ACCEPTED
04-15-00727-CV
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
12/29/2015 5:37:55 PM
KEITH HOTTLE
CLERK
No. 04-15-00727-CV
FILED IN
4th COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 12/29/2015 5:37:55 PM
SITTING AT SAN ANTONIO KEITH E. HOTTLE
Clerk
LAUREN SAKS a/k/a GLORIA
LAUREN NICOLE SAKS,
V
DIANE M. FLORES and SANDRA
GARZA DAVIS f/k/a SANDRA C. SAKS
On Appeal from
Probate Court No. One, Bexar County, Texas
Honorable Kelly Cross, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 2011-PC-3466
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
Respectfully submitted,
Philip M. Ross
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED State Bar No. 017304200
1006 Holbrook Road
San Antonio, Texas 78218
Phone: 210/326-2100
Email: ross_law@hotmail.com
By: /s/ Philip M. Ross
Philip M. Ross
Attorney for Appellant
Margaret Landen Saks
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TAB 1 DOCKET SHEET
TAB 2 ORDER STRIKING INTERVENTION
TAB 3 ORDER TO DISBURSE FUNDS FROM THE REGISTRY OF
THE COURT IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT
TAB 4 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING, 9-25-15
TAB 5 MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
TAB 6 NOTICE OF APPEAL
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above document
was e-filed and sent by email or electronic delivery to Jonathan Yedor and
Royal Lea, III on December 29, 2015.
/s/ Philip M. Ross
Philip M. Ross
3
TAB 1
DOCKET SHEET
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Pg: 1 POM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:28
JCL: SPPROD
• DOCKET INFORMATION•
CAUSE NUM: 2011PC3466
DATE FILED: 08/17/2011 COURT: 001 UNPAID BALANCE: 0.00
TYPE OF DOCKET: PLAINTIFF'S ORIG PET
• • •STYLE• •
LAUREN SAKS A/K/A GLORIA LAUREN NICOLE SAKS
VS DIANE M. FLORES AND SANDRA GARZA DAVIS F/K/A SANDR
ACCESS: 0 STATUS: PENDING DATE OF DEATH: 01/02/0000
• LITIGANT INFORMATION.
SEG LAST /FIRST /MIDDLE NAME LIT. TYPE/ATTORNEY DATE
00001 SAKA LAUREN
PLAINTIFF 08/18/2011
00001 HEINRICHS, A CHRIS
00002 NICHOLS SAKS GLORIA LAUREN PLAINTIFF 08/18/2011
00003 FLORES DIANE M. DEFENDANT 08/18/2011
00004 DAVIS SANDRA GARZA DEFENDANT 08/18/2011
00005 SAKS SANDRA C. DEFENDANT 08/18/2011
00006 SAKS MARGARET LANDEN CORINNA OTHER 08/18/2011
00007 DONOP, JR. PERRY OTHER 12/16/2011
00008 GITTINGER, JR. LEONARD J. OTHER 12/16/2011
00009 FLORES DIANE M. OTHER 12/23/2011
00010 SAKS BV AND THRU LANDEN OTHER 04/02/2013
SUP: HER ATTORNEY M. RANDOLPH DAV
00011 MCFADIN, III LEE NICK OTHER 07/02/2013
00012 ROGERS MARCUS P. APPLICANT 07/30/2014
• SERVICES INFORMATION•
SEG SERVICE TYPE / DATES DIST LITIGANT NAME
00002 ADVERSE CITATION BV PRIVA FLORES DIANE
ISS: 08/18/2011 REC: EXE: RET:
00003 ADVERSE CITATION BY PRIVA 3 DAVIS SANDRA
ISS: 08/18/2011 REC: EXE: RET:
00004 ADVERSE CITATION BY CERTI 2 SAKS MARGARET
ISS: 08/18/2011 REC: EXE: RET:
00005 SUBPOENA-ADVERSE ACTION 3 DONOP, JR. PERRY
ISS: 12/16/2011 REC: 12/20/2011 EXE: 12/20/2011 RET: 12/21/2011
00006 SUBPOENA-ADVERSE ACTION 3 GITTINGER, JR. LEONA
1SS: 12/16/2011 REC: 12/20/2011 EXE: 12/20/2011 RET: 12/21/2011
00007 SUBPOENA BV PVT PROCESS 3 FLORES DIANE
ISS: 12/20/2011 REC: 12/20/2011 EXE: 12/20/2011 RET: 12/21/2011
00008 SUBPOENA BY PVT PROCESS 3 SAKS BY AND THRU LAN
ISS: 04/02/2013 REC: 04/03/2013 EXE: 04/03/2013 RET: 04/03/2013
292
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Boxer County Centralized Docket System Pg: 2 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29
JCL: SPPROD
00009 ADVERSE CITATION BY PRIVA 3 MCFADIN, III LEE
ISS: 07/05/2013 REC: EXE: RET:
00010 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF PERS 166 SAKA LAUREN
ISS: 07/31/2014 REC: 07/31/2014 EXE: 07/31/2014 RET: 07/31/2014
00011 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF REAL 186 SAKA LAUREN
ISS: 07/31/2014 REC: 07/31/2014 EXE: 07/31/2014 RET: 07/31/2014
00012 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF PERS 186 SAKA LAUREN
ISS: 08/06/2014 REC: 08/06/2014 EXE: 08/06/2014 RET: 08/06/2014
00013 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF REAL 186 SAKA LAUREN
ISS: 08/06/2014 REC: 08/06/2014 EXE: 08/01/2014 RET: 08/06/2014
00014 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF REAL 186 SAKA LAUREN
ISS: 10/01/2015 REC: 10/01/2015 EXE: 10/01/2015 RET: 10/01/2015
00015 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF PERS 186 SAKA LAUREN
ISS: 10/01/2015 REC: 10/01/2015 ENE: 10/01/2015 RET: 10/01/2015
00016 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF REAL 166 SAKA LAUREN
ISS: 11/03/2015 REC: 11/03/2015 ENE: 11/03/2015 RET: 11/03/2015
00017 NOT OF APPLN/SALE OF PERS 166 SARA LAUREN
ISS: 11/03/2015 REC: 11/03/2015 ENE: 11/03/2015 RET: 11/03/2015
• ATTORNEY INFORMATION•
SEG DATE FILED BAR NBR. NAME STATUS DATE
00001 08/18/2011 09382500 HE1NRICHS, A CHRIS SELECTED 08/18/2011
00002 04/25/2014 17304200 ROSS, PHILIP M SELECTED 04/28/2014
00003 04/28/2014 24029639 JOHNSON, MICHAEL B SELECTED 04/28/2014
00004 07/25/2014 17179700 ROGERS, MARCUS P SELECTED 07/28/2014
00005 07/09/2015 12069680 LEA III, ROYAL B SELECTED 07/10/2015
00007 08/24/2015 22151400 YEDOR, JONATHAN SELECTED 08/25/2015
00008 10/02/2015 02322350 BINGHAM, BENJAMIN R SELECTED 10/05/2015
• PROCEEDING INFORMATION•
SEG DATE FILED VOLUME PAGE PAGE COLNT
00001 OB/17/2011 2067 9787 0009
DESC: PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION
; DEMAND DIE TRUST ACCOUNTING;
AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
00002 06/23/2011 2066 2506 0002
DESC: PERSONAL CITATION
DIANE M. FLORES, 06/23/2011
00003 06/23/2011 2066 2510 0001
DESC: PERSONAL CITATION
SANDRA GARZA DAVIS, 08/22/2011
293
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Pg: 3 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD
00004 09/09/2011 2069 1865 0002
DESC: ORIGINAL ANSWER
SANDRA C. SAKS
00005 09/09/2011 2069 1867 0002
DESC: ORIGINAL ANSWER
DIANE M. FLORES
00006 09/19/2011 2069 6706 0001
DESC: PROOF OF SERVICE
MARGARET LANDEN CORINNA SAKS
00007 11/10/2011 2072 7743 0008
DESC: CONTEST
MOTION TO REMOVE DIANE M. FLORES AS
TRUSTEE OF THE SAKS CHILDERNS TRUST AND
APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
00010 12/13/2011 2075 0082 0011
DESC: MOTION 70
QUASH THE ORAL 8 VIDEO DEPOSITION OF
DIANE M FLORES
00011 12/13/2011 2075 0093 0011
DESC: MOTION TO
QUASH THE ORAL 8 VIDEO DEPOSITION OF
SANDRA C SAKS
00012 12/13/2011 2075 0104 0007
DESC: NOTICE OF INTENT TO TARE DEPOS
BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS
CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR-W.RANDOLPH
DAVIS AND/OR BOULDER INVESTMENTS INC
00013 12/13/2011 2075 0111 0016
DESC: NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE DEPOS
BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS
CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR-SUNSET PARTNERS
J.V.,5631 BROADWAY VENTURE,DIJON PLAZA
J.V.,5321 BROADWAY PARTNERS, J.V.
00015 12/13/2011 2075 0341 0002
DESC: DEPOSITION CERT. OF
ORIGINAL
00009 12/14/2011 2075 0070 0009
DESC: MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
00008 12/15/2011 2075 0080 0002
DESC: ANSR/ATTY AD LITEM
AMENDED
00022 12/19/2011 2075 3390 0007
DESC: AMENDED
FIRST MOTION TO REMOVE DIANE M. FLORES
AS TRUSTEE OF THE SAKS CHILDREN TRUST
AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
00014 12/20/2011 2075 0079 0001
DESC: REQUEST FOR
PREPARATION OF SUBPOENAS TO SERVE:
DIANE M. FLORES, PERRY DONOP, JR. AND
LEONARD J. GITTINGER, JR.
294
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Pg: 4 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD
00016 12/21/2011 2075 2475 0002
DESC: SUBPOENA
SERVED 12/20/2011
00017 12/21/2011 2075 2477 0002
DESC: SUBPOENA
SERVED 12/20/2011_DIANE M. FLORES
00018 12/21/2011 2075 2479 0002
DESC: SUBPOENA
SERVED 12/20/2011 LEONARD J. °MINCER
00019 12/21/2011 2075 2481 0002
DESC: SUBPOENA
HARRY T. DROUGHT,DR
00020 12/21/2011 2075 2483 0003
DESC: SUBPOENA
SANDRA C. SAKS, C/0 ADAM CORTEZ
00021 12/21/2011 2075 2486 0002
DESC: SUBPOENA
W. RANDOLPH DAVID
00024 01/03/2012 2075 7633 0003
DESC: BOND
00025 02/01/2012 2077 4371 0002
DESC: CERTIFICATE
DEPOSITION $115
00026 02/01/2012 2077 4373 0002
DESC: CERTIFICATE
DEPOSITION. $194
00027 02/01/2012 2077 4375 0004
DESC: AMENDED
NOTICE OF INTENTION DEPOSTION
00028 02/01/2012 2077 4379 0010
DESC: NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE DEPOS
00029 02/01/2012 2077 4389 0002
DESC: CERTIFICATE
DEPOSITION. $155
00030 02/01/2012 2077 4391 0002
DESC: CERTIFICATE
DEPOSITION $205
00031 02/09/2012 2078 2443 0001
DESC: WORK REQUEST
SUBPOENA
00032 02/14/2012 2078 2444 0002
DESC: SUBPOENA
BROADWAY BAN(
00033 02/14/2012 2078 2446 0002
DESC: SUBPOENA
JEFFERSON STATE BANK
00034 02/14/2012 2078 2448 0002
DESC: SUBPOENA
CITIZENS STATE BANK
00035 02/21/2012 2079 3333 0002
DESC: CERTIFICATE
OF DEPOSITION - RECORDS FROM W RANDOLPH
295
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Boxer County Centralized Docket System Pa: 5 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD
DAVIS AND/OR BOULDER INVESTMENTS
00036 02/21/2012 2079 3335 0002
DESC: CERTIFICATE
OF DEPOSTION - RECORDS FROM HERBERT E
POUNDS
00037 02/21/2012 2079 3337 0004
DESC: NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE DEPOS
BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS - RICHARD PEACOCK
JR FOR CAFE SOLEIL AND PALOMA BLANCA INC
00039 02/28/2012 2079 4146 0004
DESC: MOTION TO COMPEL
ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER AND/OR DIS-
COVERY CONTROL PLAN
00040 02/28/2012 2079 4150 0004
DESC:
LAUREN SAKS' SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO
DIANE ISIC)M. FLORES' FIRST AMENDED
ANSWER
00041 02/28/2012 2079 4154 0006
DESC: MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION FROM DIANE (SICIM. FLORES AND
SANDRA SAKS
00042 02/28/2012 2079 4160 0012
DESC: MOTION TO COMPEL
THE ORAL DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM Of A
NON-PARTY WITNESS,JON SANDIDGE
00046 02/29/2012 2081 5928 0332
DESC:
INTERIM TRUSTEE'S REPORT; VOL. 1
00047 02/29/2012 2081 6260 0615
DESC:
INTERIM TRUSTEE'S REPORT; VOL.2
00044 03/21/2012 2080 3323 0002
DESC: ANSWER
SECOND AMENDED;DIANE M. FLORES'
00045 03/21/2012 2080 3325 0001
DESC: CLAIM
SATIFSFACTION AND RELEASE-WEST ASSET
MANAGEMENT,INC FOR USAA
00048 04/20/2012 2083 0200 0007
DESC: MOTION TO
APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
00049 05/09/2012 2083 7454 0001
DESC:
APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
00050 05/30/2012 2085 1369 0018
DESC: APPL. TO
PAY INTERIM TRUSTEE'S FEES
00052 05/30/2012 2085 7697 0002
DESC: APPL. FOR
DIRECTION FROM COURT
00053 06/29/2012 2087 2607 0006
DESC: MOTION TO
296
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Boxer County Centralized Docket System P0: 6 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD
ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
00057 06/29/2012 2088 2649 0002
DESC: MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY TO SHOW AUTHORITY
00059 07/10/2012 2088 2652 0002
DESC: MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY TO SHOW AUTHORITY (LAUREN SAKS
MERRIMAN'S FIRST AMENDED RULE 121
00054 07/18/2012 2088 0298 0001
DESC:
VACATION LETTER
00055 07/18/2012 0000 0000 0000
DESC: RESPONSE
OJECTION TO LAUREN SAKS MERRIMN'S FIRST
AMENDED RULE 12 MOTION FOR ATTV TO SHOW
AUTHORITY
00056 07/18/2012 2088 0298 0001
DESC:
VACATION LTTR
00061 07/18/2012 2088 5312 0005
DESC: OBJECTION
TO LAUREN SAKS MERRIMAN'S FIRST
AMENDED RULE 12 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY
TO SHOW AUTHORITY
00063 07/24/2012 2088 6704 0019
DESC: AMENDED
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
00062 08/10/2012 2089 4792 0004
DESC: MOTION FOR
AUTHORITY
00067 08/20/2012 2093 4886 0002
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FROM HEINRICHS AND DEGENNARO
00069 08/20/2012 2093 4889 0002
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FROM DIANA G FLORES
00070 08/20/2012 2093 4891 0010
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FROM W.RANDOLPH DAVIS
00071 08/21/2012 2093 4901 0013
