779 F.2d 260, 263 (5th Cir. 1985) ...........4, 19, 160
Brown v. University of Texas Health Ctr.,
957 S.W.2d 911, 915 (Tex. App. -Tyler
1997, no wr it).............................................................................4, 18, 160
Gene Harmon Ford v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc.,
997 S.W.2d 298, 312
(1999) ........................................................................................4, 78
Price v. City of Junction,
711 F.2d 582, 590 (5th Cir. 1983).......................4, 18, 77
University a/Texas Med. Sch. v. Than,
901 S.W.2d 926, 930-31 (Tex. 1995).....18, 71
Appealable Orders from Probate Courts in Texas
Crowson v. Wakeham,
897 S.W.2d 7779, 783 (Tex. 1995)..........................4, 156
De Ayala v. Mackie,
193 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tex. 2006)........................4, 29, 96, 155
Document Page 4 of 240
Page 4 of 103
Estate of Wright,
676 S.W.2d 161-163 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1984, writ
refd n.r.e.)................................................................................
Huston v. F.D.1.C.,
800 S.W.2d 845, 848 (Tex. 1990)............................156
Logan v. McDaniel,
21 S.W.3d 683, 688 (Tex. App. Austin 2000 p et. den)..5, 156
Original Case References In Appellant Brief
Davidson v. Great Nat'l Life Ins. Co.,
708 S.W.2d 476 .........................3, 5, 96
Goldberg v. Kelly,
397 U.S. 254, 268, 90 S. Ct 1011,
25 L. Ed. 2d 287 1970
Great Nat'l Life Ins. V. Davidson
708 S.W.2d 476
Murray v. Morris,
17 S.W.2d 110, 111 (Tex.Civ.App)-Amarillo
1928, dism'd .............. .
Pecos & N.T Ry. Co. v Porter,
156 S.W. 267, 274-275 (Tex.Civ.App.)......
- Amarillo 1913, no writ.))
Texas Employers Insurance Ass 'n v. Garza, 308 S.w.2nd 521, 527 ................
(Tex.Civ.App. - Amarillo) 1957 writ refd n.r.e.
Texas & N.O.R. Co. v Barham,
204 S.W.2d 205, 214 (Tex.Civ.App Waco 1947,
writ ),..........................................................................................
FEDERAL DOCTRINE
Substantive Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RULES
TEXASRULESOF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
TEX. R. AP. Rule 38
TEX. R. AP. Rule 9.4(c)....................................................................
FED. R. C.P. 51 .......................................................................5, 14, 47
Page 5 of 103
Document Page 5 of 240
TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
TEX. R. Civ. P. 7..............................................................5, 14, 47
TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
TEX. CJC. Canon (3)(B)(8) ... (persuasive authority) .....................6, 36, 64, 66
U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
Due Process Clause - 5th Amendment -United States Constitution.....
Due Process Clause - 14th Amendment -United States Constitution...
Sixth Amendment - United States Constitution .............................
Confrontation and Cross Examination Clause(s)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Brief Page................................................................. i
II. Identity of Parties & Counsel.......................................... 2
III. Index of Authorities.................................................... 3-6
IV. Table ofContents....................................................... 6-7
V. Appellant's Reply Brief-Reply Brief of Thomas Tipps......... 8
VI. Argument and Authorities Section 1.0, Para(s) 1.1 - 1.91........ 9-61
VII. Appellant's Reply Brief-Reply Brief ofCumberland Trust..... 62
VIII. Argument and Authorities Section 2.0, Para(s) 2.0 - 2.21 ............ 63-78
IX. Appellant's Reply Brief - Reply Brief of Senior Source........... 79
X. Argument and Authorities Section 3.0, Para(s) 3.1 - 3.25 ......... 80-91
Page 6of 103
Document Page 6 of 240
Table of Contents continued
XI. Certificate of Service ................................................... 92-93
XII. Certificate of Compliance .............................................. 94-103
XIII. Conclusion ...............................................................95
XIV. Prayer .....................................................................95
XV. Index of Appendix......................................................96
Page 7 of 103
Document Page 7 of 240
CAUSE NO. 05-14-01495-CV
In the
COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS, TEXAS
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF DORIS L. TIPPS
Appealed from Cause No. PR-13-03072-3
In the Probate Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas
Honorable Judge Michael E. Miller, Presiding
APPELLANT'S COMBINED REPLY BRIEF
FIRSTAPPELLEE REPLY BRIEF - THOMAS TIPPS
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellant, Steven Tipps, submits this Appellant Reply Brief, in accordance
with Rule 9.4, 9.4(i)(2)(c), and Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
and all local rules of this Court. In support of this Appeal from Final Judgement,
Appellant respectfully asserts the following:
Page 8 of 103
Document Page 8 of 240
·-- -
-�------
1.0 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY
1.1 Appellant's Appeal relies upon due course of law clause of the Texas
Constitution, the due process clause(s) of the Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution, and the congruency of common law in each system.
What occurred in the Trial Court was the reverse of fairness and equal
treatment of parties? In contrast to the constitutional commands of the Sixth
Amendment's confrontation and cross-examination clause(s) the Trial Court
barred Appellant Steven Tipps from cross-examination of Cumberland Trust &
Investment Company's key fact witness, Karen Ashworth. From the Trained
Court, these words are clear: "I am going to deny your right to cross-examine".
(Appellant Br. Appendix. P 27, a- g, excerpt from (RR. 22, L4-17).
1.2 In Texas Employers, "This court, as have many others, has held that right to
cross-examine a witness is a substantial one, and it is error to so restrict it as to
prevent the cross-examining party from going fully into all matters connected with
the examination in chief'. (Texas Employers Ins Assoc. v. Garza, 308 S/W.2d 521,
527 (TEX.CIV.APP) Amarillo 1957, writ refd n.r.e.) In Pecos, the court went
[*479] on to say, "A witness may be cross-examined as to his examination in chief
in all its bearings and as to whatever goes to explain or modify what he has stated
in his examination in chief, and prejudice will be presumed where this right is
Page 9 of 103
Document Page 9 of 240
denied." Pecos & N.T. Ry. Co. v. Porter,
156 S.W. 267, 274-275 (Tex. Civ. App.)
-Amarillo 1913, no writ)).
Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies that:
"The trial court did not err by exercising control over Appellant's cross
examination of witnesses (Appellee Thomas Tipps Reply Brief at page 25).
1.3 With cross examination of Karen Ashworth's testimony denied by the Trial
Court, how would it be possible to cross examine the second adverse witness with
one or two questions as directed by the Trial Court? (RR. 27, 28). Cross
examination is a substantial right and unreasonable constraint of this right also
constrains the Trial Record that would otherwise benefit Appellant Steven Tipps.
Thus, the Trial Record is a product of the process of which we complain on
Appeal.
1.4 Appellant was allowed to address one question to the second fact witness,
and, as ordered by the Trial Court, the question was directed to Appellee Thomas
Tipps. Appellant stated: "How does the court handle a life estate that is attached
to 1844 Hood Street? It is not in the trust(s), it is not transferable under Texas law
into the trust(s)?" In any other courtroom in this country, by hypothesis, a Trained
Court would have asked: are you addressing this question to the witness, or are
you addressing the question to this court? The Trial Court then stated: "I'm not
going to give you legal advice." Further questions were denied. (Appellant. Br.
Page 10 of 103
Document Page 10 of 240
Appendix. PP 28-29, No. 7 (excerpt from Rep. Rec.). In Murray, "the purpose of
cross-examination is to sift and to modify and to have the witness explain what has
been said on his direct examination, and if the witness by this process can be
discredited and the weight of his testimony weakened, the right should not be
denied." (Murray v. Morris,
17 S.W.2d 110, 111 (Tex. Civ. App.)-Amarillo 1928,
writ dism'd).
1.5 That question of the second key fact witness, Appellant Thomas Tipps was
the only question allowed by the Trial Court's undue constraint of cross
examination?
It was a significant question under those circumstances.
1.6 The question was central to the controversy over Hood Street where on
February 3, 2014, Appellee Thomas Tipps sued Appellant Steven Tipps for
forcible detainer. Appellee Cumberland (Karen Ashworth) and Appellee Thomas
Tipps were engaged together in a squeeze play against Appellant in January and
February 2014. (C.R. 217).The litigation brought by Appellee Thomas Tipps
together with Cumberland's interference had a pernicious timing. The interference
against Appellant Steven Tipps extended, in its effects, to interference with a
substantial care giving process for Appellant Doris L. Tipps, in the general time
frame of a life threatening emergency that required the substantial attention of
Appellant Steven Tipps (Appellant Brief, page 11). (C.R. 217) (Appt. Br. -
Page 11 of 103
Document Page 11 of 240
Appendix Item 15 & 16). On February 3, 2014, Appellee Thomas Tipps', role
under the Rule 11 Agreement that stipulated his resignation as co-trustee, changed
from ministerial duties of paying bills and receiving receipts for the Trust, to the
formation of a joint effort with Appellee Cumberland in litigation and harassment
of Appellant Steven Tipps. Cumberland was Trustee "in Waiting" during the
interval of Thursday January 23, 2014, the date of the Mediation Settlement
Agreement, to Monday February 17, 2014, the date of the Trial Court Order that
adopted the Mediation Settlement Agreement and installed Cumberland as Trustee
of the Tipps Family Trust(s).
1.7 Impeachment through cross-examination of Appellee Cumberland's Karen
Ashworth and Appellee Thomas Tipps's testimony would have developed the
extent of the respective roles of each individual in the attempted circumvention of
the legal life estate (life tenancy) attached to Hood Street. The impingement by the
Trial Court, of Appellant's right to cross-examination of adverse witnesses is
inconsistent with the procedural due process commands as expressed in Goldberg
v. Kelly and in University a/Texas Med. Sch. v. Than? (Federal and State of Texas
procedural due process).
Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies that:
a. Appellant did not preserve error with respect to Issues 1 and 2 Appellee
Reply Brief Issue 1 and 2, page 25.
Page 12 of 103
Document Page 12 of 240
1.8 TheSixth Amendment and its confrontation and cross examination clause(s)
are mandatory authority in U.S. courts. Through the 14th Amendment, the Fifth
andSixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution apply to theStates. ( Cran v. Hale,
745S.W.2d 129 (1988) (Ark.Sup. Ct.) (563). It is a rare circumstance where these
rights are quashed by a trial court in the UnitedStates. On the face of the Record,
the Trained Court excluded Appellant from procedural due process by blocking
cross-examination of the first key fact witness and by unduly constraining the
cross-examination of the second fact witness to one question. Cross examination
of these two witnesses goes straight to the issue of the interaction between the two
key fact witnesses. Appellant's answer to citation under the Cumberland Motion
was the basis on which cross-examination would have moved forward, but it was
impeded when cross-examination was declined. (C.R. 217) (Appt. Br., V - VII, pp
16 - 18). (Appt. Reply Br. I). Due process involves the right to be heard. The
Trained Court declined that substantial right, including the procedure of cross
examination when it refused to allow cross examination of the first witness. (RR
22). The Trained Court then dismissed the witness. It was ended. That decision
terminated discussion between Appellant and the Trained Court on that issue.
Each of the two attempts to cross-examine adverse witnesses were either declined
or unduly constrained and immediately concluded by the Trained Court. (RR 22,
28). The Trial Court was closed that day to additional presentation of issues
Page 13 of 103
Document Page 13 of 240
including the Reimbursement Issue, the Fourth Issue in Appellant's Brief, and
preservation. "If a party does not have an opportunity to object to a ruling or
order, the absence of an objection does not later prejudice that party [on
appeal]. (Fed. R. C. P. 51). A trial court has no discretion in determining what
the law is or in applying the law to the facts. (Cayton v. Moore, 224S.W.3d 440
(Tex. App. - Dallas 2007), no pet. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court
clearly failed to analyze and determine the law correctly or applied the law
incorrectly to the facts.
Id. A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an
arbitrary or unreasonable manner or without reference to any guiding rules or
principles. Walker v. Gutierrez, 111S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex.2003).
In Reply, Appellee Thomas Tipps states:
"{b) The trial court properly controlled its docket with respect to
Appellant's cross-examination of witnesses." {Appellee Thomas Tipps's Reply
Brief at Page 27).
1.9 In Goldberg v. Kelly (from the majority opinion), as cited in Davidson v.
Great Nat'/ Life Ins. Co., "The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the
opportunity to be heard." (Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914). "The
hearing must be at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner". (Armstrong v.
Manzo). "The opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the [*269] capacities and
circumstances of those who are to be heard."
Page 14 of 103
Document Page 14 of 240
1.10 "In almost every setting where important decisions tum on questions of fact,
due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse
witnesses."(E. g., ICC v. Louisville & N.R. Co.). (Willner v. Committee on
Character & Fitness). "Certain principles have remained relatively immutable in
our jurisprudence. One of these is that where governmental action seriously
injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action depends on fact
findings, the evidence used to prove the Government's case must be disclosed.
1.11 While this is important in documentary evidence, it is even more important
where the evidence consists of the testimony of individuals whose memory might
be faulty or who, in fact might be perjurers or persons motivated by malice,
vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or jealousy. We have formalized these
protections in the requirements of confrontation and cross-examination. They have
ancient roots. They find expression in the Sixth Amendment. This Court has been
zealous to protect these rights from erosion. It is spoken out not only in criminal
cases ... but also in all types of cases where administrative ...actions were under
scrutiny." (Greene v. McElroy). In Goldberg, we have a federal constitutional
mandate for procedural due process: a mandate increasingly shared in parallel
with common law in the State of Texas.
1.12 Given unfettered access, the cross examination of each of the key fact
witnesses would have expanded the Trial Record for the benefit of Appellant. In
Page 15 of 103
Document Page 15 of 240
Issue One and Issue Two of Appellant's Brief, the Trial Record shows that the
Trial Court engaged in manifest abuse of discretion? The Trial Court had no
discretion in voiding, in effect, Tex. R. CP. 7: a codified Texas Statute that clearly
establishes the scope of rights of parties with standing and their access to
procedural due process that was denied to Appellant by the Trial Court? A trial
court has broad discretion and we may not disturb its ruling absent manifest abuse
of discretion. (Champion Int'l Corp. v. Twelfth Court of Appeals, 762 S.W. 2d
898,899 (Tex. 1988; TEX.R. P. 320). While Trial Courts, in general, have
substantial powers to hear and decide cases, they lack authority to deny the rights
delineated above in Goldberg. (Goldberg v. Kelly,
397 U.S. 254, 268, 90 S. Ct
1011,
25 L. Ed. 2d 287 1970). (Davidson v. Great National Life Ins. Co., S.W.2d
312 (TEX. SP. CT.) (1987), the rights delineated in the Sixth Amendment
confrontation and cross-examination clause(s), the rights established in the fifth
and fourteenth amendment due process clauses, and substantive due process.
From the Trial Record, these words are clear: "/ am going to deny your right to
cross examine": a plain, manifest, clear, and gross abuse of discretion?
What is clear is that Appellant's legal standing is broader than the issues of cost
reimbursement alone, and included the right to sue Cumberland for its wrongful
interference with Appellant Steven Tipps during his Guardianship in early 2014,
the attempt by Cumberland to void a legal right connected with Hood Street, and
Page 16 of 103
Document Page 16 of 240
support ofjoint action with Appellee Thomas Tipps for the eviction of Appellant
from his residency at that address: all of which occurred prior to Appellee
Cumberland's final installation as Trustee on February 17, 2014. (C.R. at 217).
Due process clause(s) of the U. S. Constitution are congruent with the
Constitution of the State of Texas Due Course of Law clause.
1.13 "At a minimum, due process requires a person who may be deprived of a
liberty or property interest to be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard at a
meaningful time and a meaningful manner". (Anthony v. State,
2009 S.W.3d 296).
1.14 The "due course" clause in our state constitution requires the same level of
"due process" as the federal constitution. (City of Fort Worth v. Park, 2011, Tex.
APP LEXIS 5725 (2011 (14). While the Texas Constitution is textually different
in that it refers to "due course" rather than "due process", we regard these terms as
without meaningful distinction. (Fleming v. State,
376 S.W.3d 854 (2012) (35).
1.15 Due process at a minimum requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at
a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." (Tex. Comm. On Env. Quality v.
Denbury Onshore, LLC, Texas. App. LEWXIS 7177 (41). In analyzing a claim of
deprivation of procedural due process, we apply a two-part test: we must
determine (1) whether the plaintiff had a liberty or property interest entitled to
procedural due process; and (2) if so, what process is due. (Dallas County v.
Gonzales, (2006 (17). The Due Process Clause does not mandate the parties be
Page 17 of 103
Document Page 17 of 240
heard at the arbitration hearing; rather, the Due Process Clause requires that the
parties be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the arbitration hearing.
(Ewing v. Act Catastrophe- Texas LC,
375 S.W.2d 545 (2012) (16). [A]lthough
[the] Texas Constitution refers to "due course" rather than the U.S. Constitution's
"due process", the phrases are not meaningfully distinct and federal due process
are persuasive authority when interpreting Texas's "due course" guarantee.
(Brantley v. Texas Youth Commission, 2011,
365 S.W.3d 89 (2011) (17).
1.16 The Supreme Court of Texas has stated that the language of the Due Course
of Law Clause of the Texas Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the United
States Constitution is "nearly identical" and that there is no meaningful distinction
between due course and due process. (Richard v. Dretke) Tex. App. LEXIS 2261
(2009).
Federal Procedural Due Process congruent with State of Texas Procedural
Due Process:
1.17 In the area of procedural due process, the protections afforded under the
Texas Constitution are congruent with those provided by the federal Constitution.
(Price v. City ofJunction,
711 F.2d 582, 590 (5th Cir. 1983); cf University of
Texas Med. Sch. v. Than,
901 S.W.2d 926, 930-31 (Tex. 1995). Generally,
procedural due process requires notice of an opportunity to be heard. (Brown v.
University of Texas Health Ctr.)
957 S.W.2d 298, 312 (Tex. App-Austin 1999, writ
Page 18 of 103
Document Page 18 of 240
denied). "Procedural due process involves basic notions of justice and fair play"
(Gene Hamon Ford v. David McDavid Nissan)
997 S.W.2d 298, 312 (Tex. App.-
Austin 1999, writ denied). The sufficiency of procedures must be judged in light
of the parties, the subject matter and the circumstances involved.
Id. (quoting
Brewer v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist.,
779 F.2d 260, 263 (5th Cir. 1985).
1.18 It is now evident to Appellant that each of Appellant's answers to the
citations from Cumberland and Senior Source raised questions that seriously
opposed the Trial Court's agenda at the hearing. This could not have been known
by Appellant prior to the Hearing. (Appt. Reply Br.-Cumberland--, Para 2.5 -
2.6, pp 65-66). (C.R. s 7). (C.R. 217). (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix III).
1.19 A review of the Record suggests that the Trained Court may have considered
eventual positions the case before the Hearing: (Appt. Reply Bf. -Cumberland--,
Para 2.5-2.6, pp 65-67.). In addition, the Tipps Family Trust(s) estate plan was
incorporated into the trial court Order on February 17, 2014, together and
contrasting with the Mediation Settlement Agreement with its independent
oversight and accountability. On October 21, 2014, the Cumberland Motion
included approval of Appellee Cumberland's unconditional resignation,
consideration of the resignation of Appellee Thomas Tipps as co-trustee, and
recognition of Appellee Thomas Tipps' self-appointment to the position of Trustee
of the Tipps Family Trusts. The replacement of a Trustee was, nominally, effected
Page 19 of 103
Document Page 19 of 240
by the transition language in the Tipps Family Trust documentation that stated that
a Trustee could appoint a replacement trustee for the Tipps Living Trust(s). The
Trial Court agreed to accept this arrangement even though these Tipps Family
Trust procedures for replacement of Trustees had been overlaid and superseded by
the covenants in the uncontested Mediation Settlement Agreement that required
that a corporate trustee must be replaced with another corporate trustee. Cross-
examination of the Appellee Cumberland's fact witness Karen Ashworth and of
Appellee Thomas Tipps was clearly unwelcome in the Trial Court on that date, at
that time, and in that place. There were two courses of action that were before the
Trial Court on October 21, 2014: (1) to enforce the uncontested Rule 11
Agreement and the uncontested Mediation Settlement Agreement with its
independent oversight and control or (2) to bypass the ministerial act of enforcing
the two contracts and allow Appellee Thomas Tipps to replace Appellee
Cumberland as corporate trustee of the Tipps Family Trust(s), by self-appointment.
(RR. 26).
1.20 At the Hearing that occurred on October 21, 2014, there were three closely
linked, overlapping, interlocutory phases: each phase involving a discrete issue
under the authority of the Trained Court. Given the claim of Manifest Abuse of
Discretion, there is a question about where abuse of discretion began and where it
ended? Did it occur only in the Cumberland Motion, or was it continuous
Page 20 of 103
Document Page 20 of 240
throughout the Hearing? Was there cumulative error? (Appt. Reply Br.
Cumberland--, Para 2.5-2.6, pp 65-66).
1.21 In Phase I, Appellee Thomas Tipps introduced at the hearing, a motion to
show authority that resulted in the isolation of Appellant Doris L. Tipps from her
legal counsel and the striking of Appellant Doris L. Tipps objections in W. Thomas
Finley's pleadings in opposition. (C.R. s 15). (C.R. s 42). (Appt. Reply Br.
Appendix, III). From January 23, 2014 through October 21, 2014, Mr. Finley's
most important and regular role was to urge of Senior Source, as Guardian to
engage Preston wood Nursing, as agent of the Guardian, to meet their federal and
State mandates of (a) the requirement to provide a safe environment for Appellant
Doris L. Tipps and (b) generally, the obligation to provide prudent care and (c) to
provide timely and decisive responses to Appellant Doris L. Tipps continuing
emergencies while a resident at Prestonwood. As a result of the granted Motion to
Show Authority, Appellant was alone in the courtroom against five opposing
lawyers, and they were together against Appellant. (Appt. Br. Appendix - Crises &
Survival, Index Item 10).
1.22 Phase II was initiated by a Appellee Thomas Tipps in which Appellee
requested Appellee Senior Source to file a Petition against Appellant Steven Tipps
for removal of the medical power of attorney from Appellant Steven Tipps, thus
separating Appellant Doris L. Tipps from a known and trusted source of medical
Page 21 of 103
Document Page 21 of 240
decisions and protection(s) for her life. A by-product of the Phase II termination of
Appellant Steven Tipps medical power of attorney, was to legally end Appellant's
involvement in Doris L. Tipps health emergencies that were year after year, in
favor of her survival. In several of these emergencies her survival was uncertain.
In the last series of emergencies in late 2013 and early 2014, on one occasion, it
was nearly fatal. (Appt. Br. Appendix - Crises and Survival Index Item 10).
1.23 In Phase III Appellant Thomas Tipps moved with Cumberland to initiate
litigation alleging that Appellant Steven Tipps was responsible for the resignation
of Cumberland, that Cumberland. Cumberland--with its right to resign without the
Trial Court's permission--chose to seek official court approval of its resignation
together with its recommendation that Appellee Thomas Tipps be approved by the
Trial Court as the replacement Trustee of the Tipps Family Trust(s). [The latest
Tipps Family Trust documents have language that organize a transition for
resignation and replacement of Trustees.] In the need that developed with
Cumberland's resignation, the party that was more likely than not to benefit from
organizing the struggle between Cumberland and Appellant Steven Tipps was
likely the party that started the conflict in the first place, considering the outcome
of the Trial Court Hearing on October 21, 2014 that removed Cumberland and
elevated Appellee Thomas Tipps to the position then held by Cumberland, as
Page 22 of 103
Document Page 22 of 240
Trustee of the Tipps Family Trust(s)? (C.R. at 217). (C.R. s 15). (C.R. s 42).
(Appt. Reply Br. Appendix III).
1.24 In the October 21, 2014 hearing, the Trial Court decided to disregard the
uncontested Mediation Settlement Agreement and the uncontested Rule 11
Agreement, and to accept Appellee Thomas Tipps's appointment of himself to the
position of Trustee of the Tipps Family Trusts, arguing that Trust documentation
permitted the appointment of a replacement trustee, including himself. In choosing
not to enforce the Mediation Settlement Agreement and the Rule 11 Agreement,
the Trial Court failed to consider legal costs and consideration exchanged in
finalizing the Mediation Settlement Agreement and the Rule 11 Agreement. Both
contracts are enforceable and should be enforced. (C.R. s 15). (Appt. Br.
Appendix, III).
1.25 One of the main elements of the MEDIATION SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT was the release of liability of Appellee Thomas Tipps with respect
to any actions taken while serving Co-Trustee. As the only adverse party that was
a signatory to the MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, Appellant's
release from liability of Appellee Thomas Tipps was a significant concession,
given in the belief that the MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and the
Rule 11 Agreement were in the interest of the Appellant Doris L. Tipps and her
family.
Page 23 of 103
Document Page 23 of 240
1.26 When the Trial Court elected not to enforce the MEDIATION
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and the Rule 11 Agreement, Appellee Thomas
Tipps retained, and retains, the protections received in the mutual release, while
Appellant Steven Tipps released his rights to pursue remedies for specific
misdeeds of Appellee during his tenure as Co-Trustee. Further, there were basic
protections afforded by the MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and the
Rule 11 agreements: (1) principally, the oversight of the Tipps Family Trusts
through an independent corporate trustee, a significant loss of protections for
Appellant Doris L. Tipps and (2) given the initial expectations, the benefits of an
independent and unbiased guardian. All of the bargained-for potential, with its
substantial cost, was lost, when Trial Court decided to affirm the self-appointment
of the former Co-Trustee to the position as Trustee of the Tipps Family Trusts.
1.27 In summary, the Trained Court, having accepted the need for the removal of
Appellee Thomas Tipps as co-trustee of the Tipps Living Trust, changed its mind
and assisted in Appellee's promotion to the position of Trustee. It was unusual for
( 1) the first enforceable contract, arising under a trial court agreement to pursue
mediation and (2) the Rule 11 Agreement to be so easily set aside by the court that
was in supervisory control over the process and the mediation that produced the
Mediation Settlement Agreement. All parties were present. Consideration was
exchanged. Everyone agreed, and the Trained Court incorporated the
Page 24 of 103
Document Page 24 of 240
MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT into its Order on Monday, February
17,2014.
1.28 The MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT provided a specific
procedure to deal with the resignation of a corporate trustee. This procedure
required the parties to re-assemble for a special Mediation Conference in order to
elect a new corporate trustee. (C.R. s 15). (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix, III)
1.29 The reinstatement of Appellee Thomas Tipps as Trustee resulted in a new
framework that was supported by the allegation of Cumberland that Appellant
Steven Tipps "interfered" with Cumberland and caused Cumberland's resignation.
The actual details of this interference were never challenged during the Trial Court
Hearing, other than in Appellant's answers to the Cumberland Citation in the Trial
Court (C.R. at 217). The procedural due process for this kind of confrontation is
cross-examination, but this was barred by the Trial Court. There was no contract
between Appellant and Cumberland. Why did Cumberland fail to allege breach of
contract before the Trial Court, rather than the alleged interference with Appellee
Cumberland? There was an email exchange between Appellant and Cumberland's
Karen Ashworth. It is included in Appellant's Brief Appendix (Item 16). This
document shows that Appellant Steven Tipps agreed to move out of Hood Street or
lease the property, under pressure from Cumberland and the February 3, 2014
forcible detainer litigation filed by Appellee Thomas Tipps. (Appellant Brief -
Page 25 of 103
Document Page 25 of 240
Appendix, Exhibit 15 & 16). Appellant was obliged to agree with the email
representations under duress: five (5) days to get out in the midst of a severe
winter that conjures up in the mind a brutal event that is in clearly punitive and that
would interrupt the care giving process for Doris L. Tipps. Under the email
"understanding", all of the substantial array of standard terms and conditions of a
lease contract were missing. In the State of Texas, the Statute ofFrauds requires
that all real estate contracts be reduced to writing. Contractual terms include the
lease term, a fixed deposit amount, and monthly rent provisions, maintenance
provisions, and notices of all kinds, were never discussed between any of the
parties, nor incorporated into any written documentation. Appellant realized that
Appellee Thomas Tipps, the Co-Trustee in departure, misrepresented Appellee's
legal authority to bring suit, Appellee Thomas Tipps misrepresented the statutory
basis of the legal life estate in the name of Appellant Doris L. Tipps, and the
Trust's purported equitable ownership of Hood Street. (App Brief Appendix,
Exhibit 15). Appellant decided to resist Appellees Thomas Tipps and Cumberland
in their commercial fraud? [Each of Exhibits 15 and 16 are before the Fifth Court
under Cumberland's Motion to Strike together with APPELLANT STEVEN
TIPPS' OBJECTION TO APPELLEE CUMBERLAND TRUST AND
INVESTMENT COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE DOCUMENTS IN
APPELLANT'S APPENDIX].
Page 26 of 103
Document Page 26 of 240
1.30 Appellee Cumberland's allegation of interference by Appellant, established
the main argument before the Trial Court. The January23, 2014 Mediation
Settlement Agreement and the September 13, 2013 Rule 11 Agreement were
disregarded. The self-appointment of Appellee Thomas Tipps as Trustee was
acknowledged by the Trial Court. In Appellant Brief Appendix, Exhibits 15-16
show that Appellee Cumberland and Appellee Thomas Tipps coordinated and their
activities against Appellant. The lease of the Hood Street property was more
important as a remainder-men and corporate trustee objective-though tortious-
than the care giving activities of Appellant in his Guardianship of Doris L. Tipps
when she was gravely ill in the fall of2013 and the winter of2014.
1.31 Cumberland could have resigned at any time after giving statutory notice.
Instead, Cumberland sought relief from the Trial Court, in avoidance of accounting
to the main beneficiary Doris L. Tipps. Cumberland also achieved in the outcome,
some degree of protection that the Tipps Family Trust(s) would not file suit against
Appellee Cumberland with the self-appointed Appellee Thomas Tipps established
as Trustee of the Tipps Family Trusts.
1.32 If the Trial Court had observed the right of Appellant to cross-examine each
of Karen Ashworth and Appellee Thomas Tipps, the Trial Record would have been
expanded for the benefit of Appellant. In Issue One and Issue Two of Appellant's
Brief, the Trial Record shows that the Trial Court engaged in manifest abuse of
Page 27 of 103
Document Page 27 of 240
discretion? The Trial Court had no discretion in failing to follow Tex. R. CP. 7: a
codified Texas Statute that clearly establishes the rights of parties and their access
to procedural due process that was denied to Appellant by the Trial Court? While
trial courts in general, have substantial powers to hear and decide cases, they lack
authority to deny the rights delineated above in ( Goldberg v. Kelly) and in
Appellant's Brief: (Davidson v. Great Nat'/ Life Ins. Co.). These rights are
procedural due process, including the rights delineated in the Sixth Amendment
confrontation and cross-examination clauses, the rights established in the fifth and
fourteenth amendment due process clause(s), the right to substantive due process,
the protections of due course of law Clause in the Texas Constitution, and common
law cases.
1.33 In ignoring these basic rights, the Trial Court abandoned its constitutional
mandates: both State and federal, concerning Appellant and his procedural due
process rights. At the moment of the signed orders, the Trial Court abandoned its
sworn duties in the protection of its Ward, Doris L. Tipps and left her secured
retirement in a state of uncertainty.
APPELLANT'S REPLY TO APPELLEE THOMAS TIPPS
STATEMENT REGARDING JURISDICTION
(Appellee Reply Bf. Para 2.1, p9-Para 2.4 plO)
1.34 Two important authorities for jurisdictional issues in appeals from probate
courts in Texas govern a technically complex and unsettled area of jurisdictional
and appellate law.
Page 28 of 103
Document Page 28 of 240
These authorities are:
(a) The legislative Act of March 30, 1917, 35th Leg., R.S., ch. 168, § 1, 1917
Tex. Gen. Laws 379, 379, now codified as TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
CODE§ 51.014(a)(2). and
(b)De Ayala v. Mackie,
193 S.W.3d 575 (Sup. Ct. Tex.) (2006)
Under 51.014(a)(2) ("Appeal from Interlocutory Order") of the Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code provides, in relevant part, as follows: "(a) A
person may appeal from an interlocutory order of ... probate court ... that ( 1)
appoints a receiver or trustee .... "
Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies that:
1.35 Starting with 2.1 through 2.3, pages 9-11. In 2.1, Appellee states in
Reply: "Because the trial court has not entered a final judgment in this case, this
court lacks jurisdiction to address Appellant's challenge to the trial court's Order
Granting Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee
and its Order to Revoke Authority of Agent". We disagree.
1.36 The Texas Supreme Court states: "The Legislature enacted the statute, [(a)
above] permitting interlocutory appeal of orders overruling motions to vacate
orders appointing receivers or trustees in 1917, and the provision remains
substantially unchanged today. At no time during the statute's almost ninety-year
history have we held that it applies to a motion to remove an estate's executor."
1.37 "It did not equate an executor to a trustee for all purposes, and there is no
evidence that the Legislature intended to permit immediate appeals of orders
refusing to remove estate executors."
Since Doris L. Tipps is still alive and doing very well, there is no executor for the
estate, and since there is a will, there is no administrator.
1.38 In Ayala v. Mackie, the Supreme Court of Texas distinguishes between an
Executor and a Trustee, and since Appellee Thomas Tipps is not an executor, or
administrator, but is a trustee, in that context, the statute [51.014(a)(2)] supports an
appeal of an Order appointing Appellee Thomas Tipps as Trustee of the Tipps
Family Trust(s).
Page 29 of 103
Document Page 29 of 240
1.39 Further in Ayala v. Mackie, the Supreme Court of Texas has stated: "If
there is an express statute, such as the one for the complete heirship judgment,
declaring the phase of the probate proceedings to be final and appealable, that
statute controls. Otherwise, if there is a proceeding of which the order in question
may logically be considered a part, but one or more pleadings also part of that
proceeding raise issues or parties not disposed of, then the probate order is
interlocutory." Therefore 5 l.014(a)(2) applies and permits interlocutory orders to
be appealed.
1.40 For these reasons, this Court has appellate jurisdiction over this appeal.
Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies that:
Starting with 2.4, pages 9-10
1.41 In regard to First Nat'l Bank v. First State Bank, 456 S.W.2d 173 (Tex Civ.
App.-Texarkana 1970, writ dism'd), Ayala v. Mackie is mandatory authority as
it describes the history of, and furnished guidance for, the rules of interlocutory
appeals from orders in probate courts in a difficult area of law. First Nat'l v. First
State is secondary authority. It is a case that purports to support the contentions of
Appellee, but fails on point as (1) it has nothing to do with estates or the estates
code in Texas, (2) in the context of the subject appeal, a trustee is replacing a
trustee, as opposed to a permanent receiver being replaced by a permanent receiver
in a commercial banking case, (3) in the subject Appeal, a trustee is appointing
himself as replacement trustee that could have resigned without becoming a party
to a court Order in which the successor trustee is re-appointed Trustee, and (4) a
receiver fails on point in the subject appeal, because there is no danger to trust
assets from creditors, third parties, or any other known source.
