in the Matter of the Guardianship of Doris L. Tipps

Opinion

ACCEPTED 05-14-01495-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 7/27/2015 12:00:00 AM LISA MATZ CLERK

5th Court of Appeals FILED: 07/31/2015 Lisa Matz, Clerk 13:18:41 CAUSE NO. 05-14-01495-CV RECEIVED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 7/27/2015 10:58:00 AM In the LISA MATZ Clerk COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF DORIS L. TIPPS

Appealed from Cause No. PR-13-03072-3 In the Probate Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas Honorable Judge Michael E. Miller, Presiding

APPELLANT'S COMBINED REPLY BRIEF

FIRST, APPELLEE REPLY BRIEF - THOMAS TIPPS SECOND, APPELLEE REPLY BRIEF - CUMBERLAND TRUST, AND THIRD, APPELLEE REPLY BRIEF - SENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER DALLAS d/b/a/ "SENIOR SOURCE"

Steven Tipps, Pro Se Appellant 5015 Addison Circle Addison, Texas 75001 (214) 223 6358 Fax (254) 731 2522 Email: casingscientific@gmail.com casing@prodigy.net

Page i of 103

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL The following is a list of all parties as well as the names and addresses of all counsel.

Appellant Counsel:

Steven Tipps Steven Tipps, Pro Se Party 5015 Addison Circle Addison, Texas 75001

Appellant: Counsel:

Doris L. Tipps W. Thomas Finley Finley Law Group, 5500 Preston Road, Suite 390 Dallas, Texas 75290

Cumberland Trust & Investment Co. Counsel:

Appellee: Alvin J. Golden Laurellen Ratliff lckard Golden Jones, P.C. 400 West 15th Street, Suite 975 Austin, Texas 78701-1646

Senior Citizens of Greater Dallas, Counsel:

d/bla Senior Source John H. Phillips Boone, Boone, & Phillips Appellee: 4313 Lovers Lane Dallas, Texas 75209

Counsel:

Thomas Tipps Jeffrey Cook Adam Barela Sullivan & Cook, L.L.C.

Appellee: 600 E. Las Colinas Blvd Suite 1300 Irving, Texas 75039

Page 2 of 103

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES-

Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) [G v. K] ............3, 14, 35, 68, 77, 167

Beverly Enterprises-Arkansas, Inc. v. Circuit Court of Independence County 238 S.W.3d (2006).................................................................................................3 Cayton v. Moore, 224 S.W.3d 440 Tex.App. - Dallas 2007, no pet..3, 14, 65,72,167

Champion Int'l Corp. v. Twelfth Court of Appeals, 762 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist. 2006, no pet.]..................................3, 16, 67, 72, 167

Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 199 S.W.3d 482, 494 (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist. 2006, no pet]...........................................................3, 35, 65, 167

Cran v. Hale, 745S.W.2d 129 (1988) (Ark)........................................3, 13

Davidson v. Great Nat'l Life Ins. Co. S.W. 2nd 312 (TEX. SUP. CT) 1987 ...

Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc. 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985)

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 US254, 268, 90 S. Ct.....35, 14, 16, 28, 35, 54, 64, 66, 65, 71, 77

Grannis v. Ordean, 234 US. 385 , 394 (1914).........................................3, 14, 67

Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496-497............................................3, 15, 69

ICC v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93-94 (1913)..................3, 15, 36, 68

State v. Nelson, 246 Ark, 210, 438 S.W.2d (1969)................................3, 53, 167

Walker v. Gutierrez, 111S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex.2003).....................3, 15, 51, 64, 167

Willner v. Committee on Character & Fitness, 373 U.S.96, 103-104........3, 15, 35, 68

TEX. PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE, Section 51.014

Page 3 of 103

State of Texas Due Course of Law Congruent with federal Due Process of Law

Anthony v. State, 209 S.W.3d 296 (2006) (37)......................................4, 17, 163

Brantley v. Texas Youth Commission, 2011, 365 S.W.3d 89 (2011) (17) ........4, 18, 162

City of Fort Worth v. Park, 2011, Tex. APP. LEXIS 5725 (2011) (14) ..4, 17, 67, 77, 162

Collins v. Texas Natural Resource, 2002, 94 S.W.3d 876 (2002) (16) ..............4, 163

Dallas County v. Gonzales, (2006) (17) ............................................ .4, 17, 162

Ewing v. Act Catastrophe -Texas LC, 375, S.W.2d 545 (2012) (16) ...........5, 17, 162

Fleming v. State, 376 S.W.3r<l 854 (2012) (35)......................................4, 17, 162

Richard v. Dretke, Tex. App. LEXIS 2261 2009 (20)..............................4, 18, 162