DESC: MOTION TO
COMPEL ATTENDANCE FRM LARUEN SAKS
00066 09/04/2012 2093 6823 0003
DESC: MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY
00076 09/20/2012 2095 0397 0001
DESC: RECEIPT
OF EXHIBITS
00077 09/20/2012 2095 0398 0001
DESC:
E-MAIL SENT FROM ADAM CORTEZ TO
SANDY SAKS
00072 09/21/2012 2094 8213 0002
DESC: APPL. FOR
297
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Boxer County centralized Docket System P0: 7 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME; 16;06:29 JCL: SPPROD
DIRECTION FROM THE COURT
00075 09/26/2012 2095 2856 0017
DESC: MOTION FOR
RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY'S FEE AND COSTS
FROM A COMMON FUND
00079 09/26/2012 2095 4506 0025
DESC: CONSENT
TO REVOCATION ON 04-02-2012 MEDIATED
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
00078 09/27/2012 2095 4493 0013
DESC:
REVOCTION OF CONSENT AND AGREEMENT TO
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
00073 09/28/2012 2095 5688 0031
DESC: CONTEST
00081 10/01/2012 2095 3404 0082
DESC: OBJECTION
TO ORDER COMPELLING ATTENDENCE AT
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
00082 10/01/2012 2096 2567 0009
DESC: MOTION TO
ENTER APRIL 2, 2012 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
REACHED IN MEDIATION AND APPROVED BY THE
COURT MAY 8, 2012
00080 10/02/2012 2095 7172 0006
DESC: MOTION FOR
CONSOLIDATION OF UPCOMING HEARINGS ON
SANDRA SAKS' PRO SE MOTIONS
00085 10/05/2012 2096 2577 0008
DESC: MOTION FOR
RULE 13 SANCTIONS AGAINST SANDRA SAKS
00090 10/17/2012 2096 5513 0004
DESC: RESPONSE
TO SANDRA SAKS "OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER
AUTHORIZING INTERIM TRUSTEE SIGNED BY
THE COURT AND FILED 08-31-2012,MOTION
TO SET ASIDE,MODIFY,CORRECT AND/OR
VACATE ORDER AUTHORIZING INTERIM TRUSTEE
00091 10/17/2012 2096 5517 0007
DESC: RESPONSE
TO SANDRA SAKS "OBJECTIONS TO ORDER
COMPELLING ATTENDANCE AT MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION SIGNED BY THE COURT 9-5-2012
MOTION TO SET ASIDE,MODIFY,CORRECT AND/O
R VACATE ORDER COMPELLING ATTENDANCE
AT MEDIATION AND/OR ARBITRATION AND
MOTION TO ENTER COURT
00092 10/31/2012 2097 1335 0090
DESC: APPL. TO
CONFIRM ARBITRATOR'S AWARD AND ENTER
JUDGMENT THEREON
00094 11/D9/2012 0000 0000 0000
DESC:
298
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Benar County Centralized DocKet System P0: 8 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD
VACATION LETTER - SANDRA SAKS
00093 11/13/2012 2098 1288 0004
DESC: MOTION TO
SERVE SANDRA C. SAKS BY MAIL
00095 11/29/2012 2096 8995 0005
DESC: MOTION TO
CORRECT 10/16/12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ENTER 04/02/2012 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE
ACHED IN MEDIATION AND APPROVED BY THE C
OURT 05/08/12
00100 12/04/2012 2099 3374 0001
DESC: RECEIPT 8 RELEASE
1228.87
00101 12/04/2012 2099 3375 0001
DESC: RECEIPT 8 RELEASE
1228.87
00102 12/04/2012 2099 3376 0001
DESC: RECEIPT 8 RELEASE
1228.87
00103 12/04/2012 2099 3377 0001
DESC: RECEIPT 8 RELEASE
4797.15
00104 12/04/2012 2099 3378 0001
DESC: RECEIPT 8 RELEASE
4797.15
00105 12/04/2012 2099 3379 0001
DESC: RECEIPT 8 RELEASE
4797.15
00099 12/05/2012 2099 3373 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
00097 12/07/2012 2099 5910 0010
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
00106 01/04/2013 2100 9426 0091
DESC: OBJECTION
TO STATUTORY PROBATE COURT ENTERED
ORDERS WITH LACK OF JURISDICTION.
OBJECTIONS TO ALL THE COURTS RULINGS
FRM 12-21-2011 TO PRESENT. REQUEST
THAT THE COURT DETERMINE IT HAS NO
JURISDICTION AND DISMISS,ADDITONALV IF
COURT REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE LACK OF
JURISDICTION AND/OR PLENARY POWERS,
SANDRA SAKS ASK COURT TO VACATE AND
SET ASIDE ALL ORDERS ENTERED
00111 01/25/2113 2103 0601 0016
DESC: RESPONSE
LAUREN SAKS MERRIMAN'S TO SANDRA SAKS
MOTION WITH OBJECTIONS TO THE STATUTORY
PROBATE COURT ENTERED ORDERS, El SEC)
AND MOTION FOR FINALITY
00107 01/29/2013 2102 3444 0014
DESC: MOTION TO
299
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Pg: 9 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD
DISMISS SANDRA SAKS
MOTION FOR RULE13 AGAINST LAUREN SAKS,
CHRIS HEINRICHS, JOHNATHAN YEDOR, BARRET
SHIPP-OBJECTIONS TO ALL THE COURTS
RULING FROM 12/12/11 TO PRESENT EFFECTIN
SANDRA SAKS-MOTION RC/STING THE COURT DET
ERMINE IT HAS NO JURISDICTION AND DISMIS
SANDRA SAKS FROM ALL PROCEEDINGS-MOTION
TO FIND AND ORDER ALL RULING, ORDERS
EFFECTING SANDRA SAKS
00112 02/05/2013 2103 0617 0017
DESC: RESPONSE
MARGARET LANDEN SAKE, OBJECTIONS, AND
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
00109 02/06/2013 2102 7681 0009
DESC: MOTION FOR
RECUSAL AND SUPPORTING BRIEF
00113 02/06/2013 2103 0634 0010
DESC: RESPONSE
LAUREN SAKS MERRIMAN TO MARGARET
LANDEN SAKS, OBJECTIONS,AND REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION
00114 02/12/2013 2103 4022 0002
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
00115 02/12/2013 2103 4024 0002
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
00123 03/14/2013 2106 6787 0019
DESC: PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO ENTER ORDER RE: MARCH 6, 2013
HEARING
00117 03/15/2013 2105 5783 0002
DESC: NOTICE
OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF COUNSEL FOR
DIANE M. FLORES
00116 03/21/2013 2105 7773 0015
DESC: PLAINTIFF'S
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO
CONFIRM ARBITRATOR'S AWARD AND ENTER JUD
GHENT THEREON
00119 04/02/2013 2106 2862 0001
DESC: REQUEST FOR
SUBPOENA PVT PROCESS SRV'D
LAUREN SAKS BY AND THROUGH HER ATTY
W. RANDOLPH DAVID
00120 04/03/2013 2106 2863 0001
DESC: REQUEST FOR
SUBPOENA PVT PROCESS BY AND THROUGH
HER ATTY CHRIS HEINRICHS AND BARRETT
SHIPP
00121 04/03/2013 2106 5430 0002
DESC: SUBPOENA
SRVD-04/03/2013-W. RANDOLPH DAVIS
300
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Boxer County Centralized Docket System Pg: 10 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29
JCL: SPPROD
00122 04/03/2013 2106 5432 0001
DESC: SUBPOENA
SRVD-BARRETT HEINRICHS-04/03/2013
00126 04/04/2013 2106 6808 0005
DESC: MOTION TO
QUASH TRIAL SUBPEONA ISSUED TO LAUREN
SAKS
00127 04/05/2013 2106 6813 0074
DESC: RESPONSE
LAUREN SAKS' RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
APPLICATION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION'S
AWARD AND ENTER JUDGMENT THEREON
00128 04/05/2013 2106 6887 0003
DESC: MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE AND OR RESET
00129 04/05/2013 2106 6890 0002
DESC: OBJECTION
AND RESPONSE TO W. RANDOLPH DAVIS AND
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY W. RANDOLPH DAVIS
00130 04/05/2013 2106 6892 0005
DESC: OBJECTION
LAUREN SAKS' OBJECTION TO SUBPEONA
AND MOTION FOR PROTECTION ORDER
00131 04/24/2013 2108 5754 0086
DESC: MOTION TO
ENTER ORDER CONFIRMING AWARD OF
ARBITRATION AND FINAL JUDGMENT
00132 05/21/2013 2109 7404 0003
DESC: REQUEST FOR
FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
00133 05/29/2013 2110 1944 0010
DESC: RESPONSE
LAUREN SAKS MERRIMAN'S TO LANDEN SAKS'
REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
00135 06/03/2013 2111 3921 0005
DESC: OBJECTION
TO ARBITRATION AWARD 8 MOTION TO VACATE
00134 06/06/2013 2110 7116 0005
DESC: MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL
00137 06/10/2013 2111 3935 0003
DESC: MOTION TO
ENFORCE ORDER CONFIRMING AWARD OF
ARBITRATOR AND FINAL JUDGEMENT
00136 06/17/2013 2111 3927 0006
DESC: RESPONSE
00139 07/01/2013 2112 6456 0010
DESC: PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION
IN INTERVENTION
00141 07/11/2013 2113 0530 0003
DESC: MOTION TO
301
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System P0: 11 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD
SEVER
00142 07/22/2013 2113 6568 0004
DESC: ORIGINAL ANSWER
00143 07/22/2013 2113 6421 0003
DESC: PERSONAL CITATION
LEE NICK MCFADIN,III WAS SERVED BY PVT
PROCESS ON 07/15/2013
00144 07/24/2013 2113 8460 0008
DESC: DEFENDANT'S
CITIZEN'S STATE BANK'S COUNTERCLAIM.
00145 07/31/2013 2114 2281 0004
DESC: APPL. FOR
ORDER ENFORCING JUDGEMENT
00149 08/01/2013 2114 4160 0004
DESC: MOTION FOR
CITIZENS STATE BANK'S SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
00146 08/02/2013 2114 4154 0004
DESC: ORIGINAL ANSWER
00147 08/02/2013 2114 4065 0016
DESC: NOTICE
OF APPEAL
00148 08/02/2013 2114 4158 0002
DESC: NOTICE
OF APPEAL
00151 08/12/2013 2115 3612 0002
DESC: NOTICE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00152 08/12/2013 2115 3614 0002
DESC: APPEAL
FOURTH COURT
00153 08/13/2013 2115 5878 0002
DESC: PAUPER'S OATH
00160 08/14/2013 2115 9780 0015
DESC: MOTION FOR
TRUSTEE'S - AUTHORITY AND FOR EXPEDITED
HEARING
00154 08/15/2013 2115 8269 0003
DESC: AFFIDAVIT
00186 08/15/2013 2121 2338 0011
DESC: MOTION TO
SET AMOUNT OF SECURITY ON JUDGMENT FOR
REAL PROPERTY
00155 08/16/2013 2115 9064 0012
DESC: REQUEST FOR
PREPARATION OF CLERK'S RECORD
00156 08/16/2013 2115 9076 0011
DESC: REQUEST FOR
PREPARATION OF CLERK'S RECORD
00157 08/16/2013 2115 9087 0004
DESC: MOTION TO
EXTEND TIME FOR FILING REQUEST OF A
COURTS RECORD AND CLERKS RECORD
302
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Ps: 12 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29
JCL: SPPROD
00158 08/16/2013 2115 9091 0003
DESC: RESPONSE
AND OBJECTIONS TO TRUSTEE'S
MOTION/APPLICATION FOR ORDER ENFORCING
JUDGMENT
00159 08/16/2013 2115 9094 0003
DESC: RESPONSE
AND OBJECTIONS TO LAUREN SAKS MERRIMAN'S
MOTION TO ENFORCE ORDER CONFIRMING
AWARD OF ARBITRATION AND FINAL JUDGMENT
00161 08/19/2013 2116 0467 0012
DESC: AFFIDAVIT
OF INABILITY TO PAY COSTS
00163 08/22/2013 2116 2653 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00166 08/23/2013 2116 3563 0002
DESC: NOTICE
OF NONSUIT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
00164 08/26/2013 2116 2654 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00165 08/26/2013 2116 3561 0002
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH OF APPEALS
00168 09/09/2013 2117 4232 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00167 09/10/2013 2117 5827 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00170 09/18/2013 2118 3570 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00174 09/18/2013 2119 3404 0002
DESC: DESIGNATION
OF CLERK'S RECORD
00171 09/25/2013 2118 5794 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FROM COURT OF APPEALS TO SANDRA C. SAKS,
W. RANDOLPH DAV1S,JONATHAN YEDOR,
JEFF SMALL
00172 09/30/2013 2119 3414 0003
DESC: DEFENDANT'S
CITIZENS STATE BANK'S MOTION TO NONSUIT
00173 10/08/2013 2119 5532 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
COURT DF APPEALS
00175 10/10/2013 2119 8287 0031
DESC: MOTION FOR
(TRUSTEE'S) DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AND TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY
303
RUN DATE: 11/20/21:5 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Pi: 13 PON: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29
JCL: SPPROD
00176 10/10/2013 2119 8318 0003
DESC: MOTION TO
(TRUSTEE'S) ENFORCE JUDGMENT AND ORDERS
TO EXECUTE CONEVANCE DOCUMENTS AND FOR
CONTEMPT
00178 10/10/2013 2119 8320 0014
DESC: PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST AMENDED PETITION
00179 10/11/2013 2119 8606 0007
DESC: AFFIDAVIT
JOE GARCIA
00180 10/14/2013 2120 0743 0004
DESC: AFFIDAVIT
RICARDO ELIZONDO
00181 10/14/2013 2120 0747 0004
DESC: AFFIDAVIT
ROLAND DUCK
20182 10/14/2013 2120 0751 0004
DESC: AFFIDAVIT
ROLAND DUCK
00183 10/14/2013 2120 0755 0004
DESC: AFFIDAVIT
JEFF MARRIOTT
00188 10/17/2013 2121 2349 0011
DESC: OBJECTION
GRANTING MOTION TO ENFORCE ORDER
ENFORCING GRANTING TRUSTEES MOTION TO
SEVERE AND ORDER DENYING TO SET
SUPERCIDIOUS BOND
00184 10/25/2013 2120 9515 0003
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00189 10/29/2013 2121 2360 0015
DESC:
TRUSTEE'S REPORT ON PROPERTIES
00191 10/30/2013 2121 3008 0001
DESC:
COURT OF APPEALS
00192 10/31/2013 2121 3760 0004
DESC: AFFIDAVIT
00193 11/04/2013 2121 3764 0002
DESC: CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
00194 11/06/2013 2121 6979 0042
DESC:
COPY OF THE SAXS CHILDREN FAMILY TRUST
AGREEMENT.
