                E /-\ND CORP.ECT
                                                          '
                                                          ~~C)P~{   CJF   OF~!Gl~A,L

CONTESTANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
                              REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

 1     ADMIT or DENY
       That you exercised undue influence over Velma Ruth Fitzgerald to induce her to change
       her will.

       RESPONSE:

 2.    ADMIT or DENY
       That throughout the spring and summer of2007, Velma Ruth Fitzgerald was physically
       and mentally weak enough to be susceptible to undue influence.

       RESPONSE:

 3.    ADMIT or DENY
       That you influenced Velma Ruth Fitzgerald to the point of subverting and overpowering
       her mind so that she would execute a new will naming you as sole beneficiary which she
       would not have done but for your influence.

       RESPONSE:

4.     ADMIT or DENY
       That you engaged in a campaign to keep other relatives of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald from
       having contact with her as part of your scheme to exert undue influence over her.

       RESPONSE:

5.    ADMIT or DENY
      That one of your techniques for exerting undue influence was to feign romantic love for
      Velma Ruth Fitzgerald in a seducing manner by physical affection and full on the mouth
      kissing.

      RESPONSE:

6.    ADMIT or DENY
      That you suggested to your brother Truitt Sewell, that the two of you get Velma Ruth
      Fitzgerald to change her will to benefit the two of you.

      RESPONSE:

7.    ADMIT or DENY
      That you told the White brothers in Vernon that Velma RuthFitzgeraldwas not
      competent when she signed their lease contract.

      RESPONSE:                                                                   CT

CONTESTANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
                                                                    f
                                                                    "\

 8.     ADMIT or DENY
        That you converted funds belonging to Velma Ruth Fitzgerald to your own benefit prior
        to her death.

        RESPONSE:

 9.    ADMIT or DENY
       That you breeched your fiduciary duty to Velma Ruth Fitzgerald by profiting from the
       use of her power of attorney prior to her death.

       RESPONSE:

 10.   ADMIT or DENY
       That you misrepresented the nature of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald's mental independence to
       Ray I ohnson and his staff.

       RESPONSE:

11.    ADMIT or DENY
       That you had no contact with Velma Ruth Fitzgerald for years prior to accompanying
       Truitt and Laura Sewell to Dallas to visit her in a nursing home.

       RESPONSE:

12.    ADMIT or DENY
       That you prevented Velma Ruth Fitzgerald from having telephone contact with her
       lifelong friend, Eurice Lee White.

       RESPONSE:

13.    ADMIT or DENY
       That you habitually subjected Velma Ruth Fitzgerald to your control during the last year
       of her life.

       RESPONSE:

14.    ADMIT or DENY
       That Velma Ruth Fitzgerald was mentally and physically incapable of resisting your
       undue influence by August of2007.

       RESPONSE:

CONTESTANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
                                                                    (

15.   ADMIT or DENY
      That the August 8, 2007 will of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald is invalid and should be set aside.

      RESPONSE:

16.   ADMIT or DENY
      That you are liable for damages and attorney fees to the contestants.

      RESPONSE:
                                         NO. POS-13106

IN THE ESTATE OF                              §               IN THE COUNTY COURT
                                              §
VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD,                        §               AT LAW OF
                                              §
DECEASED                                      §               HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS

                  PROPONENT CARL TON SEWELL'S RESPONSES TO
                  CONTESTANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

TO:    Contestants, by and through their attorney of record, Mr. Chad Cable, 323 Gilmer
       Street, Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482.

       NOW COMES, CARLTON SEWELL, Proponent, and makes this his Responses to

Contestants' First Request for Admissions pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                              Respectfully submitted,

                                              CURTIS, ALEXANDER, McCAMPBELL
                                              & MORRIS, P.C.
                                              Number One Planters Street
                                              P.O. Box 38
                                              Emory, Texas 75440
                                              Tel: (903) 473-2297
                                              Fax: (903) 473-3069
                                                         ;f      /)/} (
                                              By:&      ~(~,!///{ ~             ~
                                                   . Brad Mccampbell
                                                  State Bar No. 13358000
                                                  ATTORNEYS FOR PROPONENT

                                      Certificate of Service

       I certify that a true copy of the above was served on each attorney of record or party in
accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on                           , 2015.