Page 30 of 103
Document Page 30 of 240
1.42 In regard to American Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Valley Reservoir & Canal Co.,
209
S.W. 438, 440 (Tex. Civ. App. 1919, writ refd), Ayala v. Mackie is mandatory
authority? In the context of this Appeal, American Nat'l is secondary authority.
The case presented fails on point as ( 1) it is a commercial case that purports to
support the contentions of Appellee, (2) it is unrelated to estates and the Texas
Estates Code, and (2) a receiver is not on point as Appellant Doris L. Tipps is not a
lost person and there is no danger to trust assets from creditors, from third parties,
or from any known source.
1.42(a) Appellee in Reply, From (Appellee Reply Br. Para 2.5, p 10) Appellee
Thomas Tipps alleges a flaw in Appellant's answer to Citation of the Senior
Source Petition. (C.R. 217). The Prayer section of pleadings is a special section
where a litigant states what relief is sought. Within the Prayer section, Appellant
listed that relief: It included: (a) the retention of the Medical Power of Attorney
for Doris L. Tipps by Steven Tipps, for serious reasons as cited, (b) an Order by
the Trial Court to amend the "Do Not Resuscitate" order, (c) a new bed, (d) new
furniture for Doris L. Tipps' room at Prestonwood Nursing, and (e) reimbursement
of expenses accrued in late 2013 and early 2014 for substantial care giving
activities, (e) approval of passes that would allow Appellant Doris L. Tipps to take
local drives occasionally accompanied by family members, (f) expense
reimbursement on an ongoing basis, and (g) additional expense reimbursement for
Page 31 of 103
Document Page 31 of 240
the Fall of 2013 and Winter of 2014. Appellee alleges that the expense
reimbursement question in para( s) ( f) and (g) are unique as compared to the other
five requests a - e. that were not addressed by the Trial Court. All of the requests in
the Prayer Section, were ignored by the Trial Court. Appellee alleges that the
request for monies caused the Final Order to be Interlocutory, therefore denying
appellate jurisdiction to the Fifth Court of Appeals and undermining one part of
Appellant's burden. Appellant disagrees. (Please See Appellee Reply Br., p 10,
Para 2.5).
Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:
Starting with 2.5, page 10 of Appellee Reply Br. Further to jurisdiction.
"Appellant filed an answer to Senior Source's motion in which he plead for
reimbursement of ongoing expenses" related to his "substantial visits" to
Prestonwood Nursing Home and the repair of Doris Tipps' Lincoln Continental."
Appellant Replies. The reimbursement request related to 500 hours of care giving
and 1,600 miles driven for Doris L. Tipps, between and including October 29,
2014 through April 24, 2014. Six months. Constant care giving. It was a brutal
winter. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, "Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly", it was the most deadly season for respiratory illness in the
United States in decades. Two hospitals. Three rehabilitation organizations. A long
Page 32 of 103
Document Page 32 of 240
and difficult recovery. (Please See, Appt. Br. Appendix. P24, Crises & Survival,
Item 10).
1.43 Further, Appellant Steven Tipps replies: The Trial Court Orders are final as
to each of the following: Cumberland's Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge
Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee and the Senior Source Petition to Revoke Authority
ofAgent in accordance with the decision in Ayala v. Mackie and Tex. Civ. Prac.
and Remedies Code 51.014(a)(2). With respect to the Order removing the Medical
Power of Attorney, that order is Final and appealable, and this court has
jurisdiction? In both cases, whether final or interlocutory, an order may be
interlocutory but remains appealable under 51.014(a)(2).?
Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:
Starting with 2.6, page 10-11 of Appellee. Reply Br. "When the trial court
entered its Orders granting Cumberland's and Senior Source's motions, it
neither granted nor denied Appellant's claims for reimbursement.
1.44 Appellant Steven Tipps's replies: Appellant filed his answers to the
Cumberland Citation and the Senior Source Citation on Monday September 15,
2014. The request for expense reimbursement was included in the Prayer section
of Appellant's answer to the Senior Source citation. This filing with the clerk
arrived at the Trial Court thirty-six days before the Trial Court hearing on October
Page 33 of 103
Document Page 33 of 240
21, 2014. The Trial Court had notice. Counselors for the opposition were served.
The issue of reimbursement was in the Trial Record. It was before the trial court,
but could not be addressed under the constraints imposed over cross-examination
and restrictions over general participation. Further, the Court could have acted on
its own Motion to deal with the requests in the Prayer Section of Appellant's
Answer to Citation of the Senior Source Petition. The Court was silent in response
to each of the seven (7) Prayer requests in the answer to the Senior Source Citation
and in the Prayer request set forth in Appellant's answer to the Cumberland
Citation filed with the Trial Court. Appellant was an excluded party?
1.45 In Ayala v. Mackie, the Supreme Court stated: "If there is an express statute,
such as the one for the complete heirship judgment, declaring the phase of the
probate proceedings to be final and appealable, that statute controls. Otherwise, if
there is a proceeding of which the order in question may logically be considered a
part, but one or more pleadings also part of that proceeding raise issues or parties
not disposed of, then the probate order is interlocutory."
Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:
Starting with 3.1, page 11, (Appellee Reply Br.) Appellee Thomas Tipps believes
that (i) this Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal; (ii) Appellant did not
preserve error with respect to his 1s1, 2nct and 4th issues; and (iii) the record is clear
enough for the Court to resolve this appeal....without oral argument.
Page 34 of 103
Document Page 34 of 240
Appellant disagrees:
In order to open procedural due process, Appellant must show the Appellate Court
that he has real standing. Removal of the expense reimbursement as an Issue in
Appellant's Brief is an attack upon the legal standing of Appellant to bring this
appeal and of ultimate recovery.
The Trial Court engaged in manifest abuse of discretion when it denied Appellant
cross examination of witnesses and closed the Hearing to further participation of
Appellant, including preservation of error, and raising the issue of the expense
reimbursement and all other Prayer requests at the Hearing. There was insufficient
time allotted during the hearing to cover every issue of every party and this was the
responsibility of the trial court in controlling his Docket: enough time to consider
all parties and all process. (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.8, pp.12-13). (Appt. Reply Br.
Para 2.5-2.6, pp 61-62.).
In Goldberg v. Kelly, "The hearing must be at a meaningful time and in a
meaningful manner". (Armstrong v. Manzo). "The opportunity to be heard must be
tailored to the [*269] capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard."
"In almost every setting where important decisions tum on questions of fact, due
process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse
witnesses."(E. g., ICC v. Louisville & N.R. Co.). (Willner v. Committee on
Character & Fitness).
The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted without reference
to any guiding rules and principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc.
701
S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985).
When we determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, we may not
substitute our judgment for that of the trial court unless its decision was so
arbitrary that it exceeded the bounds of reasonableness. Clarendon Nat 'l Ins. Co.
v. Thompson,
199 S.W.3d 482, 494 (Tex. App. - Houston [I st Dist. 2006, no pet].
1.46 Appellant objects to Appellee's Statement on Oral Argument. Appellant's
argument is based in constitutional protections and the Trial Court's manifest
abuse of discretion that led to a manifest injustice. Certain aspects of the Trial
Page 35 of 103
Document Page 35 of 240
Court Hearing were breaches of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon
(3)(B)(8), and each of federal and State constitutional protections.
Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:
Starting with 4.1, page 11 Appellee Reply Br.
1.47 Appellee expresses his dissatisfaction with Appellant's Statement of Issues.
Appellant objects. The editing of Appellant's Statement of Issues serves to drive
up the cost of litigation and confuses the issues.
Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:
Para 5.1, p 12, Appellee Reply Br.). Appellee offers a summary of the Structure of
the Tipps Living Trust(s). Appellant replies that the main notion to be considered
in comparing the Tipps Living Trust documents, the Mediation Settlement
Agreement, and the Rule 11 Agreement is the fact that the Mediation Settlement
Agreement was an overlay of the Tipps Living Trust. There were two significant
differences between them. First, within the unopposed mediated settlement
agreement, the provisions for transitions between trustees supersede the language
and powers controlling the replacement of trustees. Further, the unopposed
Mediated Settlement Agreement required that a Corporate Trustee that resigns,
must be replaced with another Corporate Trustee. This was contractual, and all
parties agreed under the supervision of the Trial Court. Second, if the Mediated
Page 36 of 103
Document Page 36 of 240
Settlement Agreement had been enforced by the Trial Court, the replacement
corporate trustee would stand alone as the controlling means for managing the
assets of the Trusts and with it, independent oversight and accountability. All
parties and beneficiaries would be passive. This was the independent oversight
that was agreed upon by all parties. The mediation settlement agreement did not
change any other significant provision of the Tipps Living Trust. (Appt. Reply Br.,
Appendix, Doris Tipps Opposition, III).
Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:
Para 5.2 p 12, Appellee Reply Br.
Id.
Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:
Starting with 5.3, page 13 & 8.1, page 31
1.48 Appellant Steven Tipps objects to the statement in 5.3 that "Appellant Doris
L. Tipps suffered from total incapacity." In August 2012, Appellee Thomas Tipps
sought a referral from Dr. David Isaradisaikul, M.D., in order to have Appellant
Doris L. Tipps tested by a psychiatrist for dementia. The test report from the
Ho liner Psychiatric reflecting the examination of Doris L. Tipps was positive (or
good). Dr. David Isaradisaikul, M.D. indicated constant improvement, as a result.
In both instances these scientists concluded that Appellant has mild cognitive
disability (variations in short term memory. On October 29, 2013, within the
month that Dr. J. Douglas Crowder declared Appellant Doris L. Tipps totally
Page 37 of 103
Document Page 37 of 240
disabled, she made the highest score on a test administered by Dr. Isaradisaikul
while under his direct care.
Appellant asks: on what science was Appellant Thomas Tipps basing his
allegation to the Trial Court that Appellant Doris L. Tipps was totally disabled?
The only information that Appellee Thomas Tipps had for alleging a determination
of total disability was in support of the opposite conclusion. Based on two
independent scientific evaluations, though one year earlier, concluded that
Appellant Doris L. Tipps had mild cognitive disability on September 4, 2014, the
date that Appellee Thomas Tipps alleged to the Trial Court that Doris Lee Tipps
was totally disabled. (Appt. Br. "Statement of Facts" p 12.). (Appt. Reply Br. Para
1.86, Dr. Crowder and Dr. Saine, pp.57-59).
1.49 Medical Power of Attorney & Guardianship. Appellant Steven Tipps
held the medical power of attorney for Doris L. Tipps at different intervals over
many years. In the summer of 2012, Appellant transferred the medical power of
attorney to Appellee Thomas Tipps. This decision was, in part, due to an event in
which Appellee Doris L. Tipps became lost on the highways in north Texas.
Appellant assisted the Carrollton police and an Amber Alert was issued. Doris was
located by Denton, Texas Police Department and returned home after 2:00A.M. by
Appellant. This event occurred in the general time frame of June 5, 2012. Since
Appellant lives in Carrollton, Texas, with or without the medical power of attorney
Page 38 of 103
Document Page 38 of 240
or the guardianship of the person or estate of Doris Lee Tipps, Appellant has
fulfilled the roles related to the official papers described in this Reply Brief, in an
advisory capacity since 2005.
Trust and Estate Advisory Role - 2008 Financial Crises. By example, in the
third weekend of February 2008, when Behr Stearns & Company disappeared,
Appellant agreed to advise Doris on preparations to deal with the Trust( s) exposure
to the financial crises. This was an unpaid activity. In the capacity of a person
trained in finance, Appellant advised his mother for three months. In mid-May
2008, Appellant Doris L. Tipps made the decision to liquidate the portfolio assets,
including the tax free municipal bonds held by the Tipps Family Trust(s). These
monies totaled approximately $800,000 and were placed directly into Trust
controlled certificates of deposit with matching F .D.I.C. insurance. At the time of
the liquidation, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was approximately 11,500. This
disinvestment procedure was objected to by Appellee Thomas Tipps. Six months
later on September 15, 2008, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped to
approximately 6.500. Appellant Steven Tipps has never requested to hold family
powers: the medical powers of attorney, guardianship powers of Appellants
person, the Durable Power of Attorney, the guardianship of Appellant's estate, or
to be Trustee of the Tipps Family Trust(s). In review, the decision to remove the
powers, especially the medical power of attorney was fortuitous and made prior to
Page 39 of 103
Document Page 39 of 240
the date that Appellant Doris L. Tipps being declared. The transfer of that power
from Appellee Thomas Tipps occurred seven weeks before the two critical
illnesses that occurred between October 29, 2013 and April 24, 2014. The medical
power of attorney should always be in the hands of a person that knows Doris Lee
Tipps and supports life in all circumstances; it should not be in the hands of a third
party guardian that has demonstrated callous disregard for the safety and well
being of Appellant Doris L. Tipps and has invoked punitive measures against
Appellants Doris L. Tipps and Steven Tipps for reporting negligent endangerment
and other deficiencies. (C.R. s 7). (C.R. s 15). (C.R. s 42)
Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:
1.50 Starting with 5.4 , pp 14. Appellant objects. The powers that were
removed from Appellee Thomas Tipps by Appellant Doris L. Tipps were removed
for cause and were removed before Appellant Doris L. Tipps was declared
incompetent. Please See Findings of Kathleen C. Saine, Ph.D. (neuro-psychologist
(Appt. Br. - Appendix II, Item 11, p 25).
Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:
1.51 Starting with Para 5.5, p 14. Appellant objects. The date of the
psychiatric evaluation of Appellant Doris L. Tipps was Friday, October 4, 2013 at
2:00P.M. Appellant Steven Tipps brought Doris Lee Tipps to Dr. Crowder's
Page 40 of 103
Document Page 40 of 240
office. There were three scientific reports or opinions that ultimately disagreed
with Dr. J. Douglas Crowder's report of total disability: (1) that of Dr. David
Isaradisaikul, M.D. of Dallas Neuro-Stroke, OP, (2) Dr. Joel Holiner. M.D., of the
Holiner Psychiatric Group at Medical City Dallas, and (3) of Dr. Kathleen C.
Saine, Ph.D (Clinical Neuropsychology) with Ron Paulman, Ph.D. All three of
these scientific reports or opinions disagree with the findings of Dr. J. Douglas
Crowder. (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix, Findings of Psychiatrist J. Douglas Crowder,
M.D., IX). (App. Reply Br. Appendix, Findings of Neuropsychologist Kathleen C.
Saine, Ph.D. X).
1.52 Para 5.6, p 15. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant objects to the finding that
Appellant Doris L. Tipps is totally incapacitated. (Para 1.51 above). (Please See
Para 5.6 of Appellee Reply Brief, pp 15-16).
1.53 Para 5.7, P 16. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant objects. The
unanticipated difficulties alleged by Cumberland were actually the unanticipated
difficulties of Appellant Steven Tipps when Appellee Cumberland and Appellee
Thomas Tipps engaged Steven Tipps in a squeeze play. (C.R. 217). In both public
and private communications with Appellant, neither party dealt in good faith in
their efforts to eject Appellant from Hood Street in February 2014. (Please See
Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.55, pp. 41-42).
Page 41 of 103
Document Page 41 of 240
1.54 Para 5.8, P 16 - 17 Appellee Reply Brief. (C.R. at 7) In Agents Answer to
Petitioner's Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent, Appellant Steven Tipps
addresses the issues of the Senior Source - Prestonwood responsibility under State
and federal rules to (1) furnish a safe environment and (2) to provide prudent care
for their patients. The conflict that emerged between Senior Source and Appellant
was due to abuses and neglect that were brought to the attention of Senior Source
and Prestonwood by Appellant. As holder of the medical power of attorney for
Appellant Doris L. Tipps, Appellant Steven Tipps was extremely concerned and
did not trust Senior Source or Prestonwood to meet their obligations in (1) and (2)
above. (C.R. at 7). Of greater concern was the emerging influence of Appellee
Thomas Tipps with Senior Source and the close coordination of Appellee Thomas
Tipps and Senior Source in suing for removal of the medical power of attorney of
Doris L. Tipps. Earlier, Appellant's transfer of the medical power to Appellee
Thomas Tipps in 2012 was a serious mistake.
1.55 Para 5.9, Pl 7. Appellee Reply Brief. "When the trial court considered
Cumberland's motion, Cumberland elaborated on the difficulties that it had
experienced when it tried to assume control of the Trust's real property ... (RR. 16-
18)."- In Reply, Appellant states: The property at Hood Street is not owned by
the Trust(s) and therefore, the Trust has no equitable interest in the property.
While Doris L. Tipps' and Thomas Tipps' names are on the Deed, Appellee
Page 42 of 103
Document Page 42 of 240
Thomas Tipps is one of several remainder-men whose equitable ownership will
only be realized at the death of the second to die. Until then, the Trust is not the
equitable owner of 1844 Hood Street. That equitable ownership resides with the
person of Appellee Doris L. Tipps, the life tenant, As is described at (C.R. 217) or
(Appt. Reply Br. Appendix, III). Cumberland and Appellee Thomas Tipps
tortuously interfered with the Guardianship held by Steven Tipps, placing the
urgent situation of Appellant Doris L. Tipps' emergencies in a subordinate position
in order to pursue a real-estate play based on misrepresentation of authority,
misrepresentation of ownership, intimidation, duress, and tortuous interference
with the Guardian of Appellant Doris L. Tipps. Appellee Cumberland and
Appellee Thomas Tipps were working together to force Appellant Steven Tipps
into a circumstance where his care giving responsibilities for Appellant Doris L.
Tipps would be interrupted, when Doris Lee Tipps was most vulnerable. This was
egregious tortious interference by Cumberland and by Appellee Thomas Tipps.
I. 1.55 (a) Para 5.10, P 18-19. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant Steven Tipps
objects. The following is quoted from: Appt. Br., "VII. Real cross-
examination of Karen Ashworth and Appellee Thomas Tipps (Appt. Br.
"Standard of Review" pp 17-18).
"What could have come from cross examination of the first key fact witness,
Karen Ashworth? Was Appellee Cumberland responsible for mistakes made by
Page 43 of 103
Document Page 43 of 240
their Special Assets Group, in failing to identify legal encumbrances attached to
the real estate portfolio? Was Cumberland's allegation that Appellant Steven
Tipps was the cause of their resignation fair and reasonable in light of the existence
of readily available documents (a Deed of Trust with attached reservation legal life
The Trial Courts' denial of cross-examination of Karen Ashworth is central to
these issues. The unrestrained cross-examination of Karen Ashworth and
Appellee Thomas Tipps by Appellant Steven Tipps could have established whether
Appellee Thomas Tipps, with his legal duty to disclose, fraudulently concealed the
existence of the life estate from Karen Ashworth. (I. C.R. at 217) or (Appt Reply
Br. Appendix, III). In the alternative, were Appellee Thomas Tipps or Karen
Ashworth, working together to disassemble a reserved legal life estate,
circumventing the legal protections of Appellant Doris L. Tipps by the
establishment offacts on the ground." (Appt. Br, Para VII, pp 17 - 18.).
1.56 Para 5.11, P19. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant Steven Tipps alleges that
there were two alternatives available to the Trial Court on October 21, 2014:
First, to enforce the Rule 11 Agreement and the Mediation Settlement Agreement.
The first option was a rote exercise: a simple ministerial act of issuing an Order
enforcing two legally binding contracts that originated under the supervision of the
Trial Court. The second option was to engage in bypassing of two enforceable
contracts, in favor of a solution that is a source of this appeal. Further, Appellant
Page 44 of 103
Document Page 44 of 240
Steven Tipps was ordered by the Trial Court to address his questions to Appellee
Thomas Tipps. The only question directed to Appellee Thomas Tipps was
intercepted by the Trial Court. (RR. 28) (Appellant Reply Brf. Para 1.1-1.5, pp. 9-
11 ).
1.57 Para 5.12, P20. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant objects to the first
paragraph ... "Cumberland is unable to perform its duties as Trustee since a
condition of its acceptance was that Appellant Steven Vinson Tipps move out of
the Hood real property ... " This part of the Order originated by specific
intervention by the Trial Court, when the Trained Court stated: "I am going to
deny your right to cross-examine." The protection by the Trial Court of adverse
witnesses barred the exploration of Cumberland's interference with Appellant
Steven Tipps, denied him of his procedural due process rights, and fixed an
important part of the Trial Record to the detriment of Appellant. (Please See,
Appt. Reply Br.-Cumberland-Para 2.5-2.6, pp. 65-67).
Appellant objects to the second paragraph that states in part ... "Based on the
circumstances of this case, the Court finds that it will not be possible to find a
Corporate Trustee willing to serve as Trustee of the Trusts." Appellant asks, how
many trust companies are in this U.S. national marketplace? What does it take to
encourage cooperation? Appellant believes a contract among the parties would
Page 45 of 103
Document Page 45 of 240
ease the transition to a new corporate trustee, possibly backed by sanctions for
breach of the lower court Order.
1.58 Para 5.13, P19. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant Replies. The Notice of
Appeal included the Order Granting Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge
Trustee and Reinstate Trustee. That order is final and appealable? The Trial Court
order to Revoke Authority of Agent is also final and appealable. Appellant has
legal standing in both orders. At a later date, the Fifth Court Ordered that the
following counsel and parties be added to the case management system.
(l)Doris Lee Tipps, Appellant, represented by W. Thomas Finley, 5500
Preston Rd., Suite 390, Dallas, Texas 75205
(2) Senior Citizens of Greater Dallas D/B/A Senior Source, Appellee,
represented by attorney John H. Phillips, 4313 W. Lovers Lane, Dallas,
Texas 75209.
1.59 The Fifth Court of Appeals Ordered that the record of the Motion to Show
Authority be included in the Appellate Record, including ( 1) Doris Lee Tipps'
Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Investment Company's Motion to Accept
Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; (2) Demand for
Accounting; and (3) Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated
Settlement Agreement (W. Thomas Finley, Counsel for Doris Lee Tipps (C.R. s
15) and Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to the Senior Source's Petition to Revoke
Authority of Agent (W. Thomas Finley, Counsel for Doris L. Tipps (C.R. s 42).
Page 46 of 103
Document Page 46 of 240
1.60 Para 6.0(a), P21. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant has not preserved error
with respect to his first, second and fourth issues. Appellant objects. (Please See
Appt. Reply Br. 1.8, p 12).
1.60(a) Para 6.1, P21. Appellee Reply Brief. "Appellant did not tell the trial
judge his particular complaints." Appellant Steven Tipps did not have an
opportunity to confront the trial judge for preservation. (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.1
thru 1.8 pp. 9-13) (Fed. R. C.P. 51). Having a conversation with the Trained Court
had proven futile in each of the cross examinations. (RR. 22, 28)
1.61 Para 6.l(b)P 22. Appellee Reply Brief. "The trial court properly
terminated Appellant's Medical Power of Attorney." Appellant objects. (C.R. s
7, Part I - VII). Appellant asserts (1) that reckless endangerment of Appellant
Doris L. Tipps by Senior Source and Prestonwood Nursing, (2) that punitive steps
by Senior Source and Prestonwood Nursing violated State regulations prohibiting
retaliation against an elderly person, or her Agent, for communicating a complaint
about safety issues (reckless endangerment) and prudent care. Further, the
retaliation by Senior Source and Prestonwood was intended to suppress and
intimidate each of Doris L. Tipps and her son Appellant Steven Tipps, while at the
same time denying each of them of their civil and constitutional rights. The great
weight and preponderance of the evidence is in favor of Appellant Doris L. Tipps
Page 47 of 103
Document Page 47 of 240
and Appellant Steven Tipps on the issue of the unreasonable cancellation of the
medical power of attorney then held by Appellant Steven Tipps. (C.R. s 7).
1.62 From (C.R. s 7 at VIII), "While withdrawn by the Petitioner, these punitive
actions by the Petitioner violated the Constitutional and Civil rights of the Mother
as well as of the Agent that directly and specifically violated, without limitation,
The Texas HUMAN RESOURCES CODE, TITLE 6, CHAPTER 102 SECTION
102.003 (t)." (Appt. Br. Appendix. III).
1.63 From the Prayer ... "Therefore we further PRAY that the Court will balance
the Mother's rights and interests against the Petitioners petition for more power:
powers that the Petitioner and the Petitioner's Agent have shown they are willing
to abuse." (C.R. s 7). ). (Appt. Br. Appdx. 111).
1.64 Para 6.2(c) P 22. Appellee Reply Brief. "Appellant has not properly
briefed his fourth issue and has not requested a ruling on his request for
reimbursement." Appellant asserts that the reimbursement demand was based
upon an ancient doctrine in contract law which infers a promise to pay a reasonable
amount for labor and materials, even if the absence of a specific legally
enforceable agreement between the parties. The request for funding was raised in
the PRAYER, Para (f) and (g). The legal doctrine is: QUANTUM MERUIT, and it
was declared in Appellant's Brief. (Appt. Br. under "Appellant's Burden", p 21.)
Page 48 of 103
Document Page 48 of 240
During the trial court Hearing, there was no opportunity to raise this issue. The
trial court closed the Hearing to all other issues.
Para 6.3 P22. Appellee Reply Brief.
Id.
1.66 Para 6.4 P22. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant Replies. Given the Trial
Court's agenda, there was no opportunity to present the Trial Court with a detailed
information. This was a Hearing; it was not a Trial. The association of the cost
accruals with the answer to the Senior Source Petition was to alert the Trial Court
of this need. The detailed invoice information completed but the opportunity to
make requests was constrained by the Trial Court's management of his Docket.
1.67 7(a) Standard of Review. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant's Issues.
1.68 Para. 7.1 P23. Appellee Reply Brief. "The standard of review applicable
to complaints about exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. ( City of
Brownsville v. Alvarado,
897 S.W.2d 750, 753 (Tex. 1995). In order to obtain
reversal, the appellant must show the trial court committed error and that the error
was reasonable calculated to cause and probably did cause the rendition of an
improper judgment. .. " McCraw v. Marris,
828 S.W.2d 756, 757 (Tex. 1992).
Appellant Replies: Appellant Steven Tipps argues plain, manifest, clear, and
gross abuse of discretion. Appellant was barred from cross-examination of
adverse witnesses, effectively preventing any challenge of readily controvertible
Page 49 of 103
Document Page 49 of 240
witness testimony of two key fact witnesses. (Appt. Reply Br., Para 1.8, p. 12).
(Appt. Reply Br. -Cumberland-Para 2.5 - 2.6, pp. 65-67.) The Trial Court's
error was failure to enforce the Rule 11 Agreement and the Mediation Settlement
Agreement, which caused an improper judgment that resulted in the loss of
independent oversight of the Tipps Family Trusts and all of the legal costs
associated with the Rule 11 Agreement and the Mediation Settlement Agreement.
As a signatory of the Mediation Settlement Agreement, Appellant Steven Tipps,
was the only adverse signatory that signed a release of liability for the benefit of
Appellee Thomas Tipps, releasing Appellee of liability for all decisions and
actions taken during his term as Co-Trustee. This was a significant protection for
Appellee Thomas Tipps, that he retained, and retains, whereas Appellant Steven
Tipps released the right to pursue litigation against Appellee Thomas Tipps for
wrongful interference and other wrongs committed personally against Appellant
Steven Tipps by Appellee Thomas Tipps as Co-Trustee. (Appt. Reply Br., Para
1.8, p. 13). (Appt. Reply Br.--Cumberland-Para 2.5 - 2.6, pp. 65-67).
Standard of Review: Appellant's Issue 3 (Appellee's second issue).
1.69 Para. 7.2 P23. Appellee Reply Brief. "In his third issue, Appellant
complains that the trial court erred in withdrawing the Medical Power of Attorney
held by Appellant for Doris L. Tipps. This issue incorporates a complaint about
the trial court's findings that (i) a conflict exists between the powers granted the
Page SO of 103
Document Page 50 of 240
·----------------~--
Guardian of the Person and the powers claimed by Appellant under a medical
power of attorney; (ii) the conflict is not in the best interest of the Appellant Doris
L. Tipps and may be detrimental to the health and proper care of Appellant Doris
L. Tipps; and (iii) the authority of Appellant under the medical power of attorney
from the Ward should be revoked.
Appellant Steven Tipps replies:
Id. Para 6.l(b). Appellant Steven Tipps
incorporates by reference, in its entirety, Appellants Agent's Answer to
Petitioner's Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent. (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix
IV), or (C.R. s 7), and (C.R. s 41).
1.70 Para 7.3 P 24. Appellee's Reply Brief. "A trial court's findings of fact are
reviewed for factual sufficiency of the evidence using the same legal standards as
are applied to review jury verdicts for factual sufficiency." Appellant Steven
Tipps replies that a factual sufficiency review should be included in a de Novo
review in the appellate Court. When a party is substantively excluded from
significant aspects of a Hearing, the factual sufficiency review is an analysis of
what is there as well as what is not there and why it is not there." The Trial Record
was affected by the Trial Court's manifest abuse of discretion in declining
Appellant's right to cross examine witnesses. "A trial court abuses its discretion
if3it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or without reference to any
guiding rules or principles." Walker v. Gutierrez,
111 S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex.2003).
Page 51 of 103
Document Page 51 of 240
(Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.8, p 13). (Appt. Reply Br. Para 2.5-2.9, pp 65-69). Appt.
Reply Br. Para 1.44, pp. 33-34).
Standard of Review: Appellant's Issue 4 (Appellee's third issue).
1.71 Para. 7.4 P24. Appellee replies: "In his fourth issue, Appellant complains
that the trial court erred by failing to address Appellant's request for
reimbursement of various expenses and costs (even though Appellant did not
request a ruling). The trial court's decision in this respect is reviewed for abuse of
discretion..." Appellant Replies. When the Hearing commenced at 3 :30 p.m. on
Tuesday October 21, 2014, the Docket was already full with big issues. Appellant
Steven Tipps could not have known that the trial court would object to his presence
as a pro se party, would ignore his standing under TRCP Rule No. 7, would ignore
his substantial right to due process and to procedural due process, would decline
his right to cross-examination of key fact witnesses, and would close the hearing to
further participation: including raising the issues of reimbursement and
preservation. Appellee's abuse ofdiscretion standard is related to Appellant's
complaint of manifest abuse ofdiscretion, and each of these can be considered in
de Novo review. (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.8, Page 17).
1.72 Para 8(a) P25 Appellee's Reply Brief. Appellant did not preserve error
with respect to issues 1 and 2. Appellant replies: "With respect to Issue One
and Issue Two of Appellant's Brief, the preservation of error issue was discussed
Page 52 of 103
Document Page 52 of 240
in the context of a Hearing that excluded the cross-examination of the first key fact
witness, giving the effect of protections to adverse witnesses that may be cross
examined under the confrontation and cross-examination clause(s) of the Sixth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This act, without consideration of how the
Trial Court conducted itself in other matters, resulted in undue prejudice against
Appellant and was manifest abuse of discretion? (Please See, Appt. Reply Br!.
Para 1.3 - 1.7, pp. 10-12) & (Para 1.8 - 1.17, pp 13 - 19). (Appt, Reply Br. Para
2.5 - 2.9, pp. 65-69).
1.73 Para 8.2 P 26 Appellee's Reply Brief. Appellee replies: "Tex. Rule. App.
P. 3 3.1 encompasses the concept of "party responsibility," which requires the
complaining party to tell the trial judge his particular complaint, including the
precise and proper application of the law as well as the underlying
rationale ..."(Pena v.State,
285 S.W.3d 459, 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
Appellant Replies: Certiorari lies to correct proceedings erroneous upon the face
of the record when there is no other adequate remedy. It is available in the
exercise of super intending control over a tribunal which is proceeding illegally
where no other mode of review has been provided. Certiorari lies where there is a
want of jurisdiction or an act in excess in excess of jurisdiction which is apparent
on the face of the record. (State v. Nelson, 246 Ark, 210, 438S.W.2d ( 1969).
Page 53 of 103
Document Page 53 of 240
1.74 Para 8.3.P 27 Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant did not object when the
trial court stated: I am going to deny your right to cross-examination. Appellant
reply: Please See: (Appt. Reply. Br. Para 1.8, p 12). (Appt. Reply Br. Para 2.5 -
2.6, pp. 65-67). (Goldberg v. Kelly),
397 U.S. 254, 268, 90 S. Ct 1011,
25 L. Ed. 2d
287 1970. (Appt. Reply Bf. Para 1.13 - 1.16, pp. 17-18). (Appt. Reply Bf. Para
1.17, p. 18).
1.74(a) Para 8(b) P 27 Appellee's Reply Brief. The trial court properly
controlled its docket with respect to Appellant's cross examination of witnesses.
Appellee Replies: (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.8-1.12, pp 13 -17).
1.75 Para 8.4 P 27. Appellee Reply Brief. "Even if Appellant preserved error
with respect to his first two issues, the trial court did not err by exercising control
over the examination of witnesses. Appellant Replies: Please See: (Appt. Reply
Br., Para 1.8 -Para 1.17, pp. 12-18).
1.76 Para 8.5 P28. Appellee Reply Brief. "An appellate court will not reverse a
judgment due to the exclusion of evidence unless the appellant establishes that: ( 1)
the trial court's ruling was in error; and (2) the error was reasonably calculated to
cause and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment." (Please See)
(Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.67, pp 46-47.). (Appt. Reply Br. - Cumberland- Para
2.5-2.9, pp. 65 - 69)
Page 54 of 103
Document Page 54 of 240
1.77 Para 8.6. P 28. Appellee Reply Brief. "As applied to the facts of the
present case, Appellant has not informed the trial court or this Court why he
needed to cross-examine Cumberland or what he hoped to establish by questioning
Cumberland ... " Appellant directed a request to the Trial Court to cross-
examination of Cumberland's first key fact witness. The Trial Court asked a few
questions of Appellant, then stated: "I am going to deny your right to cross-
examine." Appellant replies, as persuasive authority, that Francis L. Wellman's
"The Art of Cross Examination clearly establishes that cross examination is an art
that involves a plan, secrecy, randomness, and the element of surprise. (Appellant
Reply Brief. Para 1.1 thru 1.8, pp 10-- 12).
1.78 Para 8.7. P29 Appellee Reply Brief. Appellee states: "Similarly, with
respect to Appellant's complaint that the Trial Court did not allow him to cross-
examine Thomas Tipps ... he directed his questions to the trial court instead of
conducting a proper cross-examination ... (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.4-1.8, pp 9-12).
1.79 Para 8.8. P 29. Appellee's Reply Brief. "Because the trial court properly
exercised control over Appellee' s cross-examination of witnesses, it did not abuse
its discretion and there is no error on this record." (Appellant Reply Brief. Para
1.1 thru 1.8, pp 10-12).1.80 Para 8.8(c) P 29. Appellee Reply Brief. "There
is nothing to suggest that the trial court's restriction of Appellant's cross-
examination probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment." (Please See
Page SS of 103
Document Page 55 of 240
Appt. Reply Br., Para 1.18 thru 1.19, pp 19-20). (Appt. Reply Br.
(Cumberland) Para 2.5- 2.6, pp. 65- 67).
