In Re Elizabeth Kozak, as Attorney in Fact for Phoebe Osborne Reynolds v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Elizabeth Kozak, as Attorney in Fact for Phoebe Osborne Reynolds v. the State of Texas (In Re Elizabeth Kozak, as Attorney in Fact for Phoebe Osborne Reynolds v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-23-00301-CV
IN RE ELIZABETH KOZAK, AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR PHOEBE OSBORNE REYNOLDS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
September 20, 2023
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Pending before the court is the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Elizabeth
Kozak, as attorney in fact for her mother, Phoebe Osborne Reynolds. She seeks to “set
aside” an order of the Honorable Phil Vanderpool, 223rd District Court, directing Reynolds
to appear for deposition via Zoom. Through its August 10, 2023 order, the trial court also
mandated the “deposition to be scheduled on or before August 31, 2023.” Kozak did not
petition this court for relief until August 31, 2023. We deny the petition.
The order in question arose from a motion to compel, filed by Patricia Noel
Kennedy, executor of the Wiley Reynolds, Sr. testamentary estate. Kozak, on behalf of Reynolds, had sued Kennedy. The allegations included mismanagement of the
testamentary estate, while the relief sought included Kennedy’s removal as executor.
Kennedy noticed Reynolds’s deposition, which Reynolds failed to attend. That resulted
in the motion to compel. Kozak responded to the motion and alleged that Reynolds, an
89-year-old woman, was too sickly and frail to undergo questioning. Aspects of the record
provided to the trial court supported that notion. Kennedy, however, provided the trial
court with excerpts of Kozak’s own deposition. During same, Kozak was asked about
Reynolds’s “mental health,” to which question Kozak answered “she’s doing well.” Kozak
also attested that her mother could “communicate” and do so “by phone.” Yet, she
fatigued easily at her age. And, though the octogenarian had suffered various recent
maladies, she remained able to play the piano on a daily basis.
Simply put, the trial court had before it conflicting evidence regarding the health of
Reynolds and its effect on her ability to undergo deposition. Kozak said her mother was
too sickly, while Kennedy’s evidence indicated otherwise. As said in In re E.S., No. 07-
19-00323-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 11228, at *5 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 30, 2019,
orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), “[w]e are prohibited from dealing with disputed areas of fact
in an original mandamus proceeding.” Such a disputed area of fact underlies the trial
court’s decision to compel deposition, that being the status of Reynolds’s health. Thus,
we deny Kozak’s petition for writ of mandamus.
Brian Quinn Chief Justice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Elizabeth Kozak, as Attorney in Fact for Phoebe Osborne Reynolds v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-elizabeth-kozak-as-attorney-in-fact-for-phoebe-osborne-reynolds-v-texapp-2023.