                                         ItJ d."'12A 2::'~t=
                                                McCampbe~
                                              J. Brad                     _
                               RESPONSE TO ADMISSIONS

1.     ADMIT or DENY
       That you exercised undue influence over Velma Ruth Fitzgerald to induce her to change
       her will.

RESPONSE: DENY.

2.     ADMIT or DENY
       That throughout the spring and summer of 2007, Velma Ruth Fitzgerald was physically
       and mentally weak enough to be susceptible to undue influence.

RESPONSE: Carlton Sewell objects to this request because it calls for admission or denial of a
statement concerning another person's state of mind. Without waiving the foregoing objection,
DENY.

3.     ADMIT or DENY
       That you influenced Velma Ruth Fitzgerald to th.e point of subverting and overpowering
       her mind so that she would execute a new will naming you as sole beneficiru.y which she
       would not have done but for your influence.

RESPONSE: Carlton Sewell objects to this request because it calls for admission or denial of a
statement concerning another person's state of mind. Without waiving the foregoing objection,
DENY.                              .

4.     ADMIT or DENY
     · That you engaged in a campaign to keep other relatives of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald from
       having contact with her as pait of your scheme to exert undue influence over her.

RESPONSE: DENY.

5.     ADMIT or DENY
       That one of your techniques for exerting undue influence was to feign romantic love for
       Velma Ruth Fitzgerald in a seducing manner by physical affection and full on the mouth
       kissing.

RESPONSE: DENY.

CARLTON SEWELL'S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FORADMISSIONS                                Page 2 of 4
6.     ADMIT or DENY
      ·That you suggested to your brother Truitt Sewell, that the two of you get Velma Ruth
       Fitzgerald to change her will to benefit the two of you.

RESPONSE: DENY.

7.     ADMIT or DENY
       That you told the White brothers in Vernon that Velma Ruth Fitzgerald was not
       competent when she signed their lease contract.

RESPONSE: DENY.

8.     ADMIT or DENY
       That you converted funds belonging to Velma Ruth Fitzgerald to your own benefit prior
       to her death.

RESPONSE: DENY.

9.     ADMIT or DENY
       That you breeched your fiduciary duty to Velma Ruth Fitzgerald by profiting from the use
       of her power of attorney prior to her death.

RESPONSE: Carlton Sewell objects to this request for the reason that it requests a response
concerning a matter (breach of fiduciary duty) that is not a part of Contestants' pleadings.
Without waiving the foregoing objection, DENY.

10.    ADMIT or DENY
       That you misrepresented the nature of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald's mental independence to
       Ray Johnson and his staff.

RESPONSE: DENY.

11.    ADMIT or DENY
       That you had no contact with Velma Ruth Fitzgerald for years prior to accompanying
       Truitt and Laura Sewell to Dallas to visit her in a nursing home.

RESPONSE: ADMIT

                                                                                     Page 3 of 4
12.    ADMIT or DENY
       That you prevented Velma Ruth Fitzgerald from having telephone contact with her
       lifelong friend, Eurice Lee White.

RESPONSE: DENY.

13.    ADMIT or DENY
       That you habitually subjected Velma Ruth Fitzgerald to your control during the last year
       of her life.

RESPONSE: DENY.

14.    ADMIT or DENY
       That Velma Ruth Fitzgerald was mentally and physically incapable of resisting your
       undue influence by August of 2007.

RESPONSE: Carlton Sewell objects to this request for the reason that this request assumes that
Sewell unduly influenced Velma Ruth Fitzgerald which he has denied in Request #1 above.
Sewell also objects to this request because it calls for admission or denial of a statement
concerning another person's state of mind. Without waiving the foregoing objection, Sewell
DENIES that he exerted undue influence over Ms. Fitzgerald and DENIES that she was mentally
or physically incapable by August of 2007.

15.    ADMIT or DENY
       That the August 8, 2007 will of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald is invalid and should be set aside.

RESPONSE: Carlton Sewell objects to this request for the reason that this request seeks
Sewell's admission or denial of a conclusion of law. Without waiving this objection, DENY.

16.    ADMIT or DENY
       That you are liable for damages and attorney fees to the contestants.

RESPONSE: Carlton Sewell objects to this request for the reason that this request seeks
Sewell's admission or denial of a conclusion oflaw. Furthermore, that the statement is vague
and unclear. Without waiving this objection, DENY.

