-
ACCEPTED 04-15-00727-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 12/29/2015 5:37:55 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK No. 04-15-00727-CV FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 12/29/2015 5:37:55 PM SITTING AT SAN ANTONIO KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk LAUREN SAKS a/k/a GLORIA LAUREN NICOLE SAKS, V DIANE M. FLORES and SANDRA GARZA DAVIS f/k/a SANDRA C. SAKS On Appeal from Probate Court No. One, Bexar County, Texas Honorable Kelly Cross, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2011-PC-3466 APPELLANT'S BRIEF Respectfully submitted, Philip M. Ross ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED State Bar No. 017304200 1006 Holbrook Road San Antonio, Texas 78218 Phone: 210/326-2100 Email: ross_law@hotmail.com By: /s/ Philip M. Ross Philip M. Ross Attorney for Appellant Margaret Landen Saks TABLE OF CONTENTS TAB 1 DOCKET SHEET TAB 2 ORDER STRIKING INTERVENTION TAB 3 ORDER TO DISBURSE FUNDS FROM THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT TAB 4 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING, 9-25-15 TAB 5 MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TAB 6 NOTICE OF APPEAL 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above document was e-filed and sent by email or electronic delivery to Jonathan Yedor and Royal Lea, III on December 29, 2015. /s/ Philip M. Ross Philip M. Ross 3 TAB 1 DOCKET SHEET RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Pg: 1 POM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:28 JCL: SPPROD • DOCKET INFORMATION• CAUSE NUM: 2011PC3466 DATE FILED: 08/17/2011 COURT: 001 UNPAID BALANCE: 0.00 TYPE OF DOCKET: PLAINTIFF'S ORIG PET • • •STYLE• • LAUREN SAKS A/K/A GLORIA LAUREN NICOLE SAKS VS DIANE M. FLORES AND SANDRA GARZA DAVIS F/K/A SANDR ACCESS: 0 STATUS: PENDING DATE OF DEATH: 01/02/0000 • LITIGANT INFORMATION. SEG LAST /FIRST /MIDDLE NAME LIT. TYPE/ATTORNEY DATE 00001 SAKA LAUREN PLAINTIFF 08/18/2011 00001 HEINRICHS, A CHRIS 00002 NICHOLS SAKS GLORIA LAUREN PLAINTIFF 08/18/2011 00003 FLORES DIANE M. DEFENDANT 08/18/2011 00004 DAVIS SANDRA GARZA DEFENDANT 08/18/2011 00005 SAKS SANDRA C. DEFENDANT 08/18/2011 00006 SAKS MARGARET LANDEN CORINNA OTHER 08/18/2011 00007 DONOP, JR. PERRY OTHER 12/16/2011 00008 GITTINGER, JR. LEONARD J. OTHER 12/16/2011 00009 FLORES DIANE M. OTHER 12/23/2011 00010 SAKS BV AND THRU LANDEN OTHER 04/02/2013 SUP: HER ATTORNEY M. RANDOLPH DAV 00011 MCFADIN, III LEE NICK OTHER 07/02/2013 00012 ROGERS MARCUS P. APPLICANT 07/30/2014 • SERVICES INFORMATION• SEG SERVICE TYPE / DATES DIST LITIGANT NAME 00002 ADVERSE CITATION BV PRIVA FLORES DIANE ISS: 08/18/2011 REC: EXE: RET: 00003 ADVERSE CITATION BY PRIVA 3 DAVIS SANDRA ISS: 08/18/2011 REC: EXE: RET: 00004 ADVERSE CITATION BY CERTI 2 SAKS MARGARET ISS: 08/18/2011 REC: EXE: RET: 00005 SUBPOENA-ADVERSE ACTION 3 DONOP, JR. PERRY ISS: 12/16/2011 REC: 12/20/2011 EXE: 12/20/2011 RET: 12/21/2011 00006 SUBPOENA-ADVERSE ACTION 3 GITTINGER, JR. LEONA 1SS: 12/16/2011 REC: 12/20/2011 EXE: 12/20/2011 RET: 12/21/2011 00007 SUBPOENA BV PVT PROCESS 3 FLORES DIANE ISS: 12/20/2011 REC: 12/20/2011 EXE: 12/20/2011 RET: 12/21/2011 00008 SUBPOENA BY PVT PROCESS 3 SAKS BY AND THRU LAN ISS: 04/02/2013 REC: 04/03/2013 EXE: 04/03/2013 RET: 04/03/2013 292 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Boxer County Centralized Docket System Pg: 2 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD 00009 ADVERSE CITATION BY PRIVA 3 MCFADIN, III LEE ISS: 07/05/2013 REC: EXE: RET: 00010 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF PERS 166 SAKA LAUREN ISS: 07/31/2014 REC: 07/31/2014 EXE: 07/31/2014 RET: 07/31/2014 00011 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF REAL 186 SAKA LAUREN ISS: 07/31/2014 REC: 07/31/2014 EXE: 07/31/2014 RET: 07/31/2014 00012 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF PERS 186 SAKA LAUREN ISS: 08/06/2014 REC: 08/06/2014 EXE: 08/06/2014 RET: 08/06/2014 00013 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF REAL 186 SAKA LAUREN ISS: 08/06/2014 REC: 08/06/2014 EXE: 08/01/2014 RET: 08/06/2014 00014 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF REAL 186 SAKA LAUREN ISS: 10/01/2015 REC: 10/01/2015 EXE: 10/01/2015 RET: 10/01/2015 00015 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF PERS 186 SAKA LAUREN ISS: 10/01/2015 REC: 10/01/2015 ENE: 10/01/2015 RET: 10/01/2015 00016 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF REAL 166 SAKA LAUREN ISS: 11/03/2015 REC: 11/03/2015 ENE: 11/03/2015 RET: 11/03/2015 00017 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF PERS 166 SARA LAUREN ISS: 11/03/2015 REC: 11/03/2015 ENE: 11/03/2015 RET: 11/03/2015 • ATTORNEY INFORMATION• SEG DATE FILED BAR NBR. NAME STATUS DATE 00001 08/18/2011 09382500 HE1NRICHS, A CHRIS SELECTED 08/18/2011 00002 04/25/2014 17304200 ROSS, PHILIP M SELECTED 04/28/2014 00003 04/28/2014 24029639 JOHNSON, MICHAEL B SELECTED 04/28/2014 00004 07/25/2014 17179700 ROGERS, MARCUS P SELECTED 07/28/2014 00005 07/09/2015 12069680 LEA III, ROYAL B SELECTED 07/10/2015 00007 08/24/2015 22151400 YEDOR, JONATHAN SELECTED 08/25/2015 00008 10/02/2015 02322350 BINGHAM, BENJAMIN R SELECTED 10/05/2015 • PROCEEDING INFORMATION• SEG DATE FILED VOLUME PAGE PAGE COLNT 00001 OB/17/2011 2067 9787 0009 DESC: PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION ; DEMAND DIE TRUST ACCOUNTING; AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 00002 06/23/2011 2066 2506 0002 DESC: PERSONAL CITATION DIANE M. FLORES, 06/23/2011 00003 06/23/2011 2066 2510 0001 DESC: PERSONAL CITATION SANDRA GARZA DAVIS, 08/22/2011 293 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Pg: 3 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD 00004 09/09/2011 2069 1865 0002 DESC: ORIGINAL ANSWER SANDRA C. SAKS 00005 09/09/2011 2069 1867 0002 DESC: ORIGINAL ANSWER DIANE M. FLORES 00006 09/19/2011 2069 6706 0001 DESC: PROOF OF SERVICE MARGARET LANDEN CORINNA SAKS 00007 11/10/2011 2072 7743 0008 DESC: CONTEST MOTION TO REMOVE DIANE M. FLORES AS TRUSTEE OF THE SAKS CHILDERNS TRUST AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 00010 12/13/2011 2075 0082 0011 DESC: MOTION 70 QUASH THE ORAL 8 VIDEO DEPOSITION OF DIANE M FLORES 00011 12/13/2011 2075 0093 0011 DESC: MOTION TO QUASH THE ORAL 8 VIDEO DEPOSITION OF SANDRA C SAKS 00012 12/13/2011 2075 0104 0007 DESC: NOTICE OF INTENT TO TARE DEPOS BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR-W.RANDOLPH DAVIS AND/OR BOULDER INVESTMENTS INC 00013 12/13/2011 2075 0111 0016 DESC: NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE DEPOS BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR-SUNSET PARTNERS J.V.,5631 BROADWAY VENTURE,DIJON PLAZA J.V.,5321 BROADWAY PARTNERS, J.V. 00015 12/13/2011 2075 0341 0002 DESC: DEPOSITION CERT. OF ORIGINAL 00009 12/14/2011 2075 0070 0009 DESC: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 00008 12/15/2011 2075 0080 0002 DESC: ANSR/ATTY AD LITEM AMENDED 00022 12/19/2011 2075 3390 0007 DESC: AMENDED FIRST MOTION TO REMOVE DIANE M. FLORES AS TRUSTEE OF THE SAKS CHILDREN TRUST AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 00014 12/20/2011 2075 0079 0001 DESC: REQUEST FOR PREPARATION OF SUBPOENAS TO SERVE: DIANE M. FLORES, PERRY DONOP, JR. AND LEONARD J. GITTINGER, JR. 294 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Pg: 4 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD 00016 12/21/2011 2075 2475 0002 DESC: SUBPOENA SERVED 12/20/2011 00017 12/21/2011 2075 2477 0002 DESC: SUBPOENA SERVED 12/20/2011_DIANE M. FLORES 00018 12/21/2011 2075 2479 0002 DESC: SUBPOENA SERVED 12/20/2011 LEONARD J. °MINCER 00019 12/21/2011 2075 2481 0002 DESC: SUBPOENA HARRY T. DROUGHT,DR 00020 12/21/2011 2075 2483 0003 DESC: SUBPOENA SANDRA C. SAKS, C/0 ADAM CORTEZ 00021 12/21/2011 2075 2486 0002 DESC: SUBPOENA W. RANDOLPH DAVID 00024 01/03/2012 2075 7633 0003 DESC: BOND 00025 02/01/2012 2077 4371 0002 DESC: CERTIFICATE DEPOSITION $115 00026 02/01/2012 2077 4373 0002 DESC: CERTIFICATE DEPOSITION. $194 00027 02/01/2012 2077 4375 0004 DESC: AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENTION DEPOSTION 00028 02/01/2012 2077 4379 0010 DESC: NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE DEPOS 00029 02/01/2012 2077 4389 0002 DESC: CERTIFICATE DEPOSITION. $155 00030 02/01/2012 2077 4391 0002 DESC: CERTIFICATE DEPOSITION $205 00031 02/09/2012 2078 2443 0001 DESC: WORK REQUEST SUBPOENA 00032 02/14/2012 2078 2444 0002 DESC: SUBPOENA BROADWAY BAN( 00033 02/14/2012 2078 2446 0002 DESC: SUBPOENA JEFFERSON STATE BANK 00034 02/14/2012 2078 2448 0002 DESC: SUBPOENA CITIZENS STATE BANK 00035 02/21/2012 2079 3333 0002 DESC: CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION - RECORDS FROM W RANDOLPH 295 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Boxer County Centralized Docket System Pa: 5 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD DAVIS AND/OR BOULDER INVESTMENTS 00036 02/21/2012 2079 3335 0002 DESC: CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSTION - RECORDS FROM HERBERT E POUNDS 00037 02/21/2012 2079 3337 0004 DESC: NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE DEPOS BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS - RICHARD PEACOCK JR FOR CAFE SOLEIL AND PALOMA BLANCA INC 00039 02/28/2012 2079 4146 0004 DESC: MOTION TO COMPEL ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER AND/OR DIS- COVERY CONTROL PLAN 00040 02/28/2012 2079 4150 0004 DESC: LAUREN SAKS' SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO DIANE ISIC)M. FLORES' FIRST AMENDED ANSWER 00041 02/28/2012 2079 4154 0006 DESC: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION FROM DIANE (SICIM. FLORES AND SANDRA SAKS 00042 02/28/2012 2079 4160 0012 DESC: MOTION TO COMPEL THE ORAL DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM Of A NON-PARTY WITNESS,JON SANDIDGE 00046 02/29/2012 2081 5928 0332 DESC: INTERIM TRUSTEE'S REPORT; VOL. 1 00047 02/29/2012 2081 6260 0615 DESC: INTERIM TRUSTEE'S REPORT; VOL.2 00044 03/21/2012 2080 3323 0002 DESC: ANSWER SECOND AMENDED;DIANE M. FLORES' 00045 03/21/2012 2080 3325 0001 DESC: CLAIM SATIFSFACTION AND RELEASE-WEST ASSET MANAGEMENT,INC FOR USAA 00048 04/20/2012 2083 0200 0007 DESC: MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 00049 05/09/2012 2083 7454 0001 DESC: APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 00050 05/30/2012 2085 1369 0018 DESC: APPL. TO PAY INTERIM TRUSTEE'S FEES 00052 05/30/2012 2085 7697 0002 DESC: APPL. FOR DIRECTION FROM COURT 00053 06/29/2012 2087 2607 0006 DESC: MOTION TO 296 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Boxer County Centralized Docket System P0: 6 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 00057 06/29/2012 2088 2649 0002 DESC: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY TO SHOW AUTHORITY 00059 07/10/2012 2088 2652 0002 DESC: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY TO SHOW AUTHORITY (LAUREN SAKS MERRIMAN'S FIRST AMENDED RULE 121 00054 07/18/2012 2088 0298 0001 DESC: VACATION LETTER 00055 07/18/2012 0000 0000 0000 DESC: RESPONSE OJECTION TO LAUREN SAKS MERRIMN'S FIRST AMENDED RULE 12 MOTION FOR ATTV TO SHOW AUTHORITY 00056 07/18/2012 2088 0298 0001 DESC: VACATION LTTR 00061 07/18/2012 2088 5312 0005 DESC: OBJECTION TO LAUREN SAKS MERRIMAN'S FIRST AMENDED RULE 12 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY TO SHOW AUTHORITY 00063 07/24/2012 2088 6704 0019 DESC: AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 00062 08/10/2012 2089 4792 0004 DESC: MOTION FOR AUTHORITY 00067 08/20/2012 2093 4886 0002 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FROM HEINRICHS AND DEGENNARO 00069 08/20/2012 2093 4889 0002 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FROM DIANA G FLORES 00070 08/20/2012 2093 4891 0010 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FROM W.RANDOLPH DAVIS 00071 08/21/2012 2093 4901 0013 DESC: MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE FRM LARUEN SAKS 00066 09/04/2012 2093 6823 0003 DESC: MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY 00076 09/20/2012 2095 0397 0001 DESC: RECEIPT OF EXHIBITS 00077 09/20/2012 2095 0398 0001 DESC: E-MAIL SENT FROM ADAM CORTEZ TO SANDY SAKS 00072 09/21/2012 2094 8213 0002 DESC: APPL. FOR 297 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Boxer County centralized Docket System P0: 7 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME; 16;06:29 JCL: SPPROD DIRECTION FROM THE COURT 00075 09/26/2012 2095 2856 0017 DESC: MOTION FOR RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY'S FEE AND COSTS FROM A COMMON FUND 00079 09/26/2012 2095 4506 0025 DESC: CONSENT TO REVOCATION ON 04-02-2012 MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 00078 09/27/2012 2095 4493 0013 DESC: REVOCTION OF CONSENT AND AGREEMENT TO MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 00073 09/28/2012 2095 5688 0031 DESC: CONTEST 00081 10/01/2012 2095 3404 0082 DESC: OBJECTION TO ORDER COMPELLING ATTENDENCE AT MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 00082 10/01/2012 2096 2567 0009 DESC: MOTION TO ENTER APRIL 2, 2012 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REACHED IN MEDIATION AND APPROVED BY THE COURT MAY 8, 2012 00080 10/02/2012 2095 7172 0006 DESC: MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF UPCOMING HEARINGS ON SANDRA SAKS' PRO SE MOTIONS 00085 10/05/2012 2096 2577 0008 DESC: MOTION FOR RULE 13 SANCTIONS AGAINST SANDRA SAKS 00090 10/17/2012 2096 5513 0004 DESC: RESPONSE TO SANDRA SAKS "OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER AUTHORIZING INTERIM TRUSTEE SIGNED BY THE COURT AND FILED 08-31-2012,MOTION TO SET ASIDE,MODIFY,CORRECT AND/OR VACATE ORDER AUTHORIZING INTERIM TRUSTEE 00091 10/17/2012 2096 5517 0007 DESC: RESPONSE TO SANDRA SAKS "OBJECTIONS TO ORDER COMPELLING ATTENDANCE AT MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION SIGNED BY THE COURT 9-5-2012 MOTION TO SET ASIDE,MODIFY,CORRECT AND/O R VACATE ORDER COMPELLING ATTENDANCE AT MEDIATION AND/OR ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO ENTER COURT 00092 10/31/2012 2097 1335 0090 DESC: APPL. TO CONFIRM ARBITRATOR'S AWARD AND ENTER JUDGMENT THEREON 00094 11/D9/2012 0000 0000 0000 DESC: 298 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Benar County Centralized DocKet System P0: 8 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD VACATION LETTER - SANDRA SAKS 00093 11/13/2012 2098 1288 0004 DESC: MOTION TO SERVE SANDRA C. SAKS BY MAIL 00095 11/29/2012 2096 8995 0005 DESC: MOTION TO CORRECT 10/16/12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENTER 04/02/2012 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE ACHED IN MEDIATION AND APPROVED BY THE C OURT 05/08/12 00100 12/04/2012 2099 3374 0001 DESC: RECEIPT 8 RELEASE 1228.87 00101 12/04/2012 2099 3375 0001 DESC: RECEIPT 8 RELEASE 1228.87 00102 12/04/2012 2099 3376 0001 DESC: RECEIPT 8 RELEASE 