00259 11/08/2013 2148 3093 0004
DESC:
LETTER FROM BINGHAM 8 LEA, P.C. TO
JUDGE SPENCER
00195 11/14/2013 2122 1248 0008
DESC: JURY DEMAND
304
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System P9: 14 PON: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29
JCL: SPPROD
00196 11/14/2013 2122 1256 0004
DESC: OBJECTION
TO TRUSTEE'S REPORT ON PROPERTIES
00197 11/14/2013 2122 1246 0002
DESC: NOTICE
APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
00198 11/15/2013 2122 3013 0002
DESC: NOTICE
OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
00199 11/19/2013 2122 3718 0013
DESC: MOTION TO
SHOW AUTHORITY, MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS
00200 11/19/2013 2122 3731 0007
DESC: ANSWER
Tri PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED PETITION
00201 11/20/7013 2122 3921 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FROM 4TH COURT OF APPEALS
00203 11/25/2013 2122 7779 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00204 11/27/2013 2122 9288 0002
DESC: NOTICE
OF DEPOSIT INTO REGISTRY
00205 12/02/2013 2122 9290 0006
DESC: RESPONSE
TRUSTEE'S
00206 12/02/2913 2122 9296 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS-SANDRA C. SAKS
00207 12/04/2013 2123 0912 0018
DESC: ANNUAL ACCOUNT
FIRST AMENDED
00208 12/04/2013 2123 0780 0004
DESC: MOTION TO
QUASH SUBPOENA
00209 12/04/2013 0200 0784 0002
DESC: SUBPOENA
LFE NICK MCFADIN
00210 12/06/2013 2123 0786 0002
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00211 12/12/2013 2123 6093 0002
DESC: NOTICE
00212 12/12/2013 2123 6095 0002
DESC: NOTICE
00213 12/20/2013 2124 0016 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00214 12/23/2013 2124 2737 0002
DESC:
305
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Boxer County Central lied Docket System P0: 15 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29
JCL: SPPROD
ADVISORY TO THE COURT
00215 12/24/2013 2124 2739 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00216 12/24/2013 2124 2741 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00217 12/24/2013 2124 2742 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00218 12/30/2013 2124 4292 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS TO SANDRA C.
SAKS
00220 12/31/2013 2124 5626 0001
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00219 01/02/2114 2124 5624 0002
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
00221 02/05/2014 2126 4358 0002
DESC: NOTICE
OF STATUS CONFERENCE
00223 03/05/2014 2128 9820 0005
DESC: COURT CORRESPONDENCE
DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL CLERKS
RECORD
00222 03/18/2014 2129 0445 0023
DESC: ORIGINAL PETITION
00224 03/19/2014 2129 0650 0005
DESC: APPL FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
00225 03/31/2014 2129 8632 0006
DESC: SUPPLEMENTAL
TO TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST SANDRA SAKS
00228 04/28/2014 2131 7194 0022
DESC: DEFENDANT'S
LEE NICK MCFADIN, III'S SUPPLEMENT TO
MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY, MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY 8 MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS
00229 04/28/2014 2131 7188 0006
DESC: ORIGINAL ANSWER
DEFENDANTS A. CHRIS HEINRICHS, J. BARRET
T SHIPP AND HEINRIGHS 8 DEGENNARO, PC'S
ORIGINAL ANSWER, GENERAL DENIAL AND REQU
EST FOR DISCLOSURE SUBJECT TO DEFENDANTS
RIGHTS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
00230 05/08/2014 2132 2150 0004
DESC: MOTION TO
ABATE AND COMPEL ARBITRATION AND ANSWER
SUBJECT TO MOTION (B)
306
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Besar County Centralized Docket System Pa: 16 POM: DKE:4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29
JCL: SPPRDD
00232 07/08/2014 3136 1617 0012
DESC: ANSWER/RESPONSE
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ABAT
E AND COMPEL ARBITRATION
00233 07/25/2014 2137 4677 0006
DESC: APPL. FOR SALE OF PERSONAL PRO
00234 07/25/2014 2137 4671 0006
DESC: APPL. FOR SALE OF REAL ESTATE
00235 07/28/2014 2137 3877 0006
DESC: AMENDED APPLN FOR SALE OF PERS
00236 07/31/2014 2137 4632 0001
DESC: NOTICE OF APPL SALE OF PERSONA
00237 07/31/2014 2137 4633 0001
DESC: NOTICE OF APPL SALE OF REAL ES
00238 08/06/2014 2137 8335 0001
DESC: NOTICE OF APPL SALE OF PERSONA
00239 08/06/2014 2137 8336 0001
DESC: NOTICE OF APPL SALE OF REAL ES
00241 08/13/2014 2138 3435 0017
DESC: REPORT SALE OF REAL ESTATE
REPORT OF SALE OF REAL PROPERTY
00242 08/13/2014 0000 0000 0000
DESC: NO FEE DOCUMENTS
REPORT OF SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
00243 08/13/2014 2138 2843 0003
DESC: AFFIDAVIT
N. RANDOLPH DAVIS
00244 08/14/2014 2138 3067 0001
DESC: RESPONSE
00245 08/14/2014 2138 3068 0001
DESC: RESPONSE
00247 08/22/2014 2139 3044 0042
DESC: OBJECTION SALE OF REAL ESTATE
INTERIM TRUSTEE'S
00248 08/22/2014 0000 0000 0000
DESC: ANSWER/RESPONSE
ANSWER/RESPONSE OBJECTION REPORT OF SALE
OF PERSONAL PROPERTY DIJON PLAZA
00252 08/22/2014 2139 3087 0044
DESC: OBJECTION SALE OF REAL ESTATE
00251 08/26/2014 2139 1966 0004
DESC: MOTION TO
RECONSIDER DECREE APPROVING INTERIM
TRUSTEE'S REPORT OF SALE OF PERSON
PROPERTY
00270 08/27/2014 2157 4550 0003
DESC: MOTION
AMENDED MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ORDER
CP SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND DECREE
CONFIRMING SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
00253 09/03/2014 0000 0000 0000
DESC: mnTiow
307
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bazar County Centralized Docket System Pg: 17 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29
JCL: SPPROD
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
00254 09/03/2014 0000 0000 0000
DESC: MOTION
MOTION DROP AND RE-SET HEARING
00255 09/03/2014 2139 7114 0002
DESC: MOTION TO
QUASH SUBPOENA
00256 09/03/2014 2139 7112 0002
DESC: MOTION TO
TO DROP SETTING AND RE-SET HEARING
00258 09/16/2014 2140 7321 0125
DESC: APPL. FOR
EX PARTE RESTRAINING ORDER, TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
00260 02/05/2015 2149 7473 0014
DESC: ANNUAL ACCOUNT
INTERIM TRUSTEE'S, ENDING DEC 31 2013
00261 03/11/2715 2152 3107 0013
DESC: SUPPLEMENTAL
TO MOTION TD COMPEL ARBITRATION
00263 04/13/2015 2154 0849 0002
DESC: NOTICE
OF HEARING
2011PC3466-13
00262 04/15/2015 0000 0000 0000
DESC:
P/C IN DRAWER
P 260
P 261
00264 04/17/2015 2154 2608 0012
DESC: ANNUAL ACCOUNT
TRUSTEE'S ANNUAL ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2014
00265 04/20/2015 2154 6713 0002
DESC: NOTICE
OF HEARING: 5/26/15 0 9:00AM
00266 04/28/2015 2155 0118 0002
DESC: NOTICE
OF HEARING:SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF
MOVANT, MARCUS ROGERS: MAY 28, 2015
10:30AM
00267 04/30/2015 2155 2661 0002
DESC: NOTICE
OF DEPOSIT OF FUNDS IN COURT'S REGISTRY
00268 05/27/2015 2157 1856 0001
DESC: NOTICE
00272 07/08/2015 2159 9553 0001
DESC: NOTICE
FROM SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
00271 07/09/2015 2160 0573 0003
DESC: MOTION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS IS
FPOM COURT'S REGISTRY
308
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Po: 18
PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29
JCL: SPPROD
00273 07/23/2015 2161 1543 0029
DESC: MOTION
JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S MOTION TO ORDER DISB
URSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM THE REGISTRY OF T
HE COURT IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT
00274 07/24/2015 2161 1611 0002
DESC: NOTICE OF HEARING Of
MOTION OF MARCUS P ROGERS
00276 08/04/2015 2162 1038 0027
DESC: MOTION
MOTION RECUSAL
00277 08/04/2015 2162 1066 0003
DESC: MOTION
MOTION CONTINUANCE
00278 08/04/2015 2162 1073 0004
DESC: MOTION
MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING SUBPOENA
00279 08/04/2015 2161 1611 0002
DESC: NOTICE
OF HEARING
00282 08/04/2015 2162 1069 2004
DESC: MOTION TO
TO CONTINUE HEARING ON NOTION TO RELEASE
FUNDS
00280 08/05/2015 2162 1077 D002
DESC: ANSWER/RESPONSE
HEINRICHS 8 DE GENNARO'S REQUEST FOR SAN
CTIONS IN RESPONSE TO "VERIFIED MOTION F
OR RECUSAL AND SUPPORTING BRIEF"
00281 08/11/2015 2162 3199 0003
DESC: AMENDED
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN RESPONSE TO
"VERIFIED MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND
SUPPORTING BRIEF"
00283 08/14/2015 2162 3202 0010
DESC: DEFENDANT'S
A. CHRIS HEMICHS, J. BARRETT SHIPP AND
HEINRICHS 8 DE GENNARO, PC'S RESPONSE TO
MARGARET LANDEN SAKS' VERIFIED MOTION
FOR RECUSAL AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
00284 08/17/2015 2162 3212 0014
DESC: RESPONSE
REPLY TO HEINRICHS 8 DEGENNARO'S AMENDED
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN RESPONSE TO
"VERIFIED MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND
SUPPORTING BRIEF
00285 08/17/2015 2162 3226 0034
DESC: AMENDED
MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND REPLY BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF AMENDED VERIFIED MOTION FOR
RECUSAL
00286 08/24/2015 2163 2030 0014
DESC:
309
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System P8: 19 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29
JCL: SPPROD
VERIFIED RESPONSE TO JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S
MOTION TO ORDER DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FR
OM THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN PAYMENT
OF JUDGMENT
00287 08/24/2015 2163 0685 0012
DESC: RESPONSE
TO JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S MOTION TO ORDER
DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM THE REGISTRY
OF THE COURT IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT
00288 08/24/2015 2163 1120 0007
DESC: MOTION
JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S AMENDED MOTION TO OR
DER DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM THE REGIS
TRY OF THE COURT IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT
00289 08/24/2015 2163 0697 0010
DESC: COUNTERCLAIM
PLEA IN INTERVENTION
00290 08/25/2015 2163 2026 0004
DESC: RESPONSE
TO MOTION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS
FROM COURT'S REGISTRY
00292 08/28/2015 2163 4643 0015
DESC: MOTION
HEINRICHS 8 DE GENNARO'S MOTION TO STRIK
E LANDEN SAKS" PLEAS IN INTERVENTION
00295 09/15/2015 2164 5169 0005
DESC: MOTION
00296 09/17/2015 2165 3465 0029
DESC: MOTION
JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S SECOND AMENDED MOTIO
N TO ORDER DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM
THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN PAYMENT OF
JUDGMENT
00297 09/18/2015 2165 1063 0016
DESC: MOTION
HEINRICHS 8 DE GENNARO'S AMENDED MOTION
TO STRIKE LANDEN SAKS' PLEA IN INTERVENT
ION
00298 09/18/2015 2165 1058 0005
DESC:
HEINRICHS 8 DE GENNARO'S TRIAL BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF ITS OBJECTION 70 SANDRA SAKS
OR LANDEN SAKS PARTICIPATION IN THE HEAR
ING ON THE MOTION TO DISBURSE FUNDS FROM
THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
00300 09/25/2015 2165 4423 0034
DESC: SUPPLEMENTAL
TO RESPONSE TO JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S
MOTION TO ORDER DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS
FROM THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN
PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT
00301 09/25/2015 2165 5287 0002
DESC: NOTICE
310
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Ps: 20 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29
JCL: SPPROD
OF WITHDRAWAL OF OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR
RELEASE OF FUNDS FROM COURT'S REGISTRY
00304 09/29/2015 2165 9184 0006
DESC: APPL. FOR SALE OF PERSONAL PRO
00305 09/29/2015 2165 9193 0007
DESC: APPL. FOR SALE OF REAL ESTATE
00302 10/01/2015 2165 8642 0001
DESC: NOTICE SALE OF REAL ESTATE
00303 10/01/2015 2165 8643 0001
DESC: NOTICE SALE OF PERSONAL PROPER
00306 10/02/2015 2166 0135 0004
DESC: RESPONSE
TO COURT'S REQUEST FOR DOCKET CONTROL
ORDER
00307 10/02/2015 2166 0139 0004
DESC: RESPONSE
TO COURT'S REQUEST FOR DOCKET CONTROL
ORDER
00308 10/02/2015 2166 0143 0004
DESC: RESPONSE
TO COURT'S REQUEST FOR DOCKET CONTROL
ORDER
00310 10/20/2015 2167 0568 0004
DESC: RESPONSE
TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
00311 10/23/2015 2167 3830 0002
DESC: NOTICE
OF APPEAL
00312 10/28/2015 2167 4927 0006
DESC:
DECLARATION OF ROYAL B. LEA. III
00313 10/28/2015 2167 4933 0002
DESC: CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
00314 10/29/2015 2167 6088 0002
DESC: CERTIFICATE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
00316 10/30/2015 2167 8560 0008
DESC: AMENDED APPLN FOR SALE OF REAL
00317 10/30/2015 2167 8627 0010
DESC: DESIGNATION
COURT APPOINTED INTERIM TRUSTEE'S
DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS
00318 11/03/2015 2167 8010 0002
DESC: NOTICE OF APPL SALE OF REAL ES
(AMENDED)
00319 11/03/2015 2167 8008 0002
DESC: NOTICE OF APPL SALE OF PERSONA
(AMENDED)
00320 11/04/2015 2168 4551 0035
DESC: REQUEST
TO FORWARD CLERK'S RECORD ON APPEAL
311
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bazar County Centralized Docket System Pg: 21 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD
MARGARET LANDEN SAKS
00321 11/12/2015 2168 4549 0002
DESC: REQUEST
TO FORWARD CLERK'S RECORD ON APPEAL
HEINRICHS 8 DE GENNARO, PC
+TRIAL INFORMATION•
SEQ DATE FILED COURT SETT. DATE TIME ATTY
00023 12/19/2011 002 12/22/2011 09:30AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
FIRST AMENDED TO REMOVE TRUSTEE ETC
00043 03/01/2012 002 03/06/2012 09:30AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
INTERIM TRUSTEE' REPORT
00038 03/06/2012 002 04/03/2012 01:30PH
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
INTERIM TRUSTEE'S REPORT
00051 05/30/2012 002 07/12/2012 09:30AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00058 06/29/2012 002 07/12/2012 09:30AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00060 07/10/2012 002 07/12/2012 09:30AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00068 08/20/2012 002 08/33/2012 02:00PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00064 09/05/2012 002 09/20/2012 01:30PN
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00065 09/20/2012 002 09/20/2012 01:30PM
DESC: HEARING HELD
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
00083 10/01/2012 002 10/08/2012 10:30AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
MOTION TO ENTER 04/02/12 SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT REACHED IN MEDIATION AND
APPROVED BY THE COURT ON 05/08/12
00084 10/03/2012 002 10/08/2012 10:30AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION FROM THE COURT
00086 10/05/2012 002 10/00/2012 10:30AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
MOTION FOR RULE 13 SANCTIONS
00087 10/05/2012 002 10/00/2012 10:30AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
AMENDED FIAT-MOTION FOR RULE 13 SANCTION
00088 10/11/2012 002 10/17/2012 04:30PM
DESC: PROBATE HEARING
OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER COMPELLING
ATTENDANCE AT MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
00089 10/11/2012 002 10/17/2012 04:30PM
DESC: PROBATE HEARING
OBJECTIONS TO ORDER AUTHORIZING
312
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System P0: 22 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD
INTERIM TRUSTEE
00096 11/29/2012 002 12/05/2012 09:30AM JBS
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00098 11/30/2012 002 12/07/2012 09:30AM MR
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00110 01/25/2013 002 02/06/2013 09:30AM
DESC: PROBATE HEARING
MOTION WITH OBJECTIONS TO STATUTORY
PROBATE COURT ENTERED ORDERS WITH
LACK OF JURISDICTION
00108 01/29/2013 002 02/05/2013 03:50PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
MOTION WITH OBJECTIONS
00116 02/20/2013 001 03/06/2013 09:30AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00124 03/14/2013 001 03/18/2013 03:00PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00125 03/18/2013 001 03/28/2013 02:00PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00138 06/10/2013 001 06/17/2013 03:00PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00140 07/12/20'3 002 08/13/2013 02:00PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
MOTION TO SEVER
00150 08/01/2013 002 08/16/2013 09:30AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00187 08/15/2013 001 08/16/2013 03:15PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
MOTION TO SET AMOUNT OF SECURITY
00162 08/19/2013 002 08/26/2013 04:30PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00169 09/18/2013 001 10/29/2013 02:00PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
MOTION TO SET AMOUNT OF SECURITY ON
JUDGMENT FOR REAL PROPERTY
00177 10/10/2013 001 10/29/2013 02:00PM
DESC: PROBATE HEARING
TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT AND ORDERS TO EXECTE
00185 10/50/2015 001 11/05/2013 01:45PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
TRUSTEE'S REPORT
00190 10/30/2013 002 11/05/2013 01:45PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00202 11/26/2013 001 12/02/2013 03:30PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
MO'ION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY SANCTION
AGAINST SANDRA SAKS
00226 04/01/20:4 001 04/29/2014 02:00PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
THE. TRUSTEE'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL
AUTHORITY IN THE TRUSTEE'S REPORT ON
PROPERTIES, FILED ON OCTOBER 29, 2013,
313
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System P0: 23 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:29 JCL: SPPROD
NICK MCFADIN'S MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY,
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY, AND MOTION TO
STRIKE PLEADINGS, AND TRUSTEE'S MOTION
FOR ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS AND SUPPLEMENT
THERETO.