T ex. Comm. On Env. Quality v. Denbury Onshore, LLC,

Texas. App. LEXIS 7177 (41).......................................................4, 17, 162

Texas Procedural Due Process congruent with federal Procedural Due Process

Brewer v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist. 779 F.2d 260, 263 (5th Cir. 1985) ...........4, 19, 160

Brown v. University of Texas Health Ctr., 957 S.W.2d 911, 915 (Tex. App. -Tyler

1997, no wr it).............................................................................4, 18, 160

Gene Harmon Ford v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 997 S.W.2d 298, 312

(1999) ........................................................................................4, 78

Price v. City of Junction, 711 F. 2d 582, 590 (5th Cir. 1983).......................4, 18, 77

University a/Texas Med. Sch. v. Than, 901 S.W.2d 926, 930-31 (Tex. 1995).....18, 71

Appealable Orders from Probate Courts in Texas

Crowson v. Wakeham, 897 S. W. 2d 7779, 783 (Tex. 1995)..........................4, 156

De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tex. 2006)........................4, 29, 96, 155

Document Page 4 of 240 Page 4 of 103

Estate of Wright, 676 S.W.2d 161-163 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1984, writ refd n.r.e.)................................................................................

Huston v. F.D.1.C., 800 S.W. 2d 845, 848 (Tex. 1990)............................156

Logan v. McDaniel, 21 S.W.3d 683, 688 (Tex. App. Austin 2000 p et. den)..5, 156

Original Case References In Appellant Brief

Davidson v. Great Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 708 S.W.2d 476 .........................3, 5, 96

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 US 254, 268, 90 S. Ct 1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 1970

Great Nat'l Life Ins. V. Davidson 708 S. W.2d 476 Murray v. Morris, 17 S.W.2d 110, 111 (Tex.Civ.App)-Amarillo 1928, dism'd .............. .

Pecos & N.T Ry. Co. v Porter, 156 S.W. 267, 274-275 (Tex.Civ.App.)......

- Amarillo 1913, no writ.))

Texas Employers Insurance Ass 'n v. Garza, 308 S.w.2nd 521, 527 ................

(Tex.Civ.App. - Amarillo) 1957 writ refd n.r.e.

Texas & N.O.R. Co. v Barham, 204 S.W.2d 205, 214 (Tex.Civ.App Waco 1947, writ ),..........................................................................................

FEDERAL DOCTRINE

Substantive Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RULES

TEXASRULESOF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

TEX. R. AP. Rule 38

TEX. R. AP. Rule 9.4(c)....................................................................

FED. R. C.P. 51 .......................................................................5, 14, 47

Page 5 of 103

TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

TEX. R. Civ. P. 7..............................................................5, 14, 47 TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

TEX. CJC. Canon (3)(B)(8) ... (persuasive authority) .....................6, 36, 64, 66

U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY Due Process Clause - 5th Amendment -United States Constitution.....

Due Process Clause - 14th Amendment -United States Constitution...

Sixth Amendment - United States Constitution .............................

Confrontation and Cross Examination Clause(s)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Brief Page................................................................. i

II. Identity of Parties & Counsel.......................................... 2

III. Index of Authorities.................................................... 3-6

IV. Table ofContents....................................................... 6-7

V. Appellant's Reply Brief-Reply Brief of Thomas Tipps......... 8

VI. Argument and Authorities Section 1.0, Para(s) 1.1 - 1.91........ 9-61

VII. Appellant's Reply Brief-Reply Brief ofCumberland Trust..... 62

VIII. Argument and Authorities Section 2.0, Para(s) 2.0 - 2.21 ............ 63-78

IX. Appellant's Reply Brief - Reply Brief of Senior Source........... 79

X. Argument and Authorities Section 3.0, Para(s) 3.1 - 3.25 ......... 80-91

Page 6of 103

Table of Contents continued

XI. Certificate of Service ................................................... 92-93

XII. Certificate of Compliance .............................................. 94-103

XIII. Conclusion ...............................................................95

XIV. Prayer .....................................................................95

XV. Index of Appendix......................................................96

Page 7 of 103

CAUSE NO. 05-14-01495-CV

In the COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF DORIS L. TIPPS

Appealed from Cause No. PR-13-03072-3 In the Probate Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas Honorable Judge Michael E. Miller, Presiding

APPELLANT'S COMBINED REPLY BRIEF FIRSTAPPELLEE REPLY BRIEF - THOMAS TIPPS

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant, Steven Tipps, submits this Appellant Reply Brief, in accordance

with Rule 9.4, 9.4(i)(2)(c), and Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

and all local rules of this Court. In support of this Appeal from Final Judgement,

Appellant respectfully asserts the following:

Page 8 of 103

Document Page 8 of 240

·-- -

-�------

1.0 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY

1.1 Appellant's Appeal relies upon due course of law clause of the Texas

Constitution, the due process clause(s) of the Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments to

the U.S. Constitution, and the congruency of common law in each system.