1228.87 00103 12/04/2012 2099 3377 0001 DESC: RECEIPT 8 RELEASE 4797.15 00104 12/04/2012 2099 3378 0001 DESC: RECEIPT 8 RELEASE 4797.15 00105 12/04/2012 2099 3379 0001 DESC: RECEIPT 8 RELEASE 4797.15 00099 12/05/2012 2099 3373 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE 00097 12/07/2012 2099 5910 0010 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE 00106 01/04/2013 2100 9426 0091 DESC: OBJECTION TO STATUTORY PROBATE COURT ENTERED ORDERS WITH LACK OF JURISDICTION. OBJECTIONS TO ALL THE COURTS RULINGS FRM 12-21-2011 TO PRESENT. REQUEST THAT THE COURT DETERMINE IT HAS NO JURISDICTION AND DISMISS,ADDITONALV IF COURT REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE LACK OF JURISDICTION AND/OR PLENARY POWERS, SANDRA SAKS ASK COURT TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE ALL ORDERS ENTERED 00111 01/25/2113 2103 0601 0016 DESC: RESPONSE LAUREN SAKS MERRIMAN'S TO SANDRA SAKS MOTION WITH OBJECTIONS TO THE STATUTORY PROBATE COURT ENTERED ORDERS, El SEC) AND MOTION FOR FINALITY 00107 01/29/2013 2102 3444 0014 DESC: MOTION TO 299 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Pg: 9 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD DISMISS SANDRA SAKS MOTION FOR RULE13 AGAINST LAUREN SAKS, CHRIS HEINRICHS, JOHNATHAN YEDOR, BARRET SHIPP-OBJECTIONS TO ALL THE COURTS RULING FROM 12/12/11 TO PRESENT EFFECTIN SANDRA SAKS-MOTION RC/STING THE COURT DET ERMINE IT HAS NO JURISDICTION AND DISMIS SANDRA SAKS FROM ALL PROCEEDINGS-MOTION TO FIND AND ORDER ALL RULING, ORDERS EFFECTING SANDRA SAKS 00112 02/05/2013 2103 0617 0017 DESC: RESPONSE MARGARET LANDEN SAKE, OBJECTIONS, AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION 00109 02/06/2013 2102 7681 0009 DESC: MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND SUPPORTING BRIEF 00113 02/06/2013 2103 0634 0010 DESC: RESPONSE LAUREN SAKS MERRIMAN TO MARGARET LANDEN SAKS, OBJECTIONS,AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION 00114 02/12/2013 2103 4022 0002 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE 00115 02/12/2013 2103 4024 0002 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE 00123 03/14/2013 2106 6787 0019 DESC: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENTER ORDER RE: MARCH 6, 2013 HEARING 00117 03/15/2013 2105 5783 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF COUNSEL FOR DIANE M. FLORES 00116 03/21/2013 2105 7773 0015 DESC: PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATOR'S AWARD AND ENTER JUD GHENT THEREON 00119 04/02/2013 2106 2862 0001 DESC: REQUEST FOR SUBPOENA PVT PROCESS SRV'D LAUREN SAKS BY AND THROUGH HER ATTY W. RANDOLPH DAVID 00120 04/03/2013 2106 2863 0001 DESC: REQUEST FOR SUBPOENA PVT PROCESS BY AND THROUGH HER ATTY CHRIS HEINRICHS AND BARRETT SHIPP 00121 04/03/2013 2106 5430 0002 DESC: SUBPOENA SRVD-04/03/2013-W. RANDOLPH DAVIS 300 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Boxer County Centralized Docket System Pg: 10 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD 00122 04/03/2013 2106 5432 0001 DESC: SUBPOENA SRVD-BARRETT HEINRICHS-04/03/2013 00126 04/04/2013 2106 6808 0005 DESC: MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPEONA ISSUED TO LAUREN SAKS 00127 04/05/2013 2106 6813 0074 DESC: RESPONSE LAUREN SAKS' RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION'S AWARD AND ENTER JUDGMENT THEREON 00128 04/05/2013 2106 6887 0003 DESC: MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND OR RESET 00129 04/05/2013 2106 6890 0002 DESC: OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO W. RANDOLPH DAVIS AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY W. RANDOLPH DAVIS 00130 04/05/2013 2106 6892 0005 DESC: OBJECTION LAUREN SAKS' OBJECTION TO SUBPEONA AND MOTION FOR PROTECTION ORDER 00131 04/24/2013 2108 5754 0086 DESC: MOTION TO ENTER ORDER CONFIRMING AWARD OF ARBITRATION AND FINAL JUDGMENT 00132 05/21/2013 2109 7404 0003 DESC: REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 00133 05/29/2013 2110 1944 0010 DESC: RESPONSE LAUREN SAKS MERRIMAN'S TO LANDEN SAKS' REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 00135 06/03/2013 2111 3921 0005 DESC: OBJECTION TO ARBITRATION AWARD 8 MOTION TO VACATE 00134 06/06/2013 2110 7116 0005 DESC: MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 00137 06/10/2013 2111 3935 0003 DESC: MOTION TO ENFORCE ORDER CONFIRMING AWARD OF ARBITRATOR AND FINAL JUDGEMENT 00136 06/17/2013 2111 3927 0006 DESC: RESPONSE 00139 07/01/2013 2112 6456 0010 DESC: PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION IN INTERVENTION 00141 07/11/2013 2113 0530 0003 DESC: MOTION TO 301 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System P0: 11 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD SEVER 00142 07/22/2013 2113 6568 0004 DESC: ORIGINAL ANSWER 00143 07/22/2013 2113 6421 0003 DESC: PERSONAL CITATION LEE NICK MCFADIN,III WAS SERVED BY PVT PROCESS ON 07/15/2013 00144 07/24/2013 2113 8460 0008 DESC: DEFENDANT'S CITIZEN'S STATE BANK'S COUNTERCLAIM. 00145 07/31/2013 2114 2281 0004 DESC: APPL. FOR ORDER ENFORCING JUDGEMENT 00149 08/01/2013 2114 4160 0004 DESC: MOTION FOR CITIZENS STATE BANK'S SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 00146 08/02/2013 2114 4154 0004 DESC: ORIGINAL ANSWER 00147 08/02/2013 2114 4065 0016 DESC: NOTICE OF APPEAL 00148 08/02/2013 2114 4158 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF APPEAL 00151 08/12/2013 2115 3612 0002 DESC: NOTICE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00152 08/12/2013 2115 3614 0002 DESC: APPEAL FOURTH COURT 00153 08/13/2013 2115 5878 0002 DESC: PAUPER'S OATH 00160 08/14/2013 2115 9780 0015 DESC: MOTION FOR TRUSTEE'S - AUTHORITY AND FOR EXPEDITED HEARING 00154 08/15/2013 2115 8269 0003 DESC: AFFIDAVIT 00186 08/15/2013 2121 2338 0011 DESC: MOTION TO SET AMOUNT OF SECURITY ON JUDGMENT FOR REAL PROPERTY 00155 08/16/2013 2115 9064 0012 DESC: REQUEST FOR PREPARATION OF CLERK'S RECORD 00156 08/16/2013 2115 9076 0011 DESC: REQUEST FOR PREPARATION OF CLERK'S RECORD 00157 08/16/2013 2115 9087 0004 DESC: MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING REQUEST OF A COURTS RECORD AND CLERKS RECORD 302 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Ps: 12 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD 00158 08/16/2013 2115 9091 0003 DESC: RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO TRUSTEE'S MOTION/APPLICATION FOR ORDER ENFORCING JUDGMENT 00159 08/16/2013 2115 9094 0003 DESC: RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO LAUREN SAKS MERRIMAN'S MOTION TO ENFORCE ORDER CONFIRMING AWARD OF ARBITRATION AND FINAL JUDGMENT 00161 08/19/2013 2116 0467 0012 DESC: AFFIDAVIT OF INABILITY TO PAY COSTS 00163 08/22/2013 2116 2653 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00166 08/23/2013 2116 3563 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF NONSUIT WITHOUT PREJUDICE 00164 08/26/2013 2116 2654 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00165 08/26/2013 2116 3561 0002 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH OF APPEALS 00168 09/09/2013 2117 4232 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00167 09/10/2013 2117 5827 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00170 09/18/2013 2118 3570 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00174 09/18/2013 2119 3404 0002 DESC: DESIGNATION OF CLERK'S RECORD 00171 09/25/2013 2118 5794 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FROM COURT OF APPEALS TO SANDRA C. SAKS, W. RANDOLPH DAV1S,JONATHAN YEDOR, JEFF SMALL 00172 09/30/2013 2119 3414 0003 DESC: DEFENDANT'S CITIZENS STATE BANK'S MOTION TO NONSUIT 00173 10/08/2013 2119 5532 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE COURT DF APPEALS 00175 10/10/2013 2119 8287 0031 DESC: MOTION FOR (TRUSTEE'S) DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 303 RUN DATE: 11/20/21:5 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Pi: 13 PON: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD 00176 10/10/2013 2119 8318 0003 DESC: MOTION TO (TRUSTEE'S) ENFORCE JUDGMENT AND ORDERS TO EXECUTE CONEVANCE DOCUMENTS AND FOR CONTEMPT 00178 10/10/2013 2119 8320 0014 DESC: PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION 00179 10/11/2013 2119 8606 0007 DESC: AFFIDAVIT JOE GARCIA 00180 10/14/2013 2120 0743 0004 DESC: AFFIDAVIT RICARDO ELIZONDO 00181 10/14/2013 2120 0747 0004 DESC: AFFIDAVIT ROLAND DUCK 20182 10/14/2013 2120 0751 0004 DESC: AFFIDAVIT ROLAND DUCK 00183 10/14/2013 2120 0755 0004 DESC: AFFIDAVIT JEFF MARRIOTT 00188 10/17/2013 2121 2349 0011 DESC: OBJECTION GRANTING MOTION TO ENFORCE ORDER ENFORCING GRANTING TRUSTEES MOTION TO SEVERE AND ORDER DENYING TO SET SUPERCIDIOUS BOND 00184 10/25/2013 2120 9515 0003 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00189 10/29/2013 2121 2360 0015 DESC: TRUSTEE'S REPORT ON PROPERTIES 00191 10/30/2013 2121 3008 0001 DESC: COURT OF APPEALS 00192 10/31/2013 2121 3760 0004 DESC: AFFIDAVIT 00193 11/04/2013 2121 3764 0002 DESC: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 00194 11/06/2013 2121 6979 0042 DESC: COPY OF THE SAXS CHILDREN FAMILY TRUST AGREEMENT. 00259 11/08/2013 2148 3093 0004 DESC: LETTER FROM BINGHAM 8 LEA, P.C. TO JUDGE SPENCER 00195 11/14/2013 2122 1248 0008 DESC: JURY DEMAND 304 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System P9: 14 PON: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD 00196 11/14/2013 2122 1256 0004 DESC: OBJECTION TO TRUSTEE'S REPORT ON PROPERTIES 00197 11/14/2013 2122 1246 0002 DESC: NOTICE APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 00198 11/15/2013 2122 3013 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 00199 11/19/2013 2122 3718 0013 DESC: MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY, MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS 00200 11/19/2013 2122 3731 0007 DESC: ANSWER Tri PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED PETITION 00201 11/20/7013 2122 3921 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FROM 4TH COURT OF APPEALS 00203 11/25/2013 2122 7779 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00204 11/27/2013 2122 9288 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF DEPOSIT INTO REGISTRY 00205 12/02/2013 2122 9290 0006 DESC: RESPONSE TRUSTEE'S 00206 12/02/2913 2122 9296 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS-SANDRA C. SAKS 00207 12/04/2013 2123 0912 0018 DESC: ANNUAL ACCOUNT FIRST AMENDED 00208 12/04/2013 2123 0780 0004 DESC: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA 00209 12/04/2013 0200 0784 0002 DESC: SUBPOENA LFE NICK MCFADIN 00210 12/06/2013 2123 0786 0002 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00211 12/12/2013 2123 6093 0002 DESC: NOTICE 00212 12/12/2013 2123 6095 0002 DESC: NOTICE 00213 12/20/2013 2124 0016 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00214 12/23/2013 2124 2737 0002 DESC: 305 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Boxer County Central lied Docket System P0: 15 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD ADVISORY TO THE COURT 00215 12/24/2013 2124 2739 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00216 12/24/2013 2124 2741 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00217 12/24/2013 2124 2742 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00218 12/30/2013 2124 4292 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS TO SANDRA C. SAKS 00220 12/31/2013 2124 5626 0001 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00219 01/02/2114 2124 5624 0002 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 00221 02/05/2014 2126 4358 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE 00223 03/05/2014 2128 9820 0005 DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL CLERKS RECORD 00222 03/18/2014 2129 0445 0023 DESC: ORIGINAL PETITION 00224 03/19/2014 2129 0650 0005 DESC: APPL FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION 00225 03/31/2014 2129 8632 0006 DESC: SUPPLEMENTAL TO TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST SANDRA SAKS 00228 04/28/2014 2131 7194 0022 DESC: DEFENDANT'S LEE NICK MCFADIN, III'S SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY, MOTION TO DISQUALIFY 8 MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS 00229 04/28/2014 2131 7188 0006 DESC: ORIGINAL ANSWER DEFENDANTS A. CHRIS HEINRICHS, J. BARRET T SHIPP AND HEINRIGHS 8 DEGENNARO, PC'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, GENERAL DENIAL AND REQU EST FOR DISCLOSURE SUBJECT TO DEFENDANTS RIGHTS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 00230 05/08/2014 2132 2150 0004 DESC: MOTION TO ABATE AND COMPEL ARBITRATION AND ANSWER SUBJECT TO MOTION (B) 306 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Besar County Centralized Docket System Pa: 16 POM: DKE:4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPRDD 00232 07/08/2014 3136 1617 0012 DESC: ANSWER/RESPONSE RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ABAT E AND COMPEL ARBITRATION 00233 07/25/2014 2137 4677 0006 DESC: APPL. FOR SALE OF PERSONAL PRO 00234 07/25/2014 2137 4671 0006 DESC: APPL. FOR SALE OF REAL ESTATE 00235 07/28/2014 2137 3877 0006 DESC: AMENDED APPLN FOR SALE OF PERS 00236 07/31/2014 2137 4632 0001 DESC: NOTICE OF APPL SALE OF PERSONA 00237 07/31/2014 2137 4633 0001 DESC: NOTICE OF APPL SALE OF REAL ES 00238 08/06/2014 2137 8335 0001 DESC: NOTICE OF APPL SALE OF PERSONA 00239 08/06/2014 2137 8336 0001 DESC: NOTICE OF APPL SALE OF REAL ES 00241 08/13/2014 2138 3435 0017 DESC: REPORT SALE OF REAL ESTATE REPORT OF SALE OF REAL PROPERTY 00242 08/13/2014 0000 0000 0000 DESC: NO FEE DOCUMENTS REPORT OF SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY 00243 08/13/2014 2138 2843 0003 DESC: AFFIDAVIT N. RANDOLPH DAVIS 00244 08/14/2014 2138 3067 0001 DESC: RESPONSE 00245 08/14/2014 2138 3068 0001 DESC: RESPONSE 00247 08/22/2014 2139 3044 0042 DESC: OBJECTION SALE OF REAL ESTATE INTERIM TRUSTEE'S 00248 08/22/2014 0000 0000 0000 DESC: ANSWER/RESPONSE ANSWER/RESPONSE OBJECTION REPORT OF SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY DIJON PLAZA 00252 08/22/2014 2139 3087 0044 DESC: OBJECTION SALE OF REAL ESTATE 00251 08/26/2014 2139 1966 0004 DESC: MOTION TO RECONSIDER DECREE APPROVING INTERIM TRUSTEE'S REPORT OF SALE OF PERSON PROPERTY 00270 08/27/2014 2157 4550 0003 DESC: MOTION AMENDED MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ORDER CP SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND DECREE CONFIRMING SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY 00253 09/03/2014 0000 0000 0000 DESC: mnTiow 307 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bazar County Centralized Docket System Pg: 17 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA 00254 09/03/2014 0000 0000 0000 DESC: MOTION MOTION DROP AND RE-SET HEARING 00255 09/03/2014 2139 7114 0002 DESC: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA 00256 09/03/2014 2139 7112 0002 DESC: MOTION TO TO DROP SETTING AND RE-SET HEARING 00258 09/16/2014 2140 7321 0125 DESC: APPL. FOR EX PARTE RESTRAINING ORDER, TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 00260 02/05/2015 2149 7473 0014 DESC: ANNUAL ACCOUNT INTERIM TRUSTEE'S, ENDING DEC 31 2013 00261 03/11/2715 2152 3107 0013 DESC: SUPPLEMENTAL TO MOTION TD COMPEL ARBITRATION 00263 04/13/2015 2154 0849 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF HEARING 2011PC3466-13 00262 04/15/2015 0000 0000 0000 DESC: P/C IN DRAWER P