1.81 Para 8.9 P29 Appellee Reply Brief. "Alternatively, even if the trial court
erred by restricting Appellant's cross-examination of Karen Ashworth
and Thomas Tipps, the record does not establish that such error was reasonably
calculated to cause and probably did cause the rendition of an improper
judgment." ... Appellant Replies: (Please See Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.18 thru
1.19, pp 19-20). (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.67, pp 49-50).
1.82 Para 8.10. p 30. Appellee Reply Brief. "Appellant's allegation that the
trial court improperly restricted his examination of Thomas Tipps ...directed legal
questions to the court .•• " (Please See Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.1 thru 1.16, pp. 10-
17).
1.83 Para 8.a p 30. Appellee Reply Brief. Issue No. 2 responds to Appellant's
third issue:) The trial court properly terminated Appellant's Medical Power of
Attorney because it was executed very near the time when Doris Tipps was found
incompetent and because it conflicted with the powers held by Doris Tipps' duly
appointed guardian..." (Appellant Reply Brief, Para 1.22, & Para 1.24 thru Para
1.28. pp 18 thru 21). (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix IV). (Appellant Brief, Index II,
Item 1 1, p 25).
Page 56 of 103
Document Page 56 of 240
1.84 Para. 8.11 p 31. Appellee Reply Brief. "Appellant next argues that the trial
court erred in terminating his Medical Power of Attorney for Doris Tipps because
the Texas Health and Safety Code requires the Court to consider the principal's
preferences as expressed in the medical power of attorney when determining
whether to terminate agent's medical power of attorney ... " Appellant Replies:
Please See: (Appt Reply Bf. Appendix III & IV). Or (C.R. s 7). Or (C.R. s 42).
1.85 Para. 8.12 p 31. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellee alleges that Appellant
Doris L. Tipps ... unequivocally disqualified Appellant Steven Tipps as the
guardian of her person or her estate on July 19, 2012 ... " Appellant Replies:
Doris L. Tipps reached a decision in July 2013 that she could no longer afford to
trust her eldest son with her money and her medical power of attorney. (C.R. s 7).
(C.R. s 42). (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.86, p 57, Appellant Reply re: Dr. Crowder
and Dr. Saine).
1.86 Para. 8.13 p 32. Appellee Reply Brief. "Given the evidence that Doris
Tipps did not want Appellant acting as her guardian in 2012, and only allegedly
changed her mind in close proximity to the date on which she was deemed to be
incompetent, the record establishes that the Court properly took Ms. Tipps wishes
in consideration when it terminated Appellant's Medical Power of Attorney .... "
Page 57 of 103
Document Page 57 of 240
Appellant responds: On Friday October 4, 2013, at 2:00 P.M., Dr. J. Douglas
Crowder, M.D. conducted a test of Doris L. Tipps and concluded that Appellant
Doris L. Tipps was totally disabled due to severe dementia. On December 2, 2013
and December 16, 2013 Dr. Kathleen C. Saine, Ph.D, a neuro-psychologist
performed a broad array of tests, two weeks apart, and concluded that Doris L.
Tipps has mild dementia. Dr. Saine's report was presented in Appellant's Brief in
the Appendix II, Item 11, p 25). The results that were found by Dr. Crowder were
unfound in Dr. Saine's evaluation as a neuropsychologist whom has been retained
by Dr. Crowder for confirmatory testing of Dr. Crowder's patients. Doris L. Tipps
remains "declared" but does not suffer from severe dementia. There are two other
scientists that disagree with Dr. Crowder's findings. None of the two opposing
reports or opinions were ever presented by Appellee Thomas Tipps to the trial
court. When Doris L. Tipps made the decision to transfer the medical power of
attorney to Appellant Steven Tipps, it was within 30 days of Dr. Crowder's report
that was used to declare Doris Tipps and 112 days of being undeclared by Dr.
Kathleen C. Saine. The other two scientific tests were performed in August to
November 2012. Appellee Thomas Tipps had a duty to inform the Trial Court of
the strength of the scientific evaluations that existed at the time that he, Appellee
Thomas Tipps, presented his Application for Temporary Guardianship to the Trial
Court. (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix, Findings of Dr. Crowder Item 9). (ApptReply
Page 58 of 103
Document Page 58 of 240
Br. Appendix, Findings of Dr. Kathleen C. Saine). (Appt. Br. P 21 under
"Appellant's Burden")
1.87 Para. Issue No.
3 P. 32. (responds to Appellant's fourth issue): "The trial
court was not required to address Appellant's request for reimbursement given that
Appellant failed to request a ruling and failed to present any evidence of his costs
or expenses to the court. In any event, Appellant has failed to preserve and waived
his point of error .... " Appellant Replies: Please See, (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.64,
pp. 48-49). (Appt. Repl. Br. Para 1.71, P 48), & (Para. l.42(a), p. 30).
1.88 Para. 8.15 P 33. Appellee Repl. Brief. "Appellant sets forth his position
that the trial court erred by failing to address his "valid expense and cost claims" in
four sentences none of which contain any citations to statute or case law... "
Appellant replies. The Prayer section of the Senior Source answer to citation lists
seven (7) requests as well as the general requests: "The Agent seeks
reimbursement from the petitioner of all costs associated with this Petition, and all
other relief, both general and special, legal and equitable, to which the Agent may
be entitled."
None of the seven specific requests included in the Prayer section of the Answer to
Citation from Senior Source were acted on by the Trial Court.
(Please See, Appt. Br. at 19). (Appt. Reply Br. Para l.42(a), pp 29-30).
Page 59 of 103
Document Page 59 of 240
1.89 Para. 8.16 P 34 Appellee Reply Brief. "As applied to the facts of the
present case, the record reveals that Appellant did not request hearing on his
application for reimbursement, did not argue his request before the court at the
hearing on October 21, 2014, and did not request a ruling or object to the lack of a
ruling ...."
Id. (Para 1.88 above).
1.90 Para 8(c) P 35. Appellee Reply Brief. "Appellant did not provide evidence
of the costs and expenses for which he sought reimbursement .... "
Id. (Para(s) 1.88
& 1.89 above).
1.91 Para 8.17 P 35 Appellee Reply Brief. Even if this Court finds that
Appellant did not waive his fourth point of error by failing to properly brief the
issue and failing to request or obtain a ruling on his request for reimbursement,
Appellant presented no evidence to the court to support his request for
reimbursement .... "
Id. (Para(s) 1.88 - 1.90).
"Appellant asserts that the reimbursement demand was briefed with two words:
quantum meruit, which is based upon an ancient doctrine in contract law that
infers a promise to pay a reasonable amount for labor and materials, even if the
absence of a specific legally enforceable agreement between the parties. The
request for funding was raised in the PRAYER, Para ( f) and (g). This legal
doctrine was declared in Appellant's Brief. (Appt. Br. under "Appellant's
Page 60 of 103
Document Page 60 of 240
Burden", p 21.) During the trial court Hearing, there was no opportunity to raise
this issue. The trial court closed the Hearing to all other issues. (Appt. Reply Br.,
Para 1.64, pp. 48-49).
Appellant Reply Brief
To Reply Brief of Thomas Tipps
Ends Here
Page 61 of 103
Document Page 61 of 240
CAUSE NO. 05-14-01495-CV
In the
COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS, TEXAS
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF DORIS L. TIPPS
Appealed from Cause No. PR-13-03072-3
In the Probate Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas
Honorable Judge Michael E. Miller, Presiding
APPELLANT'S COMBINED REPLY BRIEF TO
SECOND APPELLEE REPLY BRIEF
CUMBERLAND TRUST AND INVESTMENT COMPANY
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellant, Steven Tipps, submits this Appellant Reply Brief, in accordance
with Rule 9.4, 9.4 (i) (2) (c), and Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure and all local rules of this Court. In support of this Appeal from Final
Judgement, Appellant respectfully asserts the following
Page 62 of 103
Document Page 62 of 240
APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF
2.0 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY
TO APPELLEE CUMBERLAND TRUST'S REPLY BRIEF
A. Pro se litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys.
2.1 Appellant incorporates by reference from Appellant's Reply Brief- Reply
to Appellee Thomas Tipps, Argument and Authorities in Reply, Section 1.0,
Paras 1.1, and 1.2, (p 9), Para(s) 1.3, and 1.4 (p 10), Para(s) 1.5 and 1.6 (p
11), Para(s) 1.7 (p 13), and Para 1.8 (pp 13-14).
2.l(a) Appellant further incorporates by reference, Appellant Doris Lee Tipps'
Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Investment Company's Motion to
Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for
Accounting; and Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated
Settlement Agreement. (Appt. Repl. Br. Appendix, 111).
2.l(b) The statutes that govern procedures in civil cases in Texas courts are the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure ("TRCP") and Texas Rules of Civil
Evidence. ("TRCE"). Among those rules, Rule No. 7 of the TRCP states:
"Any party to a suit may appear and prosecute or defend his rights therein,
either in person or by an attorney of the court." The cases cited in
Cumberland's Reply Brief Section lA, pp 8-9 are noted, but they do not
address the significant issue in this Appeal that is: a plain, manifest, and
Page 63 of 103
Document Page 63 of 240
gross abuse of discretion that led to a manifest injustice. The Trial Court
stated: "I am going to deny your right to cross-examine." (Goldberg v.
Kelly). (Davidson v. Great Nat 'l Life Ins. Co.).
2.J(c) Appellee Cumberland Replies. In Mansfield, "It is well established that
the "right of self-representation is not a license to abuse the dignity of the
courtroom. Neither is it a license not to comply with the relevant rules of
procedure and substantive law." MansfieldState Bank v. Cohn, 573
S.W.2d 181, 184 (Tex. 1978) (quoting Feretta v. California,
422 U.S. 806,
835 n. 46 95S.Ct. 2525,
45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975)).
2.2 In contrast with Mansfield, judicial officials are not permitted to make their
own rules or laws for pro se litigants to abuse or to be abused by, nor to
foster circumstances in the court room that are contrary to the Texas Canons
of Judicial Conduct, specifically Canon (3)(b)(8). "A trial court abuses its
discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or without
reference to any guiding rules or principles." Walker v. Gutierrez,
111
S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex.2003). Considering just the basics, the guiding
principles that the Trial Court failed to consider were the due course of law
clause of the Texas Constitution, the Due Process clause(s) of the U.S.
Constitution, theSixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and its
confrontation and cross-examination clause(s), and the Fourteenth
Page 64 of 103
Document Page 64 of 240
Amendment that makes the Fifth and Sixth Amendments applicable to the
states. Over time, the due course of law clause in the Texas Constitution has
become congruent with the federal due process clause(s) in the U.S.
Constitution (Para 1.13 through 1.16, pp. 18-19) case summaries of
Appellant's Reply Brief to Appellee Thomas Tipps, are incorporated herein
by reference); procedural due process of the federal system is congruent with
the State of Texas procedural due process. (Para 1.17 pp. 18-19) case
summaries of Appellant's Reply Brief, are incorporated herein by reference).
2.3 A trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying
the law to the facts. Cayton v. Moore,
224 S.W.3d 440 Tex. App. - Dallas
2007, no pet. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court clearly failed to
analyze and determine the law correctly or applied the law incorrectly to the
facts.
Id.
2.4 When we determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, we may not
substitute our judgment for that of the trial court unless its decision was so
arbitrary that it exceeded the bounds of reasonableness. Clarendon Nat 'l
Ins. Co. v. Thompson,
199 S.W.3d 482, 494 (Tex. App).-Houston [1st Dist.
2006, no pet].
2.5 In the subject Appeal, the Trial Court chose between two alternatives: (1) to
enforce the uncontested Mediated Settlement Agreement that required an
Page 65 of 103
Document Page 65 of 240
independent corporate trustee, by agreement among the parties, along with
the uncontested Rule 11 Agreement that was read into the record on
September 13, 2013, or (2) to abandon the main purpose of the Mediation,
the Mediation Settlement Agreement, and forego the independent oversight
of a corporate trustee and related accountability altogether. (C.R. s 15).
(Appt. Reply Br. Appendix p III).
2. 6 In the October 21, 2014 Hearing, (1) those parties that supported
enforcement of the mediation settlement agreement and the Rule 11
Agreement, Appellants, were excluded from their right to due process, their
procedural due process right of cross examination of adverse witnesses, and
their right to be Heard?; and (2) those that supported abandonment of the
Mediation Settlement Agreement and the Rule 11 Agreement were Heard
by the Trial Court, given full access to procedural due process, and their
witnesses were protected from cross-examination? (R.R. 22, 28, & 1-31)
(C.R.s 15). These parties were also represented by legal counsel. Within the
Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, under Adjunctive Responsibilities, Canon
(3) (B) (8) states, in relevant part: "A judge shall accord to every person
who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, a right to be
heard according to law." This Canon (3) (b) (8) is nearly identical to the
basic meaning of due process as cited in Goldberg v. Kelly: "The
Page 66 of 103
Document Page 66 of 240
fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard."
(Grannis v. Ordean,
234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914). A trial court has broad
discretion and we may not disturb its ruling absent manifest abuse of
discretion. Champion Int'! Corp. v. Twelfth Court ofAppeals, 762 W.W.2d
898,899 (Tex. 1988; TEX.R. CIV. P. 320.) The "due course" clause in our
state constitution requires the same level of "due process" as the federal
constitution. (City ofFort Worth v. Park), 2011, Tex. APP LEXIS 5725
(2011) (14)
B. Steven Tipps did not make an offer of proof
2. 7 Within the Cumberland Reply Brief, Part I A, Page 8, Appellee Cumberland
states: "Steven Tipps complains on appeal of the probate court's refusal to
allow cross-examination of Karen Ashworth and Thomas Tipps. (Appt. Br.
At 5). The probate court gave Steven Tipps the opportunity to cross Thomas
Tipps; Steven simply did not ask any questions of the witness."
2.8 Appellant denies this allegation. In each of the requests to interact with
the two adversarial witnesses, the Trained Court engaged Appellant Steven
Tipps in a conversation that was substantively a cross-examination of
Appellant, while Appellant was requesting permission to cross examine
Appellee Cumberland's key fact witness, Karen Ashworth and Appellee
Thomas Tipps. (Appellant Brief, Para. IV, p 16). It was confusing. This
Page 67 of 103
Document Page 67 of 240
occurred twice, a clear indication that it was not a mistake by the Trained
Court? None of the other parties were put to this test. In Goldberg v. Kelly,
"The hearing must be at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner".
(Armstrong v. Manzo). "The opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the
[*269] capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard." "In
almost every setting where important decisions tum on questions of fact, due
process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse
witnesses."(£. g., ICC v. Louisville & N.R. Co.). (Willner v. Committee on
Character & Fitness). "Certain principles have remained relatively
immutable in our jurisprudence. One of these is that where governmental
action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action
depends on fact findings, the evidence used to prove the Government's case
must be disclosed. While this is important in documentary evidence, it is
even more important where the evidence consists of the testimony of
individuals whose memory might be faulty or who, in fact might be perjurers
or persons motivated by malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or
jealousy. We have formalized these protections in the requirements of
confrontation and cross-examination. They have ancient roots. They find
expression in the Sixth Amendment. This Court has been zealous to protect
these rights from erosion. It is spoken out not only in criminal cases ... but
Page 68 of 103
Document Page 68 of 240
also in all types of cases where administrative ... actions were under
scrutiny." (Greene v. McElroy).
2.9 Appellant was subpoenaed to court, fully compliant with the requirement of
answers in each of two separate citations, having arrived to court on time
and available to sue or defend. He was in a fundamental way barred from
participation. As is stated above in Section A, Para 2.5 and 2.6 above, there
were two choices before the trial court on October 21, 2014. Appellant was
on the side that challenged the Motion( s) in which he had legal standing and
was denied his procedural due process rights?
2.10 - 1.4 "After cross-examination of Appellant by the Trained Court, Appellant
was allowed to address one question to the second fact witness, and, as
ordered by the Trial Court, the question was directed to Appellee Thomas
Tipps. Appellant stated: "How does the court handle a life estate that is
attached to 1844 Hood Street? It is not in the trust(s), it is not transferable
under Texas law into the trust(s)?" (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix. I). In any
other courtroom in this country, by hypothesis, a Trained Court would have
asked: are you addressing this question to the witness, or are you addressing
the question to this court? The Trial Court then stated: "I'm not going to
give you legal advice." Further questions were denied. (Appellant. Br.
Appendix. Pp. 28-29, No. 7 (RR. 28-29). In Murray, "the purpose of cross-
Page 69 of 103
Document Page 69 of 240
examination is to sift and to modify and to have the witness explain what has
been said on his direct examination, and if the witness by this process can be
discredited and the weight of his testimony weakened, the right should not
be denied." (Murray v. Morris,
17 S.W.2d 110, 111 (Tex. Civ. App.)
Amarillo 1928, writ dism'd).
2.11 - 1.5 That question of the second key fact witness, Appellant Thomas Tipps
was the only question allowed by the Trial Court's undue constraint of
cross-examination?
It was a significant question under those circumstances.
2.12 - 1.6 The question was central to the controversy over Hood Street where on
February 3, 2014, Appellee Thomas Tipps sued Appellant Steven Tipps for
forcible detainer. Appellee Cumberland (Karen Ashworth) and Appellee
Thomas Tipps were engaged together in a squeeze play against Appellant in
January and February 2014. (C.R. 217). The litigation brought by Appellee
Thomas Tipps together with Cumberland's interference had a pernicious
timing. The interference against Appellant Steven Tipps extended, in its
effects, to interference with a substantial care giving process for Appellant
Doris L. Tipps, for its duration but also on the weekend of a life threatening
emergency that required full-time attention of Appellant Steven Tipps.
(Appellant Brief, page 11). (C.R. 217) (Appellant Brief - Appendix Item 15
Page 70 of 103
Document Page 70 of 240
& 16). On February 3, 2014, Appellee Thomas Tipps', role under the Rule
11 Agreement that stipulated his resignation as co-trustee, changed from
ministerial duties of paying bills and receiving receipts for the Trust, to the
formation of a joint effort with Appellee Cumberland in litigation and
harassment of Appellant Steven Tipps. Cumberland was Trustee "in
Waiting" during the interval of Thursday January 23, 2014, the date of the
Mediation Settlement Agreement, to Monday February I 7, 2014, the date of
the Trial Court Order that adopted the Mediation Settlement Agreement and
installed Cumberland as Trustee of the Tipps Family Trust(s).
2.13 -1.7 Impeachment through cross-examination of Appellee Cumberland's
Karen Ashworth and Appellee Thomas Tipps' testimony would have
developed the extent of the respective roles of each individual in the
attempted circumvention of the legal life estate (life tenancy) attached to
Hood Street. The impingement by the Trial Court, of Appellant's right to
cross-examination of adverse witnesses is inconsistent with the procedural
due process commands as expressed in Goldberg v. Kelly and in University
of Texas Med. Sch. v. Than? (Federal and State of Texas procedural due
process).
2.14 - 1.8 The Sixth Amendment and its confrontation and cross examination
clause(s) are mandatory authority in U.S. courts. It is a rare circumstance
Page 71 of 103
Document Page 71 of 240
where these rights are quashed by a trial court in the United States. Through
the 14th Amendment, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution apply to the States. (Cran v. Hale,
745 S.W.2d 129 (1988)
(Ark. Sup. Ct.) (563). On the face of the Record, the Trained Court
excluded Appellant from procedural due process: the right to be heard. As
Appellant was denied cross-examination, the first Cumberland witness was
immediately dismissed. There was no opportunity declare an exception for
preservation of error or discuss reimbursement issues because the Trained
Court interrupted Appellant in a restrictive manner and prematurely ended
all attempts to participate in the process. (RR. 22). (RR. 28). Each of the two
attempts to cross-examine adverse witnesses were either denied or unduly
restricted. Given this experience, the Trial Court was closed that day to
additional presentation of issues including the Reimbursement Issue, the
Fourth Issue in Appellant's Brief and preservation. "If a party does not
have an opportunity to object to a ruling or order, the absence of an
objection does not later prejudice that party [on appeal]". (Fed. R. CP.
51). A trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in
applying the law to the facts. (Cayton v. Moore,
224 S.W.3d 440 (Tex.App.
- Dallas 2007), no pet. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court
Page 72 of 103
Document Page 72 of 240
clearly failed to analyze and determine the law correctly or applied the law
incorrectly to the facts. Id." (Appellant incorporates by reference from
Appellant's Reply Brief- Reply to Appellee Thomas Tipps, Argument and
Authorities in Reply, Section 1.0, Para(s) 1.1, and 1.2, (p9), Para(s)l.3, and
1.4 (p 10), Para(s) 1.5 and 1.6 (p. 11 ), Para(s) 1.7 (p 12), and 1.8 (pp 13-
14)).
2.15 Appellant Steven Tipps' requests to proceed with cross-examination --
directed to the Trial Court-- were substantive exceptions? In each, it is clear
that Appellant Steven Tipps requested to confront his accusers, but was
forced to endure nearly identical, cross examinations by the judge in each of
the attempts to gain access to cross examination and procedural due process.
(RR. 22 & 28). Appellee Cumberland states: "Here it is well within the
probate court's discretion to recognize that cross examining Ms. Ashworth
had no bearing on the resolution of Cumberland's motion." (Appellant
incorporates herein by quotation, Para 1.19, (p 17) through Para 1.23 (p 20 ).
2.16 -1.19 A review of the facts suggests that the Trained Court was moving
toward acceptance of the Cumberland Motion including approval of
Appellee Cumberland's unconditional resignation, consideration of the
resignation of Appellee Thomas Tipps as co-trustee, and recognition of
Appellee Thomas Tipps' s self-appointment to the position of Trustee of the
Page 73 of 103
Document Page 73 of 240
Tipps Family Trusts. The replacement of a Trustee was, nominally, effected
by the transition language in the Trust documentation that stated that a
Trustee could appoint a replacement trustee for the Tipps Living Trust(s).
The Trial Court agreed to accept this language even though these Tipps
Family Trust procedures had been overlaid with real independent oversight
that was understood and accepted by the signatories, including Appellee
Thomas Tipps, of the Mediation Settlement Agreement. Cross-examination
of the Appellee Cumberland's fact witness Karen Ashworth and of Appellee
Thomas Tipps was clearly unwelcome in the Trial Court on that date, at that
time, and in that place. There were two courses of action that were before
the Trial Court: ( 1) to enforce the Rule 11 Agreement and the Mediation
Settlement Agreement or (2) to bypass the ministerial act of enforcing the
two contracts and allow Appellee Thomas Tipps to replace Appellee
Cumberland as corporate trustee of the Tipps Family Trust(s).
2.17 At the Hearing that occurred on October 21, 2014, there were three closely
linked, overlapping, interlocutory phases: each phase involving a discrete
issue under the authority of the Trained Court.
2.18 -1.21 In Phase I, Appellee Thomas Tipps initiated a motion to show
authority that resulted in the isolation of Appellant Doris L. Tipps from her
legal counsel and the striking of Appellant Doris L. Tipps objections in W.
Page 74 of 103
Document Page 74 of 240
Thomas Finley's pleadings in opposition. (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix. III).
From January 23, 2014 through October 21, 2014, Mr. Finley's most
important and regular role was to urge, with leverage, that Senior Source, as
Guardian to engage Prestonwood Nursing, as agent of the Guardian, to meet
their federal and State mandates of (a) the requirement to provide a safe
environment for Appellant Doris L. Tipps and (b) generally, the obligation
to provide prudent care, and moreover, specifically to provide timely and
decisive responses to Appellant Doris L. Tipps continuing emergencies
while in the care of Select Specialty Hospital in Plano, Texas, Axel
Rehabilitation on Communication Parkway in Plano, Texas, and at
Prestonwood Rehabilitation and Nursing Center in Hebron, Texas.
2.19 Phase II was initiated by Appellee Thomas Tipps in which Appellee
requested Appellee Senior Source to file a Petition against Appellant Steven
Tipps for removal of the medical power of attorney from Appellant Steven
Tipps, thus separating Appellant Doris L. Tipps from a known and trusted
source of medical decisions and protection(s) in and for her life. A by-
product of the Phase II termination of Appellant Steven Tipps medical
power of attorney, whether intended or not, was in effect, to legally
terminate Appellants immediate and decisive interventions in Doris L. Tipps
health emergencies that were year after year for past five years, clearly in
Page 75 of 103
Document Page 75 of 240
favor of her survival. In several of these emergencies her survival was
uncertain, in the last series of emergencies in late 2013 and early 2014, she
nearly died.
2.20-1.22 In Phase III Appellant Thomas Tipps moved with Cumberland to
initiate litigation alleging that Appellant Steven Tipps was responsible for
the resignation of Cumberland, that Cumberland-with its absolute right to
resign without the Trial Court's permission, chose to seek official court
approval of its resignation together with its recommendation that Appellee
Thomas Tipps be approved by the Trial Court as the replacement Trustee of
the Tipps Family Trust(s). In the need that developed with Cumberland's
resignation, the party that was more likely than not to benefit from the
struggle between Cumberland and Appellant Steven Tipps, was the party
that organized the struggle in the first place. Consider the outcome of the
Trial Court Hearing: ( 1) Cumberland resigned, Appellee Thomas Tipps
replaced Cumberland as Trustee, and (2) both Appellees Cumberland and
Thomas Tipps then assigned blame to Appellant Steven Tipps. In the
ensuing litigation Cumberland argued that Steven Tipps interfered with
Cumberland and was the prime cause of Cumberland's resignation: a suit
over a single asset that was legally beyond the reach of Cumberland's
portfolio management. (C.R. 217) or (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix I).
Page 76 of 103
Document Page 76 of 240
2.21 Appellee Cumberland Replies from Page 8.
Argument & Authorities. For Cumberland: "It is well established that the
"right of self representation is not a license to abuse the dignity of the
courtroom. Neither is it a license not to comply with the relevant rules of
procedure and substantive law. " Appellant Replies. In the cited cases, in
Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, in Drum v. Calhoun, and in Culver v. Culver,
claims of manifest abuse of discretion and violation by the courts of
substantial rights were not at issue. In the subject appeal, the claim of
manifest abuse of discretion is more an issue of needed protections of a party
then an issue of needed protections of the dignity of the court. "In the area
of procedural due process, the protections afforded under the State
Constitution are congruent with those provided by the Federal Constitution.
(Price v. City ofJunction,
711 F.2d 582, 590). "The hearing must be at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner" (Armstrong v. Manzo). "The
opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the capacities and circumstances
of those who are to be heard." (Goldberg v. Kelly). The "due course" clause
in our state constitution requires the same level of "due process" as the
federal constitution. (City of Fort Worth v. Park, 2011, Tex. APP LEXIS
5725 (2011) (14). Procedural due process involves basic notions of justice
and fair play. The sufficiency of procedures must be judged in light of the
Page 77 of 103
Document Page 77 of 240
parties, the subject matter and the circumstances involved. (Gene Harmon
Ford, v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 997 W.W.2d 298, 312 (Tex. App.
Austin 1999, writ denied). The Due Process Clause does not mandate the
parties be heard at the arbitration hearing; rather, the Due Process Clause
requires that the parties be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the
arbitration hearing. (Ewing v. Act Catastrophe-Texas LC, 375, S.W.2d
545 (2012) (17).
Appellant Reply Brief
To Reply Brief of Cumberland Trust
Ends Here
Page 78 of 103
Document Page 78 of 240
CAUSE NO. 05-14-01495-CV
In the
COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS, TEXAS
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF DORIS L. TIPPS
Appealed from Cause No. PR-13-03072-3
In the Probate Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas
Honorable Judge Michael E. Miller, Presiding
APPELLANT'S COMBINED REPLY BRIEF TO
THIRD APPELLEE REPLY BRIEF
SENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER DALLAS d/b/a/
SENIOR SOURCE
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellant, Steven Tipps, submits this Appellant Reply Brief, in accordance
with Rule 9.4, 9.4(i)(2)(c), and Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
and all local rules of this Court. In support of this Appeal from Final Judgement,
Appellant respectfully asserts the following.
Page 79 of 103
Document Page 79 of 240
APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF
3.0 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY
TO SENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER DALLAS D/B/A
"SENIOR SOURCE"
3.1 Senior Citizens of Greater Dallas, D/B/A Senior Source has incorporated
into the Senior Source Reply Brief, much of the Appellee Reply Brief for Appellee
Thomas Tipps. Appellant's Reply to the Reply Brief for Thomas Tipps is set forth
in Section 1.01, page 9- 55, Para(s) I.I- 1.91 of this Combined Appellant Reply
Brief.
3.l(a) Appellant incorporates by reference, Appellant Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition
to The Senior Source's Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent. (Appt. Repl. Br.
Appendix, IV).
3.2 In Appellee Senior Source's Reply Brief (Sr. Reply Br.), Senior Source sets
forth its authority as Texas Estates Code § 1151.051 and the alleged conflict
between the Medical Power of Attorney held by Appellant and the duties and
responsibilities set forth in § 1151.051. Those authorities and those responsibilities
do not exist in a vacuum. From the beginning, Senior Source and its Agent,
Prestonwood Nursing, demonstrated, starting in February 2014, proved to
Appellant that they together were willing to abuse those authorities and
Page 80 of 103
Document Page 80 of 240
responsibilities to the detriment of Appellant Doris L. Tipps and Appellant Steven
Tipps.
3.3 Agents Answer to Citation of Senior Source's Petition follows in its entirety.
In Para VII of Agent's Answer, Appellant Steven Tipps relates his direct support
for the Cumberland and Senior Source appointments. Appellant Steven Tipps was
the only person to take that stand, and through the mediated settlement conference
to make certain that both Cumberland and Senior Source were positioned and
supported for court approval in each of their forthcoming appointments. Appellant
made these efforts in behalf of Senior Source in good faith; Appellant made these
efforts in behalf of Cumberland in good faith. Without Steven Tipps' intervention
with Doris L.Tipps on January 23, 2014-the date of the Settlement Conference--
at Select Specialty Hospital, Senior Source's appointment would not have occurred
on February 17, 2014 under the Trial Court's Order. (Appt. Br. Appendix - Crises
& Survival p 4, line 90). Without Doris' assent, and the confirming telephone call
to her hospital bedroom from her attorney Tom Finley and her ad litem attorney
Scott Weber, neither Senior Source, nor Cumberland could have been appointed
under the Settlement mediation settlement agreement on Thursday January 23,
2014. Appellant regrets his support of either of these organizations.
3.4 It is reasonable to ask: why did Senior Source commence an investigation of
Appellant Steven Tipps at Select Specialty Hospital on February 14, 2014? (Appt.
Page 81 of 103
Document Page 81 of 240
Br. Appendix - Crises & Survival, p2, line 199). Appellant and Appellee Senior
Source were complete unknowns to each other. Cumberland and Appellant, were
complete unknowns to each other, yet Cumberland engaged Appellant in an
adversarial struggle in the same relative time as Senior Source commenced its
investigation, and later filed suit against Appellant. There is no reason why these
two substantial corporate and charitable interests are adverse to Appellant?
3.5 - Step I. In Re Appellee Reply Brief -Thomas Tipps. In July-August 2012,
Appellant transferred the Medical Power of Attorney to Appellee Thomas Tipps.
Also, in August 2012, one month after Doris L. Tipps signed the July 19, 2012
Declaration of Guardian in the Event of Later Incapacity or Need of Guardian: a
document that is purported to have disqualified Appellant from serving as guardian
of her person and estate. In late August 2012, Appellee Thomas Tipps emailed the
Texas Department of Adult Protective Services, with and copied the email to
Appellant Steven Tipps. This was the first of the known allegations of abuse
alleged by Appellee Thomas Tipps. Appellant cooperated with TDAPS'
investigators. In October 2012, Appellant suggested that a TDAPS investigator
could interview Doris L. Tipps at her apartment at Lakeview in Carrollton, Texas.
Later, TDAPS stated that the indicated interview had occurred. On the afternoon
of the interview of Doris, TDAPS dropped its investigation. In the follow-up
conversation, the investigator gave Appellant information on what TDAPS
Page 82 of 103
Document Page 82 of 240
recommends for families with these issues. They suggest independent corporate
trustees. (October 2013). (Appt. Br. Appendix - Crises & Survival).
3.6 Step IL A second investigation was initiated in the relative time frame of
January 2, 2014, by the investigation staff of Probate Court No. 3. Patricia
McArdle was the investigating officer for the probate court. (Appt. Br. Appendix -
Crises & Survival - Email to Tom Finley p2, line 199). In August 2013, Probate
Court No. 3, Appellee Thomas Tipps alleged in his Application for Appointment
of Temporary Guardian of the Person and Estate of Appellant Doris L. Tipps the
following:
( 1) "There is imminent danger that the physical health or safety of the
Proposed Ward will be seriously impaired unless the Court takes immediate
action to appoint Applicant as Proposed Ward's Temporary Guardian, and
(2) ... (T)he Proposed Ward is making poor financial decisions and said
decisions are contrary to the Proposed Ward's long-standing expressed
wishes. The Proposed Ward is unable to care for herself and her finances."
(Note): This bid to become guardian of her person and estate failed.
3.7 Step Ill. On September 30, 2013, the Trial Court issued its Order On Motion
For Independent Mental Examination in which the Trained Court stated: " IT IS
FURHTER ORDERED that no one communicate with the physician or psychiatrist
prior to the issuance of his report except as may be necessary to schedule the
Page 83 of 103
Document Page 83 of 240
examination." On Friday October 4, 1013 at 2:00 P.M., J. Douglas Crowder, M.D.
tested Doris L. Tipps and found that Doris was totally disabled and specifically
unable to handle her finances. Appellant had absolutely no conversation with Dr.
Crowder, other than in introducing Doris to the examining physician. Appellant
then left Dr. Crowder's office until the testing was complete. When Dr. Crowder
tried to have a conversation with Appellant, Appellant informed the doctor that he
was barred by court Order not to have any discussions with the physician
exammer.
3.8 Step IV. In the week of February 14, 2014, Senior Source commenced its
investigation of Appellant. This occurred by visiting Doris at Select Specialty
Hospital in Plano (Hwy 544) Plano, Texas. (Appellant Br. Appendix- Crises &
Survival - Emails to Tom Finley, p2, line 209). After that event, the interactions
between Appellant and Senior Source became adversarial. as indicated in Agents
Answer to Petitioner's Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent. The interaction
between Appellant and Cumberland had also become adversarial by January 2014.
Appellant then became the target of three investigations and the beneficiary of five
lawsuits initiated by Appellee Thomas Tipps. (C.R. s 7). (C.R. s 15). (C.R. s 42).
Page 84 of 103
Document Page 84 of 240
[Source: (C.R. s 7)]
GUARDIAN SHIP OF & IN THE PROBATE COURT
DORIS LEE TIPPS, & NO. 3 OF
INCAPACTATED & DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
AGENTS ANSWER TO PETITIONER'S
PETITION TO REVOKE AUTHORITY OF AGENT
(Also located at: (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix. IV) &
At (C.R. s 42) & C.R. s 7)
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
I
3.9 Now Comes Steven V. Tipps, Agent, and brings this Answer under Rule
No. 7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, that Agent comes without counsel,
pro se defensio, that Doris Lee Tipps is represented by her legal counsel, W.
