ACCEPTED
15-25-00152-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
10/6/2025 12:28 PM
No. 15-25-____-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK
FILED IN
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 15th COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTEENTH DISTRICT AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/6/2025 12:28:00 PM
AT AUSTIN
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
IN RE FRANCES SPANOS SHELTON, Relator.
On Mandamus from the 414th District Court of McLennan County, Texas, Cause No. 2024-3035-5
RECORD IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Kirk L. Pittard Craig D. Cherry State Bar No. 24010313 State Bar No. 24012419 kpittard@dpslawgroup.com ccherry@cjsjlaw.com Rick Thompson Ryan C. Johnson State Bar No. 00788537 State Bar No. 24048574 rthompson@dpslawgroup.com rjohnson@cjsjlaw.com DURHAM, PITTARD & SPALDING, LLP Scott H. James P.O. Box 224626 State Bar No. 24037848 Dallas, Texas 75222 sjames@cjsjlaw.com (214) 946-8000 CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND (214) 946-8433 (fax) JAMES, PLLC 7901 Fish Pond Road, 2nd Floor Waco, Texas 76710
(254) 732-2242
(866) 627-3509 (fax)
COUNSEL FOR RELATOR
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
TAB A
MR 00001
TAB B
MR 00011
TAB C
MR 00104
TAB D
MR 00113
TAB E
MR 00126
TAB F
MR 00130
TAB G
MR 00135
TAB H
MR 00138
TAB I
MR 00140
TAB J
MR 00152
TAB K
MR 00154
TAB L
MR 00224
1
1 REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 2 OF 3 VOLUMES
2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2024-3035-5 COURT OF APPEALS CAUSE NO. 10-25-00108-CV 3 FRANCES SPANOS SHELTON, )( IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 4 Plaintiff, )( )(
5 VS. )( )(
6 VERNON LEUSCHNER, )( AND AS DURABLE POWER OF )( 7 ATTORNEY FOR KATHERINE )( LEUSCHNER, ROBERT LEE SPANOS, )( 414TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8 AND KATHRYN NICOLE LAWRIE, )( Intervenors, )( 9 )( VS. )( 10 )( VERNON LEUSCHNER,INDIVIDUALLY,)( 11 AND KATHERINE LEUSCHNER, )( Defendants. )( MCLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS 12 ______________________________________________________
13 MOTION TO RE-AFFIRM AND/OR DESIGNATE TRUSTEE OF THE DOROTHY SPANOS LIVING TRUST 14
15 MOTION TO APPOINT RECEIVER
______________________________________________________
16
17 18 On the 4th day of March, 2025, the following proceedings 19 came on to be held in the above-titled and numbered cause 20 before the Honorable Ryan Luna, Judge Presiding, held in Waco, 21 McLennan County, Texas. 22 Proceedings reported by oral stenography. 23 24 25
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00225
77
1 there been any discussion with Judge Stem about who he thinks 2 ought to replace Malone? 3 MR. MCSWAIN: We're gonna talk about that. 4 That's one of the things. I'm gonna put Judge Stem on the 5 stand. I'm happy to do it now, or I'm happy to do it in 6 connection with the Receivership. Whatever you want to do. 7 THE COURT: Let's do it now. 8 MR. MCSWAIN: Do it now? 9 THE COURT: Yeah. 10 You need a break? Okay. Let's take a 11 five-minute break. 12 MR. MCSWAIN: Okay. 13 (Recess taken from 3:14 p.m. to 3:22 p.m.) 14 THE COURT: We are back on the record in 15 2024-3035-5. 16 (Witness sworn.) 17 THE COURT: If you'll have a seat, please. 18 JUDGE ROBERT STEM, 19 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 20 DIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. MCSWAIN: 22 Q. Would you please state your name for the record, 23 Judge Stem. 24 A. Robert Stem. 25 Q. Okay. How long were you a district judge?