260 P. 26100264 04/17/2015 2154 2608 0012 DESC: ANNUAL ACCOUNT TRUSTEE'S ANNUAL ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2014 00265 04/20/2015 2154 6713 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF HEARING: 5/26/15 0 9:00AM 00266 04/28/2015 2155 0118 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF HEARING:SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF MOVANT, MARCUS ROGERS: MAY 28, 2015 10:30AM 00267 04/30/2015 2155 2661 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF FUNDS IN COURT'S REGISTRY 00268 05/27/2015 2157 1856 0001 DESC: NOTICE 00272 07/08/2015 2159 9553 0001 DESC: NOTICE FROM SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 00271 07/09/2015 2160 0573 0003 DESC: MOTION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS IS FPOM COURT'S REGISTRY 308 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Po: 18 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD 00273 07/23/2015 2161 1543 0029 DESC: MOTION JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S MOTION TO ORDER DISB URSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM THE REGISTRY OF T HE COURT IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT 00274 07/24/2015 2161 1611 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF HEARING Of MOTION OF MARCUS P ROGERS 00276 08/04/2015 2162 1038 0027 DESC: MOTION MOTION RECUSAL 00277 08/04/2015 2162 1066 0003 DESC: MOTION MOTION CONTINUANCE 00278 08/04/2015 2162 1073 0004 DESC: MOTION MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING SUBPOENA 00279 08/04/2015 2161 1611 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF HEARING 00282 08/04/2015 2162 1069 2004 DESC: MOTION TO TO CONTINUE HEARING ON NOTION TO RELEASE FUNDS 00280 08/05/2015 2162 1077 D002 DESC: ANSWER/RESPONSE HEINRICHS 8 DE GENNARO'S REQUEST FOR SAN CTIONS IN RESPONSE TO "VERIFIED MOTION F OR RECUSAL AND SUPPORTING BRIEF" 00281 08/11/2015 2162 3199 0003 DESC: AMENDED REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN RESPONSE TO "VERIFIED MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND SUPPORTING BRIEF" 00283 08/14/2015 2162 3202 0010 DESC: DEFENDANT'S A. CHRIS HEMICHS, J. BARRETT SHIPP AND HEINRICHS 8 DE GENNARO, PC'S RESPONSE TO MARGARET LANDEN SAKS' VERIFIED MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 00284 08/17/2015 2162 3212 0014 DESC: RESPONSE REPLY TO HEINRICHS 8 DEGENNARO'S AMENDED REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN RESPONSE TO "VERIFIED MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND SUPPORTING BRIEF 00285 08/17/2015 2162 3226 0034 DESC: AMENDED MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED VERIFIED MOTION FOR RECUSAL 00286 08/24/2015 2163 2030 0014 DESC: 309 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System P8: 19 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD VERIFIED RESPONSE TO JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S MOTION TO ORDER DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FR OM THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT 00287 08/24/2015 2163 0685 0012 DESC: RESPONSE TO JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S MOTION TO ORDER DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT 00288 08/24/2015 2163 1120 0007 DESC: MOTION JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S AMENDED MOTION TO OR DER DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM THE REGIS TRY OF THE COURT IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT 00289 08/24/2015 2163 0697 0010 DESC: COUNTERCLAIM PLEA IN INTERVENTION 00290 08/25/2015 2163 2026 0004 DESC: RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS FROM COURT'S REGISTRY 00292 08/28/2015 2163 4643 0015 DESC: MOTION HEINRICHS 8 DE GENNARO'S MOTION TO STRIK E LANDEN SAKS" PLEAS IN INTERVENTION 00295 09/15/2015 2164 5169 0005 DESC: MOTION 00296 09/17/2015 2165 3465 0029 DESC: MOTION JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S SECOND AMENDED MOTIO N TO ORDER DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT 00297 09/18/2015 2165 1063 0016 DESC: MOTION HEINRICHS 8 DE GENNARO'S AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE LANDEN SAKS' PLEA IN INTERVENT ION 00298 09/18/2015 2165 1058 0005 DESC: HEINRICHS 8 DE GENNARO'S TRIAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS OBJECTION 70 SANDRA SAKS OR LANDEN SAKS PARTICIPATION IN THE HEAR ING ON THE MOTION TO DISBURSE FUNDS FROM THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT 00300 09/25/2015 2165 4423 0034 DESC: SUPPLEMENTAL TO RESPONSE TO JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S MOTION TO ORDER DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT 00301 09/25/2015 2165 5287 0002 DESC: NOTICE 310 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Ps: 20 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD OF WITHDRAWAL OF OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS FROM COURT'S REGISTRY 00304 09/29/2015 2165 9184 0006 DESC: APPL. FOR SALE OF PERSONAL PRO 00305 09/29/2015 2165 9193 0007 DESC: APPL. FOR SALE OF REAL ESTATE 00302 10/01/2015 2165 8642 0001 DESC: NOTICE SALE OF REAL ESTATE 00303 10/01/2015 2165 8643 0001 DESC: NOTICE SALE OF PERSONAL PROPER 00306 10/02/2015 2166 0135 0004 DESC: RESPONSE TO COURT'S REQUEST FOR DOCKET CONTROL ORDER 00307 10/02/2015 2166 0139 0004 DESC: RESPONSE TO COURT'S REQUEST FOR DOCKET CONTROL ORDER 00308 10/02/2015 2166 0143 0004 DESC: RESPONSE TO COURT'S REQUEST FOR DOCKET CONTROL ORDER 00310 10/20/2015 2167 0568 0004 DESC: RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 00311 10/23/2015 2167 3830 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF APPEAL 00312 10/28/2015 2167 4927 0006 DESC: DECLARATION OF ROYAL B. LEA. III 00313 10/28/2015 2167 4933 0002 DESC: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 00314 10/29/2015 2167 6088 0002 DESC: CERTIFICATE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 00316 10/30/2015 2167 8560 0008 DESC: AMENDED APPLN FOR SALE OF REAL 00317 10/30/2015 2167 8627 0010 DESC: DESIGNATION COURT APPOINTED INTERIM TRUSTEE'S DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS 00318 11/03/2015 2167 8010 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF APPL SALE OF REAL ES (AMENDED) 00319 11/03/2015 2167 8008 0002 DESC: NOTICE OF APPL SALE OF PERSONA (AMENDED) 00320 11/04/2015 2168 4551 0035 DESC: REQUEST TO FORWARD CLERK'S RECORD ON APPEAL 311 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bazar County Centralized Docket System Pg: 21 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD MARGARET LANDEN SAKS 00321 11/12/2015 2168 4549 0002 DESC: REQUEST TO FORWARD CLERK'S RECORD ON APPEAL HEINRICHS 8 DE GENNARO, PC +TRIAL INFORMATION• SEQ DATE FILED COURT SETT. DATE TIME ATTY 00023 12/19/2011 002 12/22/2011 09:30AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING FIRST AMENDED TO REMOVE TRUSTEE ETC 00043 03/01/2012 002 03/06/2012 09:30AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING INTERIM TRUSTEE' REPORT 00038 03/06/2012 002 04/03/2012 01:30PH DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING INTERIM TRUSTEE'S REPORT 00051 05/30/2012 002 07/12/2012 09:30AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00058 06/29/2012 002 07/12/2012 09:30AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00060 07/10/2012 002 07/12/2012 09:30AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00068 08/20/2012 002 08/33/2012 02:00PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00064 09/05/2012 002 09/20/2012 01:30PN DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00065 09/20/2012 002 09/20/2012 01:30PM DESC: HEARING HELD MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 00083 10/01/2012 002 10/08/2012 10:30AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING MOTION TO ENTER 04/02/12 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REACHED IN MEDIATION AND APPROVED BY THE COURT ON 05/08/12 00084 10/03/2012 002 10/08/2012 10:30AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION FROM THE COURT 00086 10/05/2012 002 10/00/2012 10:30AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING MOTION FOR RULE 13 SANCTIONS 00087 10/05/2012 002 10/00/2012 10:30AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING AMENDED FIAT-MOTION FOR RULE 13 SANCTION 00088 10/11/2012 002 10/17/2012 04:30PM DESC: PROBATE HEARING OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER COMPELLING ATTENDANCE AT MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 00089 10/11/2012 002 10/17/2012 04:30PM DESC: PROBATE HEARING OBJECTIONS TO ORDER AUTHORIZING 312 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System P0: 22 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD INTERIM TRUSTEE 00096 11/29/2012 002 12/05/2012 09:30AM JBS DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00098 11/30/2012 002 12/07/2012 09:30AM MR DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00110 01/25/2013 002 02/06/2013 09:30AM DESC: PROBATE HEARING MOTION WITH OBJECTIONS TO STATUTORY PROBATE COURT ENTERED ORDERS WITH LACK OF JURISDICTION 00108 01/29/2013 002 02/05/2013 03:50PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING MOTION WITH OBJECTIONS 00116 02/20/2013 001 03/06/2013 09:30AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00124 03/14/2013 001 03/18/2013 03:00PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00125 03/18/2013 001 03/28/2013 02:00PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00138 06/10/2013 001 06/17/2013 03:00PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00140 07/12/20'3 002 08/13/2013 02:00PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING MOTION TO SEVER 00150 08/01/2013 002 08/16/2013 09:30AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00187 08/15/2013 001 08/16/2013 03:15PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING MOTION TO SET AMOUNT OF SECURITY 00162 08/19/2013 002 08/26/2013 04:30PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00169 09/18/2013 001 10/29/2013 02:00PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING MOTION TO SET AMOUNT OF SECURITY ON JUDGMENT FOR REAL PROPERTY 00177 10/10/2013 001 10/29/2013 02:00PM DESC: PROBATE HEARING TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT AND ORDERS TO EXECTE 00185 10/50/2015 001 11/05/2013 01:45PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING TRUSTEE'S REPORT 00190 10/30/2013 002 11/05/2013 01:45PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00202 11/26/2013 001 12/02/2013 03:30PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING MO'ION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY SANCTION AGAINST SANDRA SAKS 00226 04/01/20:4 001 04/29/2014 02:00PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING THE. TRUSTEE'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY IN THE TRUSTEE'S REPORT ON PROPERTIES, FILED ON OCTOBER 29, 2013, 313 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System P0: 23 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD NICK MCFADIN'S MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY, MOTION TO DISQUALIFY, AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS, AND TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS AND SUPPLEMENT THERETO. 00227 04/01/2014 001 04/29/2014 02:00PM DESC: NOTICE TRUSTEE'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY IN THE TRUSTEE'S REPORT ON PROPERTIES 00231 06/18/2014 001 07/09/2014 03:OOPM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING MOTION OF DEFENDANT MARCUS ROGERS TO ABATE AND COMPEL ARBITRATION 00240 08/07/2014 001 08/13/2014 11:15AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING APPL. FOR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND AMENDED APPL. FOR SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY 00246 OB/20/2014 001 013/26/2014 09:30AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING APPL. FOR SALE OR REAL PROPERTY,PERSONAL PROPERTY, REPORT OF SALE OF REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY 00250 08/27/2014 001 09/03/2014 11:30AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING AMENDED MOTION 00257 09/03/2014 001 09/15/2014 02:00PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING AMENDED MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ORDER OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND DECREE CONFIRMING SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY 00275 07/30/2015 001 08/05/2015 11:30AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00291 08/20/2015 001 09/03/2015 03:OOPM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00293 OB/27/2015 002 09/25/2015 09:00AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S SECOND AMENDED MOTTO TO ORDER DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT 00294 OB/27/2015 002 09/25/2015 09:00AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING MOTION TO STRIKE 00299 09/14/2015 001 09/25/2015 09:00AM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING AMENDED FIAT ON MOTION TO STRIKE LANDEN SAKS PLEA 00309 10/08/2015 001 10/22/2015 02:00PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 00315 10/28/2015 001 12/02/2015 03:30PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING 314 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System PR: 24 PGM: DK84900P RUN TIME: 16:D6:30 JCL: SPPROD INTERIM TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 00322 11/17/2015 001 12/02/2015 03:00PM DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING AMENDED APPL FOR SALE PERSONAL PROP • ORDER INFORMATION• SE0 DATE FILED JUDGE NAME VOLUME PAGE PAGE CNT AMOUNT SOF 00001 12/28/2011 TOM RICKHOFF 2075 5069 0003 0.00 DESC: DRDER APPOINTING INTERIM TRUSTEE,MARCUS ROGERS 00002 01/03/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2075 7633 0003 100000.00 DESC: ORDER APPROVING BOND 00003 03/12/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2079 9879 0002 0.00 DESC: AGREED ORDER GRANTING LAUREN SAKS' SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO DIANA G. FLORES' FIRST AMENDED ANSWER 00004 03/12/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2079 9881 0002 0.00 DESC: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ORAL DEPOSITION OF NON PARTY WITNESS,JON SANDIDGE 00005 03/12/2012 TOM RICKMOFF 2079 9883 0002 0.00 DESC: ORDER GRANTING LAUREN SAKS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION FROM DIANE M FLORES AND SANDRA SAKS 00006 05/08/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2083 7322 0002 0.00 DESC: ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 00007 08/31/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2093 6906 0003 0.00 DESC: ORDER AUTHORIZING INTERIM TRUSTEE 00008 09/05/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2094 3301 0003 0.00 DESC: ORDER COMPELLING ATTENDANCE AT MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 00009 09/20/2012 GLADYS B. BURWELL 2094 8465 0001 0.00 DESC: MOTION TO 00010 10/16/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2096 5511 0002 0.00 DESC: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENTER 04-02-2012 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REACHED IN MEDIATION AND APPROVED BY THE COURT 05-06-2012 00011 12/06/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2099 5389 0002 0.00 DESC: ORDER TO SERVED SANDRA C SAKS BY EMAIL 00012 12/06/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2099 5391 0002 0.00 DESC: ORDER -0 CORRECT OCTOBER 16, 2012 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENTER APRIL 2, 2012 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REACHED IN MEDIATION AND APPROVED BY THE COURT MAY 8, 2012 00013 12/07/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2099 5393 0001 0.00 DESC: ORDER 315 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Boxer County Centralized Docket System Pe: 25 POM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:30 JCL: SPPROD ON APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION FROM THE COURT 00014 02/11/2013 TOM RICKHOFF 2103 0672 0002 0.00 DESC: ORDER OF REFERRAL 00015 03/28/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2106 2086 0003 0.00 DESC: ORDER TO CONFIRM ABRBITRATION AWARD 00016 05/07/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2106 5840 0081 0.00 DESC: ORDER CONFIRMING AWARD OF ARBITRATOR AND FINAL JUDGMENT 00017 06/17/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2111 3926 0001 0.00 DESC: ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO ARBITRATION AWARD AND MOTION TO VACATE. 