Thomas Finley ("Mr. Finley"), that Thomas R. Tipps, Glenda D. Jordan, and Sally
J. Tipps (each) are represented by legal counsel (Sullivan & Cook),and that Agent
has no position adverse to Doris Lee Tipps, the Mother, whose rights, protections,
health, and safety are paramount. The Petition names the Agent, and now Agent
comes to confront and defend against all accusations of Petitioner.
II
3.10 Steven V. Tipps, Agent of Doris Lee Tipps represents that he is holder of a
Medical Power of Attorney for Doris Lee Tipps, ("the Mother") and complains of
Petitioner for violation of Texas HUMAN RESOURCES CODE, Title 6, Chapter
102 RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY; SEC 102.002 (a), (b) PROHIBITION(S),
SEC 102.003 (a) RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY and SEC 1002.003 (b) DIGNITY,
and SEC102.003 (f) RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY. "An elderly individual may
complain about the individual's care or treatment. The complaint may be
anonymously or communicated by a person designated by the elderly individual.
The person providing service shall promptly respond to resolve the complaint. The
person providing service may not discriminate or take other punitive action against
an elderly individual who makes a complaint."
Page 85 of 103
Document Page 85 of 240
III
3.11 The Agent denies the claim of Petitioner that Agent attempted to direct the
care of the Mother. The Agent denies the claim of Petitioner that Agent tried to
elicit medical information about the Ward claiming authority by a medical power
of attorney. On one occasion, Agent stated to Prestonwood Staff that Agent held a
Medical Power of Attorney and that statement of fact was made while reporting an
emergency condition directly caused by the Agent of the Guardian while the
Guardian case managers were out of state in a conference.
IV
3.12 Agent complains of Petitioner, as Principal, and Prestonwood Nursing
(Agent of Petitioner) that Agent of Petitioner recklessly endangered the Mother at
8:00 p.m. local time on April 23, 2014 by "tossing the Mother into the air, as in a
"sack of potatoes" and that the Mother became airborne and crashed into a hard
bed in Room 406 at Prestonwood Nursing. Agent witnessed, in stunned disbelief,
the take-off, the flight, and the crash landing of the Mother, as Agent opened the
door to Room 406 at that time, on that date, and in the location.
v
3.13 Agent, in behalf of the Mother, gently complained to Prestonwood Staff, to
Senior Source's management, and to the Office of the Ombudsman. Agent was
peaceful, respectful, and civil in all communications with Petitioner, Agent of
Petitioner, the staff of Agent of Petitioner, and the Ombudsman.
VI
3.14 In a letter dated April 29, 2014, the Petitioner informed the Agent that,
effective immediately, (1) Agent's rights to visit the Mother on the evening shift at
Prestonwood Nursing were terminated, that (2) Agent's visitation rights were
restricted to 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., (3) that continued interference by the Agent
would result in complete denial of the Agent's rights to visit the Mother, (4) that
Agent may be exposed to judicial recourse,( 5) that Agent would be denied access
to any medical information of Petitioner's Agent, and (6) that Agent would be
subjected to police intervention. This, notwithstanding that the Agent is in
possession of a substantial fund of knowledge concerning the Mother's historical
medical information, that the Agent has substantial knowledge of the Mother's
medical history, medications, illnesses, predispositions, emergencies, and
Page 86 of 103
Document Page 86 of 240
------- --------
recoveries. Petitioner, and the Agent of Petitioner desires to remove the threat of
this knowledge in order to increase my mother's health and safety.
3.15 Between October 29, 2014 and April 24, 2014, the Agent committed 500
hours in daily visits (7 days per week) in support of the Mother and over 1,600
miles driven between 1844 Hood Street and Baylor Medical Center Carrollton
(first bronchial pneumonia), Axel Rehab on Mash Lane in Plano, Baylor Medical
Center Carrollton (second bronchial-pneumonia), Select Specialty Hospital Plano,
and Axel Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. All of the major decisions made
between those dates were made by the Agent, without consultation with anyone
other than physicians, specialists and nursing staff under the Guardianship or the
Medical Power of Attorney held by the Agent.
3.16 Petitioner's wholly unreasonable power to restrict medical information is
unrealistic. Agent of the Petitioner occasionally asks the Agent to assist in
persuading the Mother to take the medicines that she has refused. The Agent
cannot perform this assistance without knowledge of the medicines the Mother is
refusing. Petitioner's request to restrict medical assistance, under certain
circumstances, could be construed as unlawful under the Texas Samaritan statutes.
The Mother's refusal to accept medications has been, in one known instance, due
to her medicines being swapped with another resident at Prestonwood Nursing. As
a result, the Mother became very ill with vomiting and pain and other discomforts
resulting from errors by the Agent of the Petitioner. This list of other concerns
about the Agent of the Petitioner is prolific and includes: ( 1) refusal or inability to
respond to the Mother's calls for assistance on the night shift, (2) poor
management of the Mother's oxygen requirements, (3) refusal of staff on the night
shift with bathroom assistance, (4) refusal to recognize the symptoms of a heart
attack, to report such symptoms the physicians, and failure to record the incident or
communicate it to the Agent of the Petitioner (5) failing to fill the Mother's water
jug at night, and (6) failing to secure the call button to the Mother's bed to prevent
the communication unit from falling to the floor on the night shift.
VII
3.17 On Friday September 13, 2013, the trained Court was assembled to consider
the guardianship petition presented by Sullivan & Cook, attorneys for Thomas R.
Tipps, Glenda D. Jordan, and Sally J. Fink. The Agent had recently received the
transfer of the Durable Power of Attorney, the Medical Power of Attorney, and the
Guardianship of the Mother. Prior to the trained Court session, the Agent met with
the Mother's at /item attorney, Scott Weber and Mr. Finley. Attorney's Weber and
Page 87 of 103
Document Page 87 of 240
Finley each advanced the notion of a corporate trustee and Mr. Finely suggested an
independent guardian. As the Mother's temporary guardian, the Agent advanced
and supported both objectives.
3.18 During the Settlement Conference on Thursday January 24, 2014, the
Mother's attorneys requested the approval of an independent guardian: the Mother
refused. To avoid further dismemberment of the Trusts, the Agent traveled to
Select Specialty Hospital to meet with the Mother. In that meeting, the Mother
changed her mind and agreed to have an independent guardian. The Agent has
supported the Petitioner.
VIII
3.19 While withdrawn by the Petitioner, these punitive actions by the Petitioner
violated the Constitutional and Civil rights of the Mother as well as of the Agent
that directly and specifically violated, without limitation, The Texas HUMAN
RESOURCES CODE, TITLE 6. CHAPTER 102 SECTION 102.003 (f).
PRAYER
3.20 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that citation
issue as required by law to all persons interested in this matter, and that upon
hearing the trained Court find that a no conflict exists between the powers granted
the Petitioner and the Medical Power of Attorney held by the Agent. Petitioner
together with the Agent of Petitioner have abused their discretion, they have
together or separately recklessly endangered the Mother's health and safety, they
have engaged in an act of suppression that violated State law, and they have
consistently withheld services and assistance from the Mother on the night shift at
Prestonwood Nursing. Therefore we further PRAY that the Court will balance the
Mother's rights and interests against the Petitioners petition for more powers:
powers that the Petitioner and the Petitions Agent have shown they are willing to
abuse.
3.21 In Accordance with these general requests, the Agent requests the following
specific relief:
a) The Agent desires to retain the Medical Power of Attorney for the
Mother as a counterbalance to the reckless acts of the Petitioner's Agent
and the unlawful acts and abuse of power by the Petitioner and the Agent
of the Petitioner.
Page 88 of 103
Document Page 88 of 240
b) The Agent petitions the Court to order the Petitioner to amend the "Do
Not Resuscitate" order established and approved by the Petitioner to
include language that instructs medical personnel attending an emergency
in connection with the care of the Mother, to be permitted to use non-
invasive electrical and chemical means to revive the Mother.
c) The Agent seeks to have the Court approve a new and more comfortable
bed for the Mother at Prestonwood Nursing and Rehabilitation expense,
d) The Agent seeks to have additional furniture, such as a recliner, furnished
by Prestonwood Nursing to Room 406,
e) The Agent seeks to have the Court approve, by order to the Petitioner,
occasional passes that will permit the Agent to take the Mother on local
drives to visit her home at 1844 Hood Street and for lunch or dinners out,
with small oxygen bottles furnished by Prestonwood Nursing. Agent's
requests for this additional degree of freedom have been denied by
Petitioner during in recent months,
f) The Agent seeks to have the Court issue an order for reimbursement of
ongoing expenses related to the very substantial visits to Prestonwood
Nursing and to order the repair of the Mother's Lincoln Continental for
such transportation (costs totaling $2, 100),
g) The Agent seeks reimbursement, from the Tipps Living Trust(s), of costs
incurred during the Guardianship for between October 29, 2014 and
February 24, 2014 and for the additional interval between February 24,
2014 and April 30, 2014.
3.22 The Agent seeks reimbursement from the Petitioner of all costs associated
with this Petition, and all other relief, both general and special, legal and equitable,
to which the Agent may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven V. Tipps
Pro Se Litigant
5015 Addison Circle
Page 89 of 103
Document Page 89 of 240
Addison, Texas 75001
214-223-6358
Fax 254-731-2522
Email: casing@prodigy.net
Email: casingscientific@'Jgmail.com
3.23 Appellee Reply Br. Page 5, Para 1. Appellee states that "there is inherently a
conflict created between the charge put upon a guardian of the person under Texas
Health & Safety Code § 1151.051 and the authority granted Appellant under the
Medical Power of Attorney". Appellant replies that there is a disconnection
between the actual world and the imaginary world. Appellant's concerns about the
Senior Source - Prestonwood arrangement have been based on disturbing facts that
were addressed in Agents Answer to Petitioner's Petition to Revoke Authority of
Agent.
3.24 The medical power of attorney that was transferred in August 2012 to
Appellee Thomas Tipps, then back to Appellant Steven Tipps, and then by court
Order to Senior Source is now in the hands of an organization that has shown itself
capable of abuse of power that should never been exercised against an elderly
resident for making a complaint while resident at Prestonwood.
3.25 Appellant continues to have a serious concern about the possession of the
medical power of attorney. After the transfer of the MPA to Appellee Thomas
Tipps in August 2012, Appellant observed Doris L. Tipps in a life threatening
emergency that was caused by the holder of the medical power of attorney and his
Page 90 of 103
Document Page 90 of 240
influence with a physician to remove Doris from her blood thinner, coumadin.
Steven took Doris to the emergency room at 2:30 A. M. at Baylor Medical Center
- Carrollton with a blood clot in her left calf. She was in agony with chronic pain,
and that event could have ended in amputation or death. Ten days at Baylor. This
is the reason why the issue of the holder of the medical power of attorney is
contested. Appellant believes Senior Source has shown itself to be vulnerable to
undue influence. A medical power of attorney carries with it the right to terminate
health care services, and in cases where a rally is possible, as it was for Doris Lee
Tipps in the winter of 2013 - 2014, Life should be the overwhelming and absolute
consideration in the decision.
Appellant Reply Brief
To Reply Brief of Thomas Tipps
Ends Here
Page 91 of 103
Document Page 91 of 240
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
instrument was served on the following counsel on this the 24th day of July 2015
by email:
Appellant Counsel:
Steven Tipps Steven Tipps, Pro Se Party
5015 Addison Circle
Addison, Texas 75001
Appellant: Counsel:
Doris L. Tipps W. Thomas Finley
Finley Law Group,
5500 Preston Road, Suite 390
Dallas, Texas 75290
Cumberland Trust & Investment Co. Counsel:
Appellee: Alvin J. Golden
Laurellen Ratliff
Ickard Golden Jones, P.C.
400 West 15th Street, Suite 975
Austin, Texas 78701-1646
Senior Citizens of Greater Dallas, Counsel:
d/b/a Senior Source John H. Phillips
Boone, Boone, & Phillips
Appellee: 4313 Lovers Lane
Dallas, Texas 75209
Page 92 of 103
Document Page 92 of 240
Counsel:
Thomas Tipps Jeffrey Cook
Adam Barela
Sullivan & Cook, L.L.C.
Appellee: 600 E. Las Colinas Blvd
Suite 1300
Irving, Texas 75039
ls/Steven Tipps
Steven Tipps
Pro Se Appellant
Page 93 of 103
Document Page 93 of 240
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The undersigned hereby certifies that this brief complies with the type-
volume limitations because it is within the 50 page limit for briefs on the merits.
The undersigned further certifies that this brief complies with the typeface
requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(e) because this brief was prepared in
proportionally spaced typeface using "Microsoft Word 2013" in fourteen (14)
point "Times New Roman" style font.
ls/Steven Tipps
Steven Tipps
Page 94 of 103
Document Page 94 of 240
-------------
CONCLUSION
Appellant's efforts to conduct cross-examination were either completely
denied or unduly restricted, indicating the direction of the decisions that were
being taken.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully
prays that this Court, upon consideration of these matters, reverse and remand to
the Trial Court in favor of Appellant Doris Tipps and Appellant Steven Tipps.
Appellant further prays for general costs and general relief, and such other relief to
which he may show himself entitled.
Respectfully submitted:
ls/Steven Tipps
Steven Tipps, Pro Se Appellant
5015 Addison Circle
Addison, Texas 75001
214.223.6358
Fax 254.731.2522
Email: casingscientific@gmail.com
casing@.prodigy.net
Page 95 of 103
Document Page 95 of 240
COMBINED APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF
INDEX OF APPENDIX
AS RELATED TO
THREE APPELLEE REPLY BRIEFS
I. AppellantSteven Tipps Answer to Citation - Cumberland.........................97
II. AppellantSteven Tipps Answer to Citation-SeniorSource................... 103
III. W. Thomas Finley- For Doris L. Tipps, Objection to Appointment....112
IV. W. Thomas Finley- For Doris L. Tipps Objection toSeniorSource....140
V. Case excepts- De Ayala v. Mackie..........................................................155
VI. CaseSummaries..................................................................................158
a. Texas procedural due process congruent with
Federal procedural due process....................................................159
b. Texas due course clause of the Texas Constitution congruent with
U.S. Constitution's due process clause.......................................161
c. Davidson v. Great Nat'l Life Ins. Co.- Case Reference Summaries.165
d. Texas abuse of discretion cases..........................................................166
VII. Application for Appointment of Temporary Guardian
Of the Person and Estate of Doris L. Tipps
VIII. Order on Motion For Independent Medical Examination.................179
IX. Mental Examination Report - J. Douglas Crowder, M.D...............181
X. Mental Examination Report - Kathleen C. Saine, Ph.D................187
XI. Reporters Record - October 21, 2014 Hearing................................198
XII. Crises and Survival- 10-29-2013 to 04-24-14, Two Pneumonias......230
Page 96 of 103
Document Page 96 of 240
I.
APPELLANT STEVEN TIPPS ANSWER TO CITATION
CUMBERLAND TRUST & INVESTMENT COMPANY
Document Page 97 of 240
.. [] ORIGINAL .FILED
NO. PRB-3072-3 ;zoi ,, 9: 56
. �
GUARDIAN SIDP OF & INTiffiPROBA��E\\N
'DALLAS COUNTY
DORIS LEE TIPPS, & N0.30F
INCAPACTATED & DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
AGENTS ANSWER TO MOTION TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION,
DISCHARGE 1RUSTEE AND REINSTATE TRUSTEE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES, STEVEN VINSON TIPPS ("the Agent"), individually, and brings this
Answer to the Petition under Rule No. 7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Agent c9mes
without counsel, pro se defensio. Doris Lee Tipps {"the Mother'') is represented by her legal
counsel, W. Thomas Finley ("Mr. Finley"), that Thomas R. Tipps, Glenda D. Jordan, and Sally J.
Fink (each) are represented by legal counsel (Sullivan & Cook). The Agent has no interest
adverse to the Mother. The Petition names the Agent, and now Agent comes to confront and
defend against all accusations of Petitioner.
I
In order for there to be compliance with Judge Miller's order which was signed by the
Judge on Monday Febf1:WY 14, 2014, there were two steps that had to be fulfilled: Step I:
Cumberland would accept responsibility as the replacement trustee, upon the simultaneous
resignation of Thomas R Tipps and Doris L. Tipps, the Co-Trustees. Step II: All of the
transferrable assets had to be moved to Cumberland, at which time compliance with the February
17, 2014 order would have been complete.
The financial assets and other transferable assets, the great majority of the bounty, were
held generically in the Tipps Living Trust and its Sub-Trusts, and these assets were to be moved
to Cumberland Trust as the successor trustee. The financial assets should have been in the form
of investments in stock and bond mutual funds, ordinarily, of the highest quality, any tax free
municipal bonds that were held in the name of the Trusts, bank accounts, and insurance annuities
and p0licies. Other assets were the three rent houses, a tree farm, and the Mother's residence at
PR-:,3-:..·0:1012:-i"-
--··-
COAM
ORIGINAL ANSWER
iiiilm1111�1m1111111a,,
.........__---- .....
Document Page 98 of 240
1844 Hood Street Carrollton, Texas 75006, in which the Mother maintains a Life Estate. Hood
is held in the Mother's name and is non-transferrable in the Trusts during her lifetime.
Cumberland was fully aware of the agreed treatment for the Tipping-I real estate . In
fact, the real estate portfolio, as a whole, was a known quantity as it was evaluated -by
Cumberland by the time Cumberland infonned the Court that it was ready to serve. There were,
therefore, no known surprises in any of the real estate portfolio: four houses and one tree farm.
In Section 4.5, Petitioner st.ates that "Cumberland discovered that administration of the Trust
would be fraught with unanticipated difficulties". The only "unanticipated difficulty" was the
Life Estate that the Mother retained in Hood Street that barred transfer of Hood Street to the
Trusts before the death of the second to die.
Assuming that Hood Street was equivalent to ten percent of the overall valuation of the
Trusts, one might ask: why did Cumberland fail to insist that the Co-Trustee, Thomas R. Tipps,
proceed with the transfer of the financial assets to the Trust. If the "unanticipated difficulties" in
Section 4.5 of the Petition only related to a relatively small portion of the overall bounty, why
did Cumberland fail to ask for an increase in fees, for the unanticipated loss in fee income
associated with Hood Street? Tiris recovery would have been reasonable and would have
resolved that issue, if the issue was related to lost income at Cumberland, rather than an apparent
''Tug of War', connected with 1844 Hood Street. If there were not a struggle connected with
Hood Street, why was the Co-Trustee filing a lawsuit for eviction of the Agent from Hood Street
and why was Cumberland participating with the Co-Trustee in what amounted to a "squeeze
play" against the Agent.
II
The Settlement Agreement did establish for the replacement of the Corporate Trustee, in
event 11at a corporate Trustee were to resign. Frost Bank was the other interested party at the
time of Cumberland's appointment. Thomas R. Tipps is the same individual that engaged in self
dealing $125,000 in Trust assets, a violation of Texas Trust law. Thomas R. Tipps is the same
individual that off-loaded $75,000 of unauthorized distributions to Sally J. Fink and Glenda D.
Jordan ("the Sisters") and caused the disappearance of approximately $200,000 in legal fees
from the Mother's retirement assets.
217
Document Page 99 of 240
Counsel for Cumberland has stated in Section 4.8 of the Petition that the former Co-
Trustee "continues to deal with the funds in the Trust" and in Section 4.9 he states "it would be
in the best interest of the Ward to accept the resignation of Cumberland and to approve the
appointment of Thomas Tipps as Trustee".
III
The Court Order signed by Judge Miller on Monday February 17, 2014 required that the
Co-Trustee resign as Co-Trustee. The Settlement Agreement attached to the Judge's Order was
not furnished with a reincarnation clause reserved for the Co-Trustees' return. Resignation
meant resignation. Transfer of the Assets meant Transfer of the Assets.
Sanctions should be applied.
IV
l 844 Hood Street has become central to the discussions and arguments in the Petition and
Petitioners infer wrong doing in its occupancy arrangement. Petitioner refers to the Mother as
the Ward, as the Totally Disabled Person. In these daily visits, it never occurs to me that she has
dementia. I make visits four to five times per week for at least two hours over what seems an
endless track. From October 29, 2013, during my Guardianship, through April 30, 2014, the
Agent spent 500 hours in daily trips to the hospitals, rehabilitation centers, and skilled nursing
facilities for one purpose during the worst season for respiratory illness in decades. Not one day
was missed, and the support that was provided to Mom during these visits included daily
briefu1gs from the nurses and physicians assistants, review with her physicians, sometimes
flower or newspaper deliveries, back scratching. and calling in the nurses for pain medications or
bathroom assistance. This was a struggle for survival. The most important information I
conveyed to her each day were her vital signs, prognosis, and likely departure date for
rehabilitation and return Home. I was a full time care giver.
During that six months she had two fully involved bronchial pneumonias. The first
infection commenced on October 29, 2014 with admission to Baylor Medical Center Carrollton
on the morning of November 30, 2014. Dr. Richard Sohmer was the emergency room physician
and Baylor Carrollton. The key to getting her through these emergencies was to get her to the
218
Document Page 100 of 240
emergency room before the infection became a health emergency. Mom was transferred to Acee}
Rehab Center, and she arrived Home at Lakeview on November 11, 2013.
The Mother, s residence at Lakeview was staffed with full time 24 hour nursing and
monitoring personnel. On Sunday January 5, 2014, I called Lakeview at 11:15 a.m. Mom had
another cough that is the principal warning signal for bronchial pneumonia I took her to Baylor
Medic al Center at 2:30 p.m., after lunch and lung treatment. we drove to Baylor Carrollton
Emergency to have her checked. Dr. Harris, the Emergency Room physician admitted Mom at
7:00 p.m. that evening with bronchial pneumonia. This infection was different. I visited Mom
that Monday morning and this extremely fast moving infection was at an early state of sepsis.
She was moved to the Baylor ICU. This illness was chronic compared to the first bronchial
pneumonia. She stayed in Baylor for nearly two weeks and then was transferred to Select
Specialty Hospital in Plano, where she became critically ill. This was new. She stopped eating.
Dr. Hardeep Rai, Mom's primary care physician was worried that she had stopped eating and
was giving up. Agent started to assist during her meals and enlisted the support of the outside
agency to assist with meals, keeping her comfortable, pulling her up in her bed, calling for bed
pan assistance, calling for nursing assistance, and scratching her back.
The illness progressed to a stage that Dr. Rai approached me to ask whether we should
save her or let her die. Dr. Rai was told that she deserved the last full measure. I ordered Dr. Rai
to get all of the specialists on deck. Dr. Boorla, the cardiologist. Dr. Wilson, the nepbrologist.
Dr. Torton the infectious infectious disease specialist. Dr. Sam Eljamell, the lung specialist. Dr.
Tomkins, a cardiologist.
Dr. Sohn, observed that Mom's condition continued to deteriorate. She was taken to
Baylor Carrollton Radiology for draining her pleural sacs. Her chest expansion was approaching
zero. She was breathing with her neck muscles to the extent that her neck was about eight inches
in diameter. Six hundred milliliters of fluid were removed, and on return from the procedure,
her neck has returned to a four inch diameter. She returned to Select Specialty Hospital where
she gradually recovered. She was transferred to Accel Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
on Communication Parkway in Plano, Texas. This second pneumonia and recovery started on
Sunday January s. 2014 and continued to early July 2014 when she finally recovered and
stabilized.
219
Document Page 101 of 240
1844 Hood Street was, and is, the base for all of the support activities related to Mom's
emergencies while living at Lakeview and during her hospitalizations and rehabilitation. Being
cost free has made it possible for Agent to give the Mother an extraordinary level of personal
care and protection. This direct involvement and continuing presence has been ongoing. Hood
Street has been at the centre of those activities for the last decade. If strictly measuring the
avoided cost to the Trusts resulting from the Agents 500 hours of service from Hood Street,
those amounts would be substantial. The proximity of 1844 Hood Street to Lakeview is half a
mile. The proximity of 1844 Hood Street to Accel Rehabilitation located on Communication
Parkway is 12 minutes, to Select Specialty Hospital 12 minutes, and Fifteen to twenty minutes
one way to Baylor Hospital Carrollton. There have been days when the Agent made three or
four round trips per day. Petitioner engaged in malicious prosecution, intimidation, and
tortuously interfered with the Guardian, in the exercise of bis duties. Agent was further damaged
by Petitioner's refusal to fund expenses and other costs that were intended to inflict economic
losses on the Agent.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PRESMISES CONSIDERED, Steven V. Tipps, the Agent prays that the
Court will Order that Frost Bank be named successor Trustee, and that Co-Trustee is ordered to
turn over the transferable assets of the Trust to Frost Bank ("Frostn) and to complete the transfer
of assets to Frost within thirty days of the acceptance of the Cumberland's resignation.
Cumberland's release from Liability must be conditional upon an accounting for all Trust
income for the period between the date of Cumberland's acceptance of its Trust duties and the
date that all transferable assets are moved to the replacement corporate trustee. The Agent prays
for such other and further relief to which he may show himself entitled.
eve V. Tip , ro Se Party
5015 Addison Circle
Addison, Texas 75001
214-223-6358
Fax 254-731-2522
Email: casingscientific.gmail.com
Email: casing@prodigy.net
220
Document Page 102 of 240
II.
APPELLANT STEVEN TIPPS ANSWER TO CITATION
SENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER DALLAS, D/B/A
SENIOR SOURCE
Document Page 103 of 240
. • /Jff-/J-801~
[] ORIGINAL ·
GUARDIAN SHIP OF &
DORIS LEE TIPPS, &
INCAPACTATED .& DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS
. AGENTS ANSWER TO PETITIONER'S
PETITION TO REVOKE AUTHORITY OF AGENT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Now Comes Steven V. Tipps, Agent, and brings this Answer under Rule No. 7 of the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure, that Agent comes without counsel prose defensio, that Doris Lee Tipps is
represented by her legal counsel, W. Thomas Finley {"Mr. Finley"), that Thomas R. Tipps. Glenda D.
Jordan, and Sally J. Tipps (each) are represented by legal counsel (Sullivan & Cook},and that Agent bas
no position adverse to Doris Lee Tipps, the Mother, whose rights, protections, health, and safety are
.
paramount. The Petition names the Agent, and now Agent comes to confront and defend against
all accusations of Petitioner.
n
Steven V. Tipps, Agent of Doris Lee Tipps represents that he is holder of a Medical Power of
Altomt.y for Doris Lee Tipps, ('137
S.W.3d 254 (Tex. App. 2004).
11. Cumberland should not be permitted to resign and be discharged
unless and until it has accounted to the Tipps Living Trust sole primary and
income beneficiary, Doris Lee Tipps.
12. Thomas Tipps should not be reinstated as trustee of the Tipps
Living Trust because (i) he is unqualified and ill-suited to serve as a trustee, and
(ii) in both an enforceable Rule 11 agreement and in the Mediation Settlement
Agreement he agreed that only a corporate trustee may serve as sole trustee of
the trust. He is ill-suited and unqualified because he declared himself bankrupt
as recently as May 28, 2009, and was ordered to successfully complete a course
Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust&. Investment Company's Motion to Accept
Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for Accounting; and Motion
to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement - Page 5 5
19
Document Page 117 of 240
in personal financial management by a federal bankruptcy judge as recently as
September 27, 2009.
Demand for Accounting
13. Doris Lee Tipps demands that Thomas Tipps and Cumberland
deliver to her as the sole primary and income beneficiary of the Tipps Living
Trust a written statement of accounts covering all transactions since the
creation of the trust on or before January 19, 2015, in accordance with the
provisions of section 113.151 of the Texas Trust Code and containing the
information set forth in section 113.152 of the Texas Trust Code.
Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediation Settlement Agreement
14. The Court should enforce the Rule 11 agreement entered of record
on September 13, 2013, that requires that only a corporate trustee may serve as
the successor sole trustee to Doris Lee Tipps and Thomas Tipps as co-trustees
of the Tipps Living Trust. The Court has a ministerial duty to enforce a valid
Rule 11 agreement. In re Guardianship of White,
329 S.W.3d 591, 592 (Tex. App.
2010, no pet.); Scott-Richterv. Taffarello,
186 S.W.3d 182, 189 (Tex. App. 2006,
pet. denied); ExxonMobil Corp v. Valence Operating Co.,
174 S.W.3d 303, 309 {Tex.
App. 2005, pet. denied).
15. Of equal force, the Court should enforce the Mediation Settlement
Agreement approved by the Court on February 17, 2014, that also requires that
Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Invesbnent Company's Motion to Accept
Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for Accounting; and Motion
to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement - Page 6 6
20
Document Page 118 of 240
- - - - - - - - - - --·--
only a corporate trustee may succeed Thomas Tipps as trustee of the Tipps
Living Trust. The agreement states that it "is a written settlement as
contemplated by Section 154.071 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code." That statute provides that, "If the parties reach a settlement and execute
a written agreement disposing of the dispute, the agreement is enforceable in
the same manner as any other written contract. H
Doris Lee Tipps asks the Court to:
• Decline to accept Cumberland's resignation as court-appointed
corporate trustee of the Tipps Living Trust;
• Order Thomas Tipps and Cumberland to deliver a written
statement of accounts to Doris Lee Tipps on or before January 19, 2015,
covering all transactions since the creation of the trust in accordance with the
provisions of sections 113.151 and 113.152 of the Texas Trust Code;
• Refuse to discharge Cumberland from any liability unless and until
Thomas Tipps and Cumberland have delivered their accounting to Doris Lee
Tipps;
• Reject the application of Thomas Tipps to be appointed as the
successor to Cumberland as trustee of the Tipps Living Trust;
• Order that a corporate trustee ~o be selected by Doris Lee Tipps,
the sole primary and income beneficiary of the Tipps Living Trust, be appointed
Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Investment Company's Motion to Accept
Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for Accounting; and Motion
to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement - Page 7 7
21
Document Page 119 of 240
to succeed Cumberland in accordance with the provisions of the Rule 11
Agreement and the Mediation Settlement Agreement; and
• Order Thomas Tipps and Cumberland to pay Doris Lee Tipps'~
attorney's fees and costs as required by the Mediation Settlement Agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
Finley Law Group PLLC
By:_ _-'-",c,._;_.::..-_-,.....::;_;..__-++-,.---
W. Thomas Finle
State Bar of Texas Member
Number 07025500
Finley Law Group PLLC
5500 Preston Road, Suite 390
Dallas, Texas 75205-2676
Telephone: 972.581.2880
Fax: 972.581.2881
Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust & lnveshnent Company's Motion to Accept
Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Rt.1instate Trustee; Demand for Accountingi and Motion
to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement - Page 8 8
22
Document Page 120 of 240
Certificate of Service
I certify that on Octa ber 17, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Investment Company's
Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee;
Demand for Accounting; and Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and
Mediated Settlement Agreement was served by electronic mail, by certified
mail, return-receipt requested, and by facsimile transmission to the following
counsel and prose party of record:
Jeffrey Cook
Lisa Leffingwell
Sullivan & Cook, L.L.C.
2301 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75201-7837
Scott D. Weber
Calloway, Norris, Burdette & Weber, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Suite 400
Dallas, Texas 75219-4531
Steven V. Tipps, Pro Se Party
5015 Addison Circ1e
Addison, Texas 75001-3008
Alvin J. Golden
Katherin C. Akinc
Ikard Golden Jones, P .C.
400 West 15th Street, Suite 975
Austin, Texas 78701-1646
939986..J
Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Investment Company's Motion to Accept
Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for Accounting; and Motion
to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement - Page 9 9
23
Document Page 121 of 240
Exhibit A
1
1 CAUSE NO. PR-13-3072-3
2 In re The Guardianship of )( IN THE PROBATE COURT
3 Doris Tipps, )( NUf1BER THREE OF
4 Alleged Incapacitated Person )( DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
5
6
7 REPORTERS RECORD
8
9 APPEARANCES:
10 Mr. Jeffrey E. Cook
Ms. Lisa Leffingwell
11 2301 Cedar Springs Rd, Ste. 200
Dallas, Texas 75201
12 SB: 04734495
SB: 12158575
13 Attorneys for Thomas Tipps, son of ward
14 Mr. Scott Weber
ATTORNEY AT LAW
15 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd, Ste. 400
Dallas, Texas 75219
16 SB: 21044875
(214)521-1520
17 Attorney ad litem for Doris Tipps, the ward
18 Mr. W. Thomas Finley
ATTORNEY AT LAW
19 5500 Preston Rd, Ste. 390
Dallas, Texas 75205
20 SB: 07025500
(972)580-2880
21 Attorney for Doris Tipps, the ward
22 BE IT REMEf1BERED THAT on the 13th day of September, 2013, A.O.
23 the above-entitled cause came on for hearing before the
J 24
25
HONORABLE COURT, MICHAELE. MILLER, Judge Presiding, and the
following proceedings were taken down by MACHINE SHORTHAN~:
10
24
Document Page 122 of 240
2
1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
2 THE COURT: This is Cause Number PR-13-3072-3,
3 regarding Doris Tipps.
4 Go right ahead, sir.
5 MR. COOK: Thank you, Your Honor.
6 Your Honor, I'm Jeff Cook with Lisa Leffingwell,
7 and I filed an Application for Appointment of Temporary
8 Guardian of the Person and Estate of Doris lee Tipps. That
9 application is set this morning, it was filed in time last
10 week.
11 The court appointed Scott Weber as the attorney
12 ad litem for Ms. Tipps upon our filing, and Mr. Weber has
13 worked with us since his appointment to understand the facts
14 and visit with Ms. Tipps, and we have worked out an agreement
15 that we're going to dictate into the record that will eliminate
16 the need for a temporary guardianship.
17 What I'd like -- We have present Tom Tipps, the
18 potential guardian of the person who filed the application, is
19 here in court. Ms. Tipps is here-·
20 Looking very lovely this morning.
21 MS. TIPPS: Thank you.
22 MR. COOK: -- and Mr. Weber is here. And then
23 Mr. Finley is here, who yesterday filed a contest on behalf of
24 Ms. Tipps, to the Application for Temporary Guardianship, and
25 then there are some other family members. Also, who's here is
11
25
Document Page 123 of 240
-~--- - - - ,-------
3
1 an attorney who drafted all the underlying documents going back
2 20 years, nothing to do with what we're going to do today, but
3 is here. And then Glenda who is one of the children, and
4 Steve, another one of the adult children.
5 Might I proceed?
6 THE COURT: Go right ahead.
7 MR. COOK: Your Honor, I believe the agreement
8 is as follows: Hs. Tipps currently is a resident at a location
9 called Lakeview at Josey Ranch, where she has resided for more
10 than a year. And the agreement is, until either further
11 written agreement of the parties or order of the court, she
12 will continue to stay at that place; that will be her
13 residence.
14 Number two, there are some trusts which are
15 generically called the Tipps Family Trust. I think there are
16 technically two names, there is the Tipps Living Trust, it's
17 the Tipps Family Trust, so the Living Trust gives way to the
18 survivors trust; and the Family Trust. Whatever they are
19 technically called, currently, the co-trustees of those trusts
20 are Doris Tipps and Thomas Tipps, and we have agreed that they
21 have resigned as trustees. And we will agree to appoint a
22 corporate trustee to take over the role of the trustee of all
23 of those trusts, whatever the technical names are.