CARLTON SEWELL'S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS                                 Page4 of 4

                                                                               CE
                          CURTIS, A_..JXANDER, MCCAMPBELL & MOi..idS, P.C.
                                             ATTORNEYS AT LAW

                                                                                                                NO. I PLANTERS STREET
HAROLD F. CURTIS, JR. (1931-2006)                                                                                         P.O. Box38
!VAN ALEXANDER, JR. (1932-2013)                                                                           EMORY, TEXA3 75440-0038
J. BRAD MCCAMPBELL                                                                                                      (903) 473-2297
LEAH CURTIS MORRIS                                                                                                  (903) 473-3069 FAX
GEORGE IVAN ALEXANDER
PHILIP D. ALEXANDER                                                                                              EMORY• GREENVILLE

                                               February 2, 2015

    County Clerk of Hopkins County
    P.O. Box 391
    Sulphur Springs, Texas 75483

    RE:       Cause No. POB-13106; In the Estate of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald, Deceased
              In the County Court at Law of Hopkins County, Texas
              Our File No.: 7049-13

    Dear Clerk:

             Enclosed please find the original and one copy of a Motion to Withdraw Deemed Admissions
    for filing in the above-referenced case.

              Please return the file-marked copy to our office in the enclosed self-addressed envelope.

           By copy of this letter, I am forwarding a true and correct copy of this Motion to opposing
    counsel.           ·

              Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

    cc:       Mr. Chad Cable
              CHAD CABLE LAW OFFICE
              323 Gilmer Street
              Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482
              By CMRRR# 7012 3050 0000 7906 5115

              Honorable Amy Smith
              Hopkins County Court at Law
              119 Church Street
              Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482

                                                                                                   :n--;
                                                                                                          ,",/)Q

                                                                                     --l;; 1    I
                                                                                     --Id. The Admissions were, therefore, deemed admitted on June 15,

2010, without the requirement of a court order.
        Carlton Sewell continued to engage in other discovery, including pro se Interrogatories and

Request For Production, both dated June 7, 2010. Aff. of Chad Cable, para. 4. Carlton Sewell, by and

through his attorney, Frank Bauer, also took two depositions on August 16, 2011, deposing Truitt

Sewell and Laura Sewell. Id. Contestants engaged in no other discovery except a Request For

Disclosures dated October 8, 2012. Id.

        On January 12, 2015, the day of trial and before jury selection, Contestants filed their

Certificate of Deemed Admissions. Affidavit of Chad Cable, para. 7. At Carlton Sewell's request, the

Court excused the jury panel and delayed the trial for purposes of permitting Carlton Sewell to prepare

and file a motion to withdraw deemed admissions. Id.

                                                    III.

                               Movant Fails to Establish "Good Cause"

       A person moving for withdrawal of deemed admissions bears the burden of establishing I)

good cause; and, 2) the absence of undue prejudice. Hewitt v. Roberts, 2013 WL 398940, *2 (Tex.App.-

Corpus Christi 2013).

       Good cause exists where the failure to respond to the request for admissions was the result of an

accident or mistake and was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference. Marino v. King 355

S.W.3d 629, 633 (Tex.2011).

       Movant's stark failure in this case is his failure to establish "good cause." Movant appears to

rely exclusively on the fact that he was a pro se litigant as being, ipso facto, sufficient to establish

"good cause." His status as a prose litigant is not, ipso facto, sufficient to establish "good cause."

       Two cases from the Fort Worth Court of Appeals make it plain that ''pro se" status is not

sufficient to establish "good cause."

       In the case Vann v. Gaines, 2007 WL 865870, *2 (Tex.App.-Fort Woqh 2007) the court noted

that, unlike the appellant in Wheeler,
admissions, but went on to state that,

       In any event, while a lack of understanding of pre-trial procedure by a pro se litigant
       might be proof of good cause to withdraw deemed admissions, a conscious indifference is
       not. Here, appellant was given two separate requests for admissions by appellees ...
       Appellant ignored both requests ... Unlike the pro se litigant in Wheeler, appellant showed
       no good cause for not attempting to respond earlier.

       Again, in Jones v. Citibank (South Dakota), NA., 235 S.W.3d 333 (Tex.App. - Fort Worth

2007), the Fort Worth Court of Appeals stated:

       In any event, while a lack of understanding of pre-trial procedure by a pro se litigant
       might be proof of good cause to withdraw deemed admissions, a conscious indifference is
       not. Here, unlike the pro se litigant in Wheeler, appellant complied with the discovery
       rules by responding timely to the first request for admissions, but she showed no good
       cause for failing to even attempt to respond on time to the second request for admissions.
       Id.