00227 04/01/2014 001 04/29/2014 02:00PM
DESC: NOTICE
TRUSTEE'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL
AUTHORITY IN THE TRUSTEE'S REPORT ON
PROPERTIES
00231 06/18/2014 001 07/09/2014 03:OOPM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
MOTION OF DEFENDANT MARCUS ROGERS TO
ABATE AND COMPEL ARBITRATION
00240 08/07/2014 001 08/13/2014 11:15AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
APPL. FOR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND
AMENDED APPL. FOR SALE OF PERSONAL
PROPERTY
00246 OB/20/2014 001 013/26/2014 09:30AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
APPL. FOR SALE OR REAL PROPERTY,PERSONAL
PROPERTY, REPORT OF SALE OF REAL AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY
00250 08/27/2014 001 09/03/2014 11:30AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
AMENDED MOTION
00257 09/03/2014 001 09/15/2014 02:00PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
AMENDED MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ORDER
OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND DECREE
CONFIRMING SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
00275 07/30/2015 001 08/05/2015 11:30AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00291 08/20/2015 001 09/03/2015 03:OOPM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00293 OB/27/2015 002 09/25/2015 09:00AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S SECOND AMENDED MOTTO
TO ORDER DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM THE
REGISTRY OF THE COURT
00294 OB/27/2015 002 09/25/2015 09:00AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
MOTION TO STRIKE
00299 09/14/2015 001 09/25/2015 09:00AM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
AMENDED FIAT ON MOTION TO STRIKE
LANDEN SAKS PLEA
00309 10/08/2015 001 10/22/2015 02:00PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
00315 10/28/2015 001 12/02/2015 03:30PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
314
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System PR: 24 PGM: DK84900P
RUN TIME: 16:D6:30 JCL: SPPROD
INTERIM TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
00322 11/17/2015 001 12/02/2015 03:00PM
DESC: ORDER SETTING HEARING
AMENDED APPL FOR SALE PERSONAL PROP
• ORDER INFORMATION•
SE0 DATE FILED JUDGE NAME VOLUME PAGE PAGE CNT AMOUNT SOF
00001 12/28/2011 TOM RICKHOFF 2075 5069 0003 0.00
DESC: DRDER APPOINTING
INTERIM TRUSTEE,MARCUS ROGERS
00002 01/03/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2075 7633 0003 100000.00
DESC: ORDER APPROVING BOND
00003 03/12/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2079 9879 0002 0.00
DESC: AGREED ORDER
GRANTING LAUREN SAKS' SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
TO DIANA G. FLORES' FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
00004 03/12/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2079 9881 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO COMPEL ORAL DEPOSITION OF NON
PARTY WITNESS,JON SANDIDGE
00005 03/12/2012 TOM RICKMOFF 2079 9883 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER GRANTING
LAUREN SAKS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
FROM DIANE M FLORES AND SANDRA SAKS
00006 05/08/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2083 7322 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER APPROVING
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
00007 08/31/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2093 6906 0003 0.00
DESC: ORDER AUTHORIZING
INTERIM TRUSTEE
00008 09/05/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2094 3301 0003 0.00
DESC: ORDER
COMPELLING ATTENDANCE AT MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION
00009 09/20/2012 GLADYS B. BURWELL 2094 8465 0001 0.00
DESC: MOTION TO
00010 10/16/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2096 5511 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO ENTER 04-02-2012 SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT REACHED IN MEDIATION AND
APPROVED BY THE COURT 05-06-2012
00011 12/06/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2099 5389 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER TO
SERVED SANDRA C SAKS BY EMAIL
00012 12/06/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2099 5391 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER -0
CORRECT OCTOBER 16, 2012 ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO ENTER APRIL 2, 2012 SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT REACHED IN MEDIATION AND
APPROVED BY THE COURT MAY 8, 2012
00013 12/07/2012 TOM RICKHOFF 2099 5393 0001 0.00
DESC: ORDER
315
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Boxer County Centralized Docket System Pe: 25 POM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:30 JCL: SPPROD
ON APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION FROM THE
COURT
00014 02/11/2013 TOM RICKHOFF 2103 0672 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER
OF REFERRAL
00015 03/28/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2106 2086 0003 0.00
DESC: ORDER
TO CONFIRM ABRBITRATION AWARD
00016 05/07/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2106 5840 0081 0.00
DESC: ORDER CONFIRMING
AWARD OF ARBITRATOR AND FINAL JUDGMENT
00017 06/17/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2111 3926 0001 0.00
DESC: ORDER
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO ARBITRATION
AWARD AND MOTION TO VACATE.
00018 07/01/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2112 4125 0003 0.00
DESC: TEMP. REST. ORDER
00019 07/08/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2112 7915 0001 0.00
DESC: ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
00020 08/16/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2115 9774 0004 0.00
DESC: CONTEST
TRUSTEE'S CONTEST TO AFFIDAVIT OF
INDIGENCE AND TO CLAIMED NET WORTH FOR
SUPERSEDEAS BOND
00021 08/16/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2115 9778 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER
ON MOTION TO ENFORCE
00022 09/05/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2117 5194 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER
SUSTAINING CONTESTS TO AFFIDAVIT OF
INABI , ITY TO PAY COSTS
00023 09/17/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2118 1043 0003 0.00
DESC: ORDER SRANTING
MOTION TO ENFORCE
00024 09/17/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2118 1046 0004 0.00
DESC: ORDER
OF SEVERANCE
00026 09/24/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2120 D759 0004 0.00
DESC: ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO STRIKE INTERVENTION
00025 09/30/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2119 3417 0001 0.00
DESC: ORDER
NONSU'TING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
00027 11/05/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2122 1709 0003 0.00
DESC: ORDER
ON DISCOVERY
00028 11/14/2013 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2122 1712 0069 0.00
DESC: ORDER
IN AID OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
00029 04/29/2014 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2131 7216 0001 0.00
DESC: ORDER DENYING
316
RUN DATE: 11/20/2015 Bexar County Centralized Docket System Pg: 26 PGM: DKB4900P
RUN TIME: 16:06:30 JCL: SPPROD
MTN BY DEFENDANT LEE NICK MCFADIN, LLL
TO SJOW AUTHORITY, MTN TO DISQUALIFY, AN
D MTN TO STRIKE PLEADINGS
00030 06/18/2014 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2134 6951 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER GRANTING
HEARING ON JULY 9. 2014
00051 08/26/2014 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2139 1677 0002 0.0D
DESC: ORDER AUTHORIZING SALE OF PERS
00032 38/26/2014 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2139 1679 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER AUTHORIZING SALE OF REAL
00033 D8/26/2014 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2139 1681 0002 0.00
DESC: DECREE CONFIRMING SALE
OF REAL PROPERTY
00034 08/26/2014 POLLY JACKSON SPENCE 2139 1683 0002 0.00
DESC: DECREE CONFIRMING SALE
OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
00035 06/04/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2157 7637 0003 0.00
DESC: ORDER
ON MOTION TO ABATE AND COMPEL ARBITRATI-
ON
00036 07/24/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2161 4242 D002 0.00
DESC: NOTICE
OF HEARING
00037 08/05/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2161 9086 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER
DECLINING VERIFIED MOTION FOR RECUSAL 8
SUPPORTING BRIEF
00038 08/21/2015 DAVID PEEPLES 2163 0151 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO RECUSE AND DENYING SANCTIONS
00039 09/25/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2165 6518 0002 331879.97
DESC: ORDER AUTHORIZING DISBURSEMENT
00040 09/25/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2165 6520 0001 0.00
DESC: ORDER
STRIKING INTERVENTION
00041 10/12/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2166 5560 0005 0.00
DESC: ORDER FOR
DOCKET CONTROL
00042 10/22/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2167 1716 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER GRANTING
RELEASE OF FUNDS FROM COURT'S REGISTRY
• BOND INFORMAT1ON•
SE0 DATE FILED PRINCIPAL
00001 01/03/20I7 MARCUS ROGERS
AGENT: SHERRI L. SCHRAER AMOUNT: 100000.00
SURETY: WESTERN SURETY CO.
REASON: INTERIM TRUSTEE OF SAKS FORM: CORP
RELEASE DATE:
317
TAB 2
ORDER STRIKING INTERVENTION
NO. 2011-PC-3466
LAUREN SAKS, a/k/a GLORIA LAUREN IN THE PROBATE COURT
NICOLE SAKS, Plaintiff,
V. NO. 1
DIANE M. FLORES AND,
SANDRA GARZA DAVIS f/k/a
SANDRA C. SAKS, Defendants BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER STRIKING INTERVENTION
On September 25, 2015, the court came on to hear Heinrichs & De Gennaro's Amended
Motion to Strike Landen Saks' Plea in Intervention. Heinrichs & De Gennaro, P.C., ("H&D"),
Movant, appeared in person and by and through its attorney. Landen Saks, Respondent, appeared
by and through her attorney of record.
Following the announcements from the parties, the court heard, having read the
pleadings, heard the argument of counsel and finds the Motion to Strike the Intervention well
taken.
It is therefore ORDERED that Land Saks "Verified Plea in Intervention" be and is hereby
stricken pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 60.
All relief not expressly granted, is denied.
Signed this 25th day of September, 201
Kelly oss
Judge Presiding
PREPARED BY:
Heinrichs & De Gennaro, P.C.
100 NE Loop 410, Suite 1075
San Antonio, Texas 78216
MOB
Telepho 66-0900 SEP 25 2015
Facsi -0981
B
or, of Counsel
No. 22151400
AW ris Heinrichs
State Bar No. 09382500
chrish(iiTheinrichslaw.corn
VO2 1 bSPb520
6
TAB 3
ORDER TO DISBURSE FUNDS
FROM THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT
NO. 2011-PC-3466
LAUREN SAKS, a/k/a GLORIA LAUREN IN THE PROBATE COURT
NICOLE SAKS, Plaintiff,
V. NO. 1
DIANE M. FLORES AND,
SANDRA GARZA DAVIS f/k/a
SANDRA C. SAKS, Defendants BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER TO DISBURSE FUNDS FROM
REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT
On this day the Court heard the Judgment Creditor's Motion to Order Disbursement of
Funds from the Registry of the Court in Payment of Judgment filed by Heinrichs & De Gennaro,
P.C., a professional corporation. The Movant appeared in person and by through its attorney. The
Trustee of the Saks Children's Family Trust a/k/a the Saks Children's Trust and/or ATFL&L,
appeared in person and by and through his attorney. Sandra C. Saks and Landen Saks were
notified of the hearing but failed to appear/appeared in person and/or by and through their
attorney.
