T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

Summarize Case

Related Cases

ACCEPTED 03-13-00790-CV 6722412 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/31/2015 12:11:26 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK No. 03-13-00790-CV FILED IN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/31/2015 12:11:26 PM FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk AT AUSTIN T. MARK ANDERSON AND CHRISTINE ANDERSON, AS CO- EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF TED ANDERSON Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. RICHARD T. ARCHER, DAVID B. ARCHER, CAROL ARCHER BUGG, JOHN V. ARCHER, KAREN ARCHER BALL, AND SHERRI ARCHER Appellees/Cross-Appellants. APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE Laurie Ratliff State Bar No. 00784817 Frank N. Ikard, Jr. State Bar No. 10386000 IKARD GOLDEN JONES P.C. 400 W. 15th St., Suite 975 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 472-6695 Telecopier: (512) 472-3669 laurieratliff@igjlaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS 1 NO. 03-13-00790-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN T. MARK ANDERSON AND CHRISTINE ANDERSON, AS CO- EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF TED ANDERSON Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. RICHARD T. ARCHER, DAVID B. ARCHER, CAROL ARCHER BUGG, JOHN V. ARCHER, KAREN ARCHER BALL, AND SHERRI ARCHER Appellees/Cross-Appellants. APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS: Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Richard T. Archer, David B. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John V. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer (the Archer Family), respectfully file their Opposition to Motion to Withdraw and to Motion for Continuance and request that the Court deny both motions. 2 Despite having 28-days notice of the September 2, 2015, oral argument, Appellants waited until three business days before the setting to attempt to back out of the case using an unsupported medical excuse. Ex. A. Moreover, Appellants have had notice that the case would be submitted for oral argument since June 9, 2015, when the Court requested paper copies of the briefs. The court’s website on that date indicated the case would be set for oral argument. Appellants’ eleventh- hour attempt to delay the submission of this case should be denied. Appellants filed their opening brief on November 6, 2014. Appellees/Cross- Appellants filed their combined brief, responding to Appellants’ issues and also raising their issues on cross-appeal, on February 6, 2015. Appellants missed the deadline to file their reply brief, and Appellants ultimately chose not to respond to Appellees/Cross-Appellants’ cross-appeal. Appellants requested four extensions of time to file a cross-appellees’ brief. This Court granted three of the requested extensions. Appellants, then failed to file their cross-appellees’ brief within their requested deadline as set out in their fourth motion for extension of time. The Court then submitted the case and dismissed the fourth motion for extension of time as moot. The Motion to Withdraw is the sole basis for the Motion for Continuance of oral argument. This court has discretion to deny a motion to withdraw and should exercise that discretion for the following reasons. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5. 3 First, the Motion to Withdraw is untimely filed. Appellants’ counsel’s decision to wait until three business days before the oral argument to serve his motion, with no supporting evidence or explanation for the late filing, is untimely as a matter of law. Second, Appellants’ Motion to Withdraw is not verified, supported by affidavit, or based on medical evidence. The sole basis for the Motion to Withdraw is a medical condition. According to Appellants’ counsel, his “physical, mental, or psychological condition material impairs movant’s fitness to represent Appellants” citing Texas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(a)(2). A medical condition requires medical proof to substantiate it, not simply a statement of the Rules of Professional Conduct Standard. Appellants’ counsel’s unverified statement in a motion is not proof and is beyond the bounds of Rule 10.2. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.2. Further, this is not the first time Appellants’ counsel has raised a medical condition as an excuse to receive additional time from this Court. Ex. B. Appellants’ counsel attached a doctor’s letter to his Fourth Motion for Extension of Time filed in May 2015. Ex. B. Unlike Appellants’ earlier motion for extension of time, however, Appellants’ counsel attaches no doctor letter or other evidence and makes no argument that his condition has suddenly changed to support the last-minute request to withdraw. 4 Thus, Appellants’ counsel has had four month’s notice of the purported medical condition but choose to wait until the eve of oral argument after Appellees’ counsel has devoted significant to time preparing for argument. Third, the Motion to Withdraw is nothing more than a delay tactic as shown by Appellants’ counsel’s continued representation in the trial court. The appeal is not the only matter pending involving Appellants, Appellants’ counsel, Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and Appellees/Cross-Appellants’ counsel. Because Appellants chose to not file bond to suspend enforcement of the Final Judgment, Appellees/Cross-Appellants were forced to pursue a receivership to protect their ability to collect the judgment if it is ultimately affirmed on appeal. The receivership proceeding is an on-going and litigious matter that has had numerous contested filings and hearings since December 2013. In fact, the district court entered an order in the trial court case on August 26, 2015. Appellants’ counsel, however, has not filed a motion to withdraw in the underlying trial court receivership matter. That Appellants’ counsel has not withdrawn in the underlying and ongoing trial court receivership matter in this case, shows that the Motion to Withdraw in the appeal is nothing more than delay tactic. Further, the Motion for Continuance is not the first time Appellants have tried to delay the submission of this appeal. Appellant Mark Anderson placed his mother (and half of the Estate) into bankruptcy in an effort to avoid collection efforts. This 5 Court had the parties respond to the bankruptcy filing. Ex. C. The bankruptcy court eventually dismissed the proceeding. Ex. D; 3rd Supp. CR843. Appellees should not be penalized—in the form of further delay of submission—based on Appellants and Appellants’ counsel’s lack of planning and failure to act in timely manner to withdraw months ago if a medical condition is truly the reason for the now-sought delay. For these reasons, the Court should deny the fatally-flawed Motion to Withdraw. Other reasons, however, further demand that the Motion for Continuance be denied. First, as pointed out in Appellees/Cross-Appellants’ Brief, some portion of every issue raised by Appellants was either waived in the trial court or waived on appeal for failure to comply with TRAP 38.1(i) by citing no authority for some issues and no cites to the more than 9,000 page record for some issues. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). New counsel cannot remedy the briefing waiver, and of course, cannot resurrect previously waived error in the trial court. Further, the district court has sanctioned Appellants, among other means, by cutting off their ability to pay attorney’s fees from the Estate, including attorney’s fees in this appeal. Ex. E; 3rd Supp. CR846. Thus, there is no reason to delay submission to hire new counsel. Second, in this case, further delay in submission of this case is prejudicial to Appellees/Cross-Appellants. During the course of post-judgment hearings, the 6 district court found that over $1 million was “unaccounted for in Defendant’s net worth calculation” while the lawsuit was pending against Appellants. Ex. F; 1st Supp. CR 283. Thus, further delay in the appeal subjects Appellees to further collection issues in the event the judgment is ultimately affirmed. Accordingly, Appellees request that this Court submit the case for oral argument as it is currently set on September 2, 2015. Alternatively, Appellees/Cross- Appellants request that the Court submit the case on the briefs, without oral argument, on September 2, 2015. For these reasons, Appellees/Cross-Appellants Richard T. Archer, David B. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John V. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer respectfully request that this Court deny Appellants’ Motion to Withdraw and deny Appellants’ Motion for Continuance of Oral Argument. Appellees/Cross- Appellants further request that the Court maintain this appeal on the Court’s oral submission docket on September 2, 2015. Alternatively, Appellees/Cross- Appellants request that the Court submit this appeal on the briefs without oral argument on September 2, 2015. The Archer Family prays for such other and further relief to which they may be entitled. 7 Respectfully submitted, IKARD GOLDEN JONES, P.C. /s/ Laurie Ratliff Laurie Ratliff State Bar No. 00784817 Frank N. Ikard, Jr. State Bar No. 10386000 400 West 15th Street, Suite 975 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 472-6695 Telecopier: (512) 472-3669 laurieratliff@igjlaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES RICHARD T. ARCHER, DAVID B. ARCHER, CAROL ARCHER BUGG, JOHN V. ARCHER, KAREN ARCHER BALL AND SHERRI ARCHER 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date listed below a copy of Appellants/Cross- Appellees’ Response in Opposition to Motion to Withdraw and Motion for Continuance was served on the counsel of record listed below via electronic delivery in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on this 31st day of August 2015: Via e-service file and email Mr. Gerald D. McFarlen LAW OFFICE OF GERALD D. MCFARLEN, PC 28 Fabra Oaks Road Boerne, Texas 78006 Attorneys for Appellants/Cross-Appellees T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson /s/ Laurie Ratliff Laurie Ratliff t:\archer 3 2007 tortious interference\appeal\motions\response in opposition to motion to withdraw and motion to postpone argument.docx 9 Exhibit A FILE COPY COURT OF APPEALS THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12547, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2547 www.txcourts.gov/3rdcoa.aspx (512) 463-1733 JEFF L. ROSE, CHIEF JUSTICE JEFFREY D. KYLE, CLERK DAVID PURYEAR, JUSTICE BOB PEMBERTON, JUSTICE MELISSA GOODWIN, JUSTICE SCOTT K. FIELD, JUSTICE CINDY OLSON BOURLAND, JUSTICE August 4, 2015 Mr. Gerald D. McFarlen Ms. Laurie Ratliff The Law Office of Gerald D. McFarlen, PC Ikard Golden Jones, P.C. 28 Fabra Oaks Road 400 West 15th Street, Suite 975 Boerne, TX 78006-2831 Austin, TX 78701 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * RE: Court of Appeals Number: 03-13-00790-CV Trial Court Case Number: D-1-GN-07-002328 Style: Appellants, T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson// Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John V. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Appellees, Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John V. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer// Cross-Appellees,T. Mark Anderson, individually and as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, Christine Anderson Dear Counsel: You are hereby notified that the above cause has this day been set for submission and oral argument on September 2, 2015 at 9:00 AM, before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field. Argument is limited to 20 minutes for appellants and for appellees. Appellants’ time may be divided and a portion used in rebuttal. In past cross-appeals, the standard time allotment has been: 10 minutes for appellants' opening; 15 minutes for appellees/cross-appellants’ response and issues on cross-appeal; 10 minutes for appellants'/cross-appellees' rebuttal and response; and 5 minutes for cross-appellants’ rebuttal. Upon receipt of this letter, please notify the Clerk, in writing, of your intention to argue this case before the Court. Counsel should include any alternative agreement on the division of time, if any. In the event that parties previously requesting oral argument should decide to waive argument, this should be communicated to the Clerk well in advance of the setting date. All attorneys in civil and criminal cases are required to file all documents (except a document submitted under seal or subject to a motion to seal) with the Court through the eFileTexas.gov electronic filing system. The Court expects counsel to appear at the stated time, prepared to argue without undue repetition of or reading from the brief, and to respond to questions from the bench. FILE COPY Very truly yours, JEFFREY D. KYLE, CLERK BY: E. Talerico Liz Talerico, Deputy Clerk Exhibit B ACCEPTED 03-13-00790-CV 5216415 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/8/2015 3:30:06 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK No. 03-13-00790 CV ~~ ~~J~:!e:~~~he estate of § IN THE THIRD FILED IN § 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Ted 4derson, and § 5/8/2015 3:30:06 PM Christine Anderson, § JEFFREY D. KYLE as co-Jxecutor of the estate of § Clerk Ted Anderson, Appellants § § v. § COURT OF APPEALS § Richa~d T. Archer, David § B. Archer, Carol Archer § Bugg, John V. Archer, § Karen Archer Ball, and § Sherri Archer, Appellees § AUSTIN, TEXAS CROSS-APPELLEES' FOURTH MOTIO TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF Cross-Appellees ask the Court to extend e time to file their brief. 