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00226
79
1 case. We've got the order that's already in evidence, where 2 you appointed the trust advisor in March of 2022. 3 Did you begin to serve at that point in time? 4 A. I did. 5 Q. As you sit here today, do you believe that that 6 order was issued by Judge Vik -- 7 (Speaking simultaneously.) 8 A. Absolutely. 9 Q. (BY MR. MCSWAIN) -- jurisdiction? You think it was 10 issued with jurisdiction -- 11 MR. CHERRY: Objection, Your Honor; calls for a 12 legal conclusion. 13 THE COURT: I'm sorry, can you ask the question 14 again so we can have a clean -- please? 15 Q. (BY MR. MCSWAIN) Do you think that Judge Vik had 16 jurisdiction when he issued that order? 17 MR. CHERRY: Objection, Your Honor; legal 18 conclusion. 19 THE COURT: Overruled. 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 Q. (BY MR. MCSWAIN) Have you done a lot of work since 22 March 2022, on this estate and this trust and trying to sort 23 things out? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. Tell the judge a little bit about what you have done
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00227
92
1 powers under 4.7 -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. -- of the trust? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. And did you feel, at the time, that -- based on her 6 actions, that you had the ability to remove her for cause? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. There's been some discussion, and Ms. Shelton has 9 provided an audio recording of you -- I don't know, six or 10 eight or nine months later -- in a discussion with Josh White 11 and Ms. Shelton, where you told Ms. Shelton, "I did not remove 12 you for cause," or words to that effect? 13 A. Words to that effect. 14 Q. Okay. Did you tell her that? 15 A. Yeah. 16 Q. Okay. Why did you tell her that when you felt like 17 you could have removed for cause at the time? 18 A. Well, I mean, that's my nature. I mean, I was 19 practicing some degree of diplomacy at that time. We didn't 20 need to have a hard-hitting session. Kathy's side had 21 outlined -- and Fran had seen it -- a several-page letter 22 detailing what Kathy believed is violations of the trust, 23 okay? Mr. Palmer responded, and I had to make a call, okay? 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. My letter of May the 3rd just simply says, we need a
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00228
93
1 neutral, detached, and independent trustee, okay? And she was 2 not a neutral, detached, and independent trustee, okay? And 3 that's as far as I took it, okay? 4 Q. So to Judge Luna's -- so you ended up appointing 5 John Malone, and there's reference made that appointment in 6 this letter? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. As John Malone served as trustee, did he discuss 9 with you, as trust advisor, on a regular basis, things that he 10 was doing, ought to be doing, thinking about doing? Did he 11 discuss those things with you? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did the two of you work hand-in-hand to try to bring 14 this to a resolution somehow? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Did you think that the suit against John Malone was 17 righteous? 18 A. No. Baseless. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. Clearly baseless. 21 Q. And I want to go back. And we're gonna talk about 22 that in just a minute. I want to go back. 23 Apparently, in the discussion that you had with 24 Mr. White and Ms Shelton five, six, seven, eight months after 25 you removed her as the trustee, your hour-long discussion with
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00229
94
1 them -- or at least part of it -- was recorded. Are you now 2 aware of that? 3 A. I am now. I wasn't then. 4 Q. Did Mr. White tell you that he was using his fancy 5 Apple Watch to record everything that y'all were talking 6 about? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Did he disclose to you, at the time, that he was 9 recording? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Okay. If he had told you, "I'd like to record what 12 we're talking about, you know, so that we can have that record 13 of it later, or so that my wife can take notes" -- which 14 apparently was the situation -- "and make sure she's 15 accurate," what would you have said? 16 A. I think John Malone and I would have discussed it 17 with him, and say, "Hey, why do you need to record this?" 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. But the fact is, he never disclosed that to us. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. That, in my mind -- to everyone in this courtroom -- 22 is a breach of a professional courtesy. And anyone who 23 participates in that, that is breach of professional 24 responsibility and courtesy. 25 MR. JAMES: Your Honor, I'm gonna object to
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00230
95