       It is Movant's burden to establish accident or mistake. In the instant case, Movant fails to

establish that his failure to respond was due to accident or mistake and was not the result of conscious

indifference.

       First of all, Movant was notified of the consequences of a failure to answer. On the face of the

Contestants' First Request For Admissions it states, "A failure to specifically answer any request or an

evasive answer to any request will be taken as an admission of truth of such request." If Carlton Sewell

read this admonition and then decided not to answer, such decision would amount to conscious

indifference. Carlton Sewell can find no footing in the case of Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 443

(Tex.2005)(per curiam). In that case, a pro se litigant tried to comply with the rules relating to requests

for admissions, but because she was unfamiliar with the mail box rule, she served her responses 2 days

late. There was nothing in that case showing any conscious indifference. In Wheeler, the result would

likely have been different if the mailbox rule had been stated on the face of the Admissions Request

document.
to a conscious indifference. A decision not to read the document cannot be excused by the lack of legal

knowledge. A person would know that the document was significant by the fact that it was sent

certified mail, return receipt requested. Whether a pro se litigant or a seasoned attorney, a decision not

to read a document is a decision to ignore it. A decision to ignore it is conscious indifference. See

Gaines, 2007 WL 865870 at *2.

        Therefore, Movant has failed to meet his burden of establishing "good cause," i.e., that the

failure to answer was the result of accident or mistake and not the result of conscious indifference.

                                                    IV.

                        Movant Fails to Establish Absence of Undue Prejudice

       The absence of undue prejudice is established by showing that a withdrawal of deemed

admissions will not delay trial nor significantly hamper the opposing party's ability to prepare for trial.

Marino v. King 355 S.W.3d 629, 633 (fex.2011).

       There is considerable discovery that Contestants did not conduct in reliance on the deemed

admissions. If not for the deemed admissions, Contestants would have sought to depose 1) Tiffany

Bassham, who was the administrator of the assisted living facility Carlton Sewell had Mrs. Fitzgerald

sequestered in; 2) Alice Davis, who was one of the paid sitters; and, 3) DeeAnn Landers, the bank

officer familiar with the unusual facts involving Carlton Sewell's use of the power of attorney, executed

by Mrs. Fitzgerald in his favor, to purchase a rural home on several acres with an $80K down payment

and a similar sized note with the local bank. See Affidavit of Chad Cable, para. 5. Contestants would

also seek to obtain the bank records pertaining to that transaction.

       Critical to Contestants' case is the anticipated testimony of Truitt Sewell, who is one of the

Contestants and the brother of Carlton Sewell.        His anticipated testirrioriy is the most probative

evidence in the entire case. He would testify that Carlton Sewell asked. lrj.m to help Carlton get
this information by live testimony.

        Truitt Sewell became sick with cancer in the Fall of 2014. Aff. of Chad Cable, para. 6. His

health has deteriorated to the point that he probably will not have the capacity to testify at trial because

of the delay of trial from January 12, 2015, to some undetermined point in the future. Id. Thus,

Contestants' case is highly prejudiced by the delay of trial.

       Additionally, the case of Morgan v. Timmers Chevrolet, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 803, n. 5 (Tex.App.-

Houston [1st Dist] 1999) is instructive. There, trial was commenced more than 2 years after the

requests for admissions were deemed admitted. After trial began, and after 3 witnesses had testified

and 10 exhibits had been admitted, plaintiffs sought to introduce the deemed omissions, which caught

the defendant unaware, because the deemed admissions were the result of a clerical error by the staff of

defendant's attorney, who was ignorant of the mistake until the day of trial. The trial court granted the

defendant leave to withdraw the deemed admissions but offered plaintiffs a mistrial in order for

plaintiffs to conduct the discovery plaintiffs had not conducted in reliance on the deemed admissions.

The plaintiffs refused the mistrial. From an unfavorable result, plaintiffs appealed. The 1st District

Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the plaintiffs were unduly prejudiced because there was

considerable discovery that plaintiffs did not conduct in reliance on the deemed admissions. The court

of appeals also noted that the plaintiffs "were not required to accept a mistrial - plaintiffs were entitled

to rely on the guiding rules and principles set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding deemed

admissions." The court of appeals did not blame the plaintiffs, in the least, for waiting over two years,

and not until the middle of trial, before asserting the deemed admissions.

