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 1291 MR 00002 1292 MR 00003 1293 MR 00004 1294 MR 00005 1295 MR 00006 1296 MR 00007 1297 MR 00008 1298 MR 00009 1299 MR 00010 TAB B
MR 00011 460 MR 00012 461 MR 00013 462 MR 00014 463 MR 00015 464 MR 00016 465 MR 00017 466 MR 00018 467 MR 00019 468 MR 00020 469 MR 00021 470 MR 00022 471 MR 00023 472 MR 00024 473 MR 00025 474 MR 00026 475 MR 00027 476 MR 00028 477 MR 00029 478 MR 00030 479 MR 00031 480 MR 00032 481 MR 00033 482 MR 00034 483 MR 00035 484 MR 00036 485 MR 00037 486 MR 00038 487 MR 00039 488 MR 00040 489 MR 00041 490 MR 00042 491 MR 00043 492 MR 00044 493 MR 00045 494 MR 00046 495 MR 00047 496 MR 00048 497 MR 00049 498 MR 00050 499 MR 00051 500 MR 00052 501 MR 00053 502 MR 00054 503 MR 00055 504 MR 00056 505 MR 00057 506 MR 00058 507 MR 00059 508 MR 00060 509 MR 00061 510 MR 00062 511 MR 00063 512 MR 00064 513 MR 00065 514 MR 00066 515 MR 00067 516 MR 00068 517 MR 00069 518 MR 00070 519 MR 00071 520 MR 00072 521 MR 00073 522 MR 00074 523 MR 00075 524 MR 00076 525 MR 00077 526 MR 00078 527 MR 00079 528 MR 00080 529 MR 00081 530 MR 00082 531 MR 00083 532 MR 00084 533 MR 00085 534 MR 00086 535 MR 00087 536 MR 00088 537 MR 00089 538 MR 00090 539 MR 00091 540 MR 00092 541 MR 00093 542 MR 00094 543 MR 00095 544 MR 00096 545 MR 00097 546 MR 00098 547 MR 00099 548 MR 00100 549 MR 00101 550 MR 00102 551 MR 00103 TAB C
MR 00104 553 MR 00105 554 MR 00106 555 MR 00107 556 MR 00108 557 MR 00109 558 MR 00110 559 MR 00111 560 MR 00112 TAB D
MR 00113 801 MR 00114 802 MR 00115 803 MR 00116 804 MR 00117 805 MR 00118 806 MR 00119 807 MR 00120 808 MR 00121 809 MR 00122 810 MR 00123 811 MR 00124 812 MR 00125 TAB E
MR 00126 817 MR 00127 818 MR 00128 819 MR 00129 TAB F
MR 00130 821 MR 00131 822 MR 00132 823 MR 00133 824 MR 00134 TAB G
MR 00135 827 MR 00136 828 MR 00137 TAB H
MR 00138 923 MR 00139 TAB I
MR 00140 9 MR 00141 10 MR 00142 11 MR 00143 12 MR 00144 13 MR 00145 14 MR 00146 15 MR 00147 16 MR 00148 17 MR 00149 18 MR 00150 19 MR 00151 TAB J
MR 00152 990 MR 00153 TAB K
MR 00154 956 MR 00155 957 MR 00156 958 MR 00157 959 MR 00158 960 MR 00159 961 MR 00160 962 MR 00161 963 MR 00162 964 MR 00163 965 MR 00164 966 MR 00165 967 MR 00166 968 MR 00167 969 MR 00168 970 MR 00169 971 MR 00170 972 MR 00171 973 MR 00172 974 MR 00173 975 MR 00174 976 MR 00175 977 MR 00176 978 MR 00177 979 MR 00178 980 MR 00179 981 MR 00180 982 MR 00181 983 MR 00182 984 MR 00183 985 MR 00184 986 MR 00185 987 MR 00186 988 MR 00187 989 MR 00188 990 MR 00189 991 MR 00190 992 MR 00191 993 MR 00192 994 MR 00193 995 MR 00194 996 MR 00195 997 MR 00196 998 MR 00197 999 MR 00198 1000 MR 00199 1001 MR 00200 1002 MR 00201 1003 MR 00202 1004 MR 00203 1005 MR 00204 1006 MR 00205 1007 MR 00206 1008 MR 00207 1009 MR 00208 1010 MR 00209 1011 MR 00210 1012 MR 00211 1013 MR 00212 1014 MR 00213 1015 MR 00214 1016 MR 00215 1017 MR 00216 1018 MR 00217 1019 MR 00218 1061 MR 00219 1062 MR 00220 1063 MR 00221 1064 MR 00222 1065 MR 00223 TAB L
MR 00224 1 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, )( )( )( AND AS DURABLE POWER OF )( LEUSCHNER, ROBERT LEE SPANOS, )( 414TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Intervenors, )( 9 )( VS. )( 10 )( VERNON LEUSCHNER,INDIVIDUALLY,)( Defendants. )( MCLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS 12 ______________________________________________________
13 MOTION TO RE-AFFIRM AND/OR DESIGNATE TRUSTEE OF THE DOROTHY SPANOS LIVING TRUST 14
______________________________________________________ 16
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.
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.
19 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
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 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, )( )( )( AND AS DURABLE POWER OF )( LEUSCHNER, ROBERT LEE SPANOS, )( 414TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Intervenors, )( 9 )( VS. )( 10 )( VERNON LEUSCHNER,INDIVIDUALLY,)( Defendants. )( MCLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS 12
13 _____________________________________________
_____________________________________________ 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
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