What occurred in the Trial Court was the reverse of fairness and equal

treatment of parties? In contrast to the constitutional commands of the Sixth

Amendment's confrontation and cross-examination clause(s) the Trial Court

barred Appellant Steven Tipps from cross-examination of Cumberland Trust &

Investment Company's key fact witness, Karen Ashworth. From the Trained

Court, these words are clear: "I am going to deny your right to cross-examine".

(Appellant Br. Appendix. P 27, a- g, excerpt from (RR. 22, L4-17).

1.2 In Texas Employers, "This court, as have many others, has held that right to

cross-examine a witness is a substantial one, and it is error to so restrict it as to

prevent the cross-examining party from going fully into all matters connected with

the examination in chief'. (Texas Employers Ins Assoc. v. Garza, 308 S/W.2d 521,

527 (TEX.CIV.APP) Amarillo 1957, writ refd n.r.e.) In Pecos, the court went

[*479] on to say, "A witness may be cross-examined as to his examination in chief

in all its bearings and as to whatever goes to explain or modify what he has stated

in his examination in chief, and prejudice will be presumed where this right is

Page 9 of 103 denied." Pecos & N.T. Ry. Co. v. Porter, 156 S.W. 267, 274-275 (Tex. Civ. App.)

-Amarillo 1913, no writ)).

Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies that:

"The trial court did not err by exercising control over Appellant's cross­

examination of witnesses (Appellee Thomas Tipps Reply Brief at page 25).

1.3 With cross examination of Karen Ashworth's testimony denied by the Trial

Court, how would it be possible to cross examine the second adverse witness with

one or two questions as directed by the Trial Court? (RR. 27, 28). Cross

examination is a substantial right and unreasonable constraint of this right also

constrains the Trial Record that would otherwise benefit Appellant Steven Tipps.

Thus, the Trial Record is a product of the process of which we complain on

Appeal.

1.4 Appellant was allowed to address one question to the second fact witness,

and, as ordered by the Trial Court, the question was directed to Appellee Thomas

Tipps. Appellant stated: "How does the court handle a life estate that is attached

to 1844 Hood Street? It is not in the trust(s), it is not transferable under Texas law

into the trust(s)?" In any other courtroom in this country, by hypothesis, a Trained

Court would have asked: are you addressing this question to the witness, or are

you addressing the question to this court? The Trial Court then stated: "I'm not

going to give you legal advice." Further questions were denied. (Appellant. Br.

Page 10 of 103

Appendix. PP 28-29, No. 7 (excerpt from Rep. Rec.). In Murray, "the purpose of

cross-examination is to sift and to modify and to have the witness explain what has

been said on his direct examination, and if the witness by this process can be

discredited and the weight of his testimony weakened, the right should not be

denied." (Murray v. Morris, 17 S.W.2d 110, 111 (Tex. Civ. App.)-Amarillo 1928,

writ dism'd).

1.5 That question of the second key fact witness, Appellant Thomas Tipps was

the only question allowed by the Trial Court's undue constraint of cross­

examination?

It was a significant question under those circumstances.

1.6 The question was central to the controversy over Hood Street where on

February 3, 2014, Appellee Thomas Tipps sued Appellant Steven Tipps for

forcible detainer. Appellee Cumberland (Karen Ashworth) and Appellee Thomas

Tipps were engaged together in a squeeze play against Appellant in January and

February 2014. (C.R. 217).The litigation brought by Appellee Thomas Tipps

together with Cumberland's interference had a pernicious timing. The interference

against Appellant Steven Tipps extended, in its effects, to interference with a

substantial care giving process for Appellant Doris L. Tipps, in the general time

frame of a life threatening emergency that required the substantial attention of

Appellant Steven Tipps (Appellant Brief, page 11). (C.R. 217) (Appt. Br. -

Page 11 of 103

Appendix Item 15 & 16). On February 3, 2014, Appellee Thomas Tipps', role

under the Rule 11 Agreement that stipulated his resignation as co-trustee, changed

from ministerial duties of paying bills and receiving receipts for the Trust, to the

formation of a joint effort with Appellee Cumberland in litigation and harassment

of Appellant Steven Tipps. Cumberland was Trustee "in Waiting" during the

interval of Thursday January 23, 2014, the date of the Mediation Settlement

Agreement, to Monday February 17, 2014, the date of the Trial Court Order that

adopted the Mediation Settlement Agreement and installed Cumberland as Trustee

of the Tipps Family Trust(s).