       Like the plaintiffs in Morgan, the Contestants here have substantial discovery which they did

not seek to conduct in reliance on the deemed admissions. Aff. of Chad Cable, para. 5. Contestants

here, upon filing their Certificate of Deemed Admissions, "were entitled· to rely on the guiding rules

and principles set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding deemed admissions." In Morgan, the

                                                                                                 51Page
court permitted withdrawal of deemed admissions during the middle of trial. In the instant case, the

Court delayed the trial of the case for the purpose of entertaining a motion for withdrawal of deemed

admissions. Aff. of Chad, para. 7. Delay of trial is a quintessential form of undue prejudice. Twenty

cases in Texas substantially state: "Undue prejudice depends on whether withdrawing an admission will

delay trial or significantly hamper the opposing party's ability to prepare for it." Wheeler v. Green, 157

S.W.3d 439, 443 (Tex.2005)(per curiam)(emphasis added).

       In their reliance on the guiding rules and principles set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure,

Contestants have been prejudiced by the delay of trial. Therefore, Movant has failed to establish an

absence of undue prejudice, and the Motion to Withdraw Deemed Admissions should be denied.

                                                   v.
                    Movant Waived the Right to Complain of the Untimeliness
                             of Contestants' Admissions Request

       By engaging in substantial discovery after Contestants request for admissions, Movant has

waived any right to complain of the untimeliness of Contestants' request for admissions. The Request

for Admissions was served on May 13, 2010. Subsequent to that time, Movant, acting pro se, served

on Contestants a set of Written Interrogatories and a Request For Production, both dated June 7, 2010.

Aff. of Chad Cable, para. 4. Subsequently, Movant, by and through his attorney, Frank Bauer, also

conducted two depositions: the Deposition of Truitt Sewell on August 16, 2011, and the Deposition of

Laura Sewell on the same date. Id. Therefore, Movant has conducted substantial discovery since

Contestants served on Movant the Request for Admissions and he has, therefore, waived any right to

complain of the untimeliness of the Request for Admissions.

                                                   VI.

                                               PRAYER

       For the foregoing reasons, Contestants pray the Court to deny Carlton Sewell's Motion to

                                               /   /,
                                                        323 Gilmer                                                             i
                                                                                        i
                 Sulphur Springs, TX 7 5482
                                                                                        I
                                                                                        {

                                                                                        I
                                                                                        ;
                                                                         . --·-· ----~-.!

                                                                                    w
                                                                                    0

                                                                                I:•;,._.
                                    !

                                                 CHAD CABLE
                                                         LAWYER

                                                         323 GILMER
                                                SULPHUR SPRINGS, TEXAS   75482
TELEPHONE:   (903) 885-1500                                                         TEI.ECOPIER:   (903) 885-7501

               May 13, 2010

               Via Cert~fied Mail 7005 1820 0007 7656 6578
               Return Rece;pt Requested & Regular Mail

              Mr. Carlton Sewell
              107 Morris Drive
              Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482

                       RE:    CauseNo.POS-13106
                              Estate of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald, Deceased
                              Hopkins County, Texas

              Dear Mr. Sewell:

                       Enclosed are the following:

                       l.     Motion for Appointment of Independent Executor; and

                      2.      Order Setting Hearing.

                                            Sincerely,

                                            Chad Cable

             CC/lar
             Enclosures
                                                                                    {'
                                                                                    "

                                                     CHAD CABLE
                                                           LAWYER

                                                           323   GILMER
                                                SULPHUR SPRINGS, TEXAS    75482
TELEPHONE:   (903) 885-1500                                                               TELECOPIER:   (903) 885-7501

                May 13, 2010

                Via Certifi.ed Mail 7005 1820 0007 7656 6578
                Return Receipt Requested & Regular Mail

                Mr. Carlton Sewell
                107 Morris Drive
                Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482

                         RE:   Cause No. P08-13l06
                               Estate of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald, Deceased
                               Hopkins County, Texas

               Dear Mr. Sewell:

                        Enclosed is the following:

                        1.     Request for Admissions

                                              Sincerely,

                                              Chad Cable

              CC/lar
              Enclosures

                                                                                  CC)LJ
                                         NO. P08 - 13,106

  IN THE ESTATE OF                            §         IN THE COUNTY COURT
                                              §
 VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD,                       §         OF
                                              §
 DECEASED                                     §        HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS

                  CONTESTANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

 TO:    Carlton Sewell, 107 Morris Drive, Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482.