After reviewing the pleadings on file and having heard the evidence and the argument of
counsel, the court finds the Motion to be well taken and should be GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Gerard Rickhoff, County Clerk of Bexar County,
Texas, Trustee, issue from funds maintained by the clerk in the registry of the court on behalf of
the Saks Children's Family Trust a/k/a the Saks Children's Trust and/or ATFL&L, a check
payable to Heinrichs & De Gennaro, P.C., 100 NE Loop 410, Suite 1075, San Antonio, Texas
78216, in the amount of $331,879.97, as payment in full of Heinrichs & De Gennaro, P.C.'s
Judgment against the Saks Children's Family Trust a/k/a the Saks Children's Trust and/or
ATFL&L pursuant to Tex. Prop. Code §52.001 and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §31.002.
4
V02 I b5Pb5 18 Mfr
Signed this a< day of September, 2015.
SUBMITTED BY:
Heinrichs & De Gennaro, P.C.
100 NE Loop 410, Suite 1075
San Antonio, Texas 78216
Telephone: (210) 366-0900
Facsimile: (210) 366-0981
, of Duns
r No. 22151400
jona anygheinrichslaw.com
A. Chris Heinrichs
State Bar No. 09382500
chrish(a),heinrichslaw.com
TONED
SEP 2 6 2015
U .1.11,NTS :mks 00,h5r ( not •111-4-I-10 /Ildr Char ra 131sloosc Fundt from RegLadr, of tho Coon
at Pacrocre of tddgolord - 08 03 I! doc
2
V02 I b5Pb5 1(1
5
TAB 4
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
9-25-15
REPORTER'S RECORD
2 VOLUME 1 OF 1
FILED IN
3 4th COURT OF APPEALS
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2011-PC-3466
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
4 11/23/2015 10:27:03 AM
KEITH E. HOTTLE
5 LAUREN SAKS, a/k/a GLORIA ) IN THE PROBATE
Clerk COURT
LAUREN NICOLE SAKS )
6 )
VS. ) NUMBER 1
7 )
DIANE M. FLORES AND SANDRA )
8 GARZA DAVIS, a/k/a SANDRA C. SAKS ) BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
9
10 MOTION TO STRIKE PLEA IN INTERVENTION;
MOTION TO DISBURSE FUNDS
11 SEPTEMBER 25, 2015
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 On the 25th day of September, 2015, the
21 following proceedings came on to be heard in the
22 above-entitled and numbered cause before the HONORABLE KELLY
23 M. CROSS, Judge Presiding, held in San Antonio, Bexar County,
24 Texas:
25 Proceedings reported by Machine Shorthand.
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
1
2 APPEARANCES
3
MR. JONATHAN YEDOR
4 BAR 22151400
HEINRICHS & De GENNARO, PC
5 100 NE Loop 410, Suite 1075
San Antonio, Texas 78216
6 (210) 366-0900; Fax (210) 366-0981,
Attorney for Heinrichs & DeGennaro, PC;
7
8 MR. ROYAL B. LEA, III
BAR 12069680
9 BINGHAM & LEA, PC
319 Maverick Street
10 San Antonio, Texas 78212
(210) 224-1819; Fax (210) 224-0414,
11 Attorney for Marcus Rogers, Interim Trustee;
12
MR. MARCUS P. ROGERS
13 BAR 17179700
LAW OFFICE OF MARCUS P. ROGERS
14 2135 E. Hildebrand
San Antonio, Texas 78209
15 (210) 736-2222; Fax (210) 881-0200,
Interim Trustee of the Saks Children Family
16 Trust;
17
MR. PHILIP M. ROSS
18 BAR 17304280
1006 Holbrook Road
19 San Antonio, Texas 78218
(210) 326-2100,
20 Attorney for Margaret Landen Saks;
21
MS. SANDRA SAKS
22
23
24
25
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
1 CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS
September 25, 2015 Page
2
Appearances 1
3
4 Motion to Strike Plea in Intervention:
Argument by Mr. Yedor 2
5 Argument by Mr. Ross 12
Argument by Mr. Yedor 25
6 Argument by Mr. Ross 29
7 Ruling 30
8
Motion to Order Disbursement of Funds:
9 Argument by Mr. Yedor 31
10 Ruling 34
11
Proceedings Adjourned 36
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
1 EXHIBIT INDEX
2
* * * NONE MARKED, OFFERED, OR ADMITTED * * *
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
1 ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
2
3
4
5
6 * * * NO TESTIMONY PROFFERED * * *
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
1
1 SEPTEMBER 25, 2015
2 THE COURT: This Court is calling 2011-PC-3466.
3 We have a Motion to Strike Intervention, I'm imagining an
4 intervention, and a Motion to Distribute Funds.
5 Please make appearances for the record.
6 MR. YEDOR: Jonathan Yedor, for Heinrichs and
7 DeGennaro, PC, Movants in the Motion to Strike Intervention,
8 Movants in the Motion to Disburse Funds from the Registry of
9 the Court.
10 MR. ROSS: Morning, Judge. Philip Ross,
11 representing Lauren Saks -- or Landen Saks, who's the
12 Intervenor and also the Respondent on the Motion to Withdraw
13 Funds.
14 THE COURT: So since you have a motion for
15 intervention, I believe you go first.
16 MR. YEDOR: Your Honor, may I be heard, please?
17 Actually the intervention is on file unless you strike it
18 under Rule 260. So it is actually our Motion to Strike the
19 Intervention.
20 THE COURT: Okay.
21 MR. ROSS: I would concur with that, Your
22 Honor. It's a Plea in Intervention, and I believe it's
23 effective unless it's striken.
24 THE COURT: Okay.
25 MR. YEDOR: Your Honor, before I begin, may I
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
2
1 approach the Court?
2 THE COURT: Yes.
3 MR. YEDOR: I've had -- I've taken the liberty
4 of putting together a notebook that contains the Plea in
5 Intervention, our Motion to Strike, the fiat setting the
6 matter for hearing this morning, then the authorities related
7 to the matters we're here on before the Court.
8 THE COURT: Okay.
9 MR. YEDOR: Judge, our burden under Rule 60 to
10 strike the intervention is threefold. We have to show that
11 the intervenor has no justiciable interest in the subject
12 matter, or that the intervention would likely complicate the
13 case, or that the intervention was filed too late. All three
14 of those conditions exist.
15 Landen cannot establish a justiciable interest
16 as a precondition to intervention because she cannot show an
17 ability to defeat all or part of the recovery which we seek.
18 The intervention relates to the Motion to Disburse Funds from
19 the Registry of the Court. It relates to a final,
20 nonappealable motion. It -- excuse me, Judge. It is a
21 post-judgment proceeding. The issues relating to or arising
22 out of and resolving the firm's right to recover attorney's
23 fees have been resolved.
24 They've been resolved in -- first of all,
25 resolved in a mediated settlement agreement. They were
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
3
1 resolved in an arbitration relating to the mediated settlement
2 agreement. They were -- they relate to a final judgment
3 confirming the arbitration award and an appeal confirming the
4 judgment. Landen Saks and Marcus Rogers, interim trustee of
5 the trust, were all parties to the arbitration, to confirming
6 the arbitration award which resulted in the final judgment,
7 and the appeal. Any complaint that any of these parties,
8 Landen or the trustee may have had as to the award of fees has
9 been lost, because it was never asserted. It was never made.
10 It was -- it is now barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
11 What we are doing in intervening, what Ms.
12 Saks, Landen Saks is doing in intervening is making an
13 impermissible collateral attack on valid, binding final
14 judgment. And what she is attempting to do, and this goes
15 back to the very basis of the arbitration award, she is
16 attacking the arbitration award, which now, obviously, comes
17 too late. Because she was a party to all the proceedings and
18 because the trustee was a party to all of the proceedings,
19 neither she nor the trustee can attack that award because of
20 the application of these doctrines, and therefore she does not
21 have a justiciable interest., In short, she has no standing.
22 She cannot assert a legal basis for circumventing or avoiding
23 the judgment in Heinrichs and DeGennaro's favor.
24 We believe the intervention will unduly
25 complicate the case, is an alternative ground for striking the
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
4
1 intervention. It will interject parties that don't belong,
2 theories that don't apply, arguments that shouldn't be made,
3 all at a time when we're dealing with post-judgment relief and
4 not what they are attempting to do, and that is collaterally
5 attack the final judgment. So I think the second element,
6 unduly complicate the case, is met.
7 The third ground for striking the intervention
8 would be the filing of the final judgment makes it too late to
9 intervene. The authorities are there in our notebook, they're
10 in our motion. But essentially it is this: If there is a
11 final judgment, filing an intervention after final judgment
12 comes too late. There are two exceptions. They don't apply
13 to the circumstances of this case.
14 Therefore, because Landen cannot show a
15 justiciable interest, because she would unduly complicate the
16 motion, this isn't even a case, it's just a post-trial motion
17 to recover part of a judgment, and because she has filed her
18 intervention too late, we believe the Court should strike the
19 intervention.
20 But Mr. Ross didn't stop. In his Plea in
21 Intervention, in attempting to simply assert the reasons why
22 his client has a right to intervene, he's made six separate
23 arguments which we think it necessary to address to support
24 our request that the Court strike the intervention.
25 He argues that the trust cannot be sued.
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
5
1 That's why his client also has a basis for relief. Well, he's
2 technically correct, but he is totally misreading or ignoring
3 the circumstances of this case. A trust cannot be sued, you
4 really have to sue the trustee. But in the context in which
5 he is making the argument, he's making the argument in the
6 underlying lawsuit that resulted in the mediation that
7 resulted in the arbitration that resulted in the final
8 judgment we're now trying to enforce.
9 In the underlying lawsuit, the trust wasn't
10 sued. The trustee, Diana Flores, was sued. The settlor,
11 Sandra Garza, was sued. In the mediated settlement, the
12 trustee, Marcus Rogers was a party to the mediated settlement
13 agreement. Landen was a party to the mediated settlement
14 agreement. It was not relevant and it's misleading and it's a
15 red herring to argue that the trust wasn't a party to the
16 original suit for two reasons. First of all, the trustee was
17 a party to the original suit. And secondly, what the
18 arbitration did was confirm and enforce the mediated
19 settlement agreement to which the trustee was a party. So his
20 argument that the trust wasn't a party to the original
21 proceeding bears no weight and should be disregarded.
22 His second argument was that the trust was not
23 a party to the case. The same argument applies. The first
24 time he says the trust can't be sued, the second argument he
25 makes is that the trust was not a party to the case. I've
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
6
1 already given my arguments why that is a bad argument.
2 The third argument he makes is the trustee was
3 not a party to the case. Well, the trustee was a party to the
4 case as originally sued. Diana Flores. But that's not really
5 relevant, because what is before the Court is a final judgment
6 confirming an arbitration award that dealt with a mediated
7 settlement agreement to which the trustee was a party. So
8 again, he's picking at these little bitty acts that are
9 totally irrelevant in an attempt to create standing which
10 doesn't exist.
11 Argument number four is the judgment is not
12 against the trustee. This is probably a fair argument, but
13 it's an incomplete argument for this reason: Although the
14 order, the arbitration award orders the trust to pay fees, and
15 although the judgment confirming the award orders the trust to
16 pay fees, because Marcus was a part of the mediated settlement
17 agreement as interim trustee, because he participated in the
18 arbitration, and because he participated in confirming the
19 arbitration award as a final judgment, and because he
20 participated in Landen's appeal of that final judgment, he was
21 in effect a participant in every step of the proceeding. And
22 under the misnomer doctrine, our judgment against the trust is
23 good because Marcus is truly a party in interest and he was a
24 participant. And our authorities are cited in our motion. So
25 this argument that we didn't get a judgment against the
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
7
1 trustee is true, but it's not relevant based upon Marcus's
2 participation and how misnomer works.
3 Argument number five is the other beneficiaries
4 of the trust are not parties. This is is the argument that
5 really struggled with most because I don't understand it.
6 think I'm going to guess at what he's saying. At some point
7 in time Sandra Saks, the settlor, adopted children. They
8 became beneficiaries under the trust. The problem with his
9 argument is this: It has no bearing upon what we're doing
10 here today. We, first of all, don't have any evidence before
11 the Court that this -- that there were beneficiaries added to
12 the trust. All we have is an allegation in a pleading. And
13 it's not clear, because I'm having to guess that that's what
14 he's saying.
15 Secondly, it makes no difference whether they
16 were made beneficiaries of the trust, because the award,
17 arbitration award and the final judgment, preceded the adding
18 of those beneficiaries All of the lawsuit was filed, the
19 mediated settlement agreement was entered into, the
20 arbitration was conducted all before any beneficiaries were
21 added. So the after-the-fact addition of beneficiaries can't
22 affect the finality of the award upon which the judgment was
23 based.
24 Argument number six is where we're probably
25 going to spend most of your morning this morning, and that is
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
8
1 that this is a spendthrift trust, and therefore the parties
2 could not agree to pay Landen's debts out of the spendthrift
3 trust, or any beneficiary's debt out of spendthrift trust,
4 because that couldn't be done. This is all premised on a
5 legal foundation that doesn't exist. This spendthrift trust
6 argument is not a good argument, because it comes too late.
7 Two reasons. Number one, it comes too late. If Landen was
8 going to object to the mediated settlement agreement as
9 containing the provision awarding fees and expenses to
10 Heinrichs and DeGennaro, she was required to do so in the
11 mediated settlement agreement -- excuse me, in the arbitration
12 enforcing the mediated settlement agreement. This, she failed
13 to do.
14 At that point, when the arbitration award was
15 made, any complaint she had about a spendthrift trust came too
16 late. Because now it's the arbitrator making the award of
17 fees and expenses. And even though he may have been making an
18 award based on a provision in an agreement that could
19 otherwise be attacked as being unenforceable, by virtue of him
20 making that award, it became unassailable. That is the law of
21 arbitration. Landen had her chance in the arbitration to
22 complain about the condition of the mediated settlement
23 agreement. She didn't do so. The arbitrator made the award,
24 and it became final and unassailable.
25 Same when the judgment of this Court confirmed
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
9
the award and made it the judgment of this Court. It was too
late for Landen to complain. But she didn't. That judgment
is res judicata to the legal argument she's trying to make
now.
Finally, in arguing that the spendthrift trust
provision prevents Heinrichs and DeGennaro from collecting its
judgment, what Landen is doing is she is attacking a judgment
in a post-judgment collection proceeding. If this is not a
direct attack on the judgment, it is a collateral attack. And
10 under the authorities cited in our Motion to Strike, she
11 cannot conduct an impermissible collateral attack on the
12 judgment.
13 But there's another reason why the attorney's
14 fee award stands. If you will read the arbitration award, the
15 arbitrator found, in addition to what the settlement agreement
16 provided and what was reasonable and necessary fees, he found
17 that the fees generated by Heinrichs and DeGennaro greatly
18 benefitted the trust. The findings provide that without the
19 efforts of Heinrichs and DeGennaro, the trust -- let me stop
20 and say this again. Because of the efforts of the law firm in
21 representing Lauren's interest, the firm was able to collect
22 for the trust two -- approximately $2.5 million worth of
23 property. The arbitrator found that because of this
24 significant benefit conferred upon the trust, the fees that
25 the firm incurred in recovering these assets for the trust
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
10
1 should be paid out of the trust.