1.7 Impeachment through cross-examination of Appellee Cumberland's Karen

Ashworth and Appellee Thomas Tipps's testimony would have developed the

extent of the respective roles of each individual in the attempted circumvention of

the legal life estate (life tenancy) attached to Hood Street. The impingement by the

Trial Court, of Appellant's right to cross-examination of adverse witnesses is

inconsistent with the procedural due process commands as expressed in Goldberg

v. Kelly and in University a/Texas Med. Sch. v. Than? (Federal and State of Texas

procedural due process).

Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies that:

a. Appellant did not preserve error with respect to Issues 1 and 2 Appellee Reply Brief Issue 1 and 2, page 25.

Page 12 of 103 1.8 TheSixth Amendment and its confrontation and cross examination clause(s)

are mandatory authority in U.S. courts. Through the 14th Amendment, the Fifth

andSixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution apply to theStates. ( Cran v. Hale,

745S.W.2d 129 (1988) (Ark.Sup. Ct.) (563). It is a rare circumstance where these

rights are quashed by a trial court in the UnitedStates. On the face of the Record,

the Trained Court excluded Appellant from procedural due process by blocking

cross-examination of the first key fact witness and by unduly constraining the

cross-examination of the second fact witness to one question. Cross examination

of these two witnesses goes straight to the issue of the interaction between the two

key fact witnesses. Appellant's answer to citation under the Cumberland Motion

was the basis on which cross-examination would have moved forward, but it was

impeded when cross-examination was declined. (C.R. 217) (Appt. Br., V - VII, pp

16 - 18). (Appt. Reply Br. I). Due process involves the right to be heard. The

Trained Court declined that substantial right, including the procedure of cross­

examination when it refused to allow cross examination of the first witness. (RR

22). The Trained Court then dismissed the witness. It was ended. That decision

terminated discussion between Appellant and the Trained Court on that issue.

Each of the two attempts to cross-examine adverse witnesses were either declined

or unduly constrained and immediately concluded by the Trained Court. (RR 22,

28). The Trial Court was closed that day to additional presentation of issues Page 13 of 103 including the Reimbursement Issue, the Fourth Issue in Appellant's Brief, and

preservation. "If a party does not have an opportunity to object to a ruling or

order, the absence of an objection does not later prejudice that party [on

appeal]. (Fed. R. C. P. 51). A trial court has no discretion in determining what

the law is or in applying the law to the facts. (Cayton v. Moore, 224S.W.3d 440

(Tex. App. - Dallas 2007), no pet. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court

clearly failed to analyze and determine the law correctly or applied the law

incorrectly to the facts. Id. A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an

arbitrary or unreasonable manner or without reference to any guiding rules or

principles. Walker v. Gutierrez, 111S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex.2003).

In Reply, Appellee Thomas Tipps states:

"{b) The trial court properly controlled its docket with respect to Appellant's cross-examination of witnesses." {Appellee Thomas Tipps's Reply Brief at Page 27).

1.9 In Goldberg v. Kelly (from the majority opinion), as cited in Davidson v.

Great Nat'/ Life Ins. Co., "The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the

opportunity to be heard." (Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914). "The

hearing must be at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner". (Armstrong v.

Manzo). "The opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the [*269] capacities and

circumstances of those who are to be heard."

Page 14 of 103 1.10 "In almost every setting where important decisions tum on questions of fact,

due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse

witnesses."(E. g., ICC v. Louisville & N.R. Co.). (Willner v. Committee on

Character & Fitness). "Certain principles have remained relatively immutable in

our jurisprudence. One of these is that where governmental action seriously

injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action depends on fact

findings, the evidence used to prove the Government's case must be disclosed.

1.11 While this is important in documentary evidence, it is even more important

where the evidence consists of the testimony of individuals whose memory might

be faulty or who, in fact might be perjurers or persons motivated by malice,

vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or jealousy. We have formalized these

protections in the requirements of confrontation and cross-examination. They have

ancient roots. They find expression in the Sixth Amendment. This Court has been

zealous to protect these rights from erosion. It is spoken out not only in criminal

cases ... but also in all types of cases where administrative ...actions were under

scrutiny." (Greene v. McElroy). In Goldberg, we have a federal constitutional

mandate for procedural due process: a mandate increasingly shared in parallel

with common law in the State of Texas.