1. Cross-Appellees are T. Mark Anderson, s co-executor of the estate of Ted I Ander on, and Christine Anderson, as co executor of the estate of Ted Ander on. Cross Appellants are Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archr Bugg, John V. Archer, Karen Archer all, and Sherri Archer. 2. ~ere is no specific deadline to file this otion to extend time. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(d). B. Ar ument & A thorities 3. The Court has the authority under Te as Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(d) to extend the time to file a brief. I 4. cLss-Appellees brief is due on May 8, 2 15. 5. I C~oss-Appellees request an extension to de their brief, extending the time until May 22, 2015. 7. c l oss-Appellees need additional time to file their brief for the following reasods: I Peri°nal and family medical problems hav interfered with counsel's ability to co~plete the brief. Attached as exhibit A i a letter from counsel's physician. Coun, el has made arrangements for assistanc with his solo practice because of these ralth problems. 8. No further extensions will be requested. C. Certificate of C nference 9. Prior to filing this motion, counsel for ross-Appellees contacted counsel I for Gross-Appellants to discuss this mat er, and Appellees oppose this 1. extens10n. 10. For the above reasons, Cross-appell es ask the Court to grant an extension of time to file their brief until May 2, 2015. TH LAW OFFICE OF GE LD D. MCFARLEN, PC 28 abra Oaks Road Bo me, TX 78006 Ph ne: (830) 331-8554 Fa : (210) 568-4305 E ail: gmcfarlen@mcfarlenlaw.com B /s/ Gerald D. McFarlen GERALD D. McFARLEN State Bar No. 13604500 FOR CROSS Verificatio CDn the 8th day of May, personally ap eared Gerald D. Mcfarlen, who, being ~st duly sworn, upon his oath stated he is the attorney for Cross-appellees, I that he [is familiar with the facts stated in the a ove motion, and they are within his knowleldge and true and correct. I fubscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of September, 2014. I CERTIFICATE OF I tlo hereby certify that on the 8th day of ay, 2015, a true and correct copy of the f~regoing motion was furnished to all co nsel of record in accordance with the Tex1s Rules of Civil Procedure. Lrurie Ratliff Il}ard, Golden, Jones, P.C. 40I 0 West 15th Street, Suite 975 ~ustin, Texas 78701 .AJ.TTORNEYS FOR APPELLEESICRO S APPELLANTS Isl Geral D. McFarlen GERAL D. McFARLEN Christopher B. Ticknor, MD 1202 E. Sonterra Blvd, Suite 202 San Antonio, Texas 78258 Ph: 210.692.7775 fax: 210.615.6966 Re: Gerald D. McFarlen May 8, 2015 To Whom This May Concern: Mr. Gerald McFarlen is a patient under my medical care. His medical conditions have recently made necessary diagnostic medical tests and changes in medications. I would respectfully request that he be accommodated in having additional time to meet deadlines in his practice of law as his conditions, required medical treatment and care necessitate some degree of interference with his usual activities and time schedule. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Signed electronically. Christopher B. Ticknor, M.D. Exhibit C FILE COPY COURT OF APPEALS THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12547, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2547 www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us (512) 463-1733 J. WOODFIN JONES, CHIEF JUSTICE JEFFREY D. KYLE, CLERK DAVID PURYEAR, JUSTICE BOB PEMBERTON, JUSTICE JEFF L. ROSE, JUSTICE MELISSA GOODWIN, JUSTICE SCOTT K. FIELD, JUSTICE March 18, 2014 Mr. Gerald D. McFarlen Ms. Laurie Ratliff 1001 S Main St Ste 2 Ikard Golden Jones, P.C. Boerne, TX 78006-2831 400 West 15th Street, Suite 975 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Austin, TX 78701 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * RE: Court of Appeals Number: 03-13-00790-CV Trial Court Case Number: D-1-GN-07-002328 Style: Appellants, T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson// Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John V. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Appellees, Richard T. Archer, David B. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John V. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer// Cross-Appellees, Douglass Hearne, T Mark Anderson, individually and as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, Christine Anderson, Dear Counsel: This Court received the attached suggestion of bankruptcy on February 21, 2014. The Court requests that the parties file a response as to how this suggestion of bankruptcy affects the appeal, if at all. Please file your response with the Clerk of this Court on or before March 28, 2014. Very truly yours, JEFFREY D. KYLE, CLERK BY: E. Talerico Liz Talerico, Deputy Clerk Exhibit D 7/11/2014 3:40:23 PM Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza District Clerk Travis County CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-07-002328 D-1-GN-07-002328 RICHARDT. ARCHER, DAVID R. § IN DISTRICT COURT ARCHER, CAROL ARCHER BUGG, § JOHN V. ARCHER, KAREN ARCHER § BALL, AND SHERRI ARCHER, Plaintiffs § § 345th JUDICIAL DISTRICT v. § § DOUGLASS HEARNE, T. MARK § ANDERSON, Individually and as co- § Executor of the estate of Ted Anderson, § CHRISTINE ANDERSON, as co- § Executor of the estate of Ted Anderson, § And RICHARD LESHIN, Defendants § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS NOTICE OF FILING OF BANKRUPTCY COURT DISMISSAL TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Please be advised that on July 7, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Corpus Christi Division signed its Order Dismissing Bankruptcy Case in In re Peggy M Anderson, debtor, Case No. 14-20054. The Order is attached to this Notice. IKARD GOLDEN JONES, P.C. Frank N. Ikard, Jr. State Bar No. 10386000 Laurie Ratliff State Bar No. 00784817 Lauren K. Davis State Bar No. 24059657 400 West 15th Street, Suite 975 Austin, Texas 7870 I (512) 472-6695 (512) 472-3669 facsimile LaurieRatliff@igjlaw.com /s/ Laurie Ratli([ Laurie Ratliff ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS Notice of Filing of Bankruptcy Court Dismissal - page 1 843 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, in accordance with Rule 21 a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has been forwarded to the following counsel of record and interested parties, as indicated below, on the 11th day of July, 2014. Via email Mr. Gerald D. Mcfarlen Law Office of Gerald D. Mcfarlen, PC P. 0. Box 1469 1001 South Main #2 Boerne, Texas 78006 Attorneys for Defendants T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson /s/ Laurie Ratliff Laurie Ratliff T:\ARCHER 3 2007 TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE\ANDERSON COLLECTIONS\Notice ofFiling of Bankruptcy Court Dismissal.doc Notice of Filing of Bankruptcy Court Dismissal - page 2 844 Case 14-20054 Document 80 Filed in TXSB on 07/07/14 Page 1of1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ENTERED 07/07/2014 INRE: § PEGGY M. ANDERSON § CASE NO: 14-20054 Debtor(s) § § CHAPTER 11 ORDER DISMISSING BANKRUPTCY CASE Pursuant to the Court's ruling at the status hearing held in this case on June 16, 2014, the Court finds that the case should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED that Case No 14-20054 is hereby DISMISSED. SIGNED 07/07/2014. United States Bankruptcy Judge 1 II 845 Exhibit E Notice sent: final Interlocutory None DC BK14203 PG793 code: CVD / CLS - - : ; " ' - - - - - Redact AUSE NO. D-1-GN-07-002328 RICHARDT. ARCHER, DAVID R. § IN DISTRICT COURT ARCHER, CAROL ARCHER BUGG, § JOHN V. ARCHER, KAREN ARCHER § BALL, AND SHERRI ARCHER, Plaintiffs § § 345th JUDICIAL DISTRICT v. § § DOUGLASS HEARNE, T. MARK § ANDERSON, Individually and as co- § Executor of the estate of Ted Anderson, § CHRISTINE ANDERSON, as co- § Executor of the estate of Ted Anderson, § And RICHARD LESHIN, Defendants § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS On the 20th day of June 2014, came on for hearing, Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Against Mark Anderson. Having considered the motion, response, evidence, and arguments of counsel, the Court is of the opinion that the motion for sanctions should be GRANTED in part and remain pending in part. The Court finds that Mark