00018 07/01/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2112 4125 0003 0.00 DESC: TEMP. REST. ORDER 00019 07/08/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2112 7915 0001 0.00 DESC: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 00020 08/16/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2115 9774 0004 0.00 DESC: CONTEST TRUSTEE'S CONTEST TO AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCE AND TO CLAIMED NET WORTH FOR SUPERSEDEAS BOND 00021 08/16/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2115 9778 0002 0.00 DESC: ORDER ON MOTION TO ENFORCE 00022 09/05/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2117 5194 0002 0.00 DESC: ORDER SUSTAINING CONTESTS TO AFFIDAVIT OF INABI , ITY TO PAY COSTS 00023 09/17/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2118 1043 0003 0.00 DESC: ORDER SRANTING MOTION TO ENFORCE 00024 09/17/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2118 1046 0004 0.00 DESC: ORDER OF SEVERANCE 00026 09/24/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2120 D759 0004 0.00 DESC: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE INTERVENTION 00025 09/30/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2119 3417 0001 0.00 DESC: ORDER NONSU'TING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 00027 11/05/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2122 1709 0003 0.00 DESC: ORDER ON DISCOVERY 00028 11/14/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2122 1712 0069 0.00 DESC: ORDER IN AID OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT 00029 04/29/2014 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2131 7216 0001 0.00 DESC: ORDER DENYING 316 RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Pg: 26 PGM: DKB4900P RUN TIME: 16:06:30 JCL: SPPROD MTN BY DEFENDANT LEE NICK MCFADIN, LLL TO SJOW AUTHORITY, MTN TO DISQUALIFY, AN D MTN TO STRIKE PLEADINGS 00030 06/18/2014 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2134 6951 0002 0.00 DESC: ORDER GRANTING HEARING ON JULY 9. 2014 00051 08/26/2014 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2139 1677 0002 0.0D DESC: ORDER AUTHORIZING SALE OF PERS 00032 38/26/2014 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2139 1679 0002 0.00 DESC: ORDER AUTHORIZING SALE OF REAL 00033 D8/26/2014 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2139 1681 0002 0.00 DESC: DECREE CONFIRMING SALE OF REAL PROPERTY 00034 08/26/2014 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2139 1683 0002 0.00 DESC: DECREE CONFIRMING SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY 00035 06/04/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2157 7637 0003 0.00 DESC: ORDER ON MOTION TO ABATE AND COMPEL ARBITRATI- ON 00036 07/24/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2161 4242 D002 0.00 DESC: NOTICE OF HEARING 00037 08/05/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2161 9086 0002 0.00 DESC: ORDER DECLINING VERIFIED MOTION FOR RECUSAL 8 SUPPORTING BRIEF 00038 08/21/2015 DAVID PEEPLES 2163 0151 0002 0.00 DESC: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE AND DENYING SANCTIONS 00039 09/25/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2165 6518 0002 331879.97 DESC: ORDER AUTHORIZING DISBURSEMENT 00040 09/25/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2165 6520 0001 0.00 DESC: ORDER STRIKING INTERVENTION 00041 10/12/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2166 5560 0005 0.00 DESC: ORDER FOR DOCKET CONTROL 00042 10/22/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2167 1716 0002 0.00 DESC: ORDER GRANTING RELEASE OF FUNDS FROM COURT'S REGISTRY • BOND INFORMAT1ON• SE0 DATE FILED PRINCIPAL 00001 01/03/20I7 MARCUS ROGERS AGENT: SHERRI L. SCHRAER AMOUNT: 100000.00 SURETY: WESTERN SURETY CO. REASON: INTERIM TRUSTEE OF SAKS FORM: CORP RELEASE DATE: 317 TAB 2 ORDER STRIKING INTERVENTION NO. 2011-PC-3466 LAUREN SAKS, a/k/a GLORIA LAUREN IN THE PROBATE COURT NICOLE SAKS, Plaintiff, V. NO. 1 DIANE M. FLORES AND, SANDRA GARZA DAVIS f/k/a SANDRA C. SAKS, Defendants BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER STRIKING INTERVENTION On September 25, 2015, the court came on to hear Heinrichs & De Gennaro's Amended Motion to Strike Landen Saks' Plea in Intervention. Heinrichs & De Gennaro, P.C., ("H&D"), Movant, appeared in person and by and through its attorney. Landen Saks, Respondent, appeared by and through her attorney of record. Following the announcements from the parties, the court heard, having read the pleadings, heard the argument of counsel and finds the Motion to Strike the Intervention well taken. It is therefore ORDERED that Land Saks "Verified Plea in Intervention" be and is hereby stricken pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 60. All relief not expressly granted, is denied. Signed this 25th day of September, 201 Kelly oss Judge Presiding PREPARED BY: Heinrichs & De Gennaro, P.C. 100 NE Loop 410, Suite 1075 San Antonio, Texas 78216 MOB Telepho 66-0900 SEP 25 2015 Facsi -0981 B or, of Counsel No. 22151400 AW ris Heinrichs State Bar No. 09382500 chrish(iiTheinrichslaw.corn VO2 1 bSPb520 6 TAB 3 ORDER TO DISBURSE FUNDS FROM THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT NO. 2011-PC-3466 LAUREN SAKS, a/k/a GLORIA LAUREN IN THE PROBATE COURT NICOLE SAKS, Plaintiff, V. NO. 1 DIANE M. FLORES AND, SANDRA GARZA DAVIS f/k/a SANDRA C. SAKS, Defendants BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER TO DISBURSE FUNDS FROM REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT On this day the Court heard the Judgment Creditor's Motion to Order Disbursement of Funds from the Registry of the Court in Payment of Judgment filed by Heinrichs & De Gennaro, P.C., a professional corporation. The Movant appeared in person and by through its attorney. The Trustee of the Saks Children's Family Trust a/k/a the Saks Children's Trust and/or ATFL&L, appeared in person and by and through his attorney. Sandra C. Saks and Landen Saks were notified of the hearing but failed to appear/appeared in person and/or by and through their attorney. After reviewing the pleadings on file and having heard the evidence and the argument of counsel, the court finds the Motion to be well taken and should be GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Gerard Rickhoff, County Clerk of Bexar County, Texas, Trustee, issue from funds maintained by the clerk in the registry of the court on behalf of the Saks Children's Family Trust a/k/a the Saks Children's Trust and/or ATFL&L, a check payable to Heinrichs & De Gennaro, P.C., 100 NE Loop 410, Suite 1075, San Antonio, Texas 78216, in the amount of $331,879.97, as payment in full of Heinrichs & De Gennaro, P.C.'s Judgment against the Saks Children's Family Trust a/k/a the Saks Children's Trust and/or ATFL&L pursuant to Tex. Prop. Code §52.001 and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §31.002. 4 V02 I b5Pb5 18 Mfr Signed this a< day of September, 2015. SUBMITTED BY: Heinrichs & De Gennaro, P.C. 100 NE Loop 410, Suite 1075 San Antonio, Texas 78216 Telephone: (210) 366-0900 Facsimile: (210) 366-0981 , of Duns r No. 22151400 jona anygheinrichslaw.com A. Chris Heinrichs State Bar No. 09382500 chrish(a),heinrichslaw.com TONED SEP 2 6 2015 U .1.11,NTS :mks 00,h5r ( not •111-4-I-10 /Ildr Char ra 131sloosc Fundt from RegLadr, of tho Coon at Pacrocre of tddgolord - 08 03 I! doc 2 V02 I b5Pb5 1(1 5 TAB 4 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 9-25-15 REPORTER'S RECORD 2 VOLUME 1 OF 1 FILED IN 3 4th COURT OF APPEALS TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2011-PC-3466 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 4 11/23/2015 10:27:03 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE 5 LAUREN SAKS, a/k/a GLORIA ) IN THE PROBATE Clerk COURT LAUREN NICOLE SAKS ) 6 ) VS. ) NUMBER 1 7 ) DIANE M. FLORES AND SANDRA ) 8 GARZA DAVIS, a/k/a SANDRA C. SAKS ) BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS 9 10 MOTION TO STRIKE PLEA IN INTERVENTION; MOTION TO DISBURSE FUNDS 11 SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 On the 25th day of September, 2015, the 21 following proceedings came on to be heard in the 22 above-entitled and numbered cause before the HONORABLE KELLY 23 M. CROSS, Judge Presiding, held in San Antonio, Bexar County, 24 Texas: 25 Proceedings reported by Machine Shorthand. CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 1 2 APPEARANCES 3 MR. JONATHAN YEDOR 4 BAR 22151400 HEINRICHS & De GENNARO, PC 5 100 NE Loop 410, Suite 1075 San Antonio, Texas 78216 6 (210) 366-0900; Fax (210) 366-0981, Attorney for Heinrichs & DeGennaro, PC; 7 8 MR. ROYAL B. LEA, III BAR 12069680 9 BINGHAM & LEA, PC 319 Maverick Street 10 San Antonio, Texas 78212 (210) 224-1819; Fax (210) 224-0414, 11 Attorney for Marcus Rogers, Interim Trustee; 12 MR. MARCUS P. ROGERS 13 BAR 17179700 LAW OFFICE OF MARCUS P. ROGERS 14 2135 E. Hildebrand San Antonio, Texas 78209 15 (210) 736-2222; Fax (210) 881-0200, Interim Trustee of the Saks Children Family 16 Trust; 17 MR. PHILIP M. ROSS 18 BAR 17304280 1006 Holbrook Road 19 San Antonio, Texas 78218 (210) 326-2100, 20 Attorney for Margaret Landen Saks; 21 MS. SANDRA SAKS 22 23 24 25 CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 1 CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS September 25, 2015 Page 2 Appearances 1 3 4 Motion to Strike Plea in Intervention: Argument by Mr. Yedor 2 5 Argument by Mr. Ross 12 Argument by Mr. Yedor 25 6 Argument by Mr. Ross 29 7 Ruling 30 8 Motion to Order Disbursement of Funds: 9 Argument by Mr. Yedor 31 10 Ruling 34 11 Proceedings Adjourned 36 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 1 EXHIBIT INDEX 2 * * * NONE MARKED, OFFERED, OR ADMITTED * * * 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 1 ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES 2 3 4 5 6 * * * NO TESTIMONY PROFFERED * * * 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 1 1 SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 2 THE COURT: This Court is calling 2011-PC-3466. 3 We have a Motion to Strike Intervention, I'm imagining an 4 intervention, and a Motion to Distribute Funds. 5 Please make appearances for the record. 6 MR. YEDOR: Jonathan Yedor, for Heinrichs and 7 DeGennaro, PC, Movants in the Motion to Strike Intervention, 8 Movants in the Motion to Disburse Funds from the Registry of 9 the Court. 10 MR. ROSS: Morning, Judge. Philip Ross, 11 representing Lauren Saks -- or Landen Saks, who's the 12 Intervenor and also the Respondent on the Motion to Withdraw 13 Funds. 14 THE COURT: So since you have a motion for 15 intervention, I believe you go first. 16 MR. YEDOR: Your Honor, may I be heard, please? 17 Actually the intervention is on file unless you strike it 18 under Rule 260. So it is actually our Motion to Strike the 19 Intervention. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 MR. ROSS: I would concur with that, Your 22 Honor. It's a Plea in Intervention, and I believe it's 23 effective unless it's striken. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. YEDOR: Your Honor, before I begin, may I CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 2 1 approach the Court? 2 THE COURT: Yes. 3 MR. YEDOR: I've had -- I've taken the liberty 4 of putting together a notebook that contains the Plea in 5 Intervention, our Motion to Strike, the fiat setting the 6 matter for hearing this morning, then the authorities related 7 to the matters we're here on before the Court. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 MR. YEDOR: Judge, our burden under Rule 60 to 10 strike the intervention is threefold. We have to show that 11 the intervenor has no justiciable interest in the subject 12 matter, or that the intervention would likely complicate the 13 case, or that the intervention was filed too late. All three 14 of those conditions exist. 15 Landen cannot establish a justiciable interest 16 as a precondition to intervention because she cannot show an 17 ability to defeat all or part of the recovery which we seek. 18 The intervention relates to the Motion to Disburse Funds from 19 the Registry of the Court. It relates to a final, 20 nonappealable motion. It -- excuse me, Judge. It is a 21 post-judgment proceeding. The issues relating to or arising 22 out of and resolving the firm's right to recover attorney's 23 fees have been resolved. 