1.12 Given unfettered access, the cross examination of each of the key fact

witnesses would have expanded the Trial Record for the benefit of Appellant. In

Page 15 of 103

Issue One and Issue Two of Appellant's Brief, the Trial Record shows that the

Trial Court engaged in manifest abuse of discretion? The Trial Court had no

discretion in voiding, in effect, Tex. R. CP. 7: a codified Texas Statute that clearly

establishes the scope of rights of parties with standing and their access to

procedural due process that was denied to Appellant by the Trial Court? A trial

court has broad discretion and we may not disturb its ruling absent manifest abuse

of discretion. (Champion Int'l Corp. v. Twelfth Court of Appeals, 762 S.W. 2d

898,899 (Tex. 1988; TEX.R. P. 320). While Trial Courts, in general, have

substantial powers to hear and decide cases, they lack authority to deny the rights

delineated above in Goldberg. (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 US 254, 268, 90 S. Ct

1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 1970). (Davidson v. Great National Life Ins. Co., S.W.2d

312 (TEX. SP. CT.) (1987), the rights delineated in the Sixth Amendment

confrontation and cross-examination clause(s), the rights established in the fifth

and fourteenth amendment due process clauses, and substantive due process.

From the Trial Record, these words are clear: "/ am going to deny your right to

cross examine": a plain, manifest, clear, and gross abuse of discretion?

What is clear is that Appellant's legal standing is broader than the issues of cost

reimbursement alone, and included the right to sue Cumberland for its wrongful

interference with Appellant Steven Tipps during his Guardianship in early 2014,

the attempt by Cumberland to void a legal right connected with Hood Street, and

Page 16 of 103 support ofjoint action with Appellee Thomas Tipps for the eviction of Appellant

from his residency at that address: all of which occurred prior to Appellee

Cumberland's final installation as Trustee on February 17, 2014. (C.R. at 217).

Due process clause(s) of the U. S. Constitution are congruent with the

Constitution of the State of Texas Due Course of Law clause.

1.13 "At a minimum, due process requires a person who may be deprived of a

liberty or property interest to be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard at a

meaningful time and a meaningful manner". (Anthony v. State, 2009 S.W.3d 296).

1.14 The "due course" clause in our state constitution requires the same level of

"due process" as the federal constitution. (City of Fort Worth v. Park, 2011, Tex.

APP LEXIS 5725 (2011 (14). While the Texas Constitution is textually different

in that it refers to "due course" rather than "due process", we regard these terms as

without meaningful distinction. (Fleming v. State, 376 S.W.3d 854 (2012) (35).

1.15 Due process at a minimum requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at

a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." (Tex. Comm. On Env. Quality v.

Denbury Onshore, LLC, Texas. App. LEWXIS 7177 (41). In analyzing a claim of

deprivation of procedural due process, we apply a two-part test: we must

determine (1) whether the plaintiff had a liberty or property interest entitled to

procedural due process; and (2) if so, what process is due. (Dallas County v.

Gonzales, (2006 (17). The Due Process Clause does not mandate the parties be

Page 17 of 103 heard at the arbitration hearing; rather, the Due Process Clause requires that the

parties be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the arbitration hearing.

(Ewing v. Act Catastrophe- Texas LC, 375 S.W.2d 545 (2012) (16). [A]lthough

[the] Texas Constitution refers to "due course" rather than the U.S. Constitution's

"due process", the phrases are not meaningfully distinct and federal due process

are persuasive authority when interpreting Texas's "due course" guarantee.

(Brantley v. Texas Youth Commission, 2011, 365 S.W.3d 89 (2011) (17).

1.16 The Supreme Court of Texas has stated that the language of the Due Course

of Law Clause of the Texas Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the United

States Constitution is "nearly identical" and that there is no meaningful distinction

between due course and due process. (Richard v. Dretke) Tex. App. LEXIS 2261

(2009).

Federal Procedural Due Process congruent with State of Texas Procedural

Due Process:

1.17 In the area of procedural due process, the protections afforded under the

Texas Constitution are congruent with those provided by the federal Constitution.

(Price v. City ofJunction, 711 F.2d 582, 590 (5th Cir. 1983); cf University of

Texas Med. Sch. v. Than, 901 S.W.2d 926, 930-31 (Tex. 1995). Generally,

procedural due process requires notice of an opportunity to be heard. (Brown v.

University of Texas Health Ctr.) 957 S.W.2d 298, 312 (Tex. App-Austin 1999, writ

Page 18 of 103 denied). "Procedural due process involves basic notions of justice and fair play"

(Gene Hamon Ford v. David McDavid Nissan) 997 S.W.2d 298, 312 (Tex. App.-

Austin 1999, writ denied). The sufficiency of procedures must be judged in light

of the parties, the subject matter and the circumstances involved. Id. (quoting

Brewer v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 779 F.2d 260, 263 (5th Cir. 1985).

1.18 It is now evident to Appellant that each of Appellant's answers to the

citations from Cumberland and Senior Source raised questions that seriously

opposed the Trial Court's agenda at the hearing. This could not have been known

by Appellant prior to the Hearing. (Appt. Reply Br.-Cumberland--, Para 2.5 -

2.6, pp 65-66). (C.R. s 7). (C.R. 217). (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix III).