24 In the meantime, until the corporate trustee is
25 located, Thomas Tipps has been the one writing the checks,
12
26
Document Page 124 of 240
4
1 paying the bills, he's been handling the money for a long time,
2 he will continue to do that until those duties are turned over
3 to the corporate trustee, subject to this specific agreement.
4 No distributions will be made to any of the
5 adult children of Ms. Tipps at all, and the bills that are paid
6 will be the customary living expenses and normal expenses that
7 he has been paying for Ms. Tipps. That will be in place until
8 the corporate trustee is put in place.
9 Ms. Tipps will agree to submit to a mental
10 status examination. We have agreed that Dr. Crowder will do
11 that and we will not proceed then with this Application for
12 Temporary Guardianship. And we have filed an Application for
13 Permanent Guardianship that will be on hold until the mental
14 examination is complete and we see what the results of that
15 are. I believe that is the agreement.
16 MR. WEBER: That is the agreement.
17 THE COURT: Very good. Sounds like a fair deal.
18 Thank you all for agreeing.
19 MR. COOK: Hay I get some testimony?
20 THE COURT: Go ahead.
21 MR. COOK: Mr. Tipps, you have been present --
22 THE COURT: Let me swear him in,
23
24
25 (NO OMISSIONS)
13
27
Document Page 125 of 240
- - - - - - - ----- ----
5
1 THOMAS TIPPS
2 After being sworn, testified on his oath as follows:
3 DIRECT EXAMINATION
4 BY MR. COOK:
5 Q. State your name, please.
6 A. Thomas Tipps.
7 Q. Mr. Tipps, you've been present in court this morning
8 when I read·- and Mr. Weber has agreed on behalf of your
9 mother·- the arrangement that has been dictated into the
10 record of the court; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q, And are you okay and agree with the agreement and the
13 terms as I have dictated them?
14 A. Yes, I agree.
15 Q. Do you request that the court approve that agreement?
16 A. Yes, please.
17 Q. Do you think that agreement is a reasonable way to
18 accomplish the things that you hoped to accomplish by filing
19 this application?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 MR. COOK: Pass the witness.
22 MR. WEBER: I have no questions, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: All right.
24 MR, COOK: I have nothing further.
25 THE COURT: Who is going to submit the order?
14
28
Document Page 126 of 240
6
1 MR. COOK: I don't think there needs to be an
2 order since we have dictated it as a Rule 11 agreement --
3 assuming you approve it? I don't think we need a written
4 We'll just have this transcribed.
5 THE COURT: Well, I definitely approve it.
6 MR. COOK: We will need an order for Dr.
7 Crowder.
8 MR. WEBER: Right.
9 MR. COOK: Do you want to draft that, Scott?
10 MR. WEBER: I can.
11 MR. COOK: You can?
12 MR. WEBER: That's fine, Jeff.
13 MR. COOK: We'll work that out, Your Honor, and
14 we' 11 get an order down to you.
15 THE COURT: Anything else?
16 MR. WEBER: I can't think of anything.
17 THE COURT: Thank you all very much.
18 MR. COOK: Thank you, Judge.
19 (END OF PROCEEDINGS)
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
29
Document Page 127 of 240
7
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 THE STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF DALLAS )
3
4 I, MONA L. RICHARD, Official Court Reporter in and for the
5 Probate Court Number Three of Dallas County, State of Texas, do
6 hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true and
7 correct transcription of all portions of evidence and other
8 proceedings requested in writing 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 of the
13 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any,
14 admitted by the respective parties.
15 I further certify that the total cost for the preparation
16 of this Reporter's Record is $42 and was paid by W. Thomas
17 Finley ..
18 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 7th day of July, 2014.
19
SIMONA L. RICHARD
20
Mona L. Richard, Texas CSR 2384
21 Expiration Date: December 2015
Official Court Reporter
22 Probate Court Number Three
Dallas County, Texas
23 Dallas, Texas
24
25
16
30
Document Page 128 of 240
----- ----------~
' r
Exhibit B
CAUSE NO. PR-13-3072-3
IN RE: THE GUARDIANSJDP OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT
§
DORIS LEE TIPPS, f NVMBEll THREE OP'
§
ALLEGED INCAPAaTATED PEBSON I DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
'lbePartiesb.ereto,DoriaL Tipps("Doris"), ThomasRic:hanlTippsf7omj,GlendaJordan
("Glenda"), Sally Fink ("Sally"). and Steven Tipps C'Steveiceac11 a "Patty" and colleclivelyrefenul
to herein as the "Parties~ agree that this lawsuit and all related claims and controversies betweea
them are hereby settled in accordance with the following terms of this Settlement Agreement.
1. The Parties acknowledge that bona fide disputes and conttovmies exist between
them. and by reason of such disputes and CODtJ:ovenies they desire to compromise and settle all
claims and causes of action of any kind whatsoever which the Parties have or may have arising 001
of the tmnsaction or occummce wbkh is the subject of this litigation. It is ftmher understood liDd
agreed that this is a compromise of a disputed matter, and nothing conwined haein shall be
coastmcd as an admission of liability by any Party, all such liability being expressly denied.
2. P.ach signatory htnto hereby W8l'fllltS and represents that they have full authority to
enter into this Settlement Agreement; that eacll bu had an opportunity to discuss tbe Settlement
A,reemem with the lawyer of their own choosing. and that they me entering into same freely and
vohmtarily, and it is contemplated that this Settlement Agreemmt is a complete and full Settlement
Agreement among tb.e Parties as it relates to the above styled and numbered action:
3. The Parties agree on the following settlement terms subject to Court appioval:
L Senior Source shall be the Owudian of the Person of Mrs. Tipps. In the event that
Senior Source shall resign, then the Parties agn,e to medi• with Nathan K. Griffin
as tbe mediator, in order to select a suitable succeuor. In lhe event that the Parties
cannot agree upon a successor Guantiaa of the Person, then Glenda or Sally may
apply, but in no event shall Tom or Steve seek to be appoinled Succeuor Gumdian
of the Person of Doris. Tom and Steve :reserve any and all rights to contest the
appoiotment of a SUccessor Guardian of the Person;
b. Tom, as Trustee. frnrnrdiately upon Coult appmval shall appoint CUmbedand TuJSt
& Investment Company as his Successor Trustee of the Tipps Family Trusts
f7rusts"), punuant to the tenns of the Trusts, Tom shall iesign as the Tn1ltee. and
Cumberland shall serve as the sole Trustee in aoc:ordance with die terms of the trust
documents ~ by Tcay Lustig, whida are attached hcieto u Exlu'bit A·l
through A-169;
MEDIATION SBTILBMENT AGREEMENT-Page 1
17
31
Document Page 129 of 240
CAUSE NO. PR-13-3072-3
c. Tom represents and warrants that he, as the Trustee of the Trusts, did not sign any
notes or guarantees with regard to the Trusts' acquisition of an interest in the
Fitzhugh Property or Tipping T. U.C (collectivdy 'Tipping T');
d. Tom, Glenda, and Sally shall naive Crom the Trusts, as an advance on their
inheritance and valued at the aggiegate sum of $125,000, the Trusts' intelest ill the
Tipping T, so that they will each have an undivided 116tb interest in the Tipping T;
e. Tom, Glenda. and Sally shall defend and indemnify the Trusts from any all claims
arising out of or related to the Trusts' ownership interest in Tipping T prior to the
transfer of the Trusts' interest io Tipping T. as descn'bed above;
f. The fees and expenses of Scott D. Weber, the attomey ad litem for Doris, shall be
paid out of the Trusts, and the fees and expenses of Tom Finley, counsel for Doris,
in the amount of $20,000 shall be paid out of the Trusts within tblee business days
of the Court's approval of dm Agreement; and
g. Not subject to Court approval, the fee for mediation sball be paid out of the Trusts.
4. Tom shall be released from all liability as Trustee of the Trusts through the date of
bis iesignation, as set out in paragraph 3(b).
S. Except for the agreements set forth herein. the Parties hereby agree to n,Jease.
discharge and forever hold the other harmless 1iom any and all claims. demands, or suits, known or
unkno~ fixed or contingent. liquidated or uoJ.iquidatcd. whether or not asserted in the above case,
as of this date, arising from or related to the events aod ttansadions which are the subject matter of
tbJs cause from the begjnniog of time to the effective date of this Agreement. 'This mutual release
rum to the be.nefi1 of all attomeyl, agents, employees, officers, directors, sbamlolden, partners.
heirs, assigns, and legal representatives of the Parties hereto.
6. . The Parties and lhcir counsel agree to coopente with each other in the drafting and
execution of such additional documents as are reasonably MqUCSted or required to implemeot the
provisions and spirit of this Settlement Agreement. but notwithstanding such additional documents
the Patties CODfirm that this is a written settlement agreement as contemplated by Section 1S4.071
of the Texu Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
7. 'Ibis Settlement Agreement is made and performable in Dallas County, Texas, and
shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas.
8. If one or more disputes arise with regard to the interpidation and/or ped'ormaoce of
thia Agreement or any of its provisions, the Parties agree to attempt to resolve same with Nathan K.
MEDIATION SETl"LEMENT AGREEMENT-Page 2
18
32
Document Page 130 of 240
CAUSE NO. PR-13-3072-3
Griffin, the Mediator who facilitated this settlement If litigation is brought to construe or enforce
this Agreement. the Party who substantially prevails shall be entitled to recover attorney's fees, as
well as court costs and expenses, including the cost of the mediation.
9. Although the Mediator has provided a basic outline of this Settlement Agreement to
the Parties and/or their counsel as a courtesy to facilitate the final resolution of this dispute, the
Parties and/or their counsel have thoroughly reviewed such outline (and, in the case of any Patties
who are not represented by counsel, have had an opportunity to consult with counsel of their own
choosing regarding such outline, have declined to do so, and are not relying on any other counsel for
any other Party) 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, have been advised by the Mediator
in writing that this Settlement Agreement should be independently reviewed by counsel before
executing lhe Agreement.
AGREED. this 23n1 day of January, 2014.
}L.
,"' r..r
OFORM:
Jeff • a Leffingwell Scott . e
Attomeyfor Thomas Tipps Attorney Ad Litem for Doris L. Tipps
``
TomF'mley
Attorney for Doris L Tipps
MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT- Page 3
19
33
Document Page 131 of 240
Exhibit C
NOTICE OF RMIQNATIQN AS SUCCBSSQR
CQRJ!ORA'l'B DWSTEB
CUMBERLAND TR.UST AND INV.BSTMBNT COMPANY hereby resigns as the successor
corporate Trustee of The Tipps Famn, Trust and nppi Survivors Trot o/a Tbomu Viuon
Tipp, and Doril Lee Tipps dated Marcia 6, 1992, a, aJDeDded aad restated January 231 2003,
pursuant to Artide m Section 3 of said TnJst, to be eflecmve Immediately.
CUMBERLAND TR.UST AND INVBSTMBNT COMPANY affinns 1hat it bas not received
Trvst property from the prior 1rustee, Thomas Ridwd Tipps, and, thereforo, has no accounting to
pn:,vide to any beneficiary thereof
20
34
Document Page 132 of 240
FILED
10/20/2014 5:54:21 PM
JOHN F. WARREN
COUNTY CLERK
DALLAS COUNTY
NO. PR-13-3072-3
IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF § IN THE P.ROBATE COURT
§
DORIS LEE TIPPS § NUMBER THREE OF
§
AN ALLEGED INCAPACffATED §
ADULT § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION TO SHOW AUTBQR!TX
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES fflOMAS RICHARD TIPPS, ("Movant'') herein. and files this Motion to
Show Authority complaining ofW. THOMAS FINLEY, alleged attorney for DORIS LEE TIPPS,
and shows the Honorable Court the following:
I.
W. TBOI\'t.\S FINLEY does not have authority to act as counsel for DOR.IS LEE TIPPS
in this matter. DORIS LEE TIPPS does not have sufficient capacity to retain counsel as she was
adjudicated to be totally incapacitated on February 17, 2014. W. THOMAS FL�LEl:' is in fact
representing STEVEN VINSON TIPPS.
II.
Based upon these facts. Movant believes that \V. THOMAS Fm'LEYis prosecuting this suit
without proper authority of DORIS LEE TIPPS. Pursuant to Rule I 2 of the Texas Rules of Civi1
Procedure, Movant requests that W. THOMAS FINLEY should be cited to appear before this court
and show his authority to act on behalf of DORIS LEE TfPPS. Should W. THOMAS FIIVLEY
fail to show sufficient authority to prosecute this suit on behalf of DORIS LEE TIPPS, then W.
THOMAS FINLEY should be banned from further appearing in this case and the pleadings of W.
THOMASFINLEY's alleged to be filed on behalf of DORIS LEE TIPPS should be stricken.
MQTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY-Pye l
Calli!C No. PR-13-3072-3 (Tipps)
35
Document Page 133 of 240
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS, Movant
herein, respectfully prays that:
1. W. THOMAS FINLEY will be cited to appear and to answer herein and to
present to this court :mfficient proof of,authority to prosecute the suit on behalf of DORIS
LEE TIPPS;
2. Upon the failure of W. THOMAS Flr~LEY to present such proof to the
court, the Court order that \V. THOMAS FINLEY is no longer allowed to appear in this
cause and to further order pleadings filed by W. THOMAS FINLEY to be stricken from the
record;
3. The Court should enter an order denying any and all attorney's fees requested
by W. THOMAS FINLEY; and
4. For such other and further relief, in law or in equity, to which THOMAS
RlCHARD TIPPS, Movant herein, may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Isl Jeffrey Cook
Jeffrey Cook
State Bar No. 04734495
Lisa Leffmgwell
State Bar No. 12158575
2301 Cedar Springs
Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75201
Tel. (214)520-7494
Fax. (214)528-6925
ATTORNEYS FOR TlIOMAS RICHARD TIPPS
,MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY- Pue 2
Cause No. PR-13-3072~3 (Tipps)
36
Document Page 134 of 240
c_tRTIFICA:TE OF SERVI(;!
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent via
facsimile to all counsel of record on this 20th day of October, 2014.
/s/ Jeffrey Cook
Jeffrey Cook
Lisa Leffingwell
MOTWN TO SHOW AUTHORITY - Pue 3
Cause No. PR-13-3072-3 (Tipps)
37
Document Page 135 of 240
VER.IEICATIQN
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared THOMAS RICHARD
TIPPS, who, on oath, stated that the statements made in the foregoing Motion to Show Authority to
Act are true and correct to the best of his lmowledge and belief.
1\1 . .
..THOMAS
:::.:~ ``-;_,_,
RICHARD TIPPS ·,,
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this the ~ a y of __ (k~,,
2014, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.
``
LISA R LEFFINGWELL
My commission Expires
Junt 26. 2018
MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY- PaJ.C 4
Cause No. PR-13-3072-3 (Tipps)
38
Document Page 136 of 240
·•·, I
~
.. ··r.· ....... 0
LJ ORIGINAL o
ORIGINAL
NO. PR-13-3072-3
INTHE ESTATE OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT
§
DORIS LEE TIPPS, § NUMBER THREE OF
§
AN JNCAPACITATED PERSON § DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION, DISCHARGE TRUSTEE
AND REJNSTATE TRUSTEE
On this 21st day of October, 2014, ~ame on to be he~d the joint Motion to Accept
Resignation, Discharge Trustee and Reinstate Trustee filed by CUN.t:BERLAND TR:UST AND
INVESTMENT COMPANY (hereinafter"CUMBERLAND") and 1HOMAS TIPPS. After hearing
and considering the pleadings filed herein and evidence submitted, the Court finds as follows:
1. Pursuant to the M.ediatlon Settlement Agreement filed herein and approved by the
Court on February 17, 2014, THOMAS TIPPS resigned as Trustee ofthe Tipps Family Trusts (.. the
Trusts") on March 1~, 2014, pursuant to the Court's order;
2. CUMBERLAND was appointed as Successor Trustee and executed its acceptance on
March 17, 2014;
3. CUMBERLAND is unable to perform its duties as Trustee since a condition of its
acceptance was that STEVEN VINSON TIPPS move out of the Hood real property owned by the
Trust~. STEVEN VINSON TIPPS has failed to move as he agreed, and CUMBERLAND has
executed its resignation dated May 2, 2014 subject to the Court's acceptance;
4.. Based on the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that it will not be possible to
find a Corporate Trustee willing to serve as Trustee of the Trusts;
5. CUMBERLAND notified all beneficiaries of the Trust of said resignation pursuant to
Section 3 of Article 3 of the Trusts on May 2, 2014;
PR 0-13 -03072°:3 - - - - - - . .
COOR
ORDER
. 0783118
m:~i~G MOTION TO ACCEPr RESIGNATION, DIS@ARGE TRl ~ll il l l ~m111111111111~
Document Page 137 of 240
0 0
6. Although CUMBERLAND· accepted the appointment of Trustee of the Trusts,
CUMBERLAND never took possession or control of any of the assets of the Trust, no account is
required by CUMBERLAND and it should be discharged from liability, if any;
7. 1HOMAS TIPPS has continued to pay the expenses of the Ward so her care has been
assured and collect all receipts due the Trusts pending the transfer to CUMBERLAND;
8. THOMAS TIPPS was previously appointed as Trustee by Ward when she had
capacity to make such appointment; and
9. It is in the best interest of Ward that 1HOMAS TIPPS be reinstated and con finned as
Successor Trustee of the Tipps Trusts.
IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court as follows:
1. The resignation of CUMBERLAND TRUST AND INVESTMENT COMPANY is
accepted by the Court;
2. No accounting is required from CUMBERLAND TRUST AND INVESTMENT
COMPANY and it is hereby discharged as Trustee of the Tipps Family Trusts; and
3. THOMAS TIPPS is reinstated and confirmed as Trustee of the Tipps Family Trusts.
SIGNED this ;;)..., f day of 2014.
ORDER GRAN']'ING MOTION TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION. DISCHARGE TRUSTEE AND REINSTATE
TRUSTIE- Page 2 40
Document Page 138 of 240
.. .
.,
Q 0
lJ ORIGINAL
NO. PR-13-3072-3
IN THE ESTATE OF § · IN THE PROBATE COURT
§
DORIS LEE TIPPS, § NUMBER THREE OF
§
AN INCAPACITATED PERSON § DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY
On this 21st day of October, 2014, came on to be heard the Motion to Show Authority filed
by TIIOMAS TIPPS. After hearing and considering the pleadings filed herein and evidence
submitted, the Court finds that the Motion should be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE. ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court as follows:
1. The Motion to Show Authority is granted;
2. W. THOMAS FINLEY is banned from further appearing in this case and the
pleadings of W. THOMAS FINLEY alleged to be filed on behalf of DORIS LEE TIPPS should
be stricken;
2. Any_ attorney's fees r ~ S FINLEY should be denied.
SIGNEDthis1:J_dayo`` ,2014.
~rno=____
PR-13-03072-3.
COOR
ORDER
878711
ORDKR GRANTING MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY· Page l ~II!ll l l l ~lil l ~l lI
Document Page 139 of 240
IV.
W. THOMAS FINLEY, COUNSEL FOR DORIS L. TIPPS
APPELLANT DORIS LEE TIPPS' OPPOSITION TO SENIOR SOURCE'S
PETITION TO REVOKE AUTHORITY OF AGENT
(C.R. s 42)
Document Page 140 of 240
FILED
10/21/2014 12:33:28 PM
JOHN F. WARREN
COUNTY CLERK
DALLAS COUNTY
No. PR-13-3072-3
In the Matter of the § In the Probate Court
§
Guardianship of § No. Three
§
Doris L. Tipps § Dallas County, Texas
Dorris Lee Tipp's Opposition to The Senior Source's
Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent
1. On September 10, 2013, Doris Lee Tipps, as principal, executed a
Medical Power of Attorney naming her son Steven Vinson Tipps as her agent
for making health care decisions for her in accordance with the provisions of
title 2, subtitle H, chapter 166, subchapter D, of the Texas Health and Safety
Code. A copy of the Medical Power of Attorney is appended as "Exhibit A".
2. In accordance with the provisions of section 166.152 ("Scope and
Duration") of the Texas Health and Safety Code, the medical power of atto1ney
given to Steven Vinson Tipps is effective indefinitely.
3. Subsection 166.156 (•Appointment of Guardian") of the Texas
Health and Safety Code mandates that, as between a guardian and the agent to
whom the principal has delegated the authority to make health care decisions
for her, the Court must •consider the preferences of the principal as expressed
in the medical power of attorney."
Doris Lee Tipp's Opposition to The Senior
Source Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent - Page 1
42
Document Page 141 of 240
4. Section 1151.001 ("Rights and Powers Retained by Ward") of the
Texas Estates Code provides that "[a]n incapacitated person for whom a
guardian is appointed retains all legal and civil rights and powers except those
designated by court order as legal disabilities by virtue of having been
specifically granted to the guardian."
5. Subsection 102.003(a) ("Rights of the Elderly") of the Texas Human
Resources Code provides that "[a]n elderly individual has all the rights,
benefits, responsibilities, and privileges granted by the constitution and laws of
this state and the United States, except where lawfully restricted. The elderly
individual has the right to be free of interference, coercion, discrimination, and
reprisal in exercising these civil rights."
6. Subsection 102.003(f) ("Rights of the Elderly") of the Texas Human
Resources Code provides that "(a]n elderly individual may complain about the
individual's care or treatment. The complaint may be made anonymously or
communicated by a person designated by the elderly individual. The person
providing services may not discriminate or take other punitive action against an
elderly individual who makes a complaint."
7. Steven Vinson Tipps is-and has been for the past many years-the
constant caregiver for his mother, Doris Lee Tipps.
Doris Lee Tipp's Opposition to The Senior
Source Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent - Page 2
2
43
Document Page 142 of 240
8. Doris Lee Tipps prefers that all decisions about her health care be
either made or, at least, ratified by her son Steven Vinson Tipps.
9. The Senior Source's petition to revoke the authority of Steven
Vinson Tipps is plainly an attempted act of reprisal and a punitive action taken
against Doris Lee Tipps and her designated agent, Steven Vinson Tipps, that
violates the legal and civil rights reserved to her by the Texas Estates Code and
by the Texas Human Resources Code.
Doris Lee Tipps asks the Court to reject the petition of The Senior Source
to revoke the authority of her duly designated health care agent, Steven Vinson
Tipps.
Respectfully submitted,
Finley Law Group PLLC
---
By:,____:{....:;..Ov,A.1.-!..;.:·-·- - - , = . x . ~ ~ - -
W. Thomas Finl y
State Bar of Texas Membe
Number 07025500
Finley Law Group PLLC
5500 Preston Road, Suite 390
Dallas, Texas 75205-2676
Telephone: 972.581.2880
Fax: 972.581.2881
Doris LeeTipp's Opposition to The Senior
Source Petition to R~voke Authority of Agent - Page 3
3
44
Document Page 143 of 240
----~---~·----~ - - --
Certificate of Service
I certify that on October 21, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Doris Lee Tipp's Opposition to The Senior Source's Petition to Revoke
Authority of Agent was this day sent by electronic mail, by certified mail,
return-receipt requested, and by facsimile transmission to the following counsel
of record and pro se party:
Scott D. Weber
Calloway, Norris, Burdette & Weber, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Suite 400
Dallas, Texas 75219-4531
Steven V. Tipps, Pro Se Party
5015 Addison Circle
Addison, Texas 75001-3008
John H. Phillips
Boone, Boone & Phillips, L.L.P.
4313 West Lovers Lane
Dallas, Texas 75209-2803.
939987_1
Doris Lee Tipp's Opposition to The Senior
Source Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent - Page 4
4
45
Document Page 144 of 240
Exhibit A
MEDICAL POWER OF ATIOR.NRY
OF
DORIS LEE TIPPS
Dated: September 10, 2013
5
46 '
Document Page 145 of 240
DISCLOSURE STATEMENI
Information Concerning
The Medical Power of Attome)!
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT LEGAL DOCUMENT. BEFORE SIGNING
THIS DOCUMENT, YOU SHOULD KNOW THESE IMPORTANT FACTS:
Except to the extent you state otherwise, this document gives the person
you name as your agent the authority to make any and all health care decisions
for you in accordance with your wishes, including your religious and moral
beliefs, when you are no longer capable of making them yourself. Because
"health care" means any treatment, service, or procedure to maintain, diagnose,
or treat your physical or mental condition, your agent has the power to make a
broad range of health care decisions for you. Your agent may consent, refuse to
consent, or withdraw consent ta medical treatment and may make dedsions about
zuithdrawing or wit'1holding life~s11staini11g treatment. Your agent may not consent to
volrmtary inpatient mental health seroices, convulsive treatment, pStJChosurgery, or
abortion. A physician must comply with your agent's instructions or allow you
to be transferred to another physician.
Your agent's authority begins when your doctor certifies that you lack the
competence to make health care decisions.
Your agent is obligated to follow your instructions when making
decisions on your behalf. Unless you state otherwise, your agent has the same
authority to make decisions about your health care as you would have had.
It is important that you discuss this document with your physician or
other health care provider before you sign it to ensure that you understand the
nature and range of decisions that may be made on your behalf. If you do not
have a physician, you should talk to someone else who is knowledgeable about
these issues and can answer your questions. You do not need a lawyer's
assistance to complete this document; but, if there is anything in this document
that you do not understand, then you should ask a lawyer to explain it to you.
The person you appoint as agent should be someone you know and trust.
The person must be eighteen (18) years of age or older or a person under
eighteen {18) years of age who has had the disability of minority removed. If
you appoint your health or residential care provider (e.g., your physician or an
Disclosure Statement • Page 1
ltiitialed for Authenticity
.LY?J
D.L.T.
6
47
Document Page 146 of 240
employee of a home health care agency, hospital, nursing home, or residential
care home, other than a relative), then that person has to choose between
acting as your agent or as your health or residential care provider. The Jaw
does not permit a person to do both at the same time.
You should inform the person you appoint that you want the person to be
your health care agent. You should discuss tl1is docu111e11t with your agent and your
pltysicia11 a11d give each a signed copy. You should i11dicate on the doc11me11t itself the
people and institutions who l1ave signed copies. Your agent is not liable for health
care decisions made in good faith on your behalf.
Even after you have signed this document, you have the right to make
health care decisions for yourself as long as you are able to do so and treatment
cannot be given to you or stopped over your objection. You have the right to
revoke the authority granted to your agent by informing your agent or your
health or residential care provider orally or in writing, or by your execution of a
subsequent medical power of attorney. Unless you state otherwise, your
appointment of a spouse dissolves on divorce.
This document may not be changed or modified. If you want to make
changes in the document, then you must make an entirely new one.
You may wish to designate an alternate agent in the event that your agent
is unwiUing, unable, or ineligible to act as your agent. Any alternate agent you
designate has the same authority as your primary agent to make health care
decisions for you.
THIS POWER OF AITORNEY IS NOT VALID UNLESS IT IS SIGNED
IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO COMPETENT ADULT WITNESSES. THE
FOLLOWING PERSONS MAY N.QI ACT AS ONE OF THE WITNESSES:
(a) The person you have designated as your agent;
(b) A person related to you by blood or marriage;
(c) A person entitled to any part of your estate after your death
under a Will or Codicil executed by yoi1 or by operation of
law;
(d) Your attending physician;
(e) An employee of your attending physician;
Disclosure Statement • Page 2
Initialed for Authenticity
ez{
attorney previously signed by me.
7. Acknowledgement of Disclosure Statement. I have been
provided with a Disclosure Statement explaining the effect of this document. I
have read and understand the information contained in the Disclosure
Statement.
I sign my name to this Medical Power of Attorney on this tenth day of
September, 2013, at Dallas, Dallas County, Texas.
Doris Lee Tipps
Medical Power of Attorney Page 2
¥
Initialed for Authcntici1y
10
51
Document Page 150 of 240
----------------------------------
Statement of First Witness
I am not the person appointed as agent by this document. I am not
related to the principal by blood or marriage. I wou)d not be entitled to any
portion of the principal's estate on the principal's death. I am not the attending
physician of the principal or an employee of the attending physician. I have no
claim against any portion of the principal's estate on the principal's death.
Furthermore, if I am an employee of a health care facility in which the principal
is a patient, I am not involved in providing direct patient care to the principal
and am not an officer, director, partner, or business office employee of the
hea1th care facility or of any parent organization of the health care facility.
(Print Na
¥MbfC 10, UJG
"'(Pate) i _·-
~J N'ov~ vtt(~tt~lfes ,we"'ve,
.{Address)
J)er\\cis, ,e~s 151/JT-~126
(City and State)
Signature of Second Witnes~
~nntlvdtg~;'Jk6 -:,-s Iez.
(City and State)
933380_1
Medical Power of Attorney - Page 3
lnilialed for Authenticity
ad;Y-s:l"
O.LT.
11
52
Document Page 151 of 240
CAUSE NO. PR-13-3072-3
D ORIGINAL
GUARDIANSHIP OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT
DORIS LEE TIPPS, § NO. 3 OF
fNCAPACITATED § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER TO REVOKE AUTHORITY OF AGENT
On the 21 ' 1 day of October, 2014, the PETITION TO REVOKE AUTHORJTY OF AGENT
filed by SENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER DALLAS dlb/a The Senior Source, Guardian of the
Person of DORIS LEE TIPPS, an Incapacitated Person, (the "Ward") on June 2, 2014, was heard
and considered by the Court, and after hearing and considering the pleadings filed herein, testimony
given and arguments, the Court finds that a conflict exists between the powers granted the Guardian
of the Person and the powers claimed by STEVEN V. TIPPS under a medical power of attorney from
the Ward, that is not in the best interest of the Ward and may be detrimental to the health and proper
care of the Ward, and that the authority of STEVEN V. TIPPS under a medical power of attorney
fyom be Ward should be revoked.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the authority of
STEVEN V. TIPPS under any medical power of attorney from the Ward, DORIS LEE TIPPS, is
hereby revoked.
SIGNED this f.--' ~fOctober, 2014.
f'R--\3-0aG'l2~3
Cl)OR
--
OROER
TIPPS GUARDIANSHIP - ORDER TO REVOKE AUTHORITY OF AGENT
CAUSE NO. PR-13~3072-3 - Page Solo
:-iiiiim1111111111t
Document Page 152 of 240
_J
\ . -. . .. - --·-· · -----~. ···-·-"··---·. . -···~---,. . . --.·. ---·· · . . _. . - . - . . . - . - FIL ED
oS-1"'1-ol'-\'lt-CV ISJAN-1
IJ!Wtfll
A~l:_1 '
No. PR-13-3072-3
tiiirvW~RR N'l_
DALLAS do````
In the Matter of the In the Probate Court
Guardianship of No.3
Doris L. Tipps Dallas County, Texas
Notice of Appeal
Steven V. Tipps, pro se Appellant, gives notice of his intent to
appeal the trial court's Order Granting Motion to Accept Resignation,
Discharge Trustee and Reinstate Trustee signed on October 21, 2014.
This appeal is taken to the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas
~ctfully submitted, •
(.x:t..:: ~ 1;
Steven V. Tipps
~!
5015 Addison Circle ~ ~
Addison, Texas 75001 c :i
214-223-6358 [";; YI
800-358-6866 J g
Fax 254-731-2522
Email: casing@prodigy.net
casingscientific@gmail.com
PR-13-03072-8
.. ·: ... CNA 1
........ ·'."'> NOTIC[ - APPEAL
i[iil~illllil\l\lllll Document Page 153 of 240
54
..... . .. .;, .,., ......-........ ·- ........... ............... _... _ ...
, , , .... ~· ~-·~······-- .. , .............. · ~ ..... -·-··· -· .................._.._ ...... .
Certificate of Service
I certify that on November 19, 2014, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Notice of Appeal was sent by electronic email, by certified
mail, return-receipt requested, and by facsimile transmission to the
following counsel of record.
Jeffrey Cook
Lisa Leffingwell
Sullivan & Cook, L.L.C.
2301 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 200·
Dallas, Texas 75201-7837
Alvin J. Golden
Katherine C. Alcine
Ikard Golden Jones, P.C.
400 West 15th Street, Suite 975
Austin, Texas 78701-1646
Steven V. Tipps
2
55
Document Page 154 of 240
v.
CASE EXCEPTS - De Ayala v. Mackie
Document Page 155 of 240
--- - --�-- �
COMBINED APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF
TO
THREE APPELLEE REPLY BRIEFS
CASE EXCERPT
In DeAyala v. Mackie, the Texas Supreme Court states:
"Probate proceedings are an exception to the "one final judgment" rule; in such
cases, "multiple judgments final for purposes of appeal can be rendered on certain
discrete issues." Id. at 192. The need to review "controlling, intermediate decisions
before an error can harm later phases of the proceeding" has been held to justify
this rule. Logan v. McDaniel,
21 S.W.3d 683, 688 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet.
denied). Not every interlocutory order in a probate case is appealable, however,
and determining whether an otherwise interlocutory probate order is final enough
to qualify for appeal, has proved difficult."
"In the past, courts relied on the "substantial right" test to decide whether an
ostensibly interlocutory probate order had sufficient attributes of finality to confer
appellate jurisdiction. See, e.g., Huston v. F.D.I.C.,
800 S.W.2d 845, 848
(Tex.1990); Estate o(Wright,
676 S.W.2d 161, 163 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi
1984, writ refd n.r.e.). Under that standard, once the probate court adjudicated a
"substantial right," the order was appealable. That phrase soon became a fruitful
source of litigation as appellate courts struggled to delineate its parameters. Eleven
years ago, we attempted to clarify appellate jurisdiction in this complex area. See
Crowson v. Wakeham,
897 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex.1995) (acknowledging that "our
language heretofore has been somewhat ambiguous")."We noted that, while
adjudication of a "substantial right" was one factor to be considered, equally
important was our earlier precedent requiring that the order dispose of all issues in
the phase of the proceeding for which it was brought.
Id. at 782-83. To sidestep
"potential confusion" about the appropriate test for jurisdiction, we adopted this
test:
"If there is an express statute, such as the one for the complete heirship judgment,
declaring the phase of the probate proceedings to be final and appealable, that
statute controls. Otherwise, if there is a proceeding of which the order in question
may logically be considered a part, but one or more pleadings also part of that
proceeding raise issues or parties not disposed of, then the probate order is
interlocutory."
Page 97 of 103
Document Page 156 of 240
"
Id. at 783. Recognizing the inherent difficulties in applying any test to determine
appealability, we urged parties to seek severance orders to eliminate ambiguities
about whether the order was intended to be final and appealable.
Id. at 783
(explaining that "[l]itigants can and should seek a severance order either with the
judgment disposing of one party or group or parties, or seek severance as quickly
as practicable after the judgment")."
Moreover, under Crowson, the trial court's order was interlocutory because it did
not dispose of all parties or issues in a particular phase of the proceedings. Because
an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction and refusing to remove an executor does
not end a phase of the proceedings, but sets the stage for the resolution of all
proceedings, the order is interlocutory. See, e.g., Fischer v. Williams,
160 Tex.
342,
331 S.W.2d 210, 213-14 (1960)
"The Legislature enacted the statute permitting interlocutory appeal of orders
overruling motions to vacate orders appointing receivers or trustees in 191 7, and
the provision remains substantially unchanged today. See Act of March 30, 1917,
35th Leg., R.S., ch. 168, § 1, 1917 Tex. Gen. Laws 379, 379 (now codified at TEX.
CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE§ 51.014(a)(2))At no time during the statute's almost
ninety-year history have we held that it applies to a motion to remove an estate's
executor. Our statement in Bailey - that an administrator is designated trustee of
estate property - referred to the administrator's obligation, as holder of legal title
to the estate's property, to pay ad valorem taxes accruing during administration.
Bailey, 862 S.W.2d at 583, 586. It did not equate an executor to a trustee for all
purposes, and there is no evidence that the Legislature intended to permit
immediate appeals of orders refusing to remove estate executors. Accordingly, we
conclude that section 51.014(a)(2) does not permit Ayala to pursue an
interlocutory appeal of the trial court's order."1 5
Page 98 of 103
Document Page 157 of 240
VI. CASE SUMMARIES
Document Page 158 of 240
a. TEXAS PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CONGRUENT WITH
FEDERAL PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
Document Page 159 of 240
COMBINED APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF
TO
THREE APPELLEE REPLY BRIEFS
CASE SUMMARIES
Texas Procedural Due Process congruent with federal Procedural Due Process
1. In the area of procedural due process, the protections afforded under the
Texas Constitution are congruent with those provided by the Federal
Constitution.
See Price v. City o{Junction, 711 F.2d 582, 590 (5th Cir. 1983); cf University
o{Texas Med. Sch. v. Than. 901 S.W.2d 926, 930-31 (Tex. 1995) cert. denied,
528 499,
499 U.S. 1160,
120 S. Ct. 1171, 145 L. Ed.ed 1080 (2000).
2. Generally, procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be
heard.
Brown v. University o{Texas Health Ctr., 957 W.W.2d 911, 915 (Tex. App.-
Tyler 1997, no writ).
3. Procedural due process involves basic notions of justice and fair play. The
sufficiency of procedures must be judged in light of the parties, the subject
matter and the circumstances involved.
Id. GeneHarmonFordv. DavidMcDavidNissan, Inc., 997 S.W.2d298, 312
(Tex. App.-Austin 1999, writ denied).
The sufficiency of procedures must be judged in light of the parties, the
subject matter and the circumstances involved.
Id. (quoting Brewer v. Austin lndep. Sch. Dist.
779 F.2d 260, 263 (5 1h Cir. 1985
Page 99 of 103
Document Page 160 of 240
b. TEXAS DUE COURSE CLAUSE CONGRUENT WITH
FEDERAL DUE PROCESS CLAUSE(S)
Document Page 161 of 240
COMBINED APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF
TO
THREE APPELLEE REPLY BRIEFS
State of Texas Due Course of Law congruent with federal Due Process of Law
"While the Texas Constitution is textually different in that it refers to "due course"
rather than "due process", we regard these terms as without meaningful distinction.
Fleming v. State, 376 S.W.3rd 854 (2012) (35)
"Due process at a minimum requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."
Tex. Comm. On Env. Quality v. Denbury Onshore, LLC, Texas. App. LEXIS 7177
(41)
"The Supreme Court of Texas has stated that the language of the Due Course of
Law Clause of the Texas Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the United
States Constitution is nearly identical" and that there is no meaningful distinction
between "due course" and "due process".
Richard v. Dretke, Tex. App. LEXIS 2261 2009 (20)
In analyzing a claim of deprivation of procedural due process, we apply a two-part
test: we must determine ( 1) whether the plaintiff had a liberty or property interest
entitled to procedural due process; and(2) if so, what process is due.
Dallas County v. Gonzales, (2006) (17)
The Due Process Clause does not mandate the parties be heard at the arbitration
hearing; rather, the Due Process Clause requires that the parties be given a
meaningful opportunity to be heard at the arbitration hearing.
Ewing v. Act Catastrophe-Texas LC, 375, S.W.2d 545 (2012) (16)
--holding that although Texas Constitution refers to "due course" rather than the
U.S. Constitution's "due process", the phrases are not meaningfully distinct and
federal due process are persuasive authority when interpreting Texas's "due
course" guarantee.
Brantley v. Texas Youth Commission, 2011,
365 S.W.3d 89 (2011) (17)
The "due course" clause in our state constitution requires the same level of "due
process" as the federal constitution.
City of Fort Worth v. Park, 2011, Tex. APP LEXIS 5725 (2011) (14)
Page 100 of 103
Document Page 162 of 240
What process is due is measured by a flexible standard that depends on the
practical requirements of the circumstances.
Collins v. Texas Natural Resource, 2002,
94 S.W.3d 876 (2002) (16)
At a minimum, due process requires a person who may be deprived of a liberty or
property interest to be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.
Anthony v. State,
209 S.W.3d 296 (2006) (37)
Page 101 of 103
Document Page 163 of 240
c. DAVISON V. GREAT NAT'L LIFE INS. CO.
CASE REFERENCE SUMMARIES
Document Page 164 of 240
COMBINED APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF
TO
THREE APPELLEE REPLY BRIEFS
CASE SUMMARIES
Davidson v. Great Nat'I Life Ins. Co. (TEX.SUP.COURT)
Confrontation and Cross Examination
1. Texas Employers Ins Assoc v. Garza, 308 S/W.2d 521, 527
(TEX.CIV.APP) Amarillo 1957, writ refd n.r.e.
"This court, as have many others, has held that right to cross-examine a
witness is a substantial one, and it is error to so restrict it as to prevent the
cross-examining party from going fully into all matters connected with the
examination in chief'.
2. Texas & N.O.R. Co. v Barham,
204 S.W.2d 205, 214 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco
1947, no writ)
"... prompted reversal because the trial court did not allow full development of
facts which might have placed him (appellant) in a more favorable light before
the jury."
3. Murray v. Morris,
17 S.W.2d 110, 111 (Tex. Civ.App.)-Amarillo 1928, writ
dism'd
"saying: The purpose of cross-examination is to sift and to modify and to
have the witness explain what has been said on his direct examination, and if
the witness by this process can be discredited and the weight of his testimony
weakened, the right should not be denied.
4. Pecos & N.T. Ry. Co. v. Porter,
156 S.W. 267, 274-275 (Tex.Civ.App.) -
Amarillo 1913, no writ)).
The court went [*479] on in Pecos to say, "A witness may be cross
examined as to his examination in chief in all its bearings and as to whatever
goes to explain or modify what he has stated in his examination in chief, and
prejudice will be presumed where this right is denied."
Page 102 of 103
Document Page 165 of 240
d. TEXAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION CASES
Document Page 166 of 240
COMBINED APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF
TO
THREE APPELLEE REPLY BRIEFS
CASE SUMMARIES - TEXAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION
A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner
or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Walker v. Gutierrez,
111
S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex.2003).
A trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying the law
to the facts. Cayton v. Moore,
224 S.W.3d 440 Tex.App. - Dallas 2007, no pet.
An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court clearly failed to analyze and
determine the law correctly or applied the law incorrectly to the facts.
Id.
The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted without reference to
any guiding rules and principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc.
701
S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985)
When we determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, we may not
substitute our judgment for that of the trial court unless its decision was so
arbitrary that it exceeded the bounds of reasonableness. Clarendon Nat 'I Ins. Co.
v. Thompson,
199 S.W.3d 482, 494 (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist. 2006, no pet].
A trial court has broad discretion and we may not disturb its ruling absent manifest
abuse of discretion. Champion Int'! Corp. v. Twelfth Court ofAppeals, 762
W.W.2d 898,899 (Tex. 1988; TEX.R. CIV.
Certiorari lies to correct proceedings erroneous upon the face of the record when
there is no other adequate remedy. It is available in the exercise of super intending
control over a tribunal which is proceeding illegally where no other mode of
review has been provided. Certiorari lies where there is a want of jurisdiction or
an act in excess in excess of jurisdiction which is apparent on the face of the
record. (State v. Nelson, 246 Ark, 210, 438 S.W.2d (1969).
Page 103 of 103
Document Page 167 of 240
VII.
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY
GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE
OF
DORIS L. TIPPS
Document Page 168 of 240
>,,.
Ll ORIGINAL
- CAUSE NO. ft213-;;o12. -3 A``~
IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT
2tfG'sEP -i. PH 2= ,.
§ JOr;;i F. WARREN
DOJUS LEE TIPPS, § OF COUNTY CLERK
§ DALLAS COUNTY
AN ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
TEMPORARY GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS and files this Application for Appointment of
Temporary Guardian of the Person and Estate of DORIS LEE TIPPS, an Alleged Incapacitated
Person, ("Proposed Ward 11 ) and respectfully shows the Court as follows:
l. That Proposed Ward, DORIS LEE TIPPS, is an adult female whose date of birth is
November 11, 1922. Her address is Lakeview at Josey Lane, 2105 North Josey Lane, Carrollton,
Dallas County, Texas 75006-3027, and citation may be served at this address. She is a resident of
Dallas County, Texas.
2. Applicant THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS desires to be appointed Temporary Guardian of
the Person and Estate. He resides at 1 Beach Drive SE, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701. He is a son
of the Proposed Ward. Applicant was named by Proposed Ward in her Declaration of Guardian, a
copy of which is attached hereto.
3. Applicant seeks Temporary Guardianship of the Person and Estate of Proposed Ward as it
is necessary for the protection and welfare of the Proposed Ward. Applicant believes that a
Temporary Guardianship would be in the Proposed Ward·s best interest and that there is imminent
danger that the physical health or safety of the Proposed Ward will be seriously impaired unless the
Court takes immediate action to appoint Applicant as Proposed Ward's Temporary Guardian. In
,\Pl'!.JCA TION FOR APPOINT:\1ENT OF THlPORARY Gl .ARDIAj'IS OF THE P~RSO:'\A:\D ESTA TE - Pagr
PR-13-03072-3
CLG
APPLICATION (OCA - NEW CASf FILEU)
264383
l IIHllllllflllflHf~IIIJ~
Document Page 169 of 240
addition, the Proposed Ward is making poor financial decisions and said decisions are contrary to the
Proposed Ward's long-standing expressed wishes. The Proposed Ward is unable to care for herself
and her finances.
4. The Proposed Ward is incapacitated. It is requested that the Proposed Ward receive such
protection and assistance as necessary to protect the person of the Proposed Ward and that the all
powe -s be granted to Temporary Guardian as provided in the Texas Probate Code, including the
following:
To sign all medical release for the Proposed Ward;
To authorize all medical and dental treatments for Proposed Ward;
To apply for all public, private and governmental benefits available for medical care, dental care
and living arrangements for Proposed Ward, and to file insurance claims for Proposed Ward;
To make all decisions regarding Proposed Ward's living arrangements and to execute all
agreements, releases, authorizations and contracts necessary to provide such living
arrangements; and
The power and authority to gain access to the Proposed Ward's medical records.
To take any and all actions necessary to collect, preserve and protect the estate of Proposed
Ward, and to incur costs necessary and execute any contracts necessary for such collection,
preservation, and protection;
To take possession of all assets of whatever kind and nature in the estate of Proposed Ward and
to collect all monies due to Proposed Ward's Estate;
To gain access to Proposed Ward's home and all financial, medical, legal, and other records;
To conduct all estate, trust and financial transactions, including spending estate/trust funds,
closing and opening accounts in Proposed Ward's name, closing and opening accounts held in
trust for Proposed Ward, negotiating checks and instruments payable to Proposed Ward, and any
other financial and estate transactions with Proposed Ward's bank, brokerage service, savings
and loan, credit union or other financial institution; and
To sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of personal property in Proposed Ward's Estate.
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF TE\lPORAR\'Ji~ '..\RDl..\:"i~ OF nn: l't;;RSO!"i AND £STAH: - Pagr 2
6
Document Page 170 of 240
Further, Applicant requests that the Court enter an Order that the Proposed Ward lacks the power
to execute estate-planning documents pending the Temporary Guardianship.
5. The Proposed Ward is currently incapacitated as a result of dementia of unknown
diagnosis. The Proposed Ward is unable to properly care for herself and there is imminent danger
that the physical health or safety of the Proposed Ward will be seriously impaired and her finances
jeopardized.
6. Applicant executed a Power of Attorney naming Applicant, THOMAS RICHARD
TIPPS, as her Agent.
7. Both of the Proposed Ward's parents are deceased. Proposed Ward's surviving siblings
are::
BERNICE EVERITT
1322 Jacinth Drive
Weslaco, Texas 78596
ELIZABETH COGDILL
3918 Corral Canyon Road
Bonita, California 91902
8. Her husband, THOMAS V. TIPPS, predeceased her, having died in October, 2005, and
she is not married.
9. The Proposed Ward has four children born to or adopted by her, as follows:
THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS, Applicant
DOB: October 2, 1946; Adult
1 Beach Drive SE
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
GLENDA DELL JORDAN
DOB: August 25. 1944; Adult
P.O. Box 792
Battle Mountain. Nevada 89820
APPLl<;ATJO:,O: FOR APPOINTMENT OF TE~1PORA8\' GL\RDIA:"iS OF rm; Pt:RSO" A:-.D ESu.n; · Pae, 3 .
7
Document Page 171 of 240
SALLY JOYCE FINK
DOB: October I, 1948; Adult
709 S. 501h Street
Renton, Washington 98055
STEVEN VINSON TIPPS
DOB: November 20, 1950; Adult
3210 E. Beltline Road, #146
Carrollton, Texas 75006
10. Most of Proposed Ward's assets are held in Trust. However, there are the following
assets held outside the Trust:
Cash on deposit at Bank of America as of the filing of this Petition: $500.00 (approx)
2000 Lincoln Town Car and 1998 Ford Aerostar Van
Personal Property located in apartment
Monthly income: $12,584.00 from rentals, retirement plans, annuities, social security and
investments, transferred into Trust monthly
11. This Court has venue over these proceedings because the Proposed Ward is a resident of
Dallas County, Texas.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant prays that the Court consider this
Application for Appointment of Temporary Guardian of the Person and Estate of DORIS LEE
TIPPS; that notice and citation be issued as required by law; that an Attorney Ad Litem be
appointed to represent the interests of the Proposed Ward; that a time for hearing on this application
be set; that on hearing that THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS be appointed Temporary Guardian of the
Person and Estate of the Proposed Ward; that Letters of Temporary Guardianship be issued to
THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS as Temporary Guardian of the Person and Estate on taking the oath
and giving bond as required by law; and Applicant prays for such other and further relief to which he
may be entitled .
.-\PPI.ICATIO;", FOR APPO!i',Tl\-11::i'\T OF Tf.:\IPORAR\' Gl".-\RDIAi\S OF Tl![ Pl::RSO:'\ A'.'ID ESTA TE - Page-
4
8
Document Page 172 of 240
Respectfully submitted,
COOK, L.L.C.
Je ey Cook
State Bar No. 04734495
Lisa Leffingwell
State Bar No. 12158575
2301 Cedar Springs, Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 520-7494
(214) 528-6925 (fax)
ATrORNEYSFORPLAINTIFF
APPLICATION FOR AfPQ[NTMENT OF TEMPORARY GUARDIANS OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE· Page
5
9
Document Page 173 of 240
STATE OF FLORIDA §
COUNIY OF e{1....,,,//K, §
§
BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared THOMAS
RICHARD TIPPS, who, being by me duly sworn on his oath, deposed and said that he has read the
above and foregoing Application for Appointment ofPenn anent Guardians of the Person and Estate
and that the allegations contained therein are within his personal knowledge to be true and correct.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO)IEFORE ME by THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS
on this, the ~ day of ~ \ , 2013 .
• ~
• '
MY``
EXPMB: Aclrll 8, 2017
liCIICled 'nru Notayi'd; UnderwrleB
NkMAL
bPPUCATlON FOR APtpJNJr,1ENT OF Ttr,b1P<>llARY G1JARDIANi.on11K PKRSON AND ESTATE· Pne 6
10
Document Page 174 of 240
Declaration of Guardian in the Event of
Later Incapacity or Need of Guardian
I, DORIS LEE TIPPS, make this Declaration o f ~ to operate if the need for a guardian for
me later arises.
l. I designate my son, THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS, to sen·c as guardian of my
person. In addition; I appoint my daughter, GLENDA DELL JORDAN, to serve as
first alternate guardian of my person.
2. I designate my son, moMAS RICHARD TIPPS, to serve as guardian of my
estate. In addition, I appoint my daughter, GLENDA DELL JORDAN, to serve as
first alternate guardian of my estate.
3. If any guardian or altemate guardian dies, does· not qualify, or resigns. the next
named altcmatc guardian becomes my guardian.
4. I expressly disqualify the following person from serving as guardian of my person:
STEVEN VINSON TIPPS.
S. I expressly disqualify the following·person from serving as guardian of my estate:
STEVEN VINSON TIPPS.
I, DORIS LEE TIPPS. as Deetarant, after beiDg duly swom, declare to the undersigned witnesses
and to the undersigned authority that this instrument is my Declaration ·of Guanlian in the Event of
Later Incapacity or Need of Ouaniian. and that I have made and executed it for the purposes
expressed in the declaration. I now aign this declaration in the presence of the attesting witnesses
and the undersigned authority-on this 19th day of July, 2012.
DORIS LEE TIPPS, Declarant
The undersign~ Sari Northcutt and RDbin Clarko, each being J4 years of age or older, after being
duly sw~ declare to the Declarant and to the undersigned authority that the Declarant declared to
us that this instrument is the Declarant's Declaration of Guardian in the Event of Later Incapacity or
Need of Guardian and that the Declanmt executed it for the purposes expressed in the Declaration.
Tho Dcclarant then signed this declaration and we believe the Dcclarant to be of sound mind. We
new sign our names u attesting witnesses on this 19th dayofJuly, 2012.
Witness Witness
Print Name: Sari Northcutt Print Name: Robin Clarke
Document Page 175 of 240
CIVIL CASE INFORMATION SHEET
CAlJR Nl/MUR (FOR Cl.EU USE ONLY): ~ '0-:" ~] 1. 3 COURT (FOR CURJ{ l/SE ONLY}:
s~ Po r I s .~ L ---1J.a.~ ~
(e.g.,Jdlll Slllllh v. All.Amerieui ~ Qe Mary ADii Joacs; In the Maaw of the &late ofG~Jelacboa).
-·----
. ·
A civil case information sheet must be completed and submitted when an 11fi$in.i pDtition or application is filed to iniliatc a. new civil, family law, probate or mcatal
. healtb r:a.se or when a post'iUd8meat petition for modi&alion or motion .fbr enforceincm i.s filed in a funily law case. The infomation should be tru: bc:lt ~vailllble et
``d· . .
Na.ma or Penoa ·or entl If 111eet IJ:
for PlaintiffJPctitioncr
Plaintiff{s)/Pctiti OPro St Plaintifti'Pctidoner ·
OTitle IV-D· Agency
P.fl'ltl "'2 · OOtlter: - - - - - - -
rifuv J.- ·. - - - - - - 1
T,Lld).:>...____,__
V Additional Parties In Cliild Support Case:
Dcfcndant(s)/Respondcnt(s}: · Cusrodi.111 Parent:
{Jprt-s Let:..
Non-Custodial Parent:
Presumed Father:
Pon-Jlldpaat Adiou
Contnict aoa--TftlelV·D
Debt/C:,ntmet Assault/Battery Annulrncnt .Enforcement
0ConswnerlDTPA ()Construction 0Declarc Marriage Void Modific:atioo-CuStOdy
. [}DebtlContract ODcfllmMion Dtvorce 0Modific:alioa--Othcr
OFraud/Mistepresentation Majp_raciit:e qwi~ Childrtn_ _ TideJV-D
OO!her Ocbt/ContraQt O.Accounting ONo Cbildien Enf~odific:ation
(JLogal Paternity
For,c/o.nJn 0Medical tl~(UIPSA)
0Homc Squity-Bxpedited OOthcr Professional 0Support Order
00ther Foreclosure Liability:
t}Franehise llelated to Criminal
Oinsurance 0Motor Vehicle Accidal.t Matten Pal'Cllt-chlld RclltiOm'III
OLandlord/Teoant 0Promiscs xp11t1ction rce Foreign Of»iowAdoptioll with
0Noo-Compctition Pnxluct LflJb1tuy 0Jlldgment-Nisi Judgment Tcrminatton
0P11111Cr$ip 0Asbcstos/Slllca ONon·Disclosurc OHabeas Corpus [JChild Protection
OOtber Connet: 00thor Product Liability OSea:um!Forteiture IJNamc Change ·0Child Support
List Pfoduct; 0Wrlt of Habeas Corpus-- (JProtectivc Order 0Custody rmlnotlon of Mental Retardation• is based on on eKOminati011 mode not earlier than 2-4 months before
the date of the hearing. But If o phy,ldan's diognosb of lntetrectuol disability Is !!S!l. mode In accordance
with Tel«U Httilth li Safety Code§ 593.00S - and the above bo1< is not filled out - the court mey grant a
guordlanshlp opptlcoHon only If the Pl1ysldon's Certificate of Medical Exomlnotl~ ·1s based on on
e1e Texas Probate Code§ 687(c)(A) Et {a)_ ·
1 /n H.B. 1481, the 2011 Legislature directed the Legislature and Texas Legislative Council to avoid using the term "mental
retardation" In new statutes and co change that term as exislfny statutes are otherwise amended. Because the Probate
Code stl(I refers to "mental retardation" as a basis for o guordio.nship, and Health Et Sofety Code ~till requires a
udeterminotlon of mental retardation"(§ 593.001 et seq.), this form quotes that phrase from the statutes when necessary.
PAGE 3 OF4
28
Document Page 184 of 240
QPHYSICIAN'S CERTIFICATE OF MEDICAL EOATION f,i('visionJune I, zo1i
5. EVALUATION OF CAPACITY
f.2] Y£S ONO·· Based on the information above, it is my opinion that the Proposed Ward is
incapacitated according to the legal definition given at the top of page 1.
If ''YES," please indicate the level of incapacity
O PARTIAL* (8J TOTAL
*if you answered "~O" to all of the questions regarding decision-making in Section 3 (on page 2) and
believe the Proposed Ward is partially incapacitated, please explain:
If you answered "YES". to any of the .questions regarding decision-making in Section 3 (on page 2) and
· believe the Proposed Ward is totally incapacitated, please explain: Ms. Tipps's exectutive funcitoning,
concentration, memory, and general ability to protect herself from undue influence/exploitation
are all deficient. She·feels one of her sons took advantag~ of her for a substantial period of·time.
If true, this shows she cannot protect herself. If it is untrue, she is either deluded or has been
deceived. Either way, it should be apparent she cannot look after her own interests. Regrettably,
Ms. Tipps's prognosis is poor.
6. ABILITY. TO AlTEND COURT HEARING .
If a hearing on a11 application for the appointment of a guardian is scheduled fn court:
O YES rgJ NO -- The Proposed Ward would be able to attend, understand, and participate in the·
hearing.
D YES rgJ NO·· Be<::ause of his or her incapacities, it would not be advisable for the Proposed Ward to
appear at a Court hearing because the Proposed Ward would not be able to
understand or participate ln the hearing.
O YES ~ NO ·- Does any current medication taken by the Proposed Ward ~ffect the demeanor of the
· P.roposed Ward or his or l:ler ability to participate fully in a court proceeding
7. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF BENEFIT TO THE COURT
If you have additional information concerning the Proposed Ward that you betieve the Court should be
aware of or other concerns about the Proposed Ward that are not included above, please explain:
Ms. Tipps's memory for her medications is. suspect. However, for what it fs worth, she did not recall
taking cognitive enhnacing medications such as Aricept, Namenda, and Cerefolin NAC. If she is not, .
she could improve with this kind of inte.ryention. Ms. Tipps atso displayed a left upper extremity
piU·rolling tremor. If not already evaluated, this may need to be looked into as welt.
October 17,2013
Physician's Signature Date
J. Douglas Crowder, MD
Physfcian's Name Typed
PAGE 4 OF 4
29
Document Page 185 of 240
- - - - - ··-·----
~(
,
DORIGINAL
NO. PR-13-3072-3
fN RE: ESTATE OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT
§
DORIS LEE TIPPS, § NUMBER THREE OF
§
AN ELDERLY/DISABLED PERSON § DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
INDEPENDENT MENTAL EXAMINATION
On September 13, 2013, came on to be considered the Motion for Independent Mental
Examination filed by Thomas Richard Tipps. Based on the agreement of the parties, the Court finds
that it is well taken and should be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Doris Lee Tipps shall, as soon as possible, undergo an
Independent Mental Examination by Jaye Douglas Crowder, M.D., the court-appointed psychiatrist;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the examination shall be conducted with no one else
present other than Doris Lee Tipps and Jaye Douglas Crowder, M.D. and his staff and medical
advisors;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no one communicate with the physician or psychiatrist
prior ~o the issuance of his report except as may be necessary to schedule the examination.
SIGNED on thi~day of September, 2013.
JUDGE PRESIDING
PR-lf-03072-3
COOR
OltOEA
:IOUD66
,1111m1111mm1111111
ORDER ON MOTION FOR INDEPENDENT MENTAL EXAMINATION - Solo Page
25
Document Page 186 of 240
x.
MENTAL EXAMINATION REPORT
KATHLEEN C. SAINE, Ph.D.
Document Page 187 of 240
NEURO PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING
DORIS L. TIPPS
EXAMINER: DR. KATHLEEN SEINE
Document Page 188 of 240
``·------------------
FEB-05-2014 09:13 From~972 566 3935
\·
,.
·,
tL
L'.,
':-'·
'
North Texas Neuro-Strokei OP
7777 forest Lane, Bldg C Suite 300
Dallas, Tx 75230
;,
Phone: 972-566-3472
Fax: 972-566-3488
To: From: Dr. David lsaradisaikul
k· .
..
,.
•;,
•.· Phone: Date:
__REPLY
Conflrlentlallty Ntitia!
The 'documents accompartvfng thts tt.insri\lnlan contain conftdentlal prlvl~ lnfonnwun. The information Is the property of
the Hnder and II Intended onty fof use by the Individual or entity named abCM!. The recipient of this lnfvrmation Is pmhlblftd
from distloslng the: contents of the Information tu another party; Jf you are Mlthlf the Intended l'Klplent nor the eniP.loyee or
apnt responsible for delivery to the Intended rec:lplen\, you ate herebt notlt1ed that dlsdolure of contents In any fflll'.I'*' .Is:
strktly prohibited, PleaH notify me lmmedla«!IV If-you n:ce!Yed this lnformatlun In emir.
Document Page 189 of 240
FEB-05-2014 09:13 From:972 566 3935
. 011:31/2014 11·29 2143739614 PSVOFFICE #2125 P. 002/008
Office of Ronald G. :Paulman, Ph.D. Clinical Neuro12chology
= 1!PF! £?
Ronatd G. Paulman, Ph.D. 9400 N. Central Jb:pwy.. Suite 1211
Clmkal~ Danas. Texas75231-S03l
(214) 373-4688 · 373-9614 (Fax)
JutbJeen C. Saine, Ph.D.
Clinical Neuropsythol.ogy
Nenropsythological Evaluation
Namci: Dom Tipps
Age: 91
D.O.B..: I 1/11122
Handedness: Right
Referral Source: David Isaradisaitul. M.D.
Date Evatnauid: llf.l./1:$ &: 12/16/13
Examiner: Kat.h.leen C. Same. Ph.D.
ldeol.i.licauon!Ra,~11 for Referral:
Ms. .Doris Tipps is a 91-yw-oid Caucasian female with cognitive dee!'* ofunconain duration. Her neurologist Dr.
Da.vid lsaradisallml, has diagnosed her-with mild cognitive imp;lnmmt, but psychiatrist, Dr. Jaye Crowder; has
diagnosed her with seyt.ro domont.ia.. To Gl5ist with dia2[lostic clarification, a neuropsyc:hological evaluation wmi.
requested by Pr. isaradisaikul to objeaively eharacteri~ Ms. Tipp11.i' CUTTP,nt co~itive status. We undorstand that the
question of competence to h1111dla lega.1/flnancial mall.els has been raised as well, ll!'ld lll:!COrdiTJi 1I> Ms. Tipps, care
providers u wet! as filmily mmi~ ruwe o:fRred different opinions. Cuttently. her )'QIIllger son, Mr. Steve Tipps. who
accompanied her to the evaluation, has Medical P~er of AttQrn~·. Tn his presence,. Ms. Tipps agrt:G(l to undergo
Wessmetl~ of'her cogniiivc llbilitiu (inchlding hutnot lim.Ited to attenrl®'i:On.ccnttution. Ianeuaee, problem sowing,
reasoning, and :nemory) for the purpose of diagnostic and treatment plamiin&, wi:lh the understanding that: the finclings
may be subsequently introduced in court to address tb.o quOGuon of her competence to make decisions and handle her
own lffil.irs.
Rti:ords Reviewed:
Relevant~· was obtained from ll rev ic,w nf recOfds pr;>vided by Dr. 1sara.dtsaikul's office (office 1:1ot0s dated
11/2912, 5122113, and 8/1:2/13) and through interviews with Ms. Tipps and her son, Mr. Stove Tipps. Mr. Tipps also
provided the following records: Office note completed by Ann MoJTison PA·C 1nd Joel Holiner, MD dated 11126/12:
and Physician's Certificate ofMediCDJ Exominlltion completed by Dr. Jaye Crowder dated 10/I 7113.
Hi$tory of Present lll.ness & Cur.rent Complaints:
On initial questionini, Ms. Tipps denied cognitive changes beyond what she eo.nsiders norm.a.I for her age. She also
denied experiencing sievere emotional distress, alth¢urh sho Sa.id that 811¢ was stressed about the ongoing qucst;ons
about her compctcmie. She expressed dlsappointrncmt in one of her IOIIS who had allegedly spent some of her money on
a trip ovOf"..eas. She an.id that sbo h119 chanaed hor will and has decided to leave her e~l..l!li;:: to h~r other scm, but hm-
decision 1o do so is being contested. Spa:ifically, sh!:! said that ber older son wants to have her declared incompetent to
that the reoentwill is ma.do nuU and. void.
Physically. Ml;. Tipps' current complaints include numbDcss or loss of feelings in her fi1Jgon. She also conrplamcd of
.frequent left ftonml headaches. When que$tioncd atloui llor heallh problems, Ms. Tipps said she did not know whai she
had. She knew she was takine medications, but could not recall their names. When th~ were read to her, she had
Document Page 190 of 240
FEB-05-2014 09:14 From:972 566 3935 Pase:3/8
01/31/2014 17·30 214S7S9614 PSVOFFICE #2125 P.00'3/008
Neinvpll)'chologic:al Eval\lati.on
Dori$ TiJ>ps
--Page2 of7
1rouble saying what each medication was for. She denied reoent change in weight and appetite. and also denied sleep
.problems.
Currently. Ms. Tipps lives in a two bedroom two batfl apartment at Lakeview, a retirement community. She said th4t ~he
goes downstairs fot nre&ls, and does everything else on her own. Her medications are stt oot in a tray, and zl'ie believes
1hat she is adh.oront to hc::r treatment regimen; ber son did not contradict ber. Her son said tbm a. nurse checb in on a
weekly or bi-weekly basis. She alt:<> has a.ida from Mom'• Best Friends who come in for 12-holIT overnight shifts. She
is on portable oxygen and. h11$ b=il ,aiog a oebulizer as well She wears an alert button. and knows to preas it if she
needs help.
Medical History;
As noted above, Mt. Tippt we:s wiablc to li.C hot hoalln problems when questioned. According to her son an& availablo
records, m4DCliw history is remarkal,Je for atrial fibrillation, homt fllilure and rccurtont brondiifu/
pneumonia. She was mOSt rccerttl}' .hospitalized from IOl.l9/l3 to 11/2/13 for pneumonia and 1hrush. She a.lso hu
arthriti,, and records show a history of deep vein thrombosis.
Surgeries include placement of a pacemaker. removal of ~in r:Anr:P."r ftnm her upper lip, bltddet suspension, and
.surgeries on her foet,
There i$ .no history of 1igniftc1Jl't head t.tallmll.. Ms. T!pr,s dcn.ied hisl.OIY of dl1lg and al'10hol use. She bas never smoked
tobacco.
Ms. Tipps d~nied hi&to.cy oftn:atmcnt fur ps,Yohiittrjc dlsturbanoo. Howev~. bet son reported thzlt Ms. Tipps was seen
by Ann Morrison, PA..c/Joel Holmer, M D (~,;-lliauist} ou 11126112. Records ofdlat visit show that sho underwi;nt
clinical interview/exam and took computerized "tests lhat screened for symptoms of depression, 1111x:ii:ty ad post.
trauma.~ ~ disorder. The int.erview and test result.$ were apparently intorJ,reted to mean that Ms. Tipps, did not meet
DSM-IV criteria for depreuiOD. dylthymia, anxiety or pQJt.traumadc slfeSs disorder (PTSD), However, mental status
txam apparently revealed abn~I immediate and recent memory, and a pre$umptive di.agnoalt of''Mffltal Disorder
NEC" was given. She was scheduled tw- furthor testing with 1he Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) on the next visit. It
i.s unelear if she returned for full~np tc:sting.
A CT 1can without contra.st wrted 7113/12 revealed mild diffuse prominence ofventricles and extra IJX.ial space thought
to be consi5tmrt with iigo-~lDd 11Tophy. Low menumon cbanges in tlle periventricular and deep whn:e mar was
thought i;~e8tivc ormJcrovascular ischemla, which had progressed slightly since the previous scan of7/J 3/07. CT
angiography of the cin:l~ of Willis w~ umemarhble, but CT angiography of exi:z'a-cmnial ocrvicol circulation revealed
some atherosclerotic calcification within the aortic: arch.
Ms. Tipps bu boen followed by Dr. l&aradisaikul, neurologist, since 11/29112. At her ':,fllJI3 vi'lit, she had iUI MMSE
score of 23/30. She was dia.anosed with Mild CognitivP. ltnp:,iinnP.nt :mn prescribed Done-pegil. On hff subseq~t visit
on 8/12113, she had an MMSE score of 26./'30. She was to continue with donepezil. and because of concerns about
comp4'tefl~. t"M()fflll to a psych.latrisl wu recommended. Accordmg to MI son, 1\.ltth« cognitive Improvement wu
seen in her most recent follow up with :Or, Isarad.i$aoo.1I when she eame.:1 o. GWfO of 28130 (preowntlbly on the MMSE).
Ms. Tipps w11111pparently ov;Nw;d by peycbiattist. Dr. Jaye Crowder on 10/14/13. The results of that evaluadQJl,
docwnented in a Physician's Ctrtifigam of Medical Examination da~d 10/17/13, wa.11 thought to be consistent with a
KVlrrll dom.onti11. She Wll:l deemed totally incapacitated as. ..her ~ecutive functioning, concentration, memory and
general ability to protect herself from undue Influence/exploitation are all deficient." Dr. Crowder also indicated that
Ms. Tipps did not recall taking cognitive c,han¢m lit d!a.t timo. imd rocommended th1t sho could boncfit frotn these
uiedicatiott!l. Ho~ reoommended follow-up for a left upper- extremity pill-rolling tremor. As noted below, she has
been tak.inz Donepezil, but it is unclesr if she ~ \lndergone folIO\\o'-up fbr the hand tTe-mor.