        COMES NOW, Contestants of the will sponsored by Carlton Sewell, in the above styled

 and numbered cause, and pursuant to Rule 198 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, makes the

 following Requests for Admissions of Fact.

        These requests are being served upon, Carlton Sewell, and you are notified that

Contestants demand that within 30 days after the service of these requests, that Carlton Sewell

specifically admit or deny the facts requested. A failure to specifically answer any request or an

evasive answer to any request will be taken as an admission of truth of such request.

                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                   ~~
                                                    Chad Cable
                                                    State Bar No. 03575300
                                                    323 Gilmer
                                                    Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482
                                                    Telephone (903) 885-1500
                                                    Telecopier (903) B8.5-7501
                                                    COUNSEL FOR CONTESTANTS

CONTESTANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has
  beep.~ed on Carlton Sewell in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on this
  __\--"~=q-_day of May, 2010.

         1L           Certified mail/Return receipt requested
                      Telecopier (fax)
                      Federal Express
                      Courier with Receipt
                      Registered mail/Return receipt requested
                      Regular Mail
                      Personal Hand Delivery

 Date:   May~ 2010.

                                                  CHAD CABLE
                                                                        •

                                                           cou
                                                                                                 I
                                                                     ('·.
                                                                                        E
CONTESTANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS                                           2
                                REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

        ADMIT or DENY
        That you exercised undue influence over Velma Ruth Fitzgerald to induce her to change
        her will.

        RESPONSE:

 2.     ADMIT or DENY
        That throughout the spring and summer of 2007, Velma Ruth Fitzgerald was physically
        and mentally weak enough to be susceptible to undue influence.

        RESPONSE:

 3.    ADMIT or DENY
       That you influenced Velma Ruth Fitzgerald to the point of subverting and overpowering
       her mind so that she would execute a new will naming you as sole beneficiary which she
       would not have done but for your influence.

       RESPONSE:

 4.    ADMIT or DENY
       That you engaged in a campaign to keep other relatives of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald from
       having contact with her as part of your scheme to exert undue influence over her.

       RESPONSE:

5.     ADMIT or DENY
       That one of your techniques for exerting undue influence was to feign romantic love for
       Velma Ruth Fitzgerald in a seducing manner hy physical affection and full on the mouth
       kissing.

       RESPONSE:

6.    ADMIT or DENY
      That you suggested to your brother Truitt Sewell, that the two of you get Velma Ruth
      Fitzgerald to change her will to benefit the two of you.

      RESPONSE:

7.    ADMIT or DENY
      That you told the White brothers in Vernon that Velma Ruth Fitzgerald was not
      competent when she signed their lease contract.

      RESPONSE:

CONTESTANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
                                                                         r.
                                                                     /
                                                                     '

  8.     ADMIT or DENY
         That you converted funds belonging to Velma Ruth Fitzgerald to your own benefit prior
         to her death.

         RESPONSE:

  9.    ADMIT or DENY
        That you breeched your fiduciary duty to Velma Ruth Fitzgerald by profiting from the
        use of her power of attorney prior to her death.

        RESPONSE:

 10.    ADMITorDENY
        That you misrepresented the nature of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald's mental independence to
        Ray Johnson and his staff

        RESPONSE:

 11.    ADMIT or DENY
        That you had no contact with Velma Ruth Fitzgerald for years prior to accompanying
        Truitt and Laura Sewell to Dallas to visit her in a nursing home.

       RESPONSE:

 12.   ADMIT or DENY
       That you prevented Velma Ruth Fitzgerald from having telephone contact with her
       lifelong friend, Eurice Lee White.

       RESPONSE:

13.    ADMIT or DENY
       That you habitually subjected Velma Ruth Fitzgerald to your control during the last year
       of her life.

       RESPONSE:

14.    ADMITorDENY
       That Velma Ruth Fitzgerald was mentally and physically incapable ofresisting your
       undue influence by August of 2007.

       RESPONSE:

                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                  I:
                                                                                                  I .
CONTESTANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS                                               4         I
. ;

        15.   ADMIT or DENY
              That the August 8, 2007 will of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald is invalid and should be set aside.