2 The Property Code provides in Section 114.064
3 that the Court has discretion to award fees in disputes
4 relating to trusts that are fair and just. This arbitration
5 finding by the arbitrator regarding the efforts of the firm,
6 its accomplishments and benefits to the trust, fits right in
7 with the authority to grant these under Section 114.064. So
8 there's an alternative basis. Not only was it a settlement
9 agreement, a negotiated term of the settlement agreement, it
10 exists independently by statute. For all of these reasons,
11 the spendthrift trust argument is another red herring that
12 needs to be ignored.
13 Finally, Landen argues that she can step into
14 the shoes of the trustee because of the trustee's failure to
15 act in challenging fees that were awarded in the proceeding.
16 And that is the basis of her intervention. She has to create
17 a reason for standing. There must be something other than a
18 desire to jump into the middle of the lawsuit. So
19 disregarding that she hasn't met the three elements that would
20 disqualify her from intervening, she is arguing before you
21 that she wants to do what the trustee hasn't done.
22 But to make that argument, she is subject to
23 where we stand in the proceedings right now. Where we stand
24 right now is if she were to step into the shoes of the
25 trustee, the same defenses we have against her as a
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
11
1 participant would apply to the trustee as a participant. Res
2 judicata. Collateral estoppel. Finality of the arbitrator's
3 award. All of these would apply if she were to become the
4 trustee. So what bars her, bars the trustee. And therefore
5 her basis for intervening in and stepping into the shoes of
6 the trustee to do something that hasn't been done don't apply.
7 And if they did apply, she would be barred from seeking the
8 relief she's seeking, which is to prevent the firm from
9 collecting its fees.
10 My final point in attacking the motion to
11 intervention, or Plea in Intervention, excuse me. Plea in
12 Intervention, is this: To the extent it has been based on
13 affidavits, the affidavits in support of the Plea are
14 defective. Landen's affidavit is just mere conclusion. It
15 states no facts to show what knowledge she has. She just
16 concludes. So we are objecting and asking the Court to
17 sustain our special exceptions to her -- Landen's affidavit.
18 Sandra's affidavit is both defective becasuse
19 it's conclusory and because it doesn't belong. Sandra has no
20 standing. She is not a party to this proceeding. She is not
21 intervening. Her affidavit attempting to add credibility to
22 the Plea in Intervention is irrelevant, and we think it should
23 be striken.
24 Thank you.
25 MR. ROSS: Want me to stand or sit?
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
12
1 THE COURT: Go ahead and stand.
2 MR. ROSS: Judge, this is not an ordinary type
3 of situation that comes up often in litigation, where a
4 purported judgment debtor attempts to collect a judgment from
5 a trust based on a void judgment. But that is what we have
6 here. And I found one case where something similar occurred,
7 and the Court of Appeals said an award of judgment against a
8 trust cannot be collected.
9 THE COURT: Why it is void?
10 MR. ROSS: It's void because it's a judgment
11 against a trust rather than a trustee. And the trust itself
12 is not a person. It's just an it's a -- let me read it
13 from the case I cited.
14 It's a relationship -- this is a quote from the
15 Texas Supreme Court in Huie, H-U-I-E, versus Deshazo,
16 D-E-S-H-A-Z-O. Quote, The term "trust" refers not to a
17 separate legal entity but rather to the fiduciary relationship
18 governing the trustee with respect to trust property. And
19 that's Cause Number (sic) 922 S.W.2d 920 at page 926, a 1996
20 case, holding that treating a trust rather than the trustee as
21 the attorney's client would be inconsistent with the law of
22 trusts.
23 Then citing Malooly Trust versus Juhl, It's
24 M-A-L-O-O-L-Y, Trust versus J-U-H-L, 186 S.W.3d 568, State of
25 Texas Supreme Court case, 2006, states that the -- a claim
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
13
1 against a trust as a judgment debtor is -- is invalid. It
2 states that the general rule in Texas and elsewhere has long
3 been that suits against a trust must be brought against its
4 legal representative, the trustee.
5 Now, I filed a copy of the trust this morning,
6 because I was checking the record and I didn't see where there
7 was a real legible copy. It's been filed in the appendix of
8 the appeal in this case, but I filed a supplement this morning
9 with a copy of the trust that I would like the Court to take
10 judicial notice of.
11 MR. YEDOR: And we would object based on
12 relevancy grounds, Your Honor. This proceeding has nothing to
13 do with the enforceability of the provisions of the trust. I
14 think if the purpose in offering the document is to establish
15 it's a spendthrift trust, there's no really argument on that.
16 But again, this trust has nothing to do with the proceedings
17 because of the finality of the judgment that's before the
18 Court today.
19 THE COURT: But you would stipulate that it's a
20 spendthrift trust.
21 MR. YEDOR: It has a spendthrift clause. We
22 will stipulate to that, Your Honor.
23 MR. ROSS: I'd like to tender the trust to the
24 Judge. And it's on page 10, paragraph 4.7 has the spendthrift
25 provision for you to verify.
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
14
1 May I approach?
2 THE COURT: Yes.
3 MR. ROSS: I've given a copy to opposing
4 counsel.
5 THE COURT: Page 10?
6 MR. ROSS: Page 10. Paragraph 4.7.
7 MR. YEDOR: Judge, we would also object on the
8 basis that he's asking you to take judicial notice of
9 something that I don't think you can take judicial notice of.
10 It is a document that's not common knowledge in the public
11 arena. It's not a court-filed document in this proceeding.
12 It's not a document that has been proved up by other sources
13 to show accuracy or trustworthiness. But most importantly,
14 it's not the proper subject of judicial notice. So we would
15 obejct on that basis, as well.
16 THE COURT: You only get one attorney at a
17 table.
18 Mr. Ross, what do you have to say?
19 MR. ROSS: Your Honor, the trust is purportedly
20 the judgment debtor. And we would offer this trust document
21 into evidence to show the identity of the trust itself. Which
22 is basically the relationship between the trustee and the
23 property that's in the trust.
24 I have the judgment settlor with me, who can
25 verify that this is the trust that she established in 1991. I
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
15
1 also have Marcus Rogers, who is the interim trustee, who can
2 verify that this is the trust document that he is relying on
3 as a basis for his authority to deal with the trust property.
4 THE COURT: I'm going to defer my ruling until
5 the end of your argument, Mr. Ross. Please continue.
6 MR. ROSS: Okay.
7 Mr. Yedor states that Landen Saks has no
8 interest in this matter. Landen Saks was not a party to the
9 original suit by her sister Lauren against her mother and her
10 aunt. Her aunt was Diana Flores, the trustee. That lawsuit
11 was settled. Landen Saks did not participate in the
12 settlement, although Mr. Heinrichs signed on the signature
13 block for Landen Saks as beneficiary purporting to approve of
14 the settlement. We submit that that did not make Landen Saks
15 a party to either the underlying lawsuit or the settlement, in
16 which she had no interest and did not participate.
17 Somehow Landen Saks became a party to the
18 arbitration, but that was not by her doing. And it was not by
19 her being joined as a party to the underlying lawsuit. It was
20 apparently based on the assertion that she was a party to the
21 settlement agreement. This was an enforcement action by her
22 sister Lauren against her aunt and her mother, but not against
23 Landen. And somehow the arbitrator decided that Landen Saks
24 had property interest, or may have property interest which he
25 determined belongs to the trust. So he ordered her to convey
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
16
1 any interest in property that had been transferred to her by
2 the trustee via the trustee Diana Garza -- I mean Flores, when
3 the trust was terminated prior to the mediated settlement
4 agreement.
5 The Court decided that the trust was not
6 terminated, but I don't believe there was an order to that
7 effect.
8 MR. YEDOR: Objection, Your Honor. We're going
9 way, way outside the record. He's arguing facts that are both
10 speculative, and actually not true, but not part of the
11 record.
12 MR. YEDOR: I'm just attempting to give the
13 Court an alternative view of the background in the case.
14 MR. YEDOR: Well, we are objecting to any
15 attempt to give the Court an alternative view, because it's
16 not based on any pleadings and it's not supported by evidence.
17 It's merely Mr. Ross giving his opinion and his view on what
18 he thinks the pleadings say. We object.
19 THE COURT: I'm giving to give him a little bit
20 more latitude.
21 Go ahead, Mr. Ross.
22 MR. ROSS: Okay, Judge.
23 After the arbitration award was signed, and
24 Landen neither Landen nor Sandy Saks participated in the
25 arbitration proceeding. So the findings were made without
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
17
1 their participation. The order was made without their
2 involvement. And it was approved by the Court in a final
3 judgment which was appealed. The appeal came back, the
4 judgment stood. But the reason for the intervention arose
5 when Heinrichs and DeGennaro attempted to collect debt by
6 filing a Motion to Disburse the Funds in the trust or the
7 registry of the court to pay their judgment against the trust
8 And when that occurred, that's when the need for Landen to
9 intervene arose. Because prior to that she was not a party to
10 the case. She was ordered to do certain things by the
11 judgment that approved the arbitration award, but she was not
12 -- she claims she was not a party to the mediated settlement
13 agreement.
14 But -- and that is why she's intervening into
15 the case at this point.
16 THE COURT: Wasn't that wasn't that already
17 taken care of, though? You brought that argument up prior to,
18 and then wasn't that discussed in the arbitrator's award and
19 then again in the appeal that came down against your client?
20 MR. ROSS: The claim that she was not a party
21 was discussed, and it was not accepted. But she still --
22 THE COURT: I'm sorry, was not accepted by who?
23 Your client, or by the appellate court?
24 MR. ROSS: By the appellate court.
25 THE COURT: So they agreed that she was a
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
18
1 party.
2 MR. ROSS: Yes. And so --
3 THE COURT: And in that agreeing that she was a
4 party, are you disagreeing that the arbitration does not
5 render the findings of facts and the conclusions of law that
6 it did?
7 MR. ROSS: No. I'm stipulating that it made
8 findings of fact and entered orders that were approved by the
9 Court and not reversed on appeal. And if Landen is a party,
10 then she doesn't need to intervene. But --
11 THE COURT: But that was already discussed, and
12 it was already confirmed it sounds like a multitude of times.
13 So why now? Why is this different now?
14 MR. ROSS: Well, I am still of the legal
15 opinion that she needs to file a Plea in Intervention in order
16 to intervene into the judgment collection actions of Heinrichs
17 and DeGennaro. If I'm wrong, then she is a party and she
18 doesn't need to intervene and she can assume the
19 responsibility and the position of trustee, who has expressed
20 a willingness to pay a judgment which Landen, as a
21 beneficiary, asserts an interest against Heinrichs and
22 DeGennaro collecting a judgment against the trust. Which
23 according to the Malooly case, is a void judgment. And the
24 significance of the void judgment only arose at the time that
25 Heinrichs and DeGennaro attempted to collect it. As a void
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
19
1 judgment, it has no significance if it is not acted on.
2 THE COURT: Why didn't your client step up
3 earlier at any point in time and refuse the fees or bring this
4 argument up?
5 MR. ROSS: There was no need for her to do
6 that. She can raise the argument that a judgment is void at
7 the time that it is attempted to be used as a valid judgment.
8 She doesn't need to object to a void judgment prior to that.
9 And that's why we didn't file our response to the Motion to
10 Disburse the Funds until it was filed. There wasn't any
11 active controversy about collection of the judgment until the
12 collection was attempted. And that's when Landen
13 appropriately raised her objections. The trustee declined to
14 oppose the collection of a void judgment, and so Landen has no
15 choice as a person that's interested in the trust, both the
16 principal and the -- and the income of the trust, as a
17 beneficiary.
18 THE COURT: So are you trying to sever out this
19 part of the judgment? The fees and expenses of the firm,
20 versus the remaining amount of the arbitrator's award, all the
21 other pieces and parts, should we say?
22 MR. ROSS: No, Your Honor. We are just
23 opposing the collection of a void judgment against the trust.
24 And we're asserting the argument that because the judgment is
25 t names the trust as the debtor. And that can't be by
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
20
1 definition. The trustee, as the trustee of the Saks Children
2 Family Trust, could be a debtor if Mr. Rogers was a party to
3 the mediated settlement agreement. Mr. Yedor claimed that --
4 or he stated that Mr. Rogers was a party to the settlement
5 agreement, but he did not sign the settlement agreement except
6 approving it as to form. He did not approve the substance of
7 the settlement agreement. And therefore he was not a party to
8 the settlement agreement.
9 And he was not sued by -- by Mr. Yedor's firm
10 to collect their attorney fees. Which essentially are a debt
11 of their client, Lauren Saks. Lauren Saks apparently
12 contracted with Heinrichs and DeGennaro. At the settlement
13 agreement, all the parties agreed that Heinrichs and DeGennaro
14 and Marcus Rogers could be paid from the trust. And nobody
15 bothered to consider the fact that this is a spendthrift
16 trust, and its property -- its interest in property cannot be
17 voluntarily or involuntarily offered or allowed to recover a
18 debt of the beneficiaries.
19 THE COURT: Speak to the issue of the common
20 fund doctrine, then.
21 MR. ROSS: The property that's in the trust is
22 owned by the trustee for the benefit of all the beneficiaries.
23 And those include Lauren Saks, Landen Saks, Mariah McFaddin,
24 and Miles McFaddin. And those are the children, or adopted
25 children of Sandra Saks. And according to the trust, that --
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
21
1 they are all beneficiaries. Mariah and Miles only became
2 beneficiaries after the mediated settlement agreement was
3 approved. And after it was enforced by the judgment approving
4 the arbitration award.
5 The trust acquired interest in property that it
6 did not -- in our view did not have a claim against. And
7 those were properties that were owned nominally in the trust,
8 but pursuant to an agreement the beneficial interest and the
9 equitable title to those properties remained in Sandra Saks on
10 the basis of her terms for contributing part of that property
11 interest to the trust. In the mediated settlement agreement
12 Sandra Saks agreed to convey all of her interest in these
13 various properties that she had to the trust. When the trust
14 acquired those interests in the property by judicial fiat,
15 pursuant to the judgment approving the arbitration award, the
16 trust acquired a substantial interest. I don't know the
17 value, but Mr. Yedor states it was about $2 million worth of
18 property. And Landen Saks was a beneficiary of that
19 acquisition by the trust for her benefit. However, that
20 doctrine doesn't apply, because the judgment that Heinrichs
21 and DeGennaro is claiming as the basis for their collection
22 action is against the trust. And our position is based on the
23 Malooly case that it's a void judgment.
24 THE COURT: You said that. But you haven't
25 spoken to the common fund doctrine yet. Go there.