1 that last statement and ask it to be stricken from the record. 2 Josh White's not here to defend himself. There's no motion or 3 pleading regarding that. And it's improper for Judge Stem 4 just to make that ex parte statement on the record. 5 MR. MCSWAIN: Judge, they put it into the 6 filings in this court, along with an affidavit from Mr. White, 7 and have repeatedly utilized it in their briefing in this case 8 in front of you, and I think that it's fair for Judge Stem to 9 get to explain himself. 10 MR. JAMES: Your Honor, I'm not objecting to 11 the audio, I'm objecting to what Judge Stem just said on the 12 record. 13 THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. 14 Mr. McSwain, if you could, if you think it's an 15 appropriate time to turn our attention to the reasons why you 16 think of a receiver is necessary? 17 MR. MCSWAIN: Yes, sir. 18 THE COURT: Thank you. 19 MR. MCSWAIN: I'm sorry. I'm just about there. 20 MR. JAMES: Your Honor, I would request a brief 21 cross-examination before he goes on to the receivership 22 argument, just so the record's clear. If you want me to 23 reserve it until later, that's fine, too. But I do have some 24 questions for Judge Stem. 25 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'll certainly grant
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00231
101
1 issue with accounting when I came on. We got that done. 2 Maybe the attorneys can have an idea how much was in there. 3 Several hundred thousand dollars. 4 Q. Okay. Based on your experience, based on all the 5 discussions you've had with the parties, based on all that you 6 know that has gone on and the decisions that have to be made 7 about this real property, what do you think -- what do you 8 think needs to happen here to get the parties from where we 9 are right now, at each others' throats, to being done? 10 A. I have thought long and hard on this. The trust is 11 exhausted. There's no money left. This is an extraordinary 12 case. And it requires extraordinary measures. This is a time 13 where we need to save these people from themselves. There 14 will be nothing left. All these grandkids will be cheated out 15 of their inheritance. This ongoing litigation will exhaust 16 this trust. This is an extraordinary case that requires an 17 extraordinary ruling. 18 The only way to bring this to conclusion is not 19 through a successor trustee, but it's through a receivership 20 with some judicial protection to get this done. John Malone 21 and I worked hours and hours and hours trying to get this 22 done. And that man deserves a medal. He deserves a nod 23 toward the Nobel Peace Prize, not a ridiculous, baseless, 24 spiteful lawsuit. Shame on you guys. I'm sorry, Judge, but 25 this is -- enough is enough. I've seen these in court.
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00232
103
1 I'm gonna show you -- 2 MR. JAMES: And if may I approach the witness, 3 Your Honor, this is in the actual trust document. The ELMO 4 seems to be pretty blurry over there, but I wanted to 5 reference Section 3.08 with the witness, if I may, Your Honor. 6 May I approach? 7 THE COURT: Yes. 8 Q. (BY MR. JAMES) There was a lot of talk earlier, 9 Judge Stem, about this real estate and how you believe that my 10 client, Fran Shelton, was not able to divide it appropriately 11 because, you know, she was biased or whatever your words were, 12 correct? Is that a fair summary of what you were saying? 13 A. I didn't say biased. I would say she was not 14 impartial. 15 Q. Would you say that -- again, you said you reviewed 16 the trust and wanted to follow it, that she would be an 17 interested party over that particular transaction because 18 she's always getting some of the land? 19 A. Yeah. She's getting some of the land, but more 20 importantly -- I mean, she put one of her children up front, a 21 clear violation of the trust. 22 Q. And I -- we'll get to that in a minute, the specific 23 language, in a minute. What I'm talking about -- there's a 24 definition in the trust of interested party. Have you read 25 that -- or interested trustee, sorry.
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00233
112
1 "her" being Fran, right -- "to be in such a dynamically 2 difficult situation?" 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You also told my client, face-to-face, just as if 5 just the two of y'all were in the room, "There's an 6 appreciation of what you have done for this trust." 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. Didn't you also tell my client that she was put in a 9 horrible position by no fault of her? 10 A. Exactly. 11 Q. Didn't you also tell her that she's been put in an 12 enormously difficult position? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you not also say, sir -- and this is a verbatim 15 quote, "This is a family situation that was sideways by no 16 fault of your own"? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. And then last, but not least, you told my client to 19 her face, seven months and two days after you sent this letter 20 that has no for-cause reason in it whatsoever -- you told her 21 that, "They were throwing laser beams at her." Is that a true 22 quote? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And when you're saying, "they," you're talking about 25 her sister Kathy and their side?