              RESPONSE:

        16.   ADMIT or DENY
              That you are liable for damages and attorney fees to the contestants.

              RESPONSE:

                                                                                  '   <   ':~

      CONTESTANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
                                          NO. POS-13106

IN THE ESTATE OF                                  )       IN THE COUNTY COURT
                                                  )
VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD                             )       AT LAW OF
                                                  )
DECEASED                                          )       HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS

                                 AFFIDAVIT OF CHAD CABLE

STATE OF TEXAS              *
                            *
COUNTY OF HOPKINS           *
      BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Chad Cable, who, upon oath or
solemn affirmation, deposed as follows:

   1. My name is Chad Cable. I am over the age of eighteen and am, in all respects, competent to
      make this affidavit. The matters stated herein are within my personal knowledge and are true
      and correct.

   2. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. I have practiced law in Hopkins
      County for the past 35 years. I represent the Contestants in the above styled and numbered
      case,

   3. Acting as attorney for the Contestants, I served on Carlton Sewell ("Carlton") Requests for
      Admissions dated May 13, 2010. Carlton failed to respond to such Request for Admissions.
      Therefore, according to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 198.2(c), the matters are deemed
      admitted without the necessity of a court order.

   4. Since serving the Requests for Admissions, Carlton has served on me a Set of Written
      Interrogatories (June.7, 2010); A Request For Production (June 7, 2010); and has conducted a
      Deposition of Truitt Sewell (August 16, 2011); and a Deposition of Laura Sewell (August 16,
      2011. Since May 12, 2010, the only discovery conducted by me was a Request For Disclosures
      dated October 8, 2012.

   5. In reliance on the deemed admissions, I did not seek to depose 1) Tiffany Bassham, head
      administrator of the assisted living center in which Velma Ruth Fitzgerald was sequestered by
      Carlton; 2) Alice Davis, the paid sitter of Velma Ruth Fitzgerald; and 3) Deeanna Landers, the
      bank officer involved in Carlton's purchase of a rural home on several acres for a down payment
      of $80,000.00, together with a like amount borrowed through the bank, which Carlton
      purchased under the power of attorney executed in his favor by Velma Ruth Fitzgerald.

  6. Truitt Sewell was diagnosed with cancer in the Fall of 2014. ·His. health has rapidly deteriorated
     since that time to the extent that Truitt Sewell is likely incapacitated to such an extent that he
     will not be able to testify at trial.

                                                                 u
   7. On January 12, 2015, the day of trial, I filed a Certificate of Deemed Admissions. At Carlton
      Sewell's request, the Court delayed the trial for the purpose of entertaining a motion to
      withdraw the deemed admissions.

   8. FURTHERAFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

                                                       CHAD CABLE

       SWORN TO, or solemnly affirmed, before me, the
day of April, 2015.
                                                             rsigned authority, on this the   _h
                                            C.---=.-~\~~~\~~~~~·~·,)

                                                               :-:_ ;~JE   ;~'l~\~D
                                                             COPY OF OR!G1Nf\L
                                                             FiLED IN HOPK!NS
                                                              COUNTY CLERK'S CFFICE
                                             NO. POS-13106

IN THE ESTATE OF                                  §             IN THE COUNTY COURT
                                                  §
VELMA RUTH FITZGERALD,                            §             AT LAW OF
                                                  §
DECEASED                                          §

                           AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF     !
                                                                                                           (J-11
                   MOTION TO WITHDRAW DEEMED ADMISSIONS\                                                   ":J{::::
                                                                                                           ·~~::D
                                                                                         n       ~-        : ',::; :::o
       BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally a~gear~~~                     -o   .;'~;;_;
                                                                                    Pl   _.,.,   -<   _    ,,_l 0
CARLTON SEWELL, who after being duly sworn, did depose and state as            fol~ws:                     ;:~~
                                                                                    -{                -    J;>
       "My name is CARLTON SEWELL. I am the Movant/Proponent in the a'bove-referencedn
cause. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in the Motion to Withdraw Deemed
Admissions and they are true and correct."
       Further Affiant sayeth not.
       SIGNED on April        1          '2015.

                                          CARLtTON SEWELL          i.

       SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this                        ~day of April, 2015, to
certify which witness my hand and official seal.