24 They've been resolved in -- first of all, 25 resolved in a mediated settlement agreement. They were CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 3 1 resolved in an arbitration relating to the mediated settlement 2 agreement. They were -- they relate to a final judgment 3 confirming the arbitration award and an appeal confirming the 4 judgment. Landen Saks and Marcus Rogers, interim trustee of 5 the trust, were all parties to the arbitration, to confirming 6 the arbitration award which resulted in the final judgment, 7 and the appeal. Any complaint that any of these parties, 8 Landen or the trustee may have had as to the award of fees has 9 been lost, because it was never asserted. It was never made. 10 It was -- it is now barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 11 What we are doing in intervening, what Ms. 12 Saks, Landen Saks is doing in intervening is making an 13 impermissible collateral attack on valid, binding final 14 judgment. And what she is attempting to do, and this goes 15 back to the very basis of the arbitration award, she is 16 attacking the arbitration award, which now, obviously, comes 17 too late. Because she was a party to all the proceedings and 18 because the trustee was a party to all of the proceedings, 19 neither she nor the trustee can attack that award because of 20 the application of these doctrines, and therefore she does not 21 have a justiciable interest., In short, she has no standing. 22 She cannot assert a legal basis for circumventing or avoiding 23 the judgment in Heinrichs and DeGennaro's favor. 24 We believe the intervention will unduly 25 complicate the case, is an alternative ground for striking the CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 4 1 intervention. It will interject parties that don't belong, 2 theories that don't apply, arguments that shouldn't be made, 3 all at a time when we're dealing with post-judgment relief and 4 not what they are attempting to do, and that is collaterally 5 attack the final judgment. So I think the second element, 6 unduly complicate the case, is met. 7 The third ground for striking the intervention 8 would be the filing of the final judgment makes it too late to 9 intervene. The authorities are there in our notebook, they're 10 in our motion. But essentially it is this: If there is a 11 final judgment, filing an intervention after final judgment 12 comes too late. There are two exceptions. They don't apply 13 to the circumstances of this case. 14 Therefore, because Landen cannot show a 15 justiciable interest, because she would unduly complicate the 16 motion, this isn't even a case, it's just a post-trial motion 17 to recover part of a judgment, and because she has filed her 18 intervention too late, we believe the Court should strike the 19 intervention. 20 But Mr. Ross didn't stop. In his Plea in 21 Intervention, in attempting to simply assert the reasons why 22 his client has a right to intervene, he's made six separate 23 arguments which we think it necessary to address to support 24 our request that the Court strike the intervention. 25 He argues that the trust cannot be sued. CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 5 1 That's why his client also has a basis for relief. Well, he's 2 technically correct, but he is totally misreading or ignoring 3 the circumstances of this case. A trust cannot be sued, you 4 really have to sue the trustee. But in the context in which 5 he is making the argument, he's making the argument in the 6 underlying lawsuit that resulted in the mediation that 7 resulted in the arbitration that resulted in the final 8 judgment we're now trying to enforce. 9 In the underlying lawsuit, the trust wasn't 10 sued. The trustee, Diana Flores, was sued. The settlor, 11 Sandra Garza, was sued. In the mediated settlement, the 12 trustee, Marcus Rogers was a party to the mediated settlement 13 agreement. Landen was a party to the mediated settlement 14 agreement. It was not relevant and it's misleading and it's a 15 red herring to argue that the trust wasn't a party to the 16 original suit for two reasons. First of all, the trustee was 17 a party to the original suit. And secondly, what the 18 arbitration did was confirm and enforce the mediated 19 settlement agreement to which the trustee was a party. So his 20 argument that the trust wasn't a party to the original 21 proceeding bears no weight and should be disregarded. 22 His second argument was that the trust was not 23 a party to the case. The same argument applies. The first 24 time he says the trust can't be sued, the second argument he 25 makes is that the trust was not a party to the case. I've CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 6 1 already given my arguments why that is a bad argument. 2 The third argument he makes is the trustee was 3 not a party to the case. Well, the trustee was a party to the 4 case as originally sued. Diana Flores. But that's not really 5 relevant, because what is before the Court is a final judgment 6 confirming an arbitration award that dealt with a mediated 7 settlement agreement to which the trustee was a party. So 8 again, he's picking at these little bitty acts that are 9 totally irrelevant in an attempt to create standing which 10 doesn't exist. 11 Argument number four is the judgment is not 12 against the trustee. This is probably a fair argument, but 13 it's an incomplete argument for this reason: Although the 14 order, the arbitration award orders the trust to pay fees, and 15 although the judgment confirming the award orders the trust to 16 pay fees, because Marcus was a part of the mediated settlement 17 agreement as interim trustee, because he participated in the 18 arbitration, and because he participated in confirming the 19 arbitration award as a final judgment, and because he 20 participated in Landen's appeal of that final judgment, he was 21 in effect a participant in every step of the proceeding. And 22 under the misnomer doctrine, our judgment against the trust is 23 good because Marcus is truly a party in interest and he was a 24 participant. And our authorities are cited in our motion. So 25 this argument that we didn't get a judgment against the CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 7 1 trustee is true, but it's not relevant based upon Marcus's 2 participation and how misnomer works. 3 Argument number five is the other beneficiaries 4 of the trust are not parties. This is is the argument that 5 really struggled with most because I don't understand it. 6 think I'm going to guess at what he's saying. At some point 7 in time Sandra Saks, the settlor, adopted children. They 8 became beneficiaries under the trust. The problem with his 9 argument is this: It has no bearing upon what we're doing 10 here today. We, first of all, don't have any evidence before 11 the Court that this -- that there were beneficiaries added to 12 the trust. All we have is an allegation in a pleading. And 13 it's not clear, because I'm having to guess that that's what 14 he's saying. 15 Secondly, it makes no difference whether they 16 were made beneficiaries of the trust, because the award, 17 arbitration award and the final judgment, preceded the adding 18 of those beneficiaries All of the lawsuit was filed, the 19 mediated settlement agreement was entered into, the 20 arbitration was conducted all before any beneficiaries were 21 added. So the after-the-fact addition of beneficiaries can't 22 affect the finality of the award upon which the judgment was 23 based. 24 Argument number six is where we're probably 25 going to spend most of your morning this morning, and that is CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 8 1 that this is a spendthrift trust, and therefore the parties 2 could not agree to pay Landen's debts out of the spendthrift 3 trust, or any beneficiary's debt out of spendthrift trust, 4 because that couldn't be done. This is all premised on a 5 legal foundation that doesn't exist. This spendthrift trust 6 argument is not a good argument, because it comes too late. 7 Two reasons. Number one, it comes too late. If Landen was 8 going to object to the mediated settlement agreement as 9 containing the provision awarding fees and expenses to 10 Heinrichs and DeGennaro, she was required to do so in the 11 mediated settlement agreement -- excuse me, in the arbitration 12 enforcing the mediated settlement agreement. This, she failed 13 to do. 14 At that point, when the arbitration award was 15 made, any complaint she had about a spendthrift trust came too 16 late. Because now it's the arbitrator making the award of 17 fees and expenses. And even though he may have been making an 18 award based on a provision in an agreement that could 19 otherwise be attacked as being unenforceable, by virtue of him 20 making that award, it became unassailable. That is the law of 21 arbitration. Landen had her chance in the arbitration to 22 complain about the condition of the mediated settlement 23 agreement. She didn't do so. The arbitrator made the award, 24 and it became final and unassailable. 25 Same when the judgment of this Court confirmed CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 9 the award and made it the judgment of this Court. It was too late for Landen to complain. But she didn't. That judgment is res judicata to the legal argument she's trying to make now. Finally, in arguing that the spendthrift trust provision prevents Heinrichs and DeGennaro from collecting its judgment, what Landen is doing is she is attacking a judgment in a post-judgment collection proceeding. If this is not a direct attack on the judgment, it is a collateral attack. And 10 under the authorities cited in our Motion to Strike, she 11 cannot conduct an impermissible collateral attack on the 12 judgment. 13 But there's another reason why the attorney's 14 fee award stands. If you will read the arbitration award, the 15 arbitrator found, in addition to what the settlement agreement 16 provided and what was reasonable and necessary fees, he found 17 that the fees generated by Heinrichs and DeGennaro greatly 18 benefitted the trust. The findings provide that without the 19 efforts of Heinrichs and DeGennaro, the trust -- let me stop 20 and say this again. Because of the efforts of the law firm in 21 representing Lauren's interest, the firm was able to collect 22 for the trust two -- approximately $2.5 million worth of 23 property. The arbitrator found that because of this 24 significant benefit conferred upon the trust, the fees that 25 the firm incurred in recovering these assets for the trust CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 10 1 should be paid out of the trust. 2 The Property Code provides in Section 114.064 3 that the Court has discretion to award fees in disputes 4 relating to trusts that are fair and just. This arbitration 5 finding by the arbitrator regarding the efforts of the firm, 6 its accomplishments and benefits to the trust, fits right in 7 with the authority to grant these under Section 114.064. So 8 there's an alternative basis. Not only was it a settlement 9 agreement, a negotiated term of the settlement agreement, it 10 exists independently by statute. For all of these reasons, 11 the spendthrift trust argument is another red herring that 12 needs to be ignored. 13 Finally, Landen argues that she can step into 14 the shoes of the trustee because of the trustee's failure to 15 act in challenging fees that were awarded in the proceeding. 16 And that is the basis of her intervention. She has to create 17 a reason for standing. There must be something other than a 18 desire to jump into the middle of the lawsuit. So 19 disregarding that she hasn't met the three elements that would 20 disqualify her from intervening, she is arguing before you 21 that she wants to do what the trustee hasn't done. 22 But to make that argument, she is subject to 23 where we stand in the proceedings right now. Where we stand 24 right now is if she were to step into the shoes of the 25 trustee, the same defenses we have against her as a CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 11 1 participant would apply to the trustee as a participant. Res 2 judicata. Collateral estoppel. Finality of the arbitrator's 3 award. All of these would apply if she were to become the 4 trustee. So what bars her, bars the trustee. And therefore 5 her basis for intervening in and stepping into the shoes of 6 the trustee to do something that hasn't been done don't apply. 7 And if they did apply, she would be barred from seeking the 8 relief she's seeking, which is to prevent the firm from 9 collecting its fees. 10 My final point in attacking the motion to 11 intervention, or Plea in Intervention, excuse me. Plea in 12 Intervention, is this: To the extent it has been based on 13 affidavits, the affidavits in support of the Plea are 14 defective. Landen's affidavit is just mere conclusion. It 15 states no facts to show what knowledge she has. She just 16 concludes. So we are objecting and asking the Court to 17 sustain our special exceptions to her -- Landen's affidavit. 18 Sandra's affidavit is both defective becasuse 19 it's conclusory and because it doesn't belong. Sandra has no 20 standing. She is not a party to this proceeding. She is not 21 intervening. Her affidavit attempting to add credibility to 22 the Plea in Intervention is irrelevant, and we think it should 23 be striken. 24 Thank you. 25 MR. ROSS: Want me to stand or sit? CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 12 1 THE COURT: Go ahead and stand. 2 MR. ROSS: Judge, this is not an ordinary type 3 of situation that comes up often in litigation, where a 4 purported judgment debtor attempts to collect a judgment from 5 a trust based on a void judgment. But that is what we have 6 here. And I found one case where something similar occurred, 7 and the Court of Appeals said an award of judgment against a 8 trust cannot be collected. 9 THE COURT: Why it is void? 10 MR. ROSS: It's void because it's a judgment 11 against a trust rather than a trustee. And the trust itself 12 is not a person. It's just an it's a -- let me read it 13 from the case I cited. 14 It's a relationship -- this is a quote from the 15 Texas Supreme Court in Huie, H-U-I-E, versus Deshazo, 16 D-E-S-H-A-Z-O. Quote, The term "trust" refers not to a 17 separate legal entity but rather to the fiduciary relationship 18 governing the trustee with respect to trust property. And 19 that's Cause Number (sic)922 S.W.2d 920at page 926, a 1996 20 case, holding that treating a trust rather than the trustee as 21 the attorney's client would be inconsistent with the law of 22 trusts. 23 Then citing Malooly Trust versus Juhl, It's 24 M-A-L-O-O-L-Y, Trust versus J-U-H-L,