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00234
113
1 A. Correct. 2 Q. So, in other words, your decision -- not what you're 3 saying here today, but way back to almost over two years 4 ago -- it was 22 years months ago when she was removed, 5 correct? 6 A. May of 2023. 7 Q. Yeah. So around 22 months, a little less than 2 8 years ago; that's correct? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. Isn't it true, sir, that way back when, you removed 11 Fran as trustee to protect her from all that was going in the 12 trust at that time? 13 A. We talked about it. 14 Q. Okay. That's not my question, though. I said, 15 isn't that true why you removed her? 16 A. That was one of the reasons. You've got my letter. 17 I think it speaks for itself. 18 Q. Well, I don't know that it speaks for itself. And 19 I'm not gonna go through it because the judge can read the 20 letter. But I would presume that if somebody was going to -- 21 especially a trust advisor that had the duties that you had -- 22 that you're going to put the details of why you were removing 23 a trustee, and you didn't put up that. 24 A. Not necessarily. 25 Q. Okay. Well, forget the "not necessarily" --
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00235
122
1 A. It was somewhere a million-two, to a million-five, 2 somewhere in that range. 3 Q. And isn't it true that there actually have been 4 offers to purchase that part, the 40 acres with the house, for 5 $1.45 million? 6 A. Yes. Both sides have made some offers. 7 Q. Exactly. But the highest offer during the time that 8 you've been the trust advisor was $1.45 million, correct? 9 A. I think that's correct. Yes. 10 Q. And, yet, John Malone -- and you acting as trust 11 advisor, did not agree to the sale, correct? 12 A. I don't think the contract was ever submitted. 13 Q. Okay. But an offer was made -- 14 A. I think there was an offer made. Yes. 15 Q. But it was rejected by John Malone, correct? 16 A. I don't know that he rejected because it was ever 17 actual -- correct. John asked for a tract form, and it was 18 never submitted. 19 Q. And, again, contract or no contract, do you know who 20 made that offer to purchase that -- the highest offer? 21 A. I think it was Fran. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. I'm not sure. Both sides made one. 24 Q. Kathy and her husband, Vernon, the opposing side, 25 they made an offer -- and again, let me back up.
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00236
123
1 That was agreeable for you as the trust advisor 2 and for John Malone as the Trustee. It was okay for the 3 family to bid on it, and they were gonna sell it to the 4 highest bidder, right? 5 A. Yeah, they should. It's family property. 6 Q. That's right. 7 In your opinion, it would be good to try to 8 keep it in the family if the price was correct? 9 A. That was my initial conversation right after I got 10 here; called everybody together and said, "Does anybody want 11 to buy the other one out? Let's keep this ranch together." 12 Q. And you've testified, and the trust document 13 amendment also says that it's supposed to be sold as 14 reasonable as practicable. 15 A. Sure. 16 Q. And it's your testimony that my clients were the 17 highest bidder on that, but that sale was never consummated? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. Never a contract submitted. 21 MR. JAMES: Your Honor, I have no further 22 questions at this time. I appreciate your time, Judge Stem. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 MR. DUNNAM: Do you have a map, Mr. Firmin? 25 THE COURT: Here you go.