                     SUSAN PEREZ
                 My Commission Expires
                    August 24, 2018

                                                             TRUE AND CORRECT
                                                             COPY OF ORIGINAL
                                                             FILED IN HOPl355 S.W.3d 629 dated
25· ·October 21, 2011.··It's a good case.··It gives some

                    Jana Atchison Rushing, CSR
                           903-268-2942
                                                      Page 38
              FITZGERALD - VOLUME 1 OF 1 - 04/07/15

·1· ·direction here and --
·2· · · · · · · · ··MR. McCAMPBELL:··It is -- it's Texas
·3· ·Supreme Court?
·4· · · · · · · · ··THE COURT:··I'm sorry?
·5· · · · · · · · ··MR. McCAMPBELL:··Texas Supreme Court?
·6· · · · · · · · ··THE COURT:··Yeah.
·7· · · · · · · · ··MR. McCAMPBELL:··Okay.
·8· · · · · · · · ··THE COURT:··Supreme Court of Texas.
·9· · · · · · · · ··MR. CABLE:··I think it came out of
10· ·Fort Worth, didn't it?
11· · · · · · · · ··THE COURT:··Cause no undue influence
12· ·to the other side.··There are some very good catch
13· ·phrases in here that allow me to decide one way or
14· ·the other whether to allow these admissions.
15· · · · · · · · · · · ·Now, I am going to write you a
16· ·letter.··I do have an understanding of where I
17· ·believe I'm going to go at this time with this
18· ·particular issue, but I want to put it in a letter
19· ·form.··You two have helped me immensely.··I
20· ·appreciate it.
21· · · · · · · · · · · ·And it's an issue that absolutely
22· ·I assume the Court of Appeals -- the gentlemen up
23· ·there will probably hear this one way or another, and
24· ·I know they'll give us -- anybody don't get it right,
25· ·they'll give us the correct response.··So with that

                      Jana Atchison Rushing, CSR
                             903-268-2942
                                                     Page 39
             FITZGERALD - VOLUME 1 OF 1 - 04/07/15

·1· ·in mind, thank you for your time.
·2· · · · · · · · ··MR. McCAMPBELL:··Thank you, Judge.
·3· · · · · · · · ··(Hearing adjourned.)
·4· ·
·5· ·
·6· ·
·7· ·
·8· ·
·9· ·
10· ·
11· ·
12· ·
13· ·
14· ·
15· ·
16· ·
17· ·
18· ·
19· ·
20· ·
21· ·
22· ·
23· ·
24· ·
25· ·

                   Jana Atchison Rushing, CSR
                          903-268-2942
                                                     Page 40
             FITZGERALD - VOLUME 1 OF 1 - 04/07/15

·1· ·STATE OF TEXAS··)
 · ··
·2· ·COUNTY OF DELTA )
 · ··
·3· · · ··I, Jana Atchison Rushing, Official Court
 · ·
·4· ·Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do hereby
 · ··
·5· ·certify that the above and foregoing contains a true
 · ··
·6· ·and correct transcription of all portions of evidence
 · ··
·7· ·and other proceedings requested in writing by counsel
 · ··
·8· ·for the parties to be included in this volume of the
 · ··
·9· ·Reporter's Record, in the above-styled and numbered
 · ··
10· ·cause, all of which occurred in open court or in
 · ··
11· ·chambers and were recorded electronically by BIS and
 · ··
12· ·transcribed by me.
 · ··
13· · · ··I further certify that this Reporter's Record of
 · ··
14· ·the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the
 · ··
15· ·exhibits, if any, admitted by the respective parties.
 · ··
16· · · ··I further certify that the total cost for the
 · ··
17· ·preparation of this reporter's Record is $285.00 and
 · ··
18· ·will be paid by Mr. J. Brad McCampbell, Counsel for
 · ··
19· ·Proponent.
 · ··
20· · · ··WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 26th day of
 · ··
21· ·May, 2015.
 · ··
22· ·
 · · · · · · · · · ·/s/ Jana Atchison Rushing
23· · · · · · · · · ·JANA ATCHISON RUSHING, Texas CSR 4156
 · ·· · · · · · · · ·Expiration Date:··12/31/15
24· · · · · · · · · ·P. O. Box 48
 · ·· · · · · · · · ·Cooper, Texas··75432
25· · · · · · · · · ·903-268-2942

                  Jana Atchison Rushing, CSR
                         903-268-2942