186 S.W.3d 568, State of 25 Texas Supreme Court case, 2006, states that the -- a claim CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 13 1 against a trust as a judgment debtor is -- is invalid. It 2 states that the general rule in Texas and elsewhere has long 3 been that suits against a trust must be brought against its 4 legal representative, the trustee. 5 Now, I filed a copy of the trust this morning, 6 because I was checking the record and I didn't see where there 7 was a real legible copy. It's been filed in the appendix of 8 the appeal in this case, but I filed a supplement this morning 9 with a copy of the trust that I would like the Court to take 10 judicial notice of. 11 MR. YEDOR: And we would object based on 12 relevancy grounds, Your Honor. This proceeding has nothing to 13 do with the enforceability of the provisions of the trust. I 14 think if the purpose in offering the document is to establish 15 it's a spendthrift trust, there's no really argument on that. 16 But again, this trust has nothing to do with the proceedings 17 because of the finality of the judgment that's before the 18 Court today. 19 THE COURT: But you would stipulate that it's a 20 spendthrift trust. 21 MR. YEDOR: It has a spendthrift clause. We 22 will stipulate to that, Your Honor. 23 MR. ROSS: I'd like to tender the trust to the 24 Judge. And it's on page 10, paragraph 4.7 has the spendthrift 25 provision for you to verify. CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 14 1 May I approach? 2 THE COURT: Yes. 3 MR. ROSS: I've given a copy to opposing 4 counsel. 5 THE COURT: Page 10? 6 MR. ROSS: Page 10. Paragraph 4.7. 7 MR. YEDOR: Judge, we would also object on the 8 basis that he's asking you to take judicial notice of 9 something that I don't think you can take judicial notice of. 10 It is a document that's not common knowledge in the public 11 arena. It's not a court-filed document in this proceeding. 12 It's not a document that has been proved up by other sources 13 to show accuracy or trustworthiness. But most importantly, 14 it's not the proper subject of judicial notice. So we would 15 obejct on that basis, as well. 16 THE COURT: You only get one attorney at a 17 table. 18 Mr. Ross, what do you have to say? 19 MR. ROSS: Your Honor, the trust is purportedly 20 the judgment debtor. And we would offer this trust document 21 into evidence to show the identity of the trust itself. Which 22 is basically the relationship between the trustee and the 23 property that's in the trust. 24 I have the judgment settlor with me, who can 25 verify that this is the trust that she established in 1991. I CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 15 1 also have Marcus Rogers, who is the interim trustee, who can 2 verify that this is the trust document that he is relying on 3 as a basis for his authority to deal with the trust property. 4 THE COURT: I'm going to defer my ruling until 5 the end of your argument, Mr. Ross. Please continue. 6 MR. ROSS: Okay. 7 Mr. Yedor states that Landen Saks has no 8 interest in this matter. Landen Saks was not a party to the 9 original suit by her sister Lauren against her mother and her 10 aunt. Her aunt was Diana Flores, the trustee. That lawsuit 11 was settled. Landen Saks did not participate in the 12 settlement, although Mr. Heinrichs signed on the signature 13 block for Landen Saks as beneficiary purporting to approve of 14 the settlement. We submit that that did not make Landen Saks 15 a party to either the underlying lawsuit or the settlement, in 16 which she had no interest and did not participate. 17 Somehow Landen Saks became a party to the 18 arbitration, but that was not by her doing. And it was not by 19 her being joined as a party to the underlying lawsuit. It was 20 apparently based on the assertion that she was a party to the 21 settlement agreement. This was an enforcement action by her 22 sister Lauren against her aunt and her mother, but not against 23 Landen. And somehow the arbitrator decided that Landen Saks 24 had property interest, or may have property interest which he 25 determined belongs to the trust. So he ordered her to convey CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 16 1 any interest in property that had been transferred to her by 2 the trustee via the trustee Diana Garza -- I mean Flores, when 3 the trust was terminated prior to the mediated settlement 4 agreement. 5 The Court decided that the trust was not 6 terminated, but I don't believe there was an order to that 7 effect. 8 MR. YEDOR: Objection, Your Honor. We're going 9 way, way outside the record. He's arguing facts that are both 10 speculative, and actually not true, but not part of the 11 record. 12 MR. YEDOR: I'm just attempting to give the 13 Court an alternative view of the background in the case. 14 MR. YEDOR: Well, we are objecting to any 15 attempt to give the Court an alternative view, because it's 16 not based on any pleadings and it's not supported by evidence. 17 It's merely Mr. Ross giving his opinion and his view on what 18 he thinks the pleadings say. We object. 19 THE COURT: I'm giving to give him a little bit 20 more latitude. 21 Go ahead, Mr. Ross. 22 MR. ROSS: Okay, Judge. 23 After the arbitration award was signed, and 24 Landen neither Landen nor Sandy Saks participated in the 25 arbitration proceeding. So the findings were made without CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 17 1 their participation. The order was made without their 2 involvement. And it was approved by the Court in a final 3 judgment which was appealed. The appeal came back, the 4 judgment stood. But the reason for the intervention arose 5 when Heinrichs and DeGennaro attempted to collect debt by 6 filing a Motion to Disburse the Funds in the trust or the 7 registry of the court to pay their judgment against the trust 8 And when that occurred, that's when the need for Landen to 9 intervene arose. Because prior to that she was not a party to 10 the case. She was ordered to do certain things by the 11 judgment that approved the arbitration award, but she was not 12 -- she claims she was not a party to the mediated settlement 13 agreement. 14 But -- and that is why she's intervening into 15 the case at this point. 16 THE COURT: Wasn't that wasn't that already 17 taken care of, though? You brought that argument up prior to, 18 and then wasn't that discussed in the arbitrator's award and 19 then again in the appeal that came down against your client? 20 MR. ROSS: The claim that she was not a party 21 was discussed, and it was not accepted. But she still -- 22 THE COURT: I'm sorry, was not accepted by who? 23 Your client, or by the appellate court? 24 MR. ROSS: By the appellate court. 25 THE COURT: So they agreed that she was a CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 18 1 party. 2 MR. ROSS: Yes. And so -- 3 THE COURT: And in that agreeing that she was a 4 party, are you disagreeing that the arbitration does not 5 render the findings of facts and the conclusions of law that 6 it did? 7 MR. ROSS: No. I'm stipulating that it made 8 findings of fact and entered orders that were approved by the 9 Court and not reversed on appeal. And if Landen is a party, 10 then she doesn't need to intervene. But -- 11 THE COURT: But that was already discussed, and 12 it was already confirmed it sounds like a multitude of times. 13 So why now? Why is this different now? 14 MR. ROSS: Well, I am still of the legal 15 opinion that she needs to file a Plea in Intervention in order 16 to intervene into the judgment collection actions of Heinrichs 17 and DeGennaro. If I'm wrong, then she is a party and she 18 doesn't need to intervene and she can assume the 19 responsibility and the position of trustee, who has expressed 20 a willingness to pay a judgment which Landen, as a 21 beneficiary, asserts an interest against Heinrichs and 22 DeGennaro collecting a judgment against the trust. Which 23 according to the Malooly case, is a void judgment. And the 24 significance of the void judgment only arose at the time that 25 Heinrichs and DeGennaro attempted to collect it. As a void CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 19 1 judgment, it has no significance if it is not acted on. 2 THE COURT: Why didn't your client step up 3 earlier at any point in time and refuse the fees or bring this 4 argument up? 5 MR. ROSS: There was no need for her to do 6 that. She can raise the argument that a judgment is void at 7 the time that it is attempted to be used as a valid judgment. 8 She doesn't need to object to a void judgment prior to that. 9 And that's why we didn't file our response to the Motion to 10 Disburse the Funds until it was filed. There wasn't any 11 active controversy about collection of the judgment until the 12 collection was attempted. And that's when Landen 13 appropriately raised her objections. The trustee declined to 14 oppose the collection of a void judgment, and so Landen has no 15 choice as a person that's interested in the trust, both the 16 principal and the -- and the income of the trust, as a 17 beneficiary. 18 THE COURT: So are you trying to sever out this 19 part of the judgment? The fees and expenses of the firm, 20 versus the remaining amount of the arbitrator's award, all the 21 other pieces and parts, should we say? 22 MR. ROSS: No, Your Honor. We are just 23 opposing the collection of a void judgment against the trust. 24 And we're asserting the argument that because the judgment is 25 t names the trust as the debtor. And that can't be by CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 20 1 definition. The trustee, as the trustee of the Saks Children 2 Family Trust, could be a debtor if Mr. Rogers was a party to 3 the mediated settlement agreement. Mr. Yedor claimed that -- 4 or he stated that Mr. Rogers was a party to the settlement 5 agreement, but he did not sign the settlement agreement except 6 approving it as to form. He did not approve the substance of 7 the settlement agreement. And therefore he was not a party to 8 the settlement agreement. 9 And he was not sued by -- by Mr. Yedor's firm 10 to collect their attorney fees. Which essentially are a debt 11 of their client, Lauren Saks. Lauren Saks apparently 12 contracted with Heinrichs and DeGennaro. At the settlement 13 agreement, all the parties agreed that Heinrichs and DeGennaro 14 and Marcus Rogers could be paid from the trust. And nobody 15 bothered to consider the fact that this is a spendthrift 16 trust, and its property -- its interest in property cannot be 17 voluntarily or involuntarily offered or allowed to recover a 18 debt of the beneficiaries. 19 THE COURT: Speak to the issue of the common 20 fund doctrine, then. 21 MR. ROSS: The property that's in the trust is 22 owned by the trustee for the benefit of all the beneficiaries. 23 And those include Lauren Saks, Landen Saks, Mariah McFaddin, 24 and Miles McFaddin. And those are the children, or adopted 25 children of Sandra Saks. And according to the trust, that -- CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 21 1 they are all beneficiaries. Mariah and Miles only became 2 beneficiaries after the mediated settlement agreement was 3 approved. And after it was enforced by the judgment approving 4 the arbitration award. 5 The trust acquired interest in property that it 6 did not -- in our view did not have a claim against. And 7 those were properties that were owned nominally in the trust, 8 but pursuant to an agreement the beneficial interest and the 9 equitable title to those properties remained in Sandra Saks on 10 the basis of her terms for contributing part of that property 11 interest to the trust. In the mediated settlement agreement 12 Sandra Saks agreed to convey all of her interest in these 13 various properties that she had to the trust. When the trust 14 acquired those interests in the property by judicial fiat, 15 pursuant to the judgment approving the arbitration award, the 16 trust acquired a substantial interest. I don't know the 17 value, but Mr. Yedor states it was about $2 million worth of 18 property. And Landen Saks was a beneficiary of that 19 acquisition by the trust for her benefit. However, that 20 doctrine doesn't apply, because the judgment that Heinrichs 21 and DeGennaro is claiming as the basis for their collection 22 action is against the trust. And our position is based on the 23 Malooly case that it's a void judgment. 24 THE COURT: You said that. But you haven't 25 spoken to the common fund doctrine yet. Go there. CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 22 1 MR. ROSS: Well, I'm not sure what the Court is 2 expecting me to argue in that regard. Landen Saks does not 3 owe Heinrichs and DeGennaro any -- any fees as a result of any 4 efforts that they provided that may have benefitted the trust. 5 We submit that she may have benefitted from their services, 6 arguably, but she doesn't -- doesn't owe them. 7 Lauren Saks, on the other hand, had a contract 8 with Heinrichs and DeGennaro, and she is the only person that 9 is liable for payment of their fees. Because they don't have 10 a valid judgment against the trustee. And the funds that are 11 in the trust are commonly for the benefit of only four 12 beneficiaries, but they're not subject to collection on the 13 the basis of this judgment that Heinrichs and DeGennaro has. 14 THE COURT: Anything else? 15 MR. ROSS: Yes. 16 Now, Mr. Yedor stated that his judgment is not 17 appealable. We're not questioning the appealability of that 18 judgment, we're -- what we're arguing is that because that 19 judgment is void, the trustee can reject any collection 20 efforts pursuant to that judgment from the trust. The trustee 21 should be objecting to paying the claim on the basis that it's 22 a void judgment. Because he's not doing that, anybody else 23 that has a beneficial interest in the trust can step forward 24 and assume the role, not as based on their own standing as 25 beneficiary, but based on the standing of the trustee to CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 23 1 enforce the terms of the trust. 2 And the second issue, that the trust is a 3 spendthrift trust, and its -- the property interest that it 4 has cannot be used to pay for the debts of the beneficiaries, 5 can't be used to pay Lauren's attorney's fees, it can't be 6 used to pay Landen's attorney's fees, and it can't be pledged. 7 Which I would submit that the agreement, the mediated 8 settlement was a pledge of the fee -- of -- of property that 9 was owned by the trust which was not subject to being pledged 10 to pay Lauren's or Landen's attorney's fees to Heinrichs and 11 DeGennaro or to pay the trustee. 12 The -- the trust has not been amended. And 13 because it's a irrevocable spendthrift trust, it has certain 14 terms that preclude amendment. And the original intention of 15 the settlor is what is binding. There's been no attempt to 16 amend the trust to overcome the spendthrift provisions or to 17 make any kind of an exception available which would authorize 18 the trustee to pay Mr. Heinrichs' attorney's fees claim on the 19 basis of the judgment that he's asserting. 20 Mr. Yedor argued that the settlement agreement 21 and the arbitration award are unassailable. We're not 22 attempting to challenge the arbitration award or the judgment 23 confirming it. And we're not attacking the appeal. We're 24 just saying that the judgment that names the trust as a debtor 25 is a void judgment. CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 24 1 And the arbitrator's finding that Heinrichs and 2 DeGennaro provided a benefit to the trust isn't relevant to 3 the Court's consideration of their claim against the trust. 