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00237
139
1 relate to 64.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. And 2 they don't relate to 114.008(a)(5) of the Texas Property Code. 3 Neither of those statutes include a requirement that you have 4 to exhaust all other remedies. In fact, under 114, it's just 5 one of many options that you can use to remedy a potential 6 breach of trust. 7 And, in this case, under 64.001, all you have 8 to have in order to be able to get a receivership is you've 9 gotta have a probable interest in the right of the property, 10 okay? All the -- everybody agrees here that the beneficiaries 11 have an interest in that property and in the trust, okay? We 12 talked about a plan of distribution for that. So there's no 13 question there's a probable right in interest of the property, 14 okay? It's part of the trust. 15 Then you have to show that the property or fund 16 must be in danger of being lost, removed, or materially 17 injured, okay? We already had a beneficiary sue an 18 independent special trustee because she didn't like the 19 decision that was going to happen. If you appoint another 20 trustee, it's the same thing. This trust is always going to 21 be losing money over time. 22 In fact, that was a concern Josh White raised 23 in a letter to Judge Stem and John Malone was his concern 24 about all the money being lost if litigation was filed, and 25 then a month later, they filed it, and caused all this other
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00238
140
1 money to be spent on 6,000-plus pages in discovery and 2 everything else that forced our hand to go file a lawsuit to 3 try to protect our rights. 4 If you appoint another independent trustee, a 5 corporate one, some other -- A: Judge Stem's already told you 6 that it's gonna be unlikely somebody's gonna want to do it. 7 Why would they want to, if they're going to be able to get 8 sued? If Ms. Shelton doesn't like what's going to happen when 9 someone exercises their discretion, she's gonna file a 10 lawsuit. You cloak someone with immunity as a receiver to 11 sell this property, you avoid that. There's not a way to stop 12 this from just devolving into years of wasted money if a 13 Receiver isn't appointed under 64.101 or under 114. 14 We've asked you to appoint James Volberding. 15 We've attached his exhibit as Exhibit A to our motion -- he's 16 out of Tyler -- as a receiver. He's happy to talk with you, 17 if you like. He's mentioned that to us. I've spoken to the 18 man one time. And his primary practice is on receiverships. 19 That's what he primarily does. He's well-qualified to do 20 this. He's gonna make the decisions that the parties 21 themselves have not been able to agree to. 22 We've given you evidence under 114.008 that has 23 been a breach of trust that has occurred or might occur. You 24 heard Judge Stem talk about things that Fran Shelton did that 25 were violation of the trust or interpretations of the trust
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00239
141
1 that were wrong when she was the trustee. 2 From the very beginning, she made accusations 3 of theft against Kathy's children that she had no evidence of 4 whatsoever that were there. That is not the action of a 5 person who can be a trustee or her husband to be a person 6 who's gonna be a trustee. Those are the type of people that 7 are showing vengeance of vindictiveness, for whatever reason 8 you want, trying to give acreage out of -- that clearly has to 9 be sold. 10 Front pasture? And you're gonna get 12 acres 11 there? Another plan was provided. She rejected that one. As 12 soon we request access easements back in January of 2023, 13 which by the way, is seven months before Fran Shelton swore 14 under verified pleading that we first raised that issue, she 15 as trustee, immediately denied the ability for us to get this 16 access easements as trustee because she didn't want to be able 17 to share a road. When you're the trustee and also the 18 beneficiary, you don't have the right to take off your hat, 19 favor some people, and not favor another. 20 Because there's been evidence of a breach of 21 trust, and Judge Stem's talked extensively about how those 22 things that occurred while he was trust advisor before she was 23 removed. Those are in the email. And if I need to prove 24 those up and admit them as evidence, I can. The fact is, a 25 breach of trust has occurred or might occur. If you put her
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00240
143