Ma. Tippa was unable to list tin:: ,nodica.tlons she was taking at the time of this evaluation. According to her son, Mr.
Steve Tipps, she was taking the followin&- Dos.ages were ll.01 specified on some oflhe medications:
Document Page 191 of 240
FEB-05-2014 09:14 From:972 566 3935
01/31/2014 17:30 2143739814 PSVOFFICE 12125 P.004/008
Neuropsychological Bvaluotion
Doris TipJ)I
-Pag~3 of7
Warfarln (Coumadin) .s mg
Aspirin 81 mg
Lasix
Benecar
Danepozil
Albuterol/PulmBCQrt.
Family medical histoty is significant for heart problems in her :father who died following a heart attack at age 69, Rer
mo1he. reportedly died of "neglect'' .it a.gc 87. One slstor has hccn diagnoSfld with dementia; she had a stroke and suffers
ft'om heart disease. Two brothers died of Al2heimer's disease. another died from a mob and he also had a biaia tumor.
The fourth brother had an aneurysm and died of a stroke..
DevelopmentaJ, &dueationa.l, Occupattonat & Social History:
According to Ms. Tipps (wilh additional infonnation provided by her son). she wu born and raised in Denton, Texaa.
Her :falher was a farmcrJjack--of-all-tradcs, and h~r m!'Aher wu a homemaker. Four brothers are deceased; two were
donti!Jtl, ono wa, In lnsi.nnce, and d>e other was in sales. Her 97-year-old sister is a retired tcacbcr who lives in
Weslaco, Tex.as, and ~Cl' 83-year-old sister is a retired hlgh school principle who lives in San Diego.
To her knowledae, Ms. Tjpps is the Jm)duct of a full-term pregnmcy lDJd unoompli~ doliVOJ)', She was prone to
pneumonia. in childhood, but developmenta.l delays wore not rc,portad.. Sha completed high school without difficulty,
and 5\lbscquondy comocl 1.Baobelor's de:ree io Joumalismftom Texas Women's University in 1942. Re!ilides raising
her children., she taught ar the Carrolton Independent School Dimict from the early l S>509 to 1976.
Mi, Tipps was married to an .iutcmal revenue agent. who :reportedly di~ 6 )"illr3 ago· of"old ~ 1111.d 11omeehing else."
She said that they had been good friends since hlS}, sebool and \VeNI married tor "many years." Ms. Tipps said trutt llbe
hu ii. tol:41 of l 8 children. grand.cbildren and gra:1:jJrandcliildren, all of whom she had made provisions f'or in I will. She
gave the names of he: 4 children, when they were born, where they live., and their m.artc:al srams. Her ,on suppHed
medi,;al hisb;JI)·. Ms. Tipps sa.id that her 69·year-okl daughter is married, and lives in Nevada where she works as m
"11:ist Her 67-year-o Id son i$ a. retired marketing executive who lives in Florida with his fmnily. Ho has a hard condition
11nd had a defibrillator placed, but is otherwise heatthy. Her 6,.cyea:r·old daughter i3 a chW'ch organist who resides with
her family in WuhingtQn Stde. She has Lymes disease and an unspecified autoimmune disorder. Her 63-year-,old son
who accompanied her to the evalllZll:ion is single, and dcseribed himself M an ontropl'Ollcur. He has arthritis.
Ms, Tippa' oldot soo had boon CO-TIU8'et of her assets until recontl)r, whm the cowt ordered appointment of a corporate
1:l'U!tl!e. Power-of-attciffle}' h!!S been gtm,t'ed. to her younger son, who will <1Ssume guardjanshlps should she bo doemcd
i.ngomp$twlt co mona.,si., hw 11.fmin. She '°1Jo mo that lho I\Da 1avorcl ront hou:ies i.n the colony, owns one tree farm, hu
interest in another, arid owns a home on Hood Street where her younger son lives. She has some investmenrs 8$ well,
bur could not rccal..l details.
Clh•kal Prese»bitiou:
Ms. Tipps presented 10 the evaluation iJ:t fa&hionablo attiro, with good hygiene and grooming. She walked slowly and for
short dl1tanoos using~ rolling walk.er. She had portl!ble oxygen, which she used throughout the evalwrtian. She had a
'°
mild le.fl hand tremor, bl.It Wat al>IO carry out llimds-on tulc& without lipinc;.mt difficulty, Vision was a-dequate for
testing. However, she was hard ofhearing, and the ex.rutiiner had to raise her voice and use visual cues when approprla.le
and not prohibited by standardized procedures. Spee¢b w" normal for tone, volume and inflection. but noticeable for
frequent word-finding diffleult.iea_ She Wl.darstood instructions, but would get eonfu$ed or forget wh~ shq wai r~uired
to do. Mood was reponed to be euthymic., while affe¢t wti eo.n.Qruent. TIIOUQl'ltprocesses were generally logical and
pl-oift1.:w", though she sometimes returned to topics that had been discussed during lni!ial lnterview. Thought content
was unremarlcable., v.i;ith no e'fidence of delulion.s or 1uicidal/homicidAI idmtiom- She nlso deniad hal111cinations.
Records indicate tha(she may lmvc had dclu:.iol18 (ofhl!llging out with thi= Queen of England) some time in the pasl
Document Page 192 of 240
·- -·- - --- - - -
FEB-05-2014 09:14 From:972 566 3935 Page:5/8
o,1s1;2014 11:21 2143739814 P~\IOFl=IC~ #
2125 P. 005/008
Neuropsychological ~-aluation
Doris Tipps ·
-Page4 of7
Ms. Tipp, was alert: Bt1d cooperative with the initial interview, but when questioned,. she acknowledged nm $he was
tired, S."'ld she was also recov~ing from a toc.cnt buut of pnc:wuouia. Whe11 option.s we1 e offered, she dioi;e to defer
tl!!sting to maximize pcr,ssibility for giving optimal perfunmmce. She subsequently returned 2 weeks fullowing the
inf.erview, and testing ~as completed without incident. Throughou.t the evaluation. she was pleasant and cooperative,
and appeared 10 pm ~rm oonsistcm ~ffort. We wm able to obtain a valid sampling of her ~ent functioning,
However, interpretati(??I cf tho reaults is challcngq as th~ a.re limited nonm for her age group. Compared to younger
Individuals, her resultj; may appear severe though the level of impairment does not take into account the impact cf
aaing.
Tests Adminmered: i
Rewrds .Revlciw
Clinical Interview
CoUaiota.l lntervlow i
Neuropsycholo,ay Qu~onnafre
NeuropsychologicaJ ~ptom Checklist
Wecllsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) selected subt:ests
Test Qf Pmnotbid Fr.mctiotring
Dementia Rating Sea~ - 2
Trail Making Test i
WiscOtllin C::ud Sorting Ttsl
Controlled Oral Word Association
Category Fluency
Boston Naming Test !
Cloek Drawing :
Callfomla Verbal Lespiing Test- Second Editi2125 P. 006/008
Neuropsychologica.l ~Brion
Doris Tipps
-~'of7
despite corrective feedback (29 perseverati"-e responses in 33 responses). In contrast, verbally rned~d
conceptualizatioa/abst:raction WM low average and bC'AtO.r pn,sMVcid (25111. pen:entile). Within the s,rueture oftbe test
sattlng. shew= not 11.t ~l izl1p11lslvo ot aoolally disi.nhibitediinappropriate.
VisuospatiaJ Abilit!g: Ms. Tipps' freehand drawing of a (;~k I;\'c:a1eQ significant di~lties with spatial plaml.!As
on 12/2/13, which improved with a model to copy. l-Icr eloek drawiui 2 week.a later on 12116/13 was much boner,
though SI)21ial plann`` efficiencies remamed. She was able to depict the specified time. however, suizgesting broadl-y
intact perceptual reasoning. Mild difficulties with spatial planning woro 1180 ..-. on her copies of simple figures.
Ability to distinguish !similaritic3 and ditrerem.oes mnong geometric designs was generally i.nlacL
Language Abilities: On a CODV¢1'satlonal level, Ms. Tipps had ~ional word finding difficulti~. bli.t wi,15 able to
convey her thoughts. !This was. reflected 011 formal Wi&e&Smellt, Confrontation .naming was mildly-to,.modmitely
impaired cr-~re - 34), and she wnded to describe what she could not name (i.~... cht:I.Ul\lOcl.l1ion). Verbal flu.ency WU
de:fuctive: Lettur/pb~ic fluency was mildly impaired (T-seore • ,R} Anri vMiahle from trial tQ trial.
Caregory/s.emantic fh;ency was moderately,1to-,cvero]y Im-paired (T..score= 20). However, she was able to discem
similarities among ~on objects/concepts, placing verbal reasoning at the low end of ave~ for her age (2s1"
percentile). ·
Leaming & MemoJY: Memory was severely impaired for both vcrbDI 1111d nonverbal ma1.erial. Specifically, lmmtdiat.e:
recall of structured v~ material in the fonn of short 51:0riei, was borderline for her age (cJ1' percentile). She did not
bettefrt from repetiliop. $he also tended to mix up names of people 1111d places, at1.d lnitoduced i.nfonnadon from one
story into another. A~er a 30-minute delay, she forgot both S\QriQB and d.id not benefit from cues. Rccognlt.ioQ memory
assessed in.11. Yes!No;{onnat wu 11ot much better thiltl c:hr.mce. I...earnitli of less structured verbal material in fue fonn of
a 9-itc:m WQrd li:;11 w~ ~c:...-Qtel)' implirod (T-aOOR • 19). She only recalled one word after me list wu road to her, but
she improved with repetition, with 2, 3, and , words Ieameid oi,, subsequeiit 1rials Shi/\ n"Called only one word Clftm- an
i.nlerference task, ani4 sh11 cotild not rmrimnber any ofihe. words after a 10-minute delay. Semantic cuM did not help;
inst:lsad 1he cuea elici:Cld 7 intnaion errorn. Delayed recogomon memory was de1'ect.lvc as well; She oorrectly i.dentlfied
8 of the 9 words, but bdc 1Ofalsc-posftlve cttOft, suggesting difficulty diKriminatin& relevant from irrelevant
infonmti.on, Vi3ulll -.cmory wu similarly poor. Specifically, immediate recall of simple geometric figures we.s mildly
below expectation (Sf percentile), and after a 30-rnimrte delay, she oould n.ot rep~ any of ihe figures. Recognition
memozy assessed wiTh a multi~co 'fbffllat we& 1imilarly dri"ective, with none of the figt1Te$ correctly idli:nti'*i
when. each was shown to her alo.o& with 5 di$tractors. In sum, memory f¢1' both verbal W1d nonvwilal information was
severely dete¢tlve. S~e learned minimal information, did uot benefit consistently from repetition or cues, and could not
reco<>..,nize what she C?uld not recall. This pattmn is indicative of an arnnestio disorder.
Motor Skills; Screpning of motor skills revealed Jntact alternating hand movements, ~ut she hod difficulty ~c(;uting
3·stcp motor $eCJuenqes with !!lither h11nd. She was able to do the sequmcq with verbal guldance. Motor fnhibition to
verbal commands ~ within nonnaJ lim1ts, and ideomotor and ideational praxis were intact.
Emotiooal Funcuonrng.:
Ms. Tippt endorsed C,,W symptoms on an lnvemory of cloprosaivo symptoms. This is consisrem with her interview
presentation. She dewed experiencing significant distress. However, she reported that she has trouble with dcieision~
muing and her mind is not as clear before. On further review of her emotional status, Ms. Tipps expressed eoncem mat
qu1stions hive been nuHd a.bout her capacity to mKO dociliou and choice1 11:>out what she wants to do with her
poS$eMions and ~ - She expresad disappoinwmt with one of her sons, and indicated disgruntlement with what he
had supposedly dono,aplnst bet wieha. M~I st.a.Ills exam revealed no evidenCI!: of'psyeho,ii; though records indicate
possible delusional tl}inking in the past.
Funetio11.1H Skills: :
Ms. Tipps.' ability l.2125 P. 007/008
Neuropsychological Eyllluatlon
Doris Tipps
-fagc6of7
Aliheimer's dlseasc. Spet.ifica.lly, $he was able to read 1he date and day on a ealerida.r, but had trouble determinlng the
specific day of the monlh. She was only a few mlnntes offwheu tt:lling f.ime or depicting a specifiro lime cm a clock
dnwing, but she had c:onsid"'8ble difficult), calcularing how much time would pau between timto.ne and time two. She
st.id that she could not bop the times in her head. She was inconsistent in her ability to count change (e.g., UlQOiroct in
counting 75 cents buticorr«:t in CQUJ'Jting $1.53). She also askod (rtq"YCDtly for repetition or clarificat!Q~ or took a long
tiln~ to do the c!llculations. She a~o ~id om:; am01.Q1t. btit handed over a dlff'ercnt mnount..
In contr~ Ms_ Tipps was able to write oU! a check to pay a utility bill, llDd to addnm an envelope tD send in the check_
She Wil6 ill$o able to lpok up phone num\lert iD 11imulated phone book with white ~ yellow pages, and dialed them
ool'l'Gcily. Hbwc.ver. When asked what number she should call in :m emergency, she iia.ve her home number_ She was
also able to give verbal instructions on how to make a 11111dwicb, but was unable t o ~ out written directions on
making a simple meal with the mic:row•ve. After a delay, she was unable to recall in{orm.otion W>Oul the cheek sho had
wrnll'.n, specifical!y lie 'Pf.y.,G 111d the amount. She also could not recall what she wa:. to do when an alarm sounded.
five mlni.ttes "before, s;he had been instructed to take a spcieific number of candies out from a bottle when the alann
sounded_ Instead, wh~ the alann sounded, she asked ifthe examiner should answer the almm, llnd verbal and visual
Cl.IDS did not holp hCll' romtmbtr what she had been iJistructed to do. In sum, !ICMening revealed moderate impaumcnt of
lADL skills1 &Uggostipg 1hat Ms. Tipps Is requires more guidanee, struCture IWd assistance than ;she i~ rc:ce;ving
currently. '
Smnmar)\ Co,icln1l~n1.1, IJl!.))litatiou .& kecommendations:
Ms. Tipps intellect W!1S pre4icted to be in lhc average range. Howeffl, most C(lgnitive acmams wtSSed were
substantially waakar,:indiG8t.ina a : . ~ t decline from her pte-viou:s level of'functio.n.i.ng. Attention/conoentratio11
varied: Although int.a¢t on simple tasks and for bri.c.fpcrlodit sho tended tv lose track of whaL she was doing or thinking
over J.onae, periodi of fune an<1 when r»sks involved higher l6vol cognitive proces~ r.r integrative thinking. Speed of
processing also varied from mildly to severely impaired. Aspms of executive functions,. including problem solving and
metttal flexibility we,e defective. Ms. Tipps was able to carry on a conversation, but she had word-finding pauses due in
part to reduced thinking speed antl in part to a ruuniDg deficlr (Le_, dys.no.mili). Sho wa also able to comprehet.td 11t1d
amy out simple lnsuµctions, but noodod repetition a11 she forgot or got c o ~ with what she had been asked to do-
Ability t;i cium 1iulilmitics and di.ffe:rences among simple designs was intact, but she had difficulties with spatial
p.lanning/orgmuzatiou. Memory was profoondly impaited. Sbe lwned minimal information. mixed up infomtltion from
difment ixmtimr,, di~ not QOA&ista;i,tly bci:adit from repetition. and rapidly l"or_goL what $he had 1~ed after a bf,ef
. delay. Cu.es did not hielp her recall what sho had !eaffl~ lnlltaad, the ClJe$ elicited intrusion errors (seffl.!lltieo.tly relab:id
buc incorrect lnforn1*ion). keooillklon memory was also no better than spontaneous recall.
Overall, the cogniti"ve profile is Indicative oh mild dementia for someone her age, with milder deficirs in aspeet5 of
&IUQntiOllt Wl8\la&Q, -visuospe.tifll abilitia:i, and pr~essing speed, and more w,ere deficits in memOl)' end Cl«lwtive
:functions.. Screening ioffunctlonal skilli; revealed moderately impaired. instruiriental activlliec uf daily living skills,
.. rc:tloeLing ittl~ ot cognitive defklts or, day-tcHlay functioning. Sho had difti~ltie$ wilh making change, calculating
cllpscd time. cmr)'iDg out written :instructions. md remembering to whom she had written a chmik and fu,. what amount
When an alarm rang ~ minutes after Instructions had been givtn to bet, she could not remember what she hatl been
instru~ to do, s~)fii:ally to cako a ~in number of candies out cf a bottle. Neither visuaJ cues nor qu.....ioning
pmmpted .roeal.L ·
Ms. Tipps' cognitiVOf profile i& fA1ipsUve of a mix~ otiology. Most~ of her cognitive pattern are consist.oat with
that seen ln dementia of1he Alzheimer's type, allhough contrlbutlons of cerebrovascu.12r disease appear prosom.
C03fllti11e varlabilttylllClOSI two sonions spaced 2 weeks Apart AJJo suagests Sllpl';!'imposed impaci: of serious illness, in
this 1n11t111100. pnount9flia. Odlor nouromoclical condttiona. sy,tomic;: and metabolic dis1llrbances will need to be ruled oul,
Non-i.ntcllcctivc factors such w. hearing loss and mOQd/emotiol\$ could not account adequately for the e,,.1:ent 1!!1d
sqvcrity of her dcf'ici15.
i
The cuTTent cognitiv~ findi11gs suggest that Ms. Tipps l.s likely to function best in a strucruted settiJ\g with regular
rnonitorin.g, guidMco, tni:.l l'Ol1dily available l'J.Ssi!lt!lnoe_ Her fimrnion11.l ~ill~ are ot ihe low gnd of the range seen in
seniors residing in e.~isted living facilities. Arnoug cognitive deficits, memory and executive impairment tend t0 have
Document Page 195 of 240
FEB-05-2014 09!16 From!972 566 3935 Page!B/8
01/31/2014 17:32 21437398,4 PSVOFFICE #2125 P.008/008
Ncwop:sycholo3ica.l Eyciluarion
Doris Tipps
-Page7 of7
1he greatest impact on pnc· s ability to firncticnindependently. Additional dQficitrl in language (in Ms. Tipps' wac.
d)'&nI..O.
Kat111con c. Sa.mo, Ph.D. Ronald G. Paulman, Ph.D.
Clinical Neuropsychelogy Clinical Neuropsychology
I
Document Page 196 of 240
XI. REPORTERS RECORD
OCTOBER 21, 2014 HEARING
Document Page 197 of 240
1
1 CAUSE NO. PR-13-03072-3
2 VOLUME 1 OF 1
3 In re The Estate of )( IN THE PROBATE COURT
4 Doris Lee Tipps, )( NUMBER THREE OF
5 An Incapacitated Person)( DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
6
7
8
9 REPORTERS RECORD
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 BE IT REMEMBERED THAT ON the 21st day of October, 2014,
22 A.O. the above-entitled cause came on for hearing before
23 the HONORABLE COURT, Michael E. Miller, Judge Presiding
24 and the following proceedings were taken down by MACHINE
25 SHORTHAND:
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 198 of 240
- - --------------- - ~-~---- ---··- ·-··-· - ·-·---- --··--
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2 W. Thomas "Tom" Finley
3 5500 Preston Rd, Ste 390
4 Dallas, Texas 75205
5 SB: 07025500
6 ATTORNEY FOR DORIS LEE TIPPS, WARD
7 John H. Phillips
8 4313 W. Lovers Lane
9 Dallas, Texas 75209
10 SB: 15935500
11 ATTORNEY FOR SENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER
12 DALLAS D/B/A SENIOR SOURCE, GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON
13 Mr. Alvin J. "Al" Golden
14 400 W. 15th Street, Ste. 975
15 Austin, Texas 78701
16 SB: 08079000
17 FOR CUMBERLAND TRUST & INVESTMENT COMPANY
18 Mr. Jeff W. Cook/Lisa Leffingwell
19 2301 Cedar Springs Rd, Ste. 200
20 Dallas, Texas 75201
21 SB: 04734500
22 SB: 12158575
23 ATTORNEY FOR THOMAS R. TIPPS, GUARDIAN
24
25 MR. STEVEN TIPPS, PRO SE
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 199 of 240
... - -----·--·- -----
------------- --
3
1 W-1-T-N-E-S-S I-N-0-E-X
2 DE CE RD RC FD FC VOL PAGE
3 WITNESSES:
4 KAREN ASHWORTH 16 21 1
5 THOMAS R. TIPPS 23 1
6 THEODORE LUSTIG 29 1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 200 of 240
4
1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
2 THE COURT: Could I have all the attorneys
3 in the case, please state your names one at a time.
4 MR. COOK: Jeff Cook for Tom Tipps.
5 MS. LEFFINGWELL: Lisa Leffingwell, Tom
6 Tipps.
7 MR. GOLDEN: Alvin Golden with Cumberland
8 Trust.
9 MR. PHILLIPS: John Phillips. I represent
10 Senior Citizens of Greater Dallas, D/B/A as the Senior
11 Source, Guardian of the Person for Ms. Tipps.
12 MR. FINLEY: Tom Finley representing Doris
13 Tipps.
14 MR. COOK: -- And that is contested.
15 THE COURT: Is that what we're here for
16 today?
17 HR. COOK: Well, not primarily, Your Honor,
18 although, incidentally, it is because pleadings were
19 filed on Friday purportedly on behalf of Ms. Tipps, so
20 we did file a motion to show authority when that was
21 filed Friday, so that will need to be addressed.
22 The court will recall, you entered an order
23 back on February 17th determining that Doris Lee Tipps
24 was totally incapacitated at that time.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 201 of 240
5
1 MR. COOK: And so we have a challenge of a
2 lawyer's authority to step in on her behalf.
3 THE COURT: May I ask how you, in what
4 respect you represent Ms. Tipps?
5 MR. FINLEY: Sure, Your Honor. As the
6 court ordered there was a mediation, and in the
7 mediation all of the parties agreed and the mediation
8 settlement agreement is in the record, it was signed by
9 all the members of the Tipps family as well as approved
10 as to form by the attorneys. As part of the mediation
11 settlement agreement, the claims, particularly, the
12 claims with respect to the motion to show authority, was
13 released and waived by all parties. Secondly -- that's
14 point number one.
15 Point number two, is that the order that
16 the court entered on February 17th, 2014 was
17 interlineated to provide that Ms. Tipps was
18 incapacitated within the meaning of incapacitated under
19 the Texas Estates Code, which does not mean total
20 incapacity, it means only substantial incapacity as
21 defined in the statute, to do certain things.
22 THE COURT: What do you have to say about
23 that?
24 MR. COOK: Well, Your Honor, I have this to
25 say about that, we withdrew the motion to show authority
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 202 of 240
6
1 because at that point the case was settled --
2 THE COURT: This motion, I mean
3 MR. COOK: The prior motion to show
4 authority.
5 THE COURT: -- the prior motion.
6 This is a subsequent motion?
7 MR. COOK: Yes, Your Honor. At that time
8 there was a dispute about her capacity, the court
9 appointed Dr. Crowder, he did an evaluation, found her
10 to be totally incapacitated, we settled the dispute
11 totally, we thought -- and part of that was Scott Weber
12 had been appointed as her ad litem, he was authorized by
13 this court to finalize the settlement on Ms. Tipps'
14 behalf, he went forward and did that. And the court
15 entered its finding that she was totally incapacitated
16 at that point, totally, appointed Senior Source to be
17 the guardian of the person, and then we had an agreement
18 with respect to a new trustee of the trusts. That's
19 actually what we're here on. Because Steve Tipps,
20 because of some interference with that corporate
21 trustee, forced them to resign and they have resigned
22 and now we're here to kind of clean up that mess.
23 The order that you entered on February 17th
24 did not provide any provision for this lawyer to
25 continue as her lawyer after she was found to be totally
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 203 of 240
·-·--- ---------- ----
7
1 incapacitated. In fact the court made a finding that
2 certain documents were her trust documents, no other
3 documents were valid, so we filed a new motion when we
4 found out Friday that this counsel purports to continue
5 to represent her after the court entered its order on
6 February 17th, what happened before that went away
7 because the settlement, what happened after that has
8 become a big issue. He has filed a pleading opposing
9 us, he's filed a pleading opposing Mr. Phillips' relief,
10 allegedly on her behalf; this is new stuff.
11 THE COURT: Is that correct, sir?
12 MR. FINLEY: Well, it's partially correct.
13 I would ask the court to consider what's happened here.
14 We had a Rule 11 agreement that was dictated into the
15 record on September 13th, 2013, that provided that the
16 Tipps Living Trusts would be -- the sole trustee would
17 be a corporate trustee. Then there was a mediated
18 settlement agreement in which, again, all the parties
19 agreed that the Tipps Living Trusts' trustee would be a
20 sole trustee, would be a corporate trustee.
21 So now we come full circle whereby Thomas
22 Tipps is asking to be the trustee again of the Tipps
23 Living Trust in complete contradiction of both a Rule 11
24 agreement and a mediation settlement agreement. Now
25 with respect to the --
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214\ 653-6166
Document Page 204 of 240
------------------- -----
8
1 THE COURT: We're getting ahead of
2 ourselves.
3 MR. FINLEY: Okay. With respect to --
4 THE COURT: I'm just asking, Ms. Tipps is
5 totally incapacitated, right?
6 MR. FINLEY: No, Your Honor. Your order
7 does not say she is totally incapacitated. It says that
8 she's incapacitated as defined within the Texas Estates
9 Code and in the case --
10 THE COURT: When did she hire you?
11 MR. FINLEY: She hired me in, last summer.
12 MR. COOK: Well, 2013 summer, is what
13 you're talking about. before your order was entered.
14 MR. FINLEY: Yes, the summer of 2013.
15 THE COURT: And you admit that at this time
16 okay. Let me look at the -- Does anybody -- I'll have
17 to look it up on the computer but does anybody have the
18 order that I signed?
19 MR. COOK: That's it.
20 THE COURT: Oh, my goodness, where does it
21 say she's incapacitated?
22 MR. COOK: It says it in several places,
23 Your Honor, and if you start with page 1, paragraph 0,
24 the very first page.
25 THE COURT: Paragraph D?
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 205 of 240
9
1 MR. COOK: Yes, sir. You made a finding
2 that "Doris Lee Tipps is an adult incapacitated person
3 who is totally without capacity to care for herself
4 because of a mental condition."
5 THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to sustain
6 your motion to --
7 MR. COOK: Thank you, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: -- in terms, I'm going to rule
9 that this gentleman, a gentleman though he is, does not
10 represent Ms. Tipps at this time.
11 MR. COOK: Thank you, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Do I need to sign an order to
13 that he effect?
14 MR. FINLEY: Your Honor, I believe if I
15 may, I believe that the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
16 requires that that can't be done until 10 days -- that
17 I'm entitled to have 10 days to have a specific hearing
18 on that motion?
19 MR. COOK: We're having that hearing now.
20 THE COURT: -- I think I just had the
21 hearing, sir.
22 MR. COOK: Your Honor, we will get you an
23 order.
24 THE COURT: That hearing has been held and
25 had and you may remove yourself from the counsel table
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 206 of 240
--------- --- ·-------~
10
1 and sit as a spectator.
2 HR. COOK: Your Honor, the other two
3 motions that have been filed, one motion is a joint
4 motion between Cumberland and Thomas Tipps, that was
5 filed in this court on August 14th, and it's a motion
6 basically to address the problems with Cumberland as
7 trustee. Mr. Phillips filed, on behalf of Senior
8 Source, the guardian of her person, a motion that
9 predated that, that procedurally probably needs to be
10 heard first, it was first filed, probably makes sense,
11 and I'll defer to Mr. Phillips at that point. Those are
12 the only two motions that need to be heard.
13 THE COURT: Okay. Are there fact witnesses
14 that need to be heard?
15 HR. COOK: Yes, sir.
16 THE COURT: Please call your first witness.
17 Somebody call your first witness.
18 MR. PHILLIPS: Judge, I filed on behalf of
19 Senior Source, a motion to suspend or revoke the medical
20 power of attorney claim by Mr. Tipps from his mother.
21 And, frankly, I thought long and hard about --
22 THE COURT: Okay.
23 MR. PHILLIPS: about whether or not to
24 call witnesses and engage in a swearing match between
25 the witnesses, and I've decided, Your Honor, that,
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214\ 653-6166
Document Page 207 of 240
11
1 frankly, it's not necessary. The issue is, that there
2 is a conflict between the authority of an agent under a
3 medical power of attorney and the authority of the
4 guardian of the person, and the court having appointed
5 the guardian of the person and being charged with the
6 duties and responsibilities that they are under the
7 Estates code, it seems to me that it is a meaningless
8 exercise to have the guardian of the person, if the
9 court does not suspend or revoke the powers of the
10 medical power of attorney.
11 THE COURT: Is there an attorney here who
12 wishes to argue that point?
13 MR. COOK: Your Honor, Mr. Steve Tipps
14 filed a response to it; it is his medical power of
15 attorney that is the subject of Mr. Phillips' motion.
16 THE COURT: Whose?
17 MR. COOK: Steve Tipps. That gentleman
18 right there (indicating).
19 MR. TIPPS: Your Honor, I'm Steven Tipps.
20 THE COURT: Okay.
21 MR. COOK: And he filed it prose, so I
22 don't think he's a lawyer but he is here.
23 THE COURT: Okay. Do you wish to present
24 any facts or law on this issue, sir?
25 MR. TIPPS: Your Honor, the circumstances
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 208 of 240
12
1 that surround this for the last year, leading up until
2 the timeframe of the Senior Source being made the
3 guardian, and I was instrumental in bringing the
4 guardian to the table, and those circumstances are that
5 I am with my mother when Senior Source is not, four to
6 five nights, we went from October 29th, 2013, just after
7 the hearing, the 13th, on Friday the 13th, my mother
8 became very ill and I spent the beginning of 500 hours
9 taking care of her every single day at the Baylor --
10 THE COURT: Are you saying that you should
11 be named guardian?
12 MR. TIPPS: No, Your Honor, I don't contest
13 the guardianship.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 HR. TIPPS: I assisted this court in making
16 sure that Senior Source was appointed but, in the fact
17 -- due to the fact that I'm with my mother at night a
18 lot of times and I see things happening over there, I
19 mean, it is an amazing, egregious process of neglect,
20 negligent endangerment by the agent of the guardian.
21 For example, I mean, we went through -- from October
22 29th until November the 21st, mom was in Baylor Medical
23 Center, fully staffed, did a great job with her, I was
24 there every day, on weekends, two or three times a day,
25 and as we look at this, we see that the role that I
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 209 of 240
13
1 played involved, according to the emergency situation
2 she was in, for instance, on the 29th of October, on the
3 29th of October 2013, a Tuesday, I took my mother to a
4 Dr. David Seckl es' ( ph) office for a psychological - -
5 MR. COOK: Your Honor, I'm going to object
6 to this on the basis of relevance. These are things
7 that predate your order entered in February.
8 THE COURT: What I'm getting at, sir
9 MR. TIPPS: Yes?
10 THE COURT: -- is, are you claiming that
11 you should have a medical power of attorney even though
12 you' re not
13 MR. TIPPS: My mother assigned me.
14 THE COURT: even though you're not her
15 guardian; is that what you're claiming?
16 MR. TIPPS: I claim that there are unique
17 circumstances to the care for my mother in connection
18 with Senior Source and with the agent of Senior Source
19 which at the present time was Prestonwood. When I go
20 there four to five times a week at the present time, I
21 see things we could go back until to April 24th, which
22 is just a -- that's within the period when Senior Source
23 has claimed to be guardian,.
24 MR. COOK: Your Honor, I'm going to object
25 as this is nonresponsive to your question. I don't
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214\ 653-6166
Document Page 210 of 240
14
1 think we've ever got an answer.
2 MR. TIPPS: The point I'm making, having a
3 medical power of attorney that I've had, no one has
4 objected from all of this time, I'm in a position to
5 communicate
6 THE COURT: No one has filed anything to
7 remove Senior Source either; isn't that the point?
8 MR. TIPPS: I don't choose to remove Senior
9 Source. I'm saying that my mother's care needs someone
10 who's independent. Senior Source is not at the nursing
11 home, especially at night. They do not see these
12 medical mistakes, swapping medicines and other things,
13 and the ability to talk with some authority to the
14 Prestonwood Nursing Rehab facility, and I have not
15 abused that power, I've only raised this question once
16 when I showed up.
17 THE COURT: -- I'm going to grant your
18 request Mr. Phillips, except that you may, you may raise
19 this again in the context of a motion to remove Senior
20 Source. But at this time, your request is granted, Mr.
21 Phillips.
22 MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Judge
23 THE COURT: Gentlemen and ladies, I hate to
24 do this to you: See this? This has to be done within
25 probably about five to 10 minutes from now, and I know
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 211 of 240
15
1 you're all here waiting to go to the next stage of this
2 but this must be done, so I am going to take a short
3 break. And I assure you, I'm not back here -- I'll be
4 out as soon as I can.
5 MR. COOK: Thank you, Your Honor.
6 (SHORT BREAK IN PROCEEDINGS)
7 THE COURT: All right. Where are we now?
8 MR. COOK: Your Honor, we're ready to
9 proceed with the motion to accept resignation, discharge
10 trustee and reinstate trustee. And I think Mr. Golden
11 is going to call the first witness.
12 THE COURT: All right.
13 MR. GOLDEN: Yes, Your Honor, before I call
14 the witness, I'd like to give you a little background.
15 MR. COOK: -- I am sorry.
16 Your Honor, we had a witness that we
17 subpoenaed down here that we do not need anymore in
18 light of the court's ruling, Angela Grover. She
19 complied with the subpoena, and we appreciate it but
20 we're sending her back to work, if that's okay.
21 THE COURT: Is there any objection to this
22 witness being excused?
23 MR. GOLDEN: None.
24 MR. PHILLIPS: None, Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: You're free to go, you're free
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 212 of 240
16
1 to stay. Thank you, ma'am.
2 MR. COOK: Thank you, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Please call your first witness.
4 MR. GOLDEN: My first witness is Karen
5 Ashworth.
6 THE COURT: Ms. Ashworth, come on up.
7 (WITNESS SWORN)
8 THE COURT: Please have a seat.
9 KAREN ASHWORTH
10 After being sworn, testified on her oath as follows:
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. GOLDEN:
13 Q. Ms. Ashworth, would you state your name for the
14 court, please.
15 A. Karen Ashworth.
16 Q, And during the time periods that are relevant
17 to this controversy how were you employed?
18 A. I worked with Cumberland Trust & Investment
19 Company as Vice-President and Regional Manager.
20 Q. And were you involved in the accepting and/or
21 and resigning with respect to the Tipps Family Trusts?
22 A. Yes.
23 a. Were you a party to the mediation?
24 A. No, Cumberland Trust was not a party.
25 a. And after the court's order appointing you, did
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 213 of 240
17
1 you have any concerns or considerations prior to your
2 acceptance?