4 Because their claim against the trust would have to be a claim 5 against the trustee to disburse funds from the trust. And I 6 don't know how they would get there from here, because they 7 obtained a judgment that they can't use for their collection 8 activity without being subject to reversal on appeal and 9 probably remittitur if they do attempt to collect from the 10 trust without legal authority. 11 The argument that the spendthrift provision of 12 the trust is a red herring I think is both false and 13 misleading, because essentially what we have is a claim 14 against the trust directly, which is a void claim. And even 15 if it was a valid claim, even if it was a claim against the 16 trustee to disburse funds in the trust that were agreed to at 17 the settlement agreement and approved at the arbitration and 18 confirmed in the judgment, the trust is not subject to being 19 liable for any of the beneficiaries' debts. And the 20 beneficiaries don't have authority under the terms of the 21 trust to say the trust will pay for our expenses. So I think 22 it is a very valid argument that Marcus Rogers is not 23 following the terms of the trust by not objecting to Mr. 24 Heinrichs' claim. Because even it was a valid claim against 25 the trustee, the spendthrift trust provision would preclude CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 25 1 payment. 2 With regard to the affidavits, I submit that 3 the affidavits verify the allegations and the statements of 4 fact in the Plea in Intervention, and that they were adequate 5 for the purpose. Therefore, I would request the Court to 6 allow the Plea. And alternatively, if the Court decides that 7 Landen is already a party, to allow her to respond and object 8 to the collection of a void judgment against the trust. 9 MR. YEDOR: May I rebut? 10 THE COURT: Please. 11 MR. YEDOR: First of all, Your Honor, at no 12 time in any of these proceedings prior to the making of the 13 award of final judgment of this Court did anybody attack the 14 claims against the trust. If somebody had objected that the 15 suit was against the trust as opposed to the trustee, a simple 16 plea and amendment could have taken care of that. Landen 17 being one of those who never objected. 18 Secondly, the real argument, if you boil down 19 what Mr. Ross just argued down to one sentence, it is this: 20 This is a void judgment because it obligates the trust, not 21 the trustee, to pay the fees. 22 Along those lines, I'm going to read, if I may, 23 from a couple of authorities that I think dispel that notion 24 entirely. It goes back to my misnomer theory. 25 In the Supreme Court case of Greater Houston CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 26 1 Orthopaedic Specialists, Inc., cited at
295 S.W.3d 323, the 2 Supreme Court makes these pronouncements: A misnomer occurs 3 when a party misnames itself or another party. 4 In this case we named the trust; we should have 5 named the trustee. 6 But the correct parties are involved. 7 In this case, Marcus Rogers, the interim 8 trustee, was involved every step of the way. 9 It cites the case of Chilkewitz versus Hyson, 10
22 S.W.3d 825, another Supreme Court case, noting that 11 misnomer arises when a plaintiff sues the correct entity but 12 misnames it. 13 The Supreme Court also cites Chen, which I'm 14 going to go to, for this proposition: A misnomer does not 15 invalidate a judgment as between parties where the record and 16 judgment point out, with certainty, the persons and subject 17 matter to be bound. 18 We have all of that before us. 19 The Supreme Court also says that -- cites 20 Charles Brown, L.L.P. versus Lanier Worldwide, holding that a 21 misnomer does not render a judgment void, provided the 22 intention to sue the correct defendant is evident from the 23 pleadings and process, such that the defendant could not have 24 been misled. When a corporation intended to be sued is sued 25 and served by a wrong corporate name and suffers judgment to CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 27 1 be obtained, it is bound by such judgment. 2 In Chen versus Breckenridge Estates Homeowners 3 Assocation, located at
227 S.W.3d 419, the Court says a 4 misnomer does not invalidate a judgment as between parties 5 where the record and judgment together point out with 6 certainty, the persons and the subject matter to be bound. 7 Judge, attached to the judgment of this Court 8 is the aribtrator's findings and award. The findings are 9 detailed. They make it very clear that the person to be bound 10 was the trustee. They make it very clear that he was a party 11 to the arbitration, to the mediated settlement agreement, and 12 a party to the judgment. Those findings and award become the 13 findings and award of this Court. There can be no confusion. 14 The doctrine of misnomer applies. Mr. Ross's argument that 15 this is a void judgment simply is wrong. 16 When Mr. Ross argues to the Court that Marcus 17 Rogers, interim trustee, was not party to the MSA because he 18 only signed it as to form, that is wrong. It contradicts the 19 very finding of the arbitrator, which became your finding as 20 incorporated in the final judgment. He makes these statements 21 disregarding the accuracy of them or where they can be easily 22 rebutted and disputed and should be disregarded. Marcus 23 Rogers was a party to the proceedings, and is so today. 24 Regarding Mr. Ross's argument that Landen was a 25 party to all of the proceedings, that allows her to come in CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 28 1 and object to the matter really before the Court today, which 2 is a Motion to Disburse Funds, is simply wrong. She is bound 3 by it. If she stands up in court in opposition to the Motion 4 to Disburse Funds based on this judgment, she is making a 5 collateral attack on the judgment. She is seeking to avoid 6 the terms of the judgment after its entry. A judgment that is 7 res judicata to any attempt to do so. And it ignores how the 8 award became final based on what the arbitrator did and found, 9 regardless of whether it was properly premised or not. 10 You never got a good answer on the common fund 11 doctrine. But under the very findings of the arbitrator, 12 which became your findings, the benefit to the trust based on 13 the efforts of the law firm were clear and a basis for 14 awarding the fees and -- were a basis for awarding fees and 15 are supportable legally under Section 114.064. 16 Thank you, ma'am. 17 MR. ROSS: May I approach, Your Honor? I'd 18 like to show you a copy of the mediated settlement agreement 19 which proves that what I told you is correct, that Marcus 20 Rogers was not a party and he signed only as to form. 21 MR. YEDOR: I would object. He's offering 22 something in direct controvention to the very finding of the 23 arbitrator, which is the very finding of this Court. 24 THE COURT: Mr. Ross, the Court has the file. 25 I've seen the mediated agreement, and I have the arbitrator's CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 29 1 award in front of me. 2 MR. ROSS: Mr. Yedor stated that I misstated 3 the facts. The mediated settlement agreement expressly 4 identifies the parties as being Lauren Saks, Sandra Saks, and 5 Diana Flores. And the parties that signed the settlement 6 agreement were A. Chris Heinrichs, who signed for Lauren Saks; 7 A. Chris Heinrichs, attorney, who signed for Landen Saks; 8 Sandra Saks; and Diana Flores. Then approved as to form by 9 Marcus Rogers, Chris Heinrichs, Ron Shaw, and Adam Cortez. 10 Not that that is relevant to the judgment, but to correct the 11 record that -- so the Court can see that the document 12 contradicts what Mr. Yedor stated about who were the parties 13 and what Mr. Rogers' involvement was. If he just signed as to 14 form and didn't claim to be a party at that time, it seems to 15 me that after the fact for him to claim to be a party would 16 invalidate certain terms of the arbitration award. Because 17 you can't arbitrate something and make people parties after 18 the fact if you've just settled a controversy over an 19 contract. 20 But even though I don't agree with the results, 21 the arbitration award, the judgment, and the Court of Appeals, 22 that is not relevant to the Court's consideration of our Plea 23 in Intervention or the Motion to Disburse the Funds. Because 24 that -- that whole process resulted in what we claim, with 25 authority, is a void judgment. And we had no duty to tell CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 30 1 Heinrichs and DeGennaro that they were obtaining an invalid 2 and unenforceable judgment until they start to collect on it. 3 And that's when we submit that Marcur Rogers should have 4 objected on the same basis that Landen is objecting. And 5 she's requesting the Court to -- or she's intervening so that 6 she can use his standing to do his job for him in order to 7 protect her interest and the interest of the other 8 beneficiaries. 9 Mr. Yedor didn't respond to the alternative 10 argument, which is the spendthrift provisions in the trust, 11 that even if the law firm had a valid judgment against the 12 trustee to collect their fees which were incurred for the 13 benefit of the beneficiaries, the trust would prevent them, by 14 its spendthrift provisions, from collecting the fees. And 15 they would be left with the alternative to collect the fees 16 from the parties they contracted with. So they do have an -- 17 and I believe the four-year statute of limititations on that 18 contract has not expired, so they have an alternative remedy. 19 Which is the only appropriate remedy, in our opinion. 20 THE COURT: The Court is going to grant the 21 Motion to Strike. We will now go on to the next part of this 22 hearing this morning. Do you have an order, Mr. Yedor? 23 MR. YEDOR: Yes, ma'am, I do. Thank you, Your 24 Honor. 25 THE COURT: Okay. The Court has signed the CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 31 1 order, and we are going to take a five-minute break so you can 2 kind of re-group mentally, and we'll go on to part two. 3 Mr. Ross, want to give him a copy of that, 4 please, sir? And we'll take a little break. See you back 5 let's say 10:00 o'clock. 6 MR. YEDOR: All right, Judge. 7 (Recess) 8 THE COURT: We are back on the record. Please 9 proceed with the hearing. 10 MR. YEDOR: All right. 11 Your Honor, before the Court is the Judgment 12 Creditor's Amended Motion to Order Disbursement of Funds from 13 the Registry of the Court in Payment of Judgment. 14 A couple of things right off the bat before I 15 begin presenting our position. May I approach the Court? I 16 have put together a notebook that is pertinant to this hearing 17 that I'll be referring to in the course of my presentation. 18 Thank you, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Thank you. 20 MR. ROSS: May I see a copy of that, as well? 21 MR. YEDOR: Well, just a second. It has not 22 been filed. 23 Your Honor, the second thing I want to bring up 24 is I would like to object to Mr. Ross participating in this 25 hearing. He certainly has the right to be here be present and CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 32 1 watch what's going on, but as far as he participating, 2 objecting, putting on evidence, cross-examining witnesses, his 3 client has no standing. 4 THE COURT: Please state for the record who his 5 client is. 6 MR. YEDOR: Sandra Saks, Landen Saks. His 7 clients have no standing. And we object to any participation. 8 In the notebook, and I'll be happy to give him 9 a copy if the Court wishes, I will refer the Court -- here, 10 let's exchange. 11 MS. SANDRA SAKS: Why don't you give her that 12 one? 13 MR. YEDOR: No, I'll give her that one. 14 MS. SANDRA SAKS: Well, we want to make sure 15 it's the same. How do we know it's the same document? 16 MR. YEDOR: I just told you it was. 17 THE COURT: It's demonstrative at best. I'm 18 going by pleadings and arguments of counsel. 19 Please proceed. 20 MR. YEDOR: If you will look at Tab 18, we've 21 prepared a Brief in Support of Objection stating the reasons 22 why neither Sandra nor Landen has standing. 23 They are parties to a final judgment. We are 24 attempting to collect on a final judgment. As the Court has 25 just determined in the petition -- or excuse me, the Motion to CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 33 1 Strike the Plea in Intervention, Landen has no basis for 2 intervening in this case to attack the award of fees to 3 Heinrichs and DeGennaro. The only parties to this proceeding 4 are the interim trustee, the law firm seeking relief. That's 5 what this is all about. And their participation will unduly 6 delay the proceedings, interject additional tension and 7 disharmony that is unnecessary under a basis where they have 8 no right to do so. So up front, we would object to Mr. Ross 9 representing his clients in this proceeding in any fashion 10 other than as an observer. The whole purpose of striking the 11 intervention was to eliminate any standing that they may argue 12 they have a right to participate in the proceedings. Their 13 whole purpose in filing the intervention was to create 14 standing so they could participate and object to the 15 proceedings. 16 MR. ROSS: In response, Your Honor, I would 17 tend to agree with Mr. Yedor's argument that in order for 18 Landen to assert the duties and responsibility and authority 19 of the trustee in the absence of him objecting to the payment 20 of fees which are in our opinion based on a void judgment, she 21 would have to intervene. Even though she may be considered a 22 party to the final judgment, she can't act on behalf of the 23 trustee without the Court granting her intervention. The 24 Court has denied the intervention, so I would tend to agree 25 that the appellate issues are going to be premised on the CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 34 1 validity or the denial of the intervention. Then it would go 2 back to -- the whole thing would be sent back for 3 reconsideration on the basis of that court rather than the 4 order granting the Motion to Disburse the Funds. So I'll just 5 sit quietly. 6 THE COURT: Thank you. 7 I have read the request before this Court to 8 disburse, I have read the Arbitrator's Award and Final 9 Judgment, I have read the opinion from the appellate court. 10 The Court is going to grant your motion. 11 MR. YEDOR: Thank you. 12 THE COURT: Please deliver an order to the 13 Court. 14 Let the record reflect that our interim trustee 15 is in the courtroom. 