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
22
1 MR. ROSS: Well, I'm not sure what the Court is
2 expecting me to argue in that regard. Landen Saks does not
3 owe Heinrichs and DeGennaro any -- any fees as a result of any
4 efforts that they provided that may have benefitted the trust.
5 We submit that she may have benefitted from their services,
6 arguably, but she doesn't -- doesn't owe them.
7 Lauren Saks, on the other hand, had a contract
8 with Heinrichs and DeGennaro, and she is the only person that
9 is liable for payment of their fees. Because they don't have
10 a valid judgment against the trustee. And the funds that are
11 in the trust are commonly for the benefit of only four
12 beneficiaries, but they're not subject to collection on the
13 the basis of this judgment that Heinrichs and DeGennaro has.
14 THE COURT: Anything else?
15 MR. ROSS: Yes.
16 Now, Mr. Yedor stated that his judgment is not
17 appealable. We're not questioning the appealability of that
18 judgment, we're -- what we're arguing is that because that
19 judgment is void, the trustee can reject any collection
20 efforts pursuant to that judgment from the trust. The trustee
21 should be objecting to paying the claim on the basis that it's
22 a void judgment. Because he's not doing that, anybody else
23 that has a beneficial interest in the trust can step forward
24 and assume the role, not as based on their own standing as
25 beneficiary, but based on the standing of the trustee to
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
23
1 enforce the terms of the trust.
2 And the second issue, that the trust is a
3 spendthrift trust, and its -- the property interest that it
4 has cannot be used to pay for the debts of the beneficiaries,
5 can't be used to pay Lauren's attorney's fees, it can't be
6 used to pay Landen's attorney's fees, and it can't be pledged.
7 Which I would submit that the agreement, the mediated
8 settlement was a pledge of the fee -- of -- of property that
9 was owned by the trust which was not subject to being pledged
10 to pay Lauren's or Landen's attorney's fees to Heinrichs and
11 DeGennaro or to pay the trustee.
12 The -- the trust has not been amended. And
13 because it's a irrevocable spendthrift trust, it has certain
14 terms that preclude amendment. And the original intention of
15 the settlor is what is binding. There's been no attempt to
16 amend the trust to overcome the spendthrift provisions or to
17 make any kind of an exception available which would authorize
18 the trustee to pay Mr. Heinrichs' attorney's fees claim on the
19 basis of the judgment that he's asserting.
20 Mr. Yedor argued that the settlement agreement
21 and the arbitration award are unassailable. We're not
22 attempting to challenge the arbitration award or the judgment
23 confirming it. And we're not attacking the appeal. We're
24 just saying that the judgment that names the trust as a debtor
25 is a void judgment.
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
24
1 And the arbitrator's finding that Heinrichs and
2 DeGennaro provided a benefit to the trust isn't relevant to
3 the Court's consideration of their claim against the trust.
4 Because their claim against the trust would have to be a claim
5 against the trustee to disburse funds from the trust. And I
6 don't know how they would get there from here, because they
7 obtained a judgment that they can't use for their collection
8 activity without being subject to reversal on appeal and
9 probably remittitur if they do attempt to collect from the
10 trust without legal authority.
11 The argument that the spendthrift provision of
12 the trust is a red herring I think is both false and
13 misleading, because essentially what we have is a claim
14 against the trust directly, which is a void claim. And even
15 if it was a valid claim, even if it was a claim against the
16 trustee to disburse funds in the trust that were agreed to at
17 the settlement agreement and approved at the arbitration and
18 confirmed in the judgment, the trust is not subject to being
19 liable for any of the beneficiaries' debts. And the
20 beneficiaries don't have authority under the terms of the
21 trust to say the trust will pay for our expenses. So I think
22 it is a very valid argument that Marcus Rogers is not
23 following the terms of the trust by not objecting to Mr.
24 Heinrichs' claim. Because even it was a valid claim against
25 the trustee, the spendthrift trust provision would preclude
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
25
1 payment.
2 With regard to the affidavits, I submit that
3 the affidavits verify the allegations and the statements of
4 fact in the Plea in Intervention, and that they were adequate
5 for the purpose. Therefore, I would request the Court to
6 allow the Plea. And alternatively, if the Court decides that
7 Landen is already a party, to allow her to respond and object
8 to the collection of a void judgment against the trust.
9 MR. YEDOR: May I rebut?
10 THE COURT: Please.
11 MR. YEDOR: First of all, Your Honor, at no
12 time in any of these proceedings prior to the making of the
13 award of final judgment of this Court did anybody attack the
14 claims against the trust. If somebody had objected that the
15 suit was against the trust as opposed to the trustee, a simple
16 plea and amendment could have taken care of that. Landen
17 being one of those who never objected.
18 Secondly, the real argument, if you boil down
19 what Mr. Ross just argued down to one sentence, it is this:
20 This is a void judgment because it obligates the trust, not
21 the trustee, to pay the fees.
22 Along those lines, I'm going to read, if I may,
23 from a couple of authorities that I think dispel that notion
24 entirely. It goes back to my misnomer theory.
25 In the Supreme Court case of Greater Houston
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO.
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
26
1 Orthopaedic Specialists, Inc., cited at 295 S.W.3d 323, the
2 Supreme Court makes these pronouncements: A misnomer occurs
3 when a party misnames itself or another party.
4 In this case we named the trust; we should have
5 named the trustee.
6 But the correct parties are involved.
7 In this case, Marcus Rogers, the interim
8 trustee, was involved every step of the way.
9 It cites the case of Chilkewitz versus Hyson,
10 22 S.W.3d 825, another Supreme Court case, noting that
11 misnomer arises when a plaintiff sues the correct entity but
12 misnames it.
13 The Supreme Court also cites Chen, which I'm
14 going to go to, for this proposition: A misnomer does not
15 invalidate a judgment as between parties where the record and
16 judgment point out, with certainty, the persons and subject
17 matter to be bound.
18 We have all of that before us.
19 The Supreme Court also says that -- cites
20 Charles Brown, L.L.P. versus Lanier Worldwide, holding that a
21 misnomer does not render a judgment void, provided the
22 intention to sue the correct defendant is evident from the
23 pleadings and process, such that the defendant could not have
24 been misled. When a corporation intended to be sued is sued
25 and served by a wrong corporate name and suffers judgment to
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
27
1 be obtained, it is bound by such judgment.
2 In Chen versus Breckenridge Estates Homeowners
3 Assocation, located at 227 S.W.3d 419, the Court says a
4 misnomer does not invalidate a judgment as between parties
5 where the record and judgment together point out with
6 certainty, the persons and the subject matter to be bound.
7 Judge, attached to the judgment of this Court
8 is the aribtrator's findings and award. The findings are
9 detailed. They make it very clear that the person to be bound
10 was the trustee. They make it very clear that he was a party
11 to the arbitration, to the mediated settlement agreement, and
12 a party to the judgment. Those findings and award become the
13 findings and award of this Court. There can be no confusion.
14 The doctrine of misnomer applies. Mr. Ross's argument that
15 this is a void judgment simply is wrong.
16 When Mr. Ross argues to the Court that Marcus
17 Rogers, interim trustee, was not party to the MSA because he
18 only signed it as to form, that is wrong. It contradicts the
19 very finding of the arbitrator, which became your finding as
20 incorporated in the final judgment. He makes these statements
21 disregarding the accuracy of them or where they can be easily
22 rebutted and disputed and should be disregarded. Marcus
23 Rogers was a party to the proceedings, and is so today.
24 Regarding Mr. Ross's argument that Landen was a
25 party to all of the proceedings, that allows her to come in
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
28
1 and object to the matter really before the Court today, which
2 is a Motion to Disburse Funds, is simply wrong. She is bound
3 by it. If she stands up in court in opposition to the Motion
4 to Disburse Funds based on this judgment, she is making a
5 collateral attack on the judgment. She is seeking to avoid
6 the terms of the judgment after its entry. A judgment that is
7 res judicata to any attempt to do so. And it ignores how the
8 award became final based on what the arbitrator did and found,
9 regardless of whether it was properly premised or not.
10 You never got a good answer on the common fund
11 doctrine. But under the very findings of the arbitrator,
12 which became your findings, the benefit to the trust based on
13 the efforts of the law firm were clear and a basis for
14 awarding the fees and -- were a basis for awarding fees and
15 are supportable legally under Section 114.064.
16 Thank you, ma'am.
17 MR. ROSS: May I approach, Your Honor? I'd
18 like to show you a copy of the mediated settlement agreement
19 which proves that what I told you is correct, that Marcus
20 Rogers was not a party and he signed only as to form.
21 MR. YEDOR: I would object. He's offering
22 something in direct controvention to the very finding of the
23 arbitrator, which is the very finding of this Court.
24 THE COURT: Mr. Ross, the Court has the file.
25 I've seen the mediated agreement, and I have the arbitrator's
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
29
1 award in front of me.
2 MR. ROSS: Mr. Yedor stated that I misstated
3 the facts. The mediated settlement agreement expressly
4 identifies the parties as being Lauren Saks, Sandra Saks, and
5 Diana Flores. And the parties that signed the settlement
6 agreement were A. Chris Heinrichs, who signed for Lauren Saks;
7 A. Chris Heinrichs, attorney, who signed for Landen Saks;
8 Sandra Saks; and Diana Flores. Then approved as to form by
9 Marcus Rogers, Chris Heinrichs, Ron Shaw, and Adam Cortez.
10 Not that that is relevant to the judgment, but to correct the
11 record that -- so the Court can see that the document
12 contradicts what Mr. Yedor stated about who were the parties
13 and what Mr. Rogers' involvement was. If he just signed as to
14 form and didn't claim to be a party at that time, it seems to
15 me that after the fact for him to claim to be a party would
16 invalidate certain terms of the arbitration award. Because
17 you can't arbitrate something and make people parties after
18 the fact if you've just settled a controversy over an
19 contract.
20 But even though I don't agree with the results,
21 the arbitration award, the judgment, and the Court of Appeals,
22 that is not relevant to the Court's consideration of our Plea
23 in Intervention or the Motion to Disburse the Funds. Because
24 that -- that whole process resulted in what we claim, with
25 authority, is a void judgment. And we had no duty to tell
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
30
1 Heinrichs and DeGennaro that they were obtaining an invalid
2 and unenforceable judgment until they start to collect on it.
3 And that's when we submit that Marcur Rogers should have
4 objected on the same basis that Landen is objecting. And
5 she's requesting the Court to -- or she's intervening so that
6 she can use his standing to do his job for him in order to
7 protect her interest and the interest of the other
8 beneficiaries.
9 Mr. Yedor didn't respond to the alternative
10 argument, which is the spendthrift provisions in the trust,
11 that even if the law firm had a valid judgment against the
12 trustee to collect their fees which were incurred for the
13 benefit of the beneficiaries, the trust would prevent them, by
14 its spendthrift provisions, from collecting the fees. And
15 they would be left with the alternative to collect the fees
16 from the parties they contracted with. So they do have an --
17 and I believe the four-year statute of limititations on that
18 contract has not expired, so they have an alternative remedy.
19 Which is the only appropriate remedy, in our opinion.
20 THE COURT: The Court is going to grant the
21 Motion to Strike. We will now go on to the next part of this
22 hearing this morning. Do you have an order, Mr. Yedor?
23 MR. YEDOR: Yes, ma'am, I do. Thank you, Your
24 Honor.
25 THE COURT: Okay. The Court has signed the
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
31
1 order, and we are going to take a five-minute break so you can
2 kind of re-group mentally, and we'll go on to part two.
3 Mr. Ross, want to give him a copy of that,
4 please, sir? And we'll take a little break. See you back
5 let's say 10:00 o'clock.
6 MR. YEDOR: All right, Judge.
7 (Recess)
8 THE COURT: We are back on the record. Please
9 proceed with the hearing.
10 MR. YEDOR: All right.
11 Your Honor, before the Court is the Judgment
12 Creditor's Amended Motion to Order Disbursement of Funds from
13 the Registry of the Court in Payment of Judgment.
14 A couple of things right off the bat before I
15 begin presenting our position. May I approach the Court? I
16 have put together a notebook that is pertinant to this hearing
17 that I'll be referring to in the course of my presentation.
18 Thank you, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Thank you.
20 MR. ROSS: May I see a copy of that, as well?
21 MR. YEDOR: Well, just a second. It has not
22 been filed.
23 Your Honor, the second thing I want to bring up
24 is I would like to object to Mr. Ross participating in this
25 hearing. He certainly has the right to be here be present and
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
32
1 watch what's going on, but as far as he participating,
2 objecting, putting on evidence, cross-examining witnesses, his
3 client has no standing.
4 THE COURT: Please state for the record who his
5 client is.
6 MR. YEDOR: Sandra Saks, Landen Saks. His
7 clients have no standing. And we object to any participation.
8 In the notebook, and I'll be happy to give him
9 a copy if the Court wishes, I will refer the Court -- here,
10 let's exchange.
11 MS. SANDRA SAKS: Why don't you give her that
12 one?
13 MR. YEDOR: No, I'll give her that one.
14 MS. SANDRA SAKS: Well, we want to make sure
15 it's the same. How do we know it's the same document?
16 MR. YEDOR: I just told you it was.
17 THE COURT: It's demonstrative at best. I'm
18 going by pleadings and arguments of counsel.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. YEDOR: If you will look at Tab 18, we've
21 prepared a Brief in Support of Objection stating the reasons
22 why neither Sandra nor Landen has standing.
23 They are parties to a final judgment. We are
24 attempting to collect on a final judgment. As the Court has
25 just determined in the petition -- or excuse me, the Motion to
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
33
1 Strike the Plea in Intervention, Landen has no basis for
2 intervening in this case to attack the award of fees to
3 Heinrichs and DeGennaro. The only parties to this proceeding
4 are the interim trustee, the law firm seeking relief. That's
5 what this is all about. And their participation will unduly
6 delay the proceedings, interject additional tension and
7 disharmony that is unnecessary under a basis where they have
8 no right to do so. So up front, we would object to Mr. Ross
9 representing his clients in this proceeding in any fashion
10 other than as an observer. The whole purpose of striking the
11 intervention was to eliminate any standing that they may argue
12 they have a right to participate in the proceedings. Their
13 whole purpose in filing the intervention was to create
14 standing so they could participate and object to the
15 proceedings.
16 MR. ROSS: In response, Your Honor, I would
17 tend to agree with Mr. Yedor's argument that in order for
18 Landen to assert the duties and responsibility and authority
19 of the trustee in the absence of him objecting to the payment
20 of fees which are in our opinion based on a void judgment, she
21 would have to intervene. Even though she may be considered a
22 party to the final judgment, she can't act on behalf of the
23 trustee without the Court granting her intervention. The
24 Court has denied the intervention, so I would tend to agree
25 that the appellate issues are going to be premised on the
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
34
1 validity or the denial of the intervention. Then it would go
2 back to -- the whole thing would be sent back for
3 reconsideration on the basis of that court rather than the
4 order granting the Motion to Disburse the Funds. So I'll just
5 sit quietly.