3 A. Yes, there were multiple concerns, the assets
4 in the trust were what we consider complex, there was a
5 portfolio of marketable securities and annuities, at
6 least, three or four rental properties, residential
7 rental properties, some timberland, there was a
8 timeshare, condo. In other words, there were multiple
9 properties that we had multiple people looking into
10 during the process.
11 Q. I want you to focus on York Street.
12 A. Hood Street?
13 Q. York Street -- Hood Street? I'm sorry.
14 A. That was Mrs. Doris Tipps' residence. And of
15 course, she was i l 1 and in a ski 11 ed nursing facility
16 and no longer living there, and her son Steve was in the
17 house. And it was our understanding that the house was
18 an asset of the trust and the other three properties
19 that had been owned by the Tipps were rented and were
20 managed by a property management company called
21 Pacesetters. So we contacted Pacesetters with the
22 thought process that she's no longer living there, that
23 house either needs to be rented for fair market value
24 rent to the current tenant or to another tenant, and we
25 were informed that there may be some repairs that may be
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 214 of 240
18
1 required if we were going to rent to a third party, so
2 there were multiple issues regarding Hood Street.
3 Q. Were you concerned about Steven Tipps occupancy
4 of Hood Street?
5 A. Yes, because I understand he had been asked to
6 vacate the property in the past and had not done so, so
7 as a condition to our acceptance we said he either needs
8 to pay fair market value rent, preferably first and last
9 months' rent, deposit, and we had some other
10 stipulations, or, he needs to vacate the property.
11 Q. And what was the result of those conversations?
12 A. I spoke directly with Hr. Steven Tipps and he
13 agreed to vacate the property within a reasonable period
14 of time, and, although, we would like that in 30 days,
15 we agreed to 60 days. And that was prior to our
16 appointment that we agreed to all of this.
17 a. So that was one of the problems you wanted
18 resolved before you accepted, was whether he would be
19 out of the property?
20 A. Absolutely. Our special assets group would not
21 let us accept the appointment unless we had all of these
22 details resolved in regard to the multiple, especially
23 this particular asset.
24 a. And when 60 days arrived, what happened?
25 A. We learned that Mr. Tipps was still in the
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 215 of 240
19
1 home, and during the process the letter that he said
2 during the 60 days process he was going to allow the
3 property management company access so they could either,
4 one, determine if any repairs were needed and or fair
5 market value rent, and they were not allowed to enter
6 the property and he remained in the home after the
7 expiration of the 60 days.
8 a. And at that point did you determine that
9 because of that it was impossible for you to -- I don't
10 want to put words in your mouth -- it was necessary that
11 you resign?
12 A. Yes, we realized that managing this asset was
13 beyond our control.
14 a. And on May 2nd of 2014, you did resign as
15 trustee; is that correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And the trust, the Tipps Family Trust which was
18 approved by this court allows you to resign by
19 notification; is that correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. During the period, the 60 day period where you
22 between the acceptance of 75 days between the
23 acceptance and resignation, did you take over any of the
24 assets of the estate?
25 A. No, sir.
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214\ 653-6166
Document Page 216 of 240
20
1 Q. Under your general procedure do you ever
2 custody the financial assets?
3 A. No, under our model we never custody the
4 financial assets in-house.
5 THE COURT: You never do what now?
6 THE WITNESS: We don't custody financial
7 assets.
8 THE COURT: What does that mean "custody"?
9 THE WITNESS: That means, we don't actually
10 hold the assets in an investment account at our trust
11 company; it's very unique. We use third party financial
12 advisors. And Mrs. Tipps account was held at Edward
13 Jones, and then she had some annuities that created an
14 income stream payable to bank account, so we knew that
15 her assets were safe, they were in existing custodial
16 arrangements with the customary, you know.
17 Q. (By Mr. Golden): And how were Mrs. Tipps
18 income and expenses handled in this period before you
19 resigned?
20 A. Her son Thomas Tipps had been trustee with
21 Doris prior to her incapacity, and he had kept excellent
22 records and was very cooperative in providing us with
23 the history and asset lists, and all the details
24 necessary if we were to take over.
25 a. And you're asking this court today, even though
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 217 of 240
21
1 it's not necessary for the court to accept your
2 resignation, you're asking the court to accept your
3 resignation and discharge you as trustee; is that
4 correct?
5 A. Yes, absolutely.
6 MR. GOLDEN: Pass the witness, Your Honor.
7 MR. COOK: Your Honor, I have just a couple
8 of questions.
9 CROSS-EXAMINATION
10 BY MR. COOK:
11 a. Ma'am, I'm Jeff Cook. I represent Mr. Tipps,
12 Thomas Tipps. Did Mr. Tipps as the court order required
13 him to do, sign the resignation form that you all
14 tendered to him under this court's order?
15 A. Yes, he did.
16 a. And did he cooperate fully with Cumberland on
17 the request that you all made of him to facilitate the
18 change in trustees?
19 A. Yes, he did.
20 a. Did anything Thomas Tipps do cause Cumberland
21 to feel the need to resign?
22 A. No.
23 MR. COOK: Pass the witness, Your Honor.
24 MR. PHILLIPS: No questions.
25 MR. TIPPS: I'd like to ask --
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 218 of 240
---- .. -- -·-·-
22
1 THE COURT: Okay.
2 MR. TIPPS: cross-examination of this
3 witness, Your Honor? I had
4 THE COURT: I have a concern there, you're
5 not an attorney and --
6 MR. TIPPS: Your Honor, these people sued
7 me. They are, under rule number --
8 THE COURT: Is that suit pending?
9 MR. TIPPS: Your Honor, well, this is a
10 hearing but they required me -- I was subpoenaed here to
11 answer it.
12 THE COURT: That's what I'm asking you.
13 And my question is, is that suit pending?
14 MR. TIPPS: Your Honor, I have not filed
15 the lawsuit against anyone at this stage.
16 THE COURT: I'm going to decline your right
17 to cross-examine.
18 Any other questions of this witness?
19 MR. COOK: No, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: You may step down.
21 MR. COOK: Your Honor, it's my turn now?
22 MR. PHILLIPS: It's your turn.
23 MR. COOK: Your Honor, I' 11 call Tom Tipps
24 very briefly, Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Tipps, come on
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 219 of 240
23
1 up.
2 MR. COOK: He has not been sworn yet, Your
3 Honor.
4 THE COURT: I know.
5 (WITNESS SWORN)
6 THE COURT:· Please have a seat.
7 THOMAS R. TIPPS
8 After being sworn, testified on his oath as follows:
9 DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 BY MR. COOK:
11 Q. State your name, please.
12 A. Thomas Tipps.
13 Q. Mr. Tipps, you are the son of Doris Lee Tipps;
14 is that correct?
15 A. That is correct.
16 a. And for a period of time up until you tendered
17 a resignation as part of this court's order dated
18 February 17th, 2014, were you a trustee of the Tipps
19 Family Trusts?
20 A. Yes.
21 a. All right.
22 A. Co-trustee.
23 Q. Co-trustee. When your mother became
24 incapacitated did you become the sole trustee?
25 A. Functionally, yes.
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 220 of 240
24
1 a. All right. And that was going to be my
2 question, were you the one that made sure the bills got
3 paid, rents got collected, right things happened?
4 A. Absolutely.
5 a. And have you done that for years and years?
6 A. Yes.
7 a. All right. Now under the order appointing
8 guardian, you were required to tender your resignation
9 to Cumberland and essentially cooperate with them so
10 that Cumberland could take over as trustee; is that
11 correct?
12 A. Absolutely, yes.
13 a. And did you as the prior witness said,
14 cooperate fully with Cumberland?
15 A. Yes, absolutely, yes.
16 a. Had Cumberland provided you, prior to their
17 agreement to serve, a copy of the letter that they had
18 with Steve Tipps, confirming he would leave the property
19 at issue, within 60 days?
20 A. Yes.
21 a. You understood that was one of their
22 requirements
23 A. Absolutely.
24 Q. to be trustee?
25 A. At some point did you learn that Mr. Tipps,
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 221 of 240
25
1 Steve Tipps, had not vacated the property and that
2 Cumberland was tendering its resignation as the trustee
3 of the trusts?
4 A. Yes.
5 A. And during that period of time, as the prior
6 witness testified, had you functionally continued to be
7 the person to take care of the trust business, including
8 most importantly, make sure that your mother's bills got
9 paid?
10 A. Yes.
11 a. And did you do that to the best of your
12 ability?
13 A. I did.
14 a. As far as you know did all of her bills get
15 paid?
16 A. As far as I know, yes.
17 Q. All right. When you learned that they had
18 resigned and after some discussion with your respective
19 counsel, did you authorize the filing, along with
20 Cumberland, of the motion which requests this court to
21 accept the resignation of Cumberland and reinstate you
22 as trustee?
23 A. I did, yes.
24 a. And is that the same functional position that
25 you've been serving for many, many years?
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 222 of 240
26
1 A. Many years.
2 a. Now with respect to that, I know you're not a
3 lawyer, do you have some familiarity with what are
4 referred to in our court order as -- they have a special
5 name for them, let me get it exactly right -- the Lustig
6 Estate Planning documents that this court found were the
7 operative documents for your mother's estate?
8 A. Yes.
9 a. And is i t your understanding that under these
10 circumstances, where there's a corporate trustee that
11 resigns you then if you're not incapacitated, become the
12 person with authority to designate the new trustee?
13 A. Yes, that's the way I understood it.
14 a. And have you agreed to that function, just like
15 you've been doing for years, and designate yourself to
16 do that?
17 A. Yes.
18 a. Your sisters are present in the court room,
19 they are beneficiaries of the trust; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 a. And is it your understanding they approve of
22 that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. All right. And with respect to the relief
25 we're requesting is it your request that the court sign
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 223 of 240
27
1 an order so there's no dispute about it, that Cumberland
2 has been allowed to resign, confirm their resignation,
3 and that you continue to serve in the capacity of
4 trustee under these trusts --
5 A. Yes.
6 a. -- and in accordance with the Lustig Estate
7 Planning documents?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. COOK: Pass the witness, Your Honor.
10 MR. GOLDEN: I have no questions, Your
11 Honor.
12 MR. PHILLIPS: No questions, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Sir, I am going to go ahead and
14 let you ask a question or two.
15 MR. TIPPS: Thank you, Your Honor. Can I?
16 THE COURT: -- Do you have any problem with
17 him serving as Trustee?
18 MR. TIPPS: Absolutely. Absolutely.
19 THE COURT: What's the nature of your
20 quarrel?
21 MR. TIPPS: Hy brother removed $200,000
22 from the Tipps Family Trust.
23 THE COURT: Have you filed a lawsuit
24 complaining about that?
25 MR. TIPPS: Well, Your Honor, I certainly
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 224 of 240
28
1 can do that. I'm going to ask a couple of questions --
2 THE COURT: Until you do that, sir, I'm
3 going to -- Is there anything else you want to ask your
4 brother about?
5 HR. TIPPS: Yes. How does the court handle
6 a life estate that is attached to 1844 Hood Street? It
7 is not in the trust, it is not transferable under Texas
8 law in the trusts.
9 THE COURT: I'm not going to give legal
10 advice. In fact, I'm forbidden by the Judicial Cannon
11 of Ethics to give legal advice, so I am very, very sorry
12 that I cannot be of service to you.
13 MR. TIPPS: I understand. I am sorry.
14 THE COURT: Is there any other --
15 Please take your seat.
16 -- Is there any other witness that
17 MR. COOK: Yes, Your Honor. Terry Lustig,
18 we'll call him very briefly, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: You may take your seat.
20 Carrie Lustig.
21 MR. COOK: Terry Lustig.
22 THE COURT: Please have a seat.
23 (WITNESS SWORN)
24
25 (NO OMISSIONS)
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 225 of 240
29
1 THEODORE LUSTIG
2 After being sworn, testified on his oath as follows:
3 DIRECT EXAMINATION
4 BY MR. COOK:
5 a. State your name, please.
6 A. Theodore "Terry" Lustig.
7 Q, Are you an attorney?
8 A. Yes.
9 a. Are you board certified in anything?
10 A. I'm board certified in Estate Planning and
11 Probate law.
12 a. Were you the author of the Lustig Estate
13 Planning document as the court order of February of this
14 year referred to them?
15 A. Yes.
16 a. Are you familiar with their contents?
17 A. I am.
18 a. Did you draft them at the request of Mrs. Tipps
19 and her husband when they were alive and she had
20 capacity?
21 A. Yes.
22 a. In the circumstances that we have where there
23 was a corporate trustee appointed by agreement and that
24 corporate trustee has resigned and Mrs. Tipps
25 incapacitated, and Thomas Tipps was still alive and not
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 226 of 240
---- -- -------·-~----
30
1 incapacitated, how is it supposed to work under the
2 Lustig Estate Planning documents, as to who the new
3 trustee is?
4 A. Thomas Tipps has the power to appoint any
5 successor trustee, including himself or another person.
6 MR. COOK: Pass the witness, Your Honor.
7 MR. GOLDEN: I have no questions, Your
8 Honor.
9 HR. PHILLIPS: No questions.
10 THE COURT: You may step down, sir.
11 MR. COOK: Your Honor, we rest.
12 MR. GOLDEN: We rest.
13 THE COURT: Any other witnesses?
14 MR. PHILLIPS: Nothing further. Rest.
15 THE COURT: All right. Is there any - -
16 from the attorneys, any objection to my signing this
17 order?
18 MR. COOK: No, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: I am signing the order.
20 Thank you all for coming down.
21 MR. COOK: Thank you, Your Honor.
22 MR. PHILLIPS: Judge, if I may? I will
23 bring the court tomorrow an order with respect to the
24 suspension or revocation of the medical power of
25 attorney.
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 227 of 240
31
1 THE COURT: Thank you very much.
2 Do you all want me to sign this order on
3 the motion to show authority?
4 MR. COOK: Yes, I think that would be the
5 best, so the record is clear on that.
6 THE COURT: All right. *****
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
(214) 653-6166
Document Page 228 of 240
32
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 THE STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF DALLAS )
3
4 I, MONA L. RICHARD, Official Court Reporter in and
5 for the Probate Court Number Three of Dallas County,
6 State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above and
7 foregoing contains a true and correct transcription of
8 all portions of evidence and other proceedings requested
9 in writing by counsel for the parties to be included in
10 this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the
11 above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred
12 in open court or in chambers and were reported by me.
13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of
14 the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the
15 exhibits, if any, admitted by the respective parties.
16 I further certify that the total cost for the
17 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $320 and was
18 paid by Steven Tipps.
19 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 3rd day of
20 November, 2014.
21
SIMONA L. RICHARD
22
Mona L. Richard, Texas CSR 2384
23 Expiration Date: December 2015
Official Court Reporter
24 Probate Court Number Three
Dallas County, Texas
25 Dallas, Texas
PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3
{214) 653-6166
Document Page 229 of 240
·-----~ - - - - - - -
.. ~
XII. CRISES & SURVIVAL
OCTOBER 29, 2013 THROUGH APRIL 24, 2014
Document Page 230 of 240
CAREGIVER ACTIVITIES - 180 DAYS
Doris Lee Tipps
OCTOBER 29, 2013 thru April 24, 2014 Part I Page 1
Winter Exhibit A
Crises Assistance - Winter Spring 2013-2014 Hrs
Date Hours Cum Rate ot Cumms
O Oct 4 Fri Mom to Doctor Crowder 4 $ 50 $ 200
1 Oct 29 Tue Dr. David lsraediskul MD 7:00am 9 $ 50 $ 650
Dr. Rai 11 :45am; & 2:45 pm Developing Crises, Meds
Developing Crises, Meds, Bronchia Pneumonia
2 Oct 29 Tue Lakeview- all night vigil - developing health care crises 8 $ 50 $ 1,050
3 Oct 29 Tue Baylor Emergency Mom (I checked Mom at 6:00am 8 $ 50 $ 1,450
and she could not speak.) To Baylor immediately.
4 Oct 29 Tue Baylor Emergency Mom 12 $ 50 $ 2,050
5 Oct 30 Wed Mom to Baylor 8:00AM Mom Admitted, Dr. Sohmer askec 4 $ 50 $ 2,250
Dr. Sohmer asked how I knew to bring her in.?
6 Oct 31 Thur Baylor Carrollton Mom 2 43 $ 50 $ 2,350
7 Nov I Fri Baylor Carrollton Mom 2 $ 50 $ 2,450
8 Nov 2 Sat Baylor Carrollton Mom 2 $ 50 $ 2,550
9 Nov 3 Sun Baylor Carrollton Mom 2 $ 50 $ 2,650
10 Nov 4 Mon Baylor Carrollton Mom 2 $ 50 $ 2,750
ll Nov 5 Tue Baylor discharge Home: mid-course pneumonia 4 $ 50 $ 2,950
medical discharge - patient dumping, no notice, no disc.
12 Nov 6 Wed Returned to Baylor afternoon next day: readmitted. 24 36 $ 50 $ 4,150
13 Nov 7 Thur Transfer to Accel Intensive Rehab Marsh Ln Wynn Kio 4 $ 50 $ 4,350
14 Nov 8 Fri Baylor Carrollton SVT Rev Fae, Social Worker Physical Tl 4 $ 50 $ 4,550
15 Nov 9 Sat Baylor Carrollton SVT Rev Fae, Social Worker Physical Tl 4 $ 50 $ 4,750
16 Nov 10 Sun Move to Acee! Inten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: No, 3 $ 50 $ 4,900
17 Nov 11 Mon Move to Acee! lnten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: Nm 3 $ 50 $ 5,050
18 Nov 12 Tues Move to Acee! Inten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: Nm 3 $ 50 $ 5,200
19 Nov 13 Wed Move to Acee! lnten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: NO\ 3 $ 50 $ 5,350
20 Nov 14 Thur Move to Acee! Inten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: Nm 3 $ 50 $ 5,500
Document Page 231 of 240
Crises Care Part I Page 2
Hours Rate Cum ms
21 Nov 15 Fri Move to Acee! Inten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: No, 3 $ 50 $ 5,650
22 Nov 16 Sat Move to Acee! lnten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: No, 3 $ 50 $ 5,800
23 Nov 17 Sun Move to Accel Inten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: Nm 3 $ 50 $ 5,950
24 Nov 18 Mon Acee!: Schedule with Whitney, Dr. Paulman's office Email 3 $ 50 $ 6,100
Reschedule Dr. Seine clinical review.
25 Nov 19 Tues Move to Acee! Intensive Rehab Marsh Lane Dr. Kim Dr. V 3 $ 50 $ 6,250
26 Nov 20 Wed Move to Acee! Intensive Rehab Marsh Lane Dr. Kim Dr. V 3 $ 50 $ 6,400
27 Nov 21 Thur Mom returns to Lakeview PM 2 $ 50 $ 6,500
28 Nov 22 Fri Mom returns to Lakeview PM 2 $ 50 $ 6,600
29 Nov 23 Sat Mom returns to Lakeview PM 2 $ 50 $ 6,700
30 Nov 24 Sun Mom returns to Lakeview PM 2 $ 50 $ 6,800
31 Nov 25 Mon Lakeview Meeting with Brandi Seabold and I $ 50 $ 6,850
Michelle Alexander: based on Brenda Holmes eval
32 Nov 26 Tue Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti I $ 50 $ 6,900
33 Nov 27 Wed Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 7,050
34 Nov 28 Thur Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 7,200
35 Nov 29 Fri Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 7,350
36 Nov 30 Sat Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 7,500
37 Dec I Sun Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 7,650
38 Dec 2 Mon Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 6 $ 50 $ 7,950
39 Dec 3 Tue Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 8,100
40 Dec 4 Wed Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Phann Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 8,250
41 Dec 5 Thu Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Phann Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 8,400
42 Dec 6 Fri Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 8,550
43 Dec 7 Sat Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Phann Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 8,700
44 Dec 8 Sun Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Phann Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 8,850
45 Dec 9 Mon Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 9,000
46 Dec 10 Tue Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Phann Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 9,150
47 Dec II Wed Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Phann Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 9,300
48 Dec 12 Thur Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 9,450
49 Dec 13 Fri Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 9,600
Document Page 232 of 240
Crises Care - Doris L. Tipps Rate Page 3
Hours Cum ms
50 Dec 14 Sat Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 9,750
51 Dec 15 Sun Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 9,900
52 Dec 16 Mon Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 10,050
53 Dec 17 Tue Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 10,200
54 Dec 18 Wed Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 10,350
55 Dec 19 Thu Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 10,500
56 Dec 20 Fri Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 10,650
57 Dec 21 Sat Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 10,800
58 Dec 22 Sun Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 10,950
59 Dec 23 Mon Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Phann Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 11, l 00
60 Dec 24 Tue Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm PiJls Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 11,250
61 Dec 25 Wed Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 11,400
62 Dec 26 Thur Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 11,550
63 Dec 27 Fri Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm PiJls Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 11,700
64 Dec 28 Sat Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 11,850
65 Dec 29 Sun Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 12,000
66 Dec 30 Mon Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 12,150
67 Dec 31 Tue Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 12,300
Document Page 233 of 240
Crises Care - Doris L. Tipps Part II Rate Page 4
Hours Cumms
68 Jan I Wed Lake-V Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm P Recovery 3 $ 50 $ 12,450
69 Jan 2 Thr Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Recovery 3 $ 50 $ 12,600
70 Jan 3 Fri Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Recovery 3 $ 50 $ 12,750
71 Jan 4 Sat Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Recovery 2 $ 50 $ 12,850
72 Jan 5 Sunday 11 :OOa Call to Mom Baylor Emergency: 8 $ 50 $ 13,250
Dr. Healther lflarris Emerg: -2:30p arrival, admitted
73 Jan 6 Mon Baylor: Morning Visit, Afternoon Visit, Moved to ICU 4 $ 50 $ 13,450
74 Jan 7 Tue Baylor: Sepsus, Intensive Care, 8:00pm until 9:20pm, 4 $ 50 $ 13,650
Lactate levels receding: email 01/28/14
75 Jan 8 Wed Baylor: Sepsus, ICU, Reversal 4 $ 50 $ 13,850
76 Jan 9 Thur Baylor: Sepsus, ICU Dr. El Jammile. 4 $ 50 $ 14,050
77 Jan 10 Fri -Baylo Select Revovery 4 $ 50 $ 14,250
78 Jan 11 Sat -Baylo Select Revovery 2 $ 50 $ 14,350
79 Jan 12 Sun -Baylo Select Revovery 2 $ 50 $ 14,450
80 Jan 13 Mon -Baylo Select Revovery 2 $ 50 $ 14,550
81 Jan 14 Tuesday -Baylo Select Revovery 2 $ 50 $ 14,650
82 Jan 15 Wed Select Specialty Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 14,750
83 Jan 16 Thur Select Specialty Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 14,850
84 Jan 17 Fri Select Specialty [Email: in from Baylor 2 $ 50 $ 14,950
85 Jan 18 Sat Select Specialty Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 15,050
86 Jan 19 Sun Select Specialty Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 15,150
87 Jan 20 Mon Select Specialty Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 15,250
88 Jan 21 Tue Select Specialty Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 15,350
89 Jan 22 Wed Select Speciahy Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 15,450
90 Jan 23 Thur Select Speciahy Trip made to visit visit Mom, sl Mediatio11 8 $ 50 $ 15,850
refused to accept Senior Source as guardian. Mediation
91 Jan 24 Fri Select Speciahy Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 15,950
Document Page 234 of 240
Crises Care - Doris L. Tipps Part II Rate Page 5
Hours Cumms
92 Jan 25 Sat Select Specialty Mom stopped eating, giving up, 6 $ 50 $ 16,250
Dr. Rai, needs feeding support 3 x per day
93 Jan 26 Sun Full time support - meals+Lisa Mom's Best Friend 6 $ 50 $ 16,550
94 Jan 27 Mon Full time support - meals+Lisa Mom's Best Friend 6 $ 50 $ 16,850
95 Jan 28 Tue Full time support - meals+Lisa Mom's Best Friend 2 $ 50 $ 16,950
96 Jan 29 Wed Full time support - meals+Lisa Mom's Best Friend 2 $ 50 $ 17,050
97 Jan 30 Thur Full time support - meals+Lisa Mom's Best Friend 2 $ 50 $ 17,150
98 Jan 31 Fri Friday at Select Specialty: 5:30P Pulmonary 5 $ 50 $ 17,400
pulmonary emergency (Lisa Numerick) Bypap
machine
99 Feb 1 Sat Saturday Moved to Baylor Radiology- 7 $ 50 $ 17,750
pleural sacs drained, 600 ml of fluid off
Sat Steve at Select, Baylor Select. Mom critical
100 Feb 2 Sun Select Specialty MBF sitters, feeding, Steve MBF 2 $ 50 $ 17,850
101 Feb 3 Mon Select Specialty MBF sitters, feeding Steve MBF 2 $ 50 $ 17,950
102 Feb 4 Tue Select Specialty MBF sitters, feeding Steve MBF 2 $ 50 $ 18,050
103 Feb 5 Wed Select Specialty - Pneumonia looking better 2 $ 50 $ 18,150
Dr. Seine Report Received.
104 Feb 6 Thursday Select Specialty Recovery 2 $ 50 $ 18,250
105 Feb 7 Fri Select Specialty Recovery 2 $ 50 $ 18,350
106 Feb 8 Sat Select Specialty Recovery 2 $ 50 $ 18,450
107 Feb 9 Sun Select Specialty Recovery Brother sneezing on Mom 2 $ 50 $ 18,550
108 Feb 10 Mon Select Speciallty Meeting DR. Seine Review 2 $ 50 $ 18,650
109 Feb 11 Tue Select Specialty Recovery 2 $ 50 $ 18,750
110 Feb 12 Wed Select Specialty Recovery 2 $ 50 $ 18,850
111 Feb 13 Thur Select Specialty Recovery 2 $ 50 $ 18,950
112 Feb 14 -Fri Select Specialty Recovery ; Lakeview - Senior 2 $ 50 $ 19,050
113 Feb 15 -Sat Saturday moved from Select Specialty to Accel 2 $ 50 $ 19,150
114 Feb 16 Sun Acee! Visited Mom while brother and wife wer Email: LC 2 $ 50 $ 19,250
Brother acting strange - offering Do Not Res Forms
115 Feb 17 Mon Acee! Visited Mom, e.g., pulled her up in her bed, 4 $ 50 $ 19,450
helped with her comforts
116 Feb 18 Tue Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 19,550
117 Feb 19 Wed Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 19,650
Document Page 235 of 240
Crises Care - Doris L. Tipps Part II Rate Page 6
Cumms
118 Feb 20 Thur Accel condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 19,750
119 Feb 21 Fri Accel condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 19,850
120 Feb 22 Sat Accel 12:00pm to 3:40p Call button on floor, 7 $ 50 $ 20,200
Lunch unusual wait, no oxygen, Mom
gasping for air, complete indifference staff
121 Feb 23 Sun Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 20,300
122 Feb 24 Mon Accel condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 20,400
123 Feb 25 Tue Acee] condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 20,500
124 Feb 26 We Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 20,600
125 Feb 27 Thur Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 20,700
126 Feb 28 Fri Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 20,800
127 Mar 1 Sat Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 20,900
128 Mar 2 Sun Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,000
129 Mar 3 Mon Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,100
130 Mar 4 Tue Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,200
131 Mar 5 Wed Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,300
132 Mar 6 Thur Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,400
133 Mar 7 Fri Acee] condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,500
134 Mar 8 Sat Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,600
135 Mar 9 Sun Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,700
136 Mar 10 Mon Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,800
137 Mar 11 Tue Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,900
138 Mar 12 Wed Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,000
139 Mar 13 Thu Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,100
140 Mar 14 Fri Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,200
141 Mar 15 Sat Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,300
142 Mar 16 Sum Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,400
143 Mar 17 Mon Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,500
144 Mar 18 Tue Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,600
145 Mar 19 Wed Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,700
146 Mar 20 Thur Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,800
147 Mar 21 Fri Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,900
Document Page 236 of 240
Crises Care - Doris L. Tipps Part II Rate Page 7
Cumms
148 Mar 22 Sat Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,000
149 Mar 23 Sum Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,100
150 Mar 24 Mon Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,200
151 Mar 25 Tue Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,300
152 Mar 26 Wed Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,400
153 Mar 27 Thur Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,500
154 Mar 28 Fri Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,600
155 Mar 29 Sat Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,700
156 Mar 30 Sun Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,800
157 Mar 31 Mon Acee] condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,900
158 Apr I Tue Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,000
159 Apr 2 Wed Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,100
160 Apr 3 Thu Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,200
161 Apr 4 Fri Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,300
162 Apr 5 Sat Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,400
163 Apr 6 Sun Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,500
164 Apr 7 Mon Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,600
165 Apr 8 Tue Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,700
166 Apr 9 Wed Moved from Acee] to Prestonwood 2 $ 50 $ 24,800
167 Apr 10 Thu Preston wood 2 $ 50 $ 24,900
168 Apr 11 Fri Prestonwood - Friday evening 2 $ 50 $ 25,000
169 Apr 12 Sat Prestonwood - Saturday evening late - Flow Arr 2 $ 50 $ 25,100
170 Apr 13 Sun Moved from Prestonwood to Presbyterian Plano, 2 $ 50 $ 25,200
oxygen levels dangerous decline
171 Apr 14 Mon Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 25,300
172 Apr 15 Tue Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 25,400
173 Apr 16 Wed Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 25,500
174 Apr 17 Thu Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 25,600
175 Apr 18 Fri Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 25,700
176 Apr 19 Sat Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 25,800
177 Apr 20 Easter Sur Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 25,900
178 Apr 21 Mon Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 26,000
179 Apr 22 Tue Mom arrives PW,8:00p in terrible situation 2 $ 50 $ 26,100
180 Apr 23 Wed PW. Opened Rm 406 witnessed techs swinging 2 $ 50 $ 26,200
Mom like a sack of potatoes, while conversing
Communications Charges 64.5 $ 125 $ 8,063
Total charges $ 34,263
Document Page 237 of 240
Emails Page 1
COMMUNTCATTONS WITH DORIS L TIPPS'
ATTORNEY - NEEDED ADVERSARY
180 Sept 8 2013 Neurologist reports and history Hours Cum
181 Sept 17 2013 Kathy Fink: Mom's neightbor stated that she was
approached by my brother's
attorneys for information about me.
182 Sept 17 2013 Mom's explanation of Jesus story: 2 3
Pill tossing ceremony, Security
concerns about G&T
183 Sept 24 2013 Confrontation at Lakeview: Pill tossing l 4
a: Thursday evening Sept 12, 2013
before Friday court date.
184 Sept 25 2013 Met with Brenda Holmes, RN, re: 2 6
unstable TNR readings.
185 Sept 30 2013 Arranged to get Mom's appointment l 7
with Dr. Crowder established
Court ordered mental examination.
186 Oct 2 2013 Dr. Crowder report to neurologist 2 9
Dr. David Isaradisaikul, M.D.,
187 Oct 22 2013 Dr. Bennett Blum, M.D. Psychiatrist 2 11
188 Oct 2 2013 Dr. David Isaradisaikul I Oleta Farrell, 2 13
revocation of Tom Tipps powers
189 Nov 4 2013 Referral notice to Dr. Ron Paulman I 14
and Dr. Kathleen Seine
190 Nov 5 2013 Assistance from family for neuro psychology tests nc 14
from my brother Thomas Tipps
191 Nov 7 2013 Mom readmitted to Baylor on 11-6-13 nc 14
11-6-13 pm Bayor patient dumping
Baylor culpable for 90 year old pneumonia patient
192 Nov 11 2013 Mom birthday at Acee! l 15
193 Nov 16 2013 Filling out test forms for Mom I 16
194 Nov 16 2013 Mom's condition at Accel, Dr. Kim 2 18
195 Nov 19 2013 Whitney at Dr. Paulman's office 1 19
Document Page 238 of 240
Emails Page 2
196 Nov 19 2013 Dr. Paulman conversation notes l 20
197 Dec 12 2013 Mom walking again at Lakeview 2 22
198 Jan 5 2014 Called Mom on Sunday at 11 :OOa; heavy l 23
coughing; albuterol treatment, lunch
to Baylor emergency Dr. Harris admit
199 Jan 2 2014 Patricia McArdle, TDAPS 2 25
Texas Dept of Adult Protective Svcs
Investigation of Steve Tipps - Allegations Tossed
200 Jan 8 2014 Lactate lavels are falling (ICU-Baylor) 2 27
Sepsus declining in blood stream
201 Jan 26 2014 Worst Season for flu and respiratory I 28
illnesses in decades.
202 Jan 29 2014 Mom was in a very weak state, unable 1 29
to communicate with her nurses her
pam issues
203 Jan 29 2014 Mom's diet: assisted feeding l 30
204 Jan 29 2014 Need more help from MBF, at Select Hosp 0.5 30.5
Mom's best friend, feeding, watching
Mom critically ill.
205 Jan 31 2014 Mom in critical condition, Bypap, Emergency I 31.5
Steve spoke with facility dir of nursing
Dr. Sohn came, full briefing,
206 Feb 5 2014 Dr. Torton, Dr. Rai, Dr. Wilson, 2 33.5
Dr. Boorla, Dr. Tomkins, Dr. Sohn
207 Feb 9 2014 Brother and wife in Mom's room 2 35.5
with their own infectious illnesses &
sneezing on Mom.
208 Feb 13 2014 Summary I 36.5
209 Feb 14 2014 Senior Source investigating allegations 2 38.5
of abuse alleged by Tom Tipps
at Select Specialty Hospital
210 Feb 16 2014 Acee! Reha! Plano: George the nurse 2 40.5
nurse told me that my brother was
peddling another do not resucitate fonn
211 Feb 22 2014 Acee!. Call button on floor, oxygen 2 42.5
in room disconnected, request service
Document Page 239 of 240
Emails: Page 3
no response. Hours Cum
212 Mar 20 2014 Acee) visitedMom at 9:45p, 3 45.5
need to get together - urgent issue
urgent issue on fluid buildup - lacix
213 Mar 21 2014 Acee) arrived Friday 5:00 am 2 47.5
pneumonia from food aspiration
214 Mar 21 2014 Acee!,Mom is out of danger 2 49.5
215 Mar 29 2014 Acee!, edema, refused to disclose: 0 49.5
edema critical, drowning in her own
fluids - get after Senior Source
216 Mar 30 2014 Acee!, Doctor refused Lacix, need for specialists 3 52.5
need specialists
217 Apr 4 2014 Guardian plans to terminate services ofMBF. 2 54.5
ifMBF, Loneliness to set in.
218 Apr 5 2014 Accel, George indicates big improvement 2 56.5
from the care and rehab at Acee! on
Communicaton Parkway Plano.
219 Apr 16 2014 Prestonwood, swelling in Mom's feet 57.5
severe, toes turnning blue
220 Apr 23 2014 Prestonwood, mid evening, Nursing 3 60.5
Staff neglectingMom in her room.
221 Apr 24 2014 8:00pm Prestonwood, witnessed two techs 2 62.5
throwMom like a sack of potatoes onto
hard mattress; fall risk band on her am1
222 Apr 29 2014 interaction with Prestonwood personnel 2 64.5
concerning wreckless endangerment ofMom.
Total
Total 64.5 $ 125 $ 8,063
Document Page 240 of 240