1.19 A review of the Record suggests that the Trained Court may have considered

eventual positions the case before the Hearing: (Appt. Reply Bf. -Cumberland--,

Para 2.5-2.6, pp 65-67.). In addition, the Tipps Family Trust(s) estate plan was

incorporated into the trial court Order on February 17, 2014, together and

contrasting with the Mediation Settlement Agreement with its independent

oversight and accountability. On October 21, 2014, the Cumberland Motion

included approval of Appellee Cumberland's unconditional resignation,

consideration of the resignation of Appellee Thomas Tipps as co-trustee, and

recognition of Appellee Thomas Tipps' self-appointment to the position of Trustee

of the Tipps Family Trusts. The replacement of a Trustee was, nominally, effected

Page 19 of 103 by the transition language in the Tipps Family Trust documentation that stated that

a Trustee could appoint a replacement trustee for the Tipps Living Trust(s). The

Trial Court agreed to accept this arrangement even though these Tipps Family

Trust procedures for replacement of Trustees had been overlaid and superseded by

the covenants in the uncontested Mediation Settlement Agreement that required

that a corporate trustee must be replaced with another corporate trustee. Cross-

examination of the Appellee Cumberland's fact witness Karen Ashworth and of

Appellee Thomas Tipps was clearly unwelcome in the Trial Court on that date, at

that time, and in that place. There were two courses of action that were before the

Trial Court on October 21, 2014: (1) to enforce the uncontested Rule 11

Agreement and the uncontested Mediation Settlement Agreement with its

independent oversight and control or (2) to bypass the ministerial act of enforcing

the two contracts and allow Appellee Thomas Tipps to replace Appellee

Cumberland as corporate trustee of the Tipps Family Trust(s), by self-appointment.

(RR. 26).

1.20 At the Hearing that occurred on October 21, 2014, there were three closely

linked, overlapping, interlocutory phases: each phase involving a discrete issue

under the authority of the Trained Court. Given the claim of Manifest Abuse of

Discretion, there is a question about where abuse of discretion began and where it

ended? Did it occur only in the Cumberland Motion, or was it continuous

Page 20 of 103 throughout the Hearing? Was there cumulative error? (Appt. Reply Br.­

Cumberland--, Para 2.5-2.6, pp 65-66).

1.21 In Phase I, Appellee Thomas Tipps introduced at the hearing, a motion to

show authority that resulted in the isolation of Appellant Doris L. Tipps from her

legal counsel and the striking of Appellant Doris L. Tipps objections in W. Thomas

Finley's pleadings in opposition. (C.R. s 15). (C.R. s 42). (Appt. Reply Br.

Appendix, III). From January 23, 2014 through October 21, 2014, Mr. Finley's

most important and regular role was to urge of Senior Source, as Guardian to

engage Preston wood Nursing, as agent of the Guardian, to meet their federal and

State mandates of (a) the requirement to provide a safe environment for Appellant

Doris L. Tipps and (b) generally, the obligation to provide prudent care and (c) to

provide timely and decisive responses to Appellant Doris L. Tipps continuing

emergencies while a resident at Prestonwood. As a result of the granted Motion to

Show Authority, Appellant was alone in the courtroom against five opposing

lawyers, and they were together against Appellant. (Appt. Br. Appendix - Crises &

Survival, Index Item 10).

1.22 Phase II was initiated by a Appellee Thomas Tipps in which Appellee

requested Appellee Senior Source to file a Petition against Appellant Steven Tipps

for removal of the medical power of attorney from Appellant Steven Tipps, thus

separating Appellant Doris L. Tipps from a known and trusted source of medical

Page 21 of 103 decisions and protection(s) for her life. A by-product of the Phase II termination of

Appellant Steven Tipps medical power of attorney, was to legally end Appellant's

involvement in Doris L. Tipps health emergencies that were year after year, in

favor of her survival. In several of these emergencies her survival was uncertain.

In the last series of emergencies in late 2013 and early 2014, on one occasion, it

was nearly fatal. (Appt. Br. Appendix - Crises and Survival Index Item 10).

1.23 In Phase III Appellant Thomas Tipps moved with Cumberland to initiate

litigation alleging that Appellant Steven Tipps was responsible for the resignation

of Cumberland, that Cumberland. Cumberland--with its right to resign without the

Trial Court's permission--chose to seek official court approval of its resignation

together with its recommendation that Appellee Thomas Tipps be approved by the

Trial Court as the replacement Trustee of the Tipps Family Trust(s). [The latest

Tipps Family Trust documents have language that organize a transition for

resignation and replacement of Trustees.] In the need that developed with

Cumberland's resignation, the party that was more likely than not to benefit from

organizing the struggle between Cumberland and Appellant Steven Tipps was

likely the party that started the conflict in the first place, considering the outcome

of the Trial Court Hearing on October 21, 2014 that removed Cumberland and

elevated Appellee Thomas Tipps to the position then held by Cumberland, as

Page 22 of 103

Trustee of the Tipps Family Trust(s)? (C.R. at 217). (C.R. s 15). (C.R. s 42).