6 THE COURT: Thank you.
7 I have read the request before this Court to
8 disburse, I have read the Arbitrator's Award and Final
9 Judgment, I have read the opinion from the appellate court.
10 The Court is going to grant your motion.
11 MR. YEDOR: Thank you.
12 THE COURT: Please deliver an order to the
13 Court.
14 Let the record reflect that our interim trustee
15 is in the courtroom.
16 Mr. Rogers, you neglected to make an appearance
17 this morning. I do know that you are in the courtroom, and I
18 have noted it for my file.
19 MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Your Honor. Could you
20 also note that my attorney, Royal Lea, is present?
21 THE COURT: I have made that note. Thank you.
22 The Court has reveiwed the Order to Disburse
23 the Funds from the Registry of the Court, and the Court has
24 approved this order and has signed it.
25 MR. YEDOR: Judge, thank you for your
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
35
1 courtesies this morning. May we be excused?
2 THE COURT: Yes.
3 Mr. Rogers, you seem to have a motion on file
4 for sanctions. Has this motion been set?
5 MR. LEA: May I be heard, Judge?
6 THE COURT: Yes.
7 MR. LEA: Judge, as far as I know it has not
8 yet been set. My assistant has been in communication with the
9 Court staff about setting it, but as far as I know there is
10 not yet a setting. I have some travel and a trial coming up
11 out of town, and I don't think -- my office has tried to get
12 it set, but I don't think I know my schedule well enough yet
13 to commit with your staff.
14 THE COURT: I realize that there are some
15 underlying parts of this giant case that have not achieved a
16 Docket Control Order.
17 Mr. Ross, I'm going to ask you and whoever you
18 are bringing into the suit for the remainder of any lawsuits
19 contained in this file, that you have a Docket Control Order
20 set by next Friday. If you cannot set and give the Court an
21 agreed Docket Control Order on any underlying matters, the
22 Court will set them for you. So by 3:00 o'clock on Friday,
23 that's when I will expect someone to tender me an agreement.
24 If you do not have an agreement, I'm going to set it on my
25 schedule without conferring with anyone.
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
36
1 And in case no one has told you, and I'm sure
2 you know, Mr. Ross, because you've heard this speech, I will
3 not move anything that's set by a Docket Control Order. So
4 once you're set, you're set. So I urge you to try to
5 cooperate with your schedules between yourself, Mr. Ross, and
6 whoever else, or I'm going to unilaterally take care of it.
7 So Friday next week, by 3:00 o'clock. Plenty
8 of time to talk. And I will be back in, and by 5:00 o'clock,
9 if I don't have it between 3:00 and 5:00, Mr. Rossi and I will
10 create it on my schedule.
11 Anything else, gentlemen and ma'am?
12 MR. YEDOR: No, ma'am.
13 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much this
14 morning for your cooperation. Mr. Yedor, I'm going to return
15 to you your demonstrative evidence of your two notebooks.
16 Which are very heavy.
17 Thank you very much, and have a nice day. We
18 are -- our record is closed.
19 (Proceedings adjourned)
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
37
1 THE STATE OF TEXAS )
2 COUNTY OF BEXAR )
3
4 I, Cheryl D. Hester, Official Court Reporter in
5 and for Probate Court Number 1 of Bexar County, State of
6 Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains
7 a true and correct transcription of all portions of evidence
8 and other proceedings requested by counsel for the parties to
9 be included in this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the
10 above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred in open
11 court or in chambers and were reported by me.
12 I further certify that this Reporter's Record
13 of the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits,
14 if any, admitted by the respective parties.
15 I further certify that the total cost for the
16 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $190.00 and was
17 paid/will be paid by Sandra Saks.
18
19 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 17th day of
20 November, 2015.
21
22 /s/ Cheryl D. Hester
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R.
23 Official Court Reporter, Probate Court No. 1
Bexar County, Texas
24 100 Dolorosa
San Antonio, Texas 78205
25 (210) 335-2359
Texas CSR #4519; Expires 12/31/15
CHERYL D. HESTER, C.S.R. - PROBATE COURT NO. 1
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 335-2359
TAB 5
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
No. 201I-PC-3466
LAUREN SAKS a/k/a GLORIA * IN THE PROBATE COURT
LAUREN NICOLE SAKS, Plaintiff
V. * NO. TWO,
te
DIANE M. FLORES AND SANDRA
GARZA DAVIS f/k/a SANDRA C.
SANS, Defendants 1 BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
MitintalED $,ETXLEMENT 4GREEMENT
C.v
The "Parties," LAUREN SAILS, a/k/a GLORIA LAUREN NICOLE SAKS, DIANA M.
FLORES and SANDRA GARZA DAVIS, f/k/a SANDRA C. SAKS, hereto agree that all claims and
controversies between them that are in any way related to the SAKS CHILDREN FAMILY TRUST
or ATFL&L, and the trust assets in which they may have had an interest and/or the exercising of any
fiduciary responsibility are all hereby settled in accordance with the following terms:
1. The Parties acknowledge that bona fide disputes and controversies exist between
them, and they desire to compromise and settle all claims and causes of action of any
kind whatsoever which the Parties may have arising out of the above described
issues. It is further understood and agreed that this is a compromise of disputed
claims, and nothing contained herein shall be construed as an admission of liability.
2. Each signatory warrants and represents that:
a. such person has the understanding of the issues involved, the information
necessary to the decision to enter into this agreement and the authority to bind
the Party or Parties for whom such person acts; and that
b. the claims, suits, rights, and/or interests which are the subject matter hereto
are owned by the Party asserting same, have not been assigned, transferred
or sold, and are free of any encumbrance.
3. The Parties further agree as follows:
a. 218 Treasure Way shall be listed for sale immediately. Sandra lives in the house rent-
free for 90 days, paying only utilities and normal minor upkeep. $65,000 of sales
proceeds payable to Sandra, the balance to the Trust.
b. Sandra and Diana shall transfer and assign to the Trust all of their right, title, and
interest in and to: (a) 5321 Broadway Partners; (b) Dijon Plaza Joint Venture; (c)
Sunset Partners; (d) 50% interest in 4.93 acre Nueces County property; (e) Hyatt
Mountain Lodge, Beaver Creek, Condominium timeshare interest in Unit #234, week
11, located at 63 Avondale Lane, Avon, CO; (f) Hunt lot on Guadalupe River, free
ami-elearef-ftiMienera144fiNeS; (g) the Quarter House, New Orleans, Condominium
Timeshare interest in Oak Ridge Park condominium No. 232, week 12, located at the
Quarter House, 129 Rue Charles, New Orleans, LA; (h) Poste Montane
Condominium Timeshare interest in Unit #301, weeks 28 and 29, and Unit #402,
week 13, located at 76 Avondale Lane, Beaver Creek, CO; and (i) 218 Treasure Way
San Antonio, TX.
c. The Trust will be responsible for filing any necessary tax returns reflecting above
ownership.
d. Mediated Settlement Agreement will be jointly submitted to the court for approval.
e. Sandra indemnifies Trust against federal income tax liability which accrued or might
have accrued on or before December 31, 2011.
f. Sandra and Diana pay their respective legal fees.
g. The Trust pays fees and expenses of the Interim Trustee and Heinrichs &
DeGennaro, P.C.
h. The parties understand and agree that this Mediated Settlement Agreement shall be
irrevocable.
V02083P0203
4. Except for the agreements set forth herein, the Parties hereby release, discharge, and
forever hold the other harmless from any and all claims, counterclaims, demands, or
suits, known or unknown, fixed or contingent, liquidated or unliquidatecl, whether or
not asserted in the above case, as of this date, arising from or related to the events and
transactions which are the subject matter of this cause, including, but not limited to,
any and all claims for breach of fiduciary duty and/or conversion. This mutual
release runs to the benefit of all attorneys, agents, employees, officers, directors,
shareholders, partners, heirs, assigns, and legal representatives of the Parties hereto.
5. Counsel for the Parties shall deliver drafts of any further documents to be executed
in connection with this settlement to counsel for the other Parties hereto within
fifteen (15) days from the date hereof. The Parties and their counsel agree to
cooperate with each other in the drafting and execution of such additional documents
as are reasonably requested or required to implement the provisions and spirit of this
Settlement Agreement, but notwithstanding such additional documents the Parties
confirm that this is a written settlement agreement as contemplated by Section
154.071 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
6. This Settlement Agreement is made and performable in Bexar County, Texas, and
shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas.
7. If one or more disputes arise with regard to the interpretation and/or performance of
this Agreement or any of its provisions, including the form of further documents to
be executed, the Parties agree to further mediation in an attempt to resolve same with
Thomas Smith, the Mediator, who facilitated this settlement. In the event a dispute
arises between the Parties, it is hereby agreed that the dispute shall be referred to
Thomas Smith, the Mediator herein, for arbitration in accordance with the applicable
United States Arbitration and Mediation Rules of Arbitration. The arbitrator's
decision shall be final and legally binding and judgment may be entered thereon.
Each Party will be responsible for their share of the arbitration fees in accordance
with the applicable Rules of Arbitration. In the event a Party fails to proceed with
arbitration, unsuccessfully challenges the arbitrator's award, or fails to comply with
the arbitrator's award, the other Party is entitled to costs of suit, including a
reasonable attorney's fee for having to compel arbitration or defend or enforce the
award.
8. Although the Mediator has provided a basic outline of this Settlement Agreement
to the Parties' counsel as a courtesy to facilitate the final resolution of this dispute,
the Parties and their counsel have thoroughly reviewed such outline and have,
where necessary, modified it to conform to the requirements of their agreement.
All signatories to this Settlement Agreement hereby release the Mediator from any
and all responsibility arising from the drafting of this Settlement Agreement, and
by signing this Settlement Agreement acknowledge that they, or their attorneys,
3
V0Z083P02011
have been advised by the mediator in writing that this Settlement Agreement
should be independently reviewed by counsel before executing the agreement
9. The Parties represent and warrant that: (i) they have carefully reviewed this
Settlement Agreement; (ii) they have consulted with their attorneys concerning
this Settlement Agreement; (iii) any questions that they have pertaining to this
Settlement Agreement have been answered and fully explained by their attorneys;
(iv) their decision to execute this Settlement Agreement was not based on any
statement or representation, either written or oral made by any person or entity
other than those statements contained in this Settlement Agreement, and
specifically was not based on any statement or representation made by any
opposing Party or its counsel; (v) this Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire
agreement and understanding between the Parties; (vi) they have entered into this
Settlement Agreement of their own five will; and (vii) all prior and
contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements,
whether written or oral, are merged herein.
10. This Mediated Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the Probate Court
of Bexar County, Texas.
AGREED, this 24day of April, 2012.
dA-C-9 1 =(
LAUREN SAKS, a/k/a Gloria Nicole Saks,
by A. Chris Heinrichs, Attorney
46::4 dir
LANDEN SAKS, by A. Chris He 'chs as agent
for Lauren Saks, a/k/a Gloria Lauren Nicole Saks,
Landen Saks' attorney in fact
Lauren Saks
von83P0205
APPROVE S AS TO FORM:
t
rir,
S P. R •
State Bar No. 171'700
2135 E. Hildebrand
San Antonio, Texas 78209
(210) 736-2222
(21.0) 881-0200 FAX
INTERIM TRUSTEE FOR THE SAKS CHILDREN
FAMILY TRUST or ATFL&L
A. CHRIS HE1NRICHS
State Bar No. 9382500
BARRETT SHIPP
State Bar No. 24060601
100 N.E. Loop 410, Suite 1075
San Antonio, Texas 78216
(210) 366-0900
(210) 366-0981 FAX
ATTORNEYS FOR LAUREN SAKS
/1f4
RONALD J. SHA
State Bar No. 181 00
7300 Blanco Road, Suite 610
San Antonio, Texas 78216
(210) 227-3737
(210) 366-0805 FAX
ATTORNEY FOR DIANA I. FLORES
,-4•4/gAtt
ADAM CORTEZ
State Bar No. 4844650
2.14-Eonertmentiraufte-24.0- 7 ? 41Y Pocroituay. S4 ne /Ca
San Antonio, Texas -mew %, 9-2..O
(210) 2.70-21^ee-- 9-2-9--31CVY ,
(210) 229-1..5-5-FAX V-24-'100 f•--#1"
ATTORNEY FOR SANDRA SAKS
5
1/02083P020b
TAB 6
NOTICE OF APPEAL
E-FILED
IN MATTERS PROBATE
Submit: 10/23/2015 4:52:01 PM
GERARD RICKHOFF
CL RK PR•B•T • "TS
CAUSE NO. 2011-PC-3466 BE
BY: • I 11
Sand Esquivel
LAUREN SAKS a/k/a GLORIA § IN THE PROBATE CO RT
LAUREN NICOLE SAKS,
Plaintiff,
V. NO. 1
DIANE M. FLORES and SANDRA §
GARZA DAVIS f/k/a SANDRA C. §
SAKS,
Defendants, § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE PRESIDING AND TO THE JUSTICES OF THE
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEALS:
NOW COMES, MARGARET LANDEN SAKS ("Landen"), by and through
undersigned counsel, and files her Notice of Appeal pursuant to TRAP Rule 25.1,
and would show the Court as follows:
1 Landen desires to Appeal from the following Orders:
Order striking intervention and
Order authorizing disbursement of funds.
2 The date of the Orders appealed from is September 25, 2015.
3 Landen desires to appeal.
4 Landen desires to appeal to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio,
Texas.
1
1021b -R3830 74
255
Accepted on: 10/26/2015 8:23 11 AM
5 Landen is the party filing this appeal.
6 This Notice of Appeal is being served on all parties to the court's Order.
WHEREFORE, Margaret Landen Saks hereby files this notice of appeal.
She also claim such further relief to which she may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Philip M. Ross
SBN 17304200
1006 Holbrook Road
San Antonio, Texas 78218
Phone: 210/326-2100
Email: ross_law@hotmail.com
By: /s/ Philip M. Ross
Philip M. Ross
Attorney for Margaret Landen Saks
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has
been sent to Lauren Saks and Royal Lea, III; and Bingham & Lea, P.C., email:
royal@binghamandlea.com, attorneys for Marcus P. Rogers, and A. Chris
Heinrichs, email: chrish@heinrichslaw.com, and Jonathan Yedor, email:
jonathany@heimichslaw.com, on October 23, 2015 in compliance with the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure and/or by email pursuant to agreement.
/s/ Philip M. Ross
Philip M. Ross
2
Z11
' /4) 1? 333
256