Anderson violated this Court's December 20, 2013 Order Granting Plaintiffs' First Amended Motion to Enjoin Dissipation of Assets to Avoid Satisfaction of the Judgment ("No Dissipation Order") by disbursing a $75,000 attorney's fees retainer from the Ted M. Anderson Estate. The Court finds that the conduct described above significantly interferes with this Court's core function of enforcing its judgments by preserving the assets of the Ted M. Anderson Estate pending appeal. Under this Court's inherent authority, the Court has considered lesser sanctions and finds that any lesser sanction than those awarded below would not promote compliance 846 DC BK14203 PG794 with this Court's future orders and would not protect this Court's ability to enforce its judgment by preserving the assets of the Ted M. Anderson Estate pending appeal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that as of June 20, 2014, Defendants are enjoined from paying, from causing to be paid, or from allowing to be paid, any further attorney's fees or litigation expenses from the Estate of Ted Anderson or from Peggy Anderson's community assets or from any entity in which the estate or Peggy Anderson have an interest that are charged or incurred in this case, in any appeal of the Final Judgment in this case, or any other legal proceeding related to this case, including but not limited to the bankruptcy proceeding styled, In re Peggy M Anderson, Debtor, Case No. 14-20054 Chapter 11, in the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Against Mark Anderson remains pending until further Order of this Court; this Court reserves imposing further sanctions. } 'J~ lVI_ ® Signed this __ day of..luile".2014. 847 Exhibit F ~otice ,;1:n~. t" "I ,r;·~e:'.:>cutory None DC BK14003 PG152 Dis~arties:- --- .. ----~-- Filed in The District Court Disp code: CVG / · f;!..S / of Travis County, Texas Redact rr=.-1-- / ES DEC 20 2013 Judge__IM~--- Clerk.~f'f---- CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-07-002328 ?£)b_ ~',.;) ~.\-----· •¥·-- - •, ~· , ... ~!. DIST>RIGT·'GOUR~;-,,.o::", '·' '~'" 1 RICHARD T. ARCHER, DAVID R. § IN ARCHER, CAROL ARCHER BUGG, § JOHN V. ARCHER, KAREN ARCHER § BALL, AND SHERRI ARCHER, Plaintiffs § § 345th JUDICIAL DISTRICT v. § § DOUGLASS HEARNE, T. MARK § ANDERSON, Individually and as co- § Executor of the estate of Ted Anderson, § CHRISTINE ANDERSON, as co- § Executor of the estate of Ted Anderson, § And RICHARD LESHIN, Defendants § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FIX AMOUNT OF SECURITY AND ORDER SUSTAINING PLAINTIFFS' CONTEST TO DEFENDANTS' NET WORTH AFFIDAVIT On the 12th day of December 2013, came on for hearing, Defendants, T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co- Executor of the Estate of Ted. M Anderson's Motion to Fix Amount of Security and Plaintiffs' First Amended Response to Defendants' Motion to Fix Amount of Security and Contest of Judgment Debtor's Net Worth Affidavit. Having considered the motion, response, evidence, and arguments of counsel, the Court is of the opinion that the motion to fix bond should in all things be DENIED and Plaintiffs' contest to Defendants' net worth affidavit SUSTAINED. IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants, T. Mark Anderson, as Co- Executor of Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted. M Anderson's Motion to Fix Amount ofSecurity is DENIED. 283 DC BK14003 PG153 •' IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Contest of Judgment Debtor's Net Worth Affidavit is SUSTAINED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the assets subject to the claims against Ted M. Anderson and his estate include both halves of the joint community estate and Ted's special community property, all herein after referred to as the "Estate of Ted M. Anderson." In support of this Court, the Court finds the following: Ted M. Anderson and Peggy Anderson were married at the time of Ted's death. Plaintiffs' calculation using Defendants' federal estate and income tax returns' assets, values, and income, and deducting the allowable expenses, establishes the net worth of the Estate of Ted M. Anderson. Plaintiffs' calculation revealed $1,078,908 in estate assets that were unaccounted for in Defendant's net worth affidavit. Defendants' net worth affidavit is not credible and fails to accurately set out the assets in the Estate of Ted M. Anderson. De!£ndants failod te eJ