(Appt. Reply Br. Appendix III).

1.24 In the October 21, 2014 hearing, the Trial Court decided to disregard the

uncontested Mediation Settlement Agreement and the uncontested Rule 11

Agreement, and to accept Appellee Thomas Tipps's appointment of himself to the

position of Trustee of the Tipps Family Trusts, arguing that Trust documentation

permitted the appointment of a replacement trustee, including himself. In choosing

not to enforce the Mediation Settlement Agreement and the Rule 11 Agreement,

the Trial Court failed to consider legal costs and consideration exchanged in

finalizing the Mediation Settlement Agreement and the Rule 11 Agreement. Both

contracts are enforceable and should be enforced. (C.R. s 15). (Appt. Br.

Appendix, III).

1.25 One of the main elements of the MEDIATION SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT was the release of liability of Appellee Thomas Tipps with respect

to any actions taken while serving Co-Trustee. As the only adverse party that was

a signatory to the MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, Appellant's

release from liability of Appellee Thomas Tipps was a significant concession,

given in the belief that the MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and the

Rule 11 Agreement were in the interest of the Appellant Doris L. Tipps and her

family.

Page 23 of 103 1.26 When the Trial Court elected not to enforce the MEDIATION

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and the Rule 11 Agreement, Appellee Thomas

Tipps retained, and retains, the protections received in the mutual release, while

Appellant Steven Tipps released his rights to pursue remedies for specific

misdeeds of Appellee during his tenure as Co-Trustee. Further, there were basic

protections afforded by the MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and the

Rule 11 agreements: (1) principally, the oversight of the Tipps Family Trusts

through an independent corporate trustee, a significant loss of protections for

Appellant Doris L. Tipps and (2) given the initial expectations, the benefits of an

independent and unbiased guardian. All of the bargained-for potential, with its

substantial cost, was lost, when Trial Court decided to affirm the self-appointment

of the former Co-Trustee to the position as Trustee of the Tipps Family Trusts.

1.27 In summary, the Trained Court, having accepted the need for the removal of

Appellee Thomas Tipps as co-trustee of the Tipps Living Trust, changed its mind

and assisted in Appellee's promotion to the position of Trustee. It was unusual for

( 1) the first enforceable contract, arising under a trial court agreement to pursue

mediation and (2) the Rule 11 Agreement to be so easily set aside by the court that

was in supervisory control over the process and the mediation that produced the

Mediation Settlement Agreement. All parties were present. Consideration was

exchanged. Everyone agreed, and the Trained Court incorporated the

Page 24 of 103

MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT into its Order on Monday, February

17,2014.

1.28 The MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT provided a specific

procedure to deal with the resignation of a corporate trustee. This procedure

required the parties to re-assemble for a special Mediation Conference in order to

elect a new corporate trustee. (C.R. s 15). (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix, III)

1.29 The reinstatement of Appellee Thomas Tipps as Trustee resulted in a new

framework that was supported by the allegation of Cumberland that Appellant

Steven Tipps "interfered" with Cumberland and caused Cumberland's resignation.

The actual details of this interference were never challenged during the Trial Court

Hearing, other than in Appellant's answers to the Cumberland Citation in the Trial

Court (C.R. at 217). The procedural due process for this kind of confrontation is

cross-examination, but this was barred by the Trial Court. There was no contract

between Appellant and Cumberland. Why did Cumberland fail to allege breach of

contract before the Trial Court, rather than the alleged interference with Appellee

Cumberland? There was an email exchange between Appellant and Cumberland's

Karen Ashworth. It is included in Appellant's Brief Appendix (Item 16). This

document shows that Appellant Steven Tipps agreed to move out of Hood Street or

lease the property, under pressure from Cumberland and the February 3, 2014

forcible detainer litigation filed by Appellee Thomas Tipps. (Appellant Brief -

Page 25 of 103

Appendix, Exhibit 15 & 16). Appellant was obliged to agree with the email

representations under duress: five (5) days to get out in the midst of a severe

winter that conjures up in the mind a brutal event that is in clearly punitive and that

would interrupt the care giving process for Doris L. Tipps. Under the email

"understanding", all of the substantial array of standard terms and conditions of a

lease contract were missing. In the State of Texas, the Statute ofFrauds requires

that all real estate contracts be reduced to writing. Contractual terms include the

lease term, a fixed deposit amount, and monthly rent provisions, maintenance

provisions, and notices of all kinds, were never discussed between any of the

parties, nor incorporated into any written documentation. Appellant realized that