1 she picked the road to benefit herself, when she was serving 2 as trustee. Why does she get the road? The only reason we 3 were even willing to contemplate doing that was because 4 accesses are required by the Texas Supreme Court for easement 5 by necessity for a landlocked property, particularly when 6 there's not one. 7 And that's actually been given -- an 8 ingress-egress easement -- has actually been given by Dorothy 9 and Nick to Kathy Leuschner when she bought the rock house 10 back in the 1990s. We have a certified deed for that that I 11 could put into the record for you, where they granted an 12 easement to Kathy. The same property she's going to get 13 again, her parents gave her an easement. They want to know 14 what Dorothy wanted to do, that's what she did. She gave an 15 easement to Kathy. 16 So there is more than enough evidence here that 17 a breach of trust has occurred. And when a breach of trust 18 occurs, all there has to be is some evidence, and the Court 19 doesn't abuse their discretion. Those three cases that I gave 20 you: The Benson case, the Moody case, and the Price case, 21 dispel this myth that you have to exhaust all of the other 22 remedies. 23 And you've heard Judge Stem, a judge with an 24 impeccable reputation in this county -- and elsewhere -- who 25 told you that he believes that is the only way to get these
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00241
159
1 REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 2 OF 3 VOLUMES
2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2024-3035-5 COURT OF APPEALS CAUSE NO. 10-25-00108-CV 3 FRANCES SPANOS SHELTON, )( IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 4 Plaintiff, )( )(
5 VS. )( )(
6 VERNON LEUSCHNER, )( AND AS DURABLE POWER OF )( 7 ATTORNEY FOR KATHERINE )( LEUSCHNER, ROBERT LEE SPANOS, )( 414TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8 AND KATHRYN NICOLE LAWRIE, )( Intervenors, )( 9 )( VS. )( 10 )( VERNON LEUSCHNER,INDIVIDUALLY,)( 11 AND KATHERINE LEUSCHNER, )( Defendants. )( MCLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS 12
13 _____________________________________________
14 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
_____________________________________________
15
16 I, Jennifer Murphy, Official Court Reporter in 17 and for the 414th District Court of McLennan County, State of 18 Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains 19 a true and correct transcription of all portions of evidence 20 and other proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the 21 parties to be included in this volume of the Reporter's 22 Record, in the above-styled and numbered cause, all of which 23 occurred in open court or in chambers and were reported by me. 24 I further certify that this Reporter's Record 25 of the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits,
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00242
160
1 if any, admitted by the respective parties. 2 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this, the 10th day of 3 April 2025. 4 __________/s/Jennifer Murphy__________
5 Jennifer Murphy, Texas CSR # 11894, CVR Expiration Date: 09-30-2025 6 Official Court Reporter 414th District Court
7 McLennan County, Texas 501 Washington Avenue, Room 307 8 Waco, Texas 76501 (254)759-5914
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Jennifer Murphy, CSR, CVR MR 00243
TAB M
MR 00244
MR 00245
MR 00246
MR 00247
MR 00248
MR 00249
MR 00250
MR 00251
MR 00252
MR 00253
MR 00254
MR 00255
MR 00256
MR 00257
MR 00258
MR 00259
MR 00260
MR 00261
MR 00262
MR 00263
MR 00264
MR 00265
MR 00266
MR 00267
MR 00268
MR 00269
MR 00270
MR 00271
MR 00272
MR 00273
MR 00274
Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Kelly Blackburn on behalf of William Richard Thompson Bar No. 788537 efile@dpslawgroup.com Envelope ID: 106480768 Filing Code Description: Original Proceeding Petition Filing Description: Petition for Writ of Mandamus Status as of 10/6/2025 1:37 PM CST
Associated Case Party: FrancesSpanosShelton Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Kelly Blackburn efile@dpslawgroup.com 10/6/2025 12:28:00 PM SENT Kirk Pittard kpittard@dpslawgroup.com 10/6/2025 12:28:00 PM SENT Rick Thompson rthompson@dpslawgroup.com 10/6/2025 12:28:00 PM SENT Craig Cherry 24012419 ccherry@cjsjlaw.com 10/6/2025 12:28:00 PM SENT Ryan Johnson 24048574 rjohnson@cjsjlaw.com 10/6/2025 12:28:00 PM SENT Scott James 24037848 sjames@cjsjlaw.com 10/6/2025 12:28:00 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: Vernon Leuschner Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Angus McSwain 13861100 mcswain@thetexasfirm.com 10/6/2025 12:28:00 PM SENT Mark Firmin 24099614 firmin@thetexasfirm.com 10/6/2025 12:28:00 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: Robert Spanos Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status James Dunnam 6258010 jimdunnam@dunnamlaw.com 10/6/2025 12:28:00 PM SENT Andrea Mehta 24078992 andreamehta@dunnamlaw.com 10/6/2025 12:28:00 PM SENT Mason Dunnam 24108079 masondunnam@dunnamlaw.com 10/6/2025 12:28:00 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: Hon. Judge Ryan Luna Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Hon. Judge Ryan Luna 414th@mclennan.gov 10/6/2025 12:28:00 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Kelly Blackburn on behalf of William Richard Thompson Bar No. 788537 efile@dpslawgroup.com Envelope ID: 106480768 Filing Code Description: Original Proceeding Petition Filing Description: Petition for Writ of Mandamus Status as of 10/6/2025 1:37 PM CST
Associated Case Party: Aubrey Williams Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Aubrey Williams 21512500 aubreyw9000@yahoo.com 10/6/2025 12:28:00 PM SENT