16 Mr. Rogers, you neglected to make an appearance 17 this morning. I do know that you are in the courtroom, and I 18 have noted it for my file. 19 MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Your Honor. Could you 20 also note that my attorney, Royal Lea, is present? 21 THE COURT: I have made that note. Thank you. 22 The Court has reveiwed the Order to Disburse 23 the Funds from the Registry of the Court, and the Court has 24 approved this order and has signed it. 25 MR. YEDOR: Judge, thank you for your CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 35 1 courtesies this morning. May we be excused? 2 THE COURT: Yes. 3 Mr. Rogers, you seem to have a motion on file 4 for sanctions. Has this motion been set? 5 MR. LEA: May I be heard, Judge? 6 THE COURT: Yes. 7 MR. LEA: Judge, as far as I know it has not 8 yet been set. My assistant has been in communication with the 9 Court staff about setting it, but as far as I know there is 10 not yet a setting. I have some travel and a trial coming up 11 out of town, and I don't think -- my office has tried to get 12 it set, but I don't think I know my schedule well enough yet 13 to commit with your staff. 14 THE COURT: I realize that there are some 15 underlying parts of this giant case that have not achieved a 16 Docket Control Order. 17 Mr. Ross, I'm going to ask you and whoever you 18 are bringing into the suit for the remainder of any lawsuits 19 contained in this file, that you have a Docket Control Order 20 set by next Friday. If you cannot set and give the Court an 21 agreed Docket Control Order on any underlying matters, the 22 Court will set them for you. So by 3:00 o'clock on Friday, 23 that's when I will expect someone to tender me an agreement. 24 If you do not have an agreement, I'm going to set it on my 25 schedule without conferring with anyone. CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 36 1 And in case no one has told you, and I'm sure 2 you know, Mr. Ross, because you've heard this speech, I will 3 not move anything that's set by a Docket Control Order. So 4 once you're set, you're set. So I urge you to try to 5 cooperate with your schedules between yourself, Mr. Ross, and 6 whoever else, or I'm going to unilaterally take care of it. 7 So Friday next week, by 3:00 o'clock. Plenty 8 of time to talk. And I will be back in, and by 5:00 o'clock, 9 if I don't have it between 3:00 and 5:00, Mr. Rossi and I will 10 create it on my schedule. 11 Anything else, gentlemen and ma'am? 12 MR. YEDOR: No, ma'am. 13 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much this 14 morning for your cooperation. Mr. Yedor, I'm going to return 15 to you your demonstrative evidence of your two notebooks. 16 Which are very heavy. 17 Thank you very much, and have a nice day. We 18 are -- our record is closed. 19 (Proceedings adjourned) 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 37 1 THE STATE OF TEXAS ) 2 COUNTY OF BEXAR ) 3 4 I, Cheryl D. Hester, Official Court Reporter in 5 and for Probate Court Number 1 of Bexar County, State of 6 Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains 7 a true and correct transcription of all portions of evidence 8 and other proceedings requested by counsel for the parties to 9 be included in this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the 10 above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred in open 11 court or in chambers and were reported by me. 12 I further certify that this Reporter's Record 13 of the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, 14 if any, admitted by the respective parties. 15 I further certify that the total cost for the 16 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $190.00 and was 17 paid/will be paid by Sandra Saks. 18 19 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 17th day of 20 November, 2015. 21 22 /s/ Cheryl D. Hester CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. 23 Official Court Reporter, Probate Court No. 1 Bexar County, Texas 24 100 Dolorosa San Antonio, Texas 78205 25 (210) 335-2359 Texas CSR #4519; Expires 12/31/15 CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1 BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359 TAB 5 MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT No. 201I-PC-3466 LAUREN SAKS a/k/a GLORIA * IN THE PROBATE COURT LAUREN NICOLE SAKS, Plaintiff V. * NO. TWO, te DIANE M. FLORES AND SANDRA GARZA DAVIS f/k/a SANDRA C. SANS, Defendants 1 BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS MitintalED $,ETXLEMENT 4GREEMENT C.v The "Parties," LAUREN SAILS, a/k/a GLORIA LAUREN NICOLE SAKS, DIANA M. FLORES and SANDRA GARZA DAVIS, f/k/a SANDRA C. SAKS, hereto agree that all claims and controversies between them that are in any way related to the SAKS CHILDREN FAMILY TRUST or ATFL&L, and the trust assets in which they may have had an interest and/or the exercising of any fiduciary responsibility are all hereby settled in accordance with the following terms: 1. The Parties acknowledge that bona fide disputes and controversies exist between them, and they desire to compromise and settle all claims and causes of action of any kind whatsoever which the Parties may have arising out of the above described issues. It is further understood and agreed that this is a compromise of disputed claims, and nothing contained herein shall be construed as an admission of liability. 2. Each signatory warrants and represents that: a. such person has the understanding of the issues involved, the information necessary to the decision to enter into this agreement and the authority to bind the Party or Parties for whom such person acts; and that b. the claims, suits, rights, and/or interests which are the subject matter hereto are owned by the Party asserting same, have not been assigned, transferred or sold, and are free of any encumbrance. 3. The Parties further agree as follows: a. 218 Treasure Way shall be listed for sale immediately. Sandra lives in the house rent- free for 90 days, paying only utilities and normal minor upkeep. $65,000 of sales proceeds payable to Sandra, the balance to the Trust. b. Sandra and Diana shall transfer and assign to the Trust all of their right, title, and interest in and to: (a) 5321 Broadway Partners; (b) Dijon Plaza Joint Venture; (c) Sunset Partners; (d) 50% interest in 4.93 acre Nueces County property; (e) Hyatt Mountain Lodge, Beaver Creek, Condominium timeshare interest in Unit #234, week 11, located at 63 Avondale Lane, Avon, CO; (f) Hunt lot on Guadalupe River, free ami-elearef-ftiMienera144fiNeS; (g) the Quarter House, New Orleans, Condominium Timeshare interest in Oak Ridge Park condominium No. 232, week 12, located at the Quarter House, 129 Rue Charles, New Orleans, LA; (h) Poste Montane Condominium Timeshare interest in Unit #301, weeks 28 and 29, and Unit #402, week 13, located at 76 Avondale Lane, Beaver Creek, CO; and (i) 218 Treasure Way San Antonio, TX. c. The Trust will be responsible for filing any necessary tax returns reflecting above ownership. d. Mediated Settlement Agreement will be jointly submitted to the court for approval. e. Sandra indemnifies Trust against federal income tax liability which accrued or might have accrued on or before December 31, 2011. f. Sandra and Diana pay their respective legal fees. g. The Trust pays fees and expenses of the Interim Trustee and Heinrichs & DeGennaro, P.C. h. The parties understand and agree that this Mediated Settlement Agreement shall be irrevocable. V02083P0203 4. Except for the agreements set forth herein, the Parties hereby release, discharge, and forever hold the other harmless from any and all claims, counterclaims, demands, or suits, known or unknown, fixed or contingent, liquidated or unliquidatecl, whether or not asserted in the above case, as of this date, arising from or related to the events and transactions which are the subject matter of this cause, including, but not limited to, any and all claims for breach of fiduciary duty and/or conversion. This mutual release runs to the benefit of all attorneys, agents, employees, officers, directors, shareholders, partners, heirs, assigns, and legal representatives of the Parties hereto. 5. Counsel for the Parties shall deliver drafts of any further documents to be executed in connection with this settlement to counsel for the other Parties hereto within fifteen (15) days from the date hereof. The Parties and their counsel agree to cooperate with each other in the drafting and execution of such additional documents as are reasonably requested or required to implement the provisions and spirit of this Settlement Agreement, but notwithstanding such additional documents the Parties confirm that this is a written settlement agreement as contemplated by Section 154.071 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 6. This Settlement Agreement is made and performable in Bexar County, Texas, and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. 7. If one or more disputes arise with regard to the interpretation and/or performance of this Agreement or any of its provisions, including the form of further documents to be executed, the Parties agree to further mediation in an attempt to resolve same with Thomas Smith, the Mediator, who facilitated this settlement. In the event a dispute arises between the Parties, it is hereby agreed that the dispute shall be referred to Thomas Smith, the Mediator herein, for arbitration in accordance with the applicable United States Arbitration and Mediation Rules of Arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final and legally binding and judgment may be entered thereon. Each Party will be responsible for their share of the arbitration fees in accordance with the applicable Rules of Arbitration. In the event a Party fails to proceed with arbitration, unsuccessfully challenges the arbitrator's award, or fails to comply with the arbitrator's award, the other Party is entitled to costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee for having to compel arbitration or defend or enforce the award. 8. Although the Mediator has provided a basic outline of this Settlement Agreement to the Parties' counsel as a courtesy to facilitate the final resolution of this dispute, the Parties and their counsel have thoroughly reviewed such outline and have, where necessary, modified it to conform to the requirements of their agreement. All signatories to this Settlement Agreement hereby release the Mediator from any and all responsibility arising from the drafting of this Settlement Agreement, and by signing this Settlement Agreement acknowledge that they, or their attorneys, 3 V0Z083P02011 have been advised by the mediator in writing that this Settlement Agreement should be independently reviewed by counsel before executing the agreement 9. The Parties represent and warrant that: (i) they have carefully reviewed this Settlement Agreement; (ii) they have consulted with their attorneys concerning this Settlement Agreement; (iii) any questions that they have pertaining to this Settlement Agreement have been answered and fully explained by their attorneys; (iv) their decision to execute this Settlement Agreement was not based on any statement or representation, either written or oral made by any person or entity other than those statements contained in this Settlement Agreement, and specifically was not based on any statement or representation made by any opposing Party or its counsel; (v) this Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties; (vi) they have entered into this Settlement Agreement of their own five will; and (vii) all prior and contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, whether written or oral, are merged herein. 10. This Mediated Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the Probate Court of Bexar County, Texas. AGREED, this 24day of April, 2012. dA-C-9 1 =( LAUREN SAKS, a/k/a Gloria Nicole Saks, by A. Chris Heinrichs, Attorney 46::4 dir LANDEN SAKS, by A. Chris He 'chs as agent for Lauren Saks, a/k/a Gloria Lauren Nicole Saks, Landen Saks' attorney in fact Lauren Saks von83P0205 APPROVE S AS TO FORM: t rir, S P. R • State Bar No. 171'700 2135 E. Hildebrand San Antonio, Texas 78209 (210) 736-2222 (21.0) 881-0200 FAX INTERIM TRUSTEE FOR THE SAKS CHILDREN FAMILY TRUST or ATFL&L A. CHRIS HE1NRICHS State Bar No. 9382500 BARRETT SHIPP State Bar No. 24060601 100 N.E. Loop 410, Suite 1075 San Antonio, Texas 78216 (210) 366-0900 (210) 366-0981 FAX ATTORNEYS FOR LAUREN SAKS /1f4 RONALD J. SHA State Bar No. 181 00 7300 Blanco Road, Suite 610 San Antonio, Texas 78216 (210) 227-3737 (210) 366-0805 FAX ATTORNEY FOR DIANA I. FLORES ,-4•4/gAtt ADAM CORTEZ State Bar No. 4844650 2.14-Eonertmentiraufte-24.0- 7 ? 41Y Pocroituay. S4 ne /Ca San Antonio, Texas -mew %, 9-2..O (210) 2.70-21^ee-- 9-2-9--31CVY , (210) 229-1..5-5-FAX V-24-'100 f•--#1" ATTORNEY FOR SANDRA SAKS 5 1/02083P020b TAB 6 NOTICE OF APPEAL E-FILED IN MATTERS PROBATE Submit: 10/23/2015 4:52:01 PM GERARD RICKHOFF CL RK PR•B•T • "TS CAUSE NO. 2011-PC-3466 BE BY: • I 11 Sand Esquivel LAUREN SAKS a/k/a GLORIA § IN THE PROBATE CO RT LAUREN NICOLE SAKS, Plaintiff, V. NO. 1 DIANE M. FLORES and SANDRA § GARZA DAVIS f/k/a SANDRA C. § SAKS, Defendants, § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE PRESIDING AND TO THE JUSTICES OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEALS: NOW COMES, MARGARET LANDEN SAKS ("Landen"), by and through undersigned counsel, and files her Notice of Appeal pursuant to TRAP Rule 25.1, and would show the Court as follows: 1 Landen desires to Appeal from the following Orders: Order striking intervention and Order authorizing disbursement of funds. 2 The date of the Orders appealed from is September 25, 2015. 3 Landen desires to appeal. 4 Landen desires to appeal to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas. 1 1021b -R3830 74 255 Accepted on: 10/26/2015 8:23 11 AM 5 Landen is the party filing this appeal. 6 This Notice of Appeal is being served on all parties to the court's Order. WHEREFORE, Margaret Landen Saks hereby files this notice of appeal. She also claim such further relief to which she may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, Philip M. Ross SBN 17304200 1006 Holbrook Road San Antonio, Texas 78218 Phone: 210/326-2100 Email: ross_law@hotmail.com By: /s/ Philip M. Ross Philip M. Ross Attorney for Margaret Landen Saks Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been sent to Lauren Saks and Royal Lea, III; and Bingham & Lea, P.C., email: royal@binghamandlea.com, attorneys for Marcus P. Rogers, and A. Chris Heinrichs, email: chrish@heinrichslaw.com, and Jonathan Yedor, email: jonathany@heimichslaw.com, on October 23, 2015 in compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and/or by email pursuant to agreement. /s/ Philip M. Ross Philip M. Ross 2 Z11 ' /4) 1? 333 256
Document Info
Docket Number： 04-15-00727-CV
Filed Date： 12/29/2015
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/1/2016