Appellee Thomas Tipps, the Co-Trustee in departure, misrepresented Appellee's

legal authority to bring suit, Appellee Thomas Tipps misrepresented the statutory

basis of the legal life estate in the name of Appellant Doris L. Tipps, and the

Trust's purported equitable ownership of Hood Street. (App Brief Appendix,

Exhibit 15). Appellant decided to resist Appellees Thomas Tipps and Cumberland

in their commercial fraud? [Each of Exhibits 15 and 16 are before the Fifth Court

under Cumberland's Motion to Strike together with APPELLANT STEVEN

TIPPS' OBJECTION TO APPELLEE CUMBERLAND TRUST AND

INVESTMENT COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE DOCUMENTS IN

APPELLANT'S APPENDIX].

Page 26 of 103 1.30 Appellee Cumberland's allegation of interference by Appellant, established

the main argument before the Trial Court. The January23, 2014 Mediation

Settlement Agreement and the September 13, 2013 Rule 11 Agreement were

disregarded. The self-appointment of Appellee Thomas Tipps as Trustee was

acknowledged by the Trial Court. In Appellant Brief Appendix, Exhibits 15-16

show that Appellee Cumberland and Appellee Thomas Tipps coordinated and their

activities against Appellant. The lease of the Hood Street property was more

important as a remainder-men and corporate trustee objective-though tortious-­

than the care giving activities of Appellant in his Guardianship of Doris L. Tipps

when she was gravely ill in the fall of2013 and the winter of2014.

1.31 Cumberland could have resigned at any time after giving statutory notice.

Instead, Cumberland sought relief from the Trial Court, in avoidance of accounting

to the main beneficiary Doris L. Tipps. Cumberland also achieved in the outcome,

some degree of protection that the Tipps Family Trust(s) would not file suit against

Appellee Cumberland with the self-appointed Appellee Thomas Tipps established

as Trustee of the Tipps Family Trusts.

1.32 If the Trial Court had observed the right of Appellant to cross-examine each

of Karen Ashworth and Appellee Thomas Tipps, the Trial Record would have been

expanded for the benefit of Appellant. In Issue One and Issue Two of Appellant's

Brief, the Trial Record shows that the Trial Court engaged in manifest abuse of

Page 27 of 103 discretion? The Trial Court had no discretion in failing to follow Tex. R. CP. 7: a

codified Texas Statute that clearly establishes the rights of parties and their access

to procedural due process that was denied to Appellant by the Trial Court? While

trial courts in general, have substantial powers to hear and decide cases, they lack

authority to deny the rights delineated above in ( Goldberg v. Kelly) and in

Appellant's Brief: (Davidson v. Great Nat'/ Life Ins. Co.). These rights are

procedural due process, including the rights delineated in the Sixth Amendment

confrontation and cross-examination clauses, the rights established in the fifth and

fourteenth amendment due process clause(s), the right to substantive due process,

the protections of due course of law Clause in the Texas Constitution, and common

law cases.

1.33 In ignoring these basic rights, the Trial Court abandoned its constitutional

mandates: both State and federal, concerning Appellant and his procedural due

process rights. At the moment of the signed orders, the Trial Court abandoned its

sworn duties in the protection of its Ward, Doris L. Tipps and left her secured

retirement in a state of uncertainty.

APPELLANT'S REPLY TO APPELLEE THOMAS TIPPS STATEMENT REGARDING JURISDICTION (Appellee Reply Bf. Para 2.1, p9-Para 2.4 plO)

1.34 Two important authorities for jurisdictional issues in appeals from probate courts in Texas govern a technically complex and unsettled area of jurisdictional and appellate law.

Page 28 of 103

These authorities are:

(a) The legislative Act of March 30, 1917, 35th Leg., R.S., ch. 168, § 1, 1917 Tex. Gen. Laws 379, 379, now codified as TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE§ 51.014(a)(2). and

(b)De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575 (Sup. Ct. Tex.) (2006)

Under 51.014(a)(2) ("Appeal from Interlocutory Order") of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides, in relevant part, as follows: "(a) A person may appeal from an interlocutory order of ... probate court ... that ( 1) appoints a receiver or trustee .... "

Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies that:

1.35 Starting with 2.1 through 2.3, pages 9-11. In 2.1, Appellee states in Reply: "Because the trial court has not entered a final judgment in this case, this court lacks jurisdiction to address Appellant's challenge to the trial court's Order Granting Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee and its Order to Revoke Authority of Agent". We disagree.

1.36 The Texas Supreme Court states: "The Legislature enacted the statute, [(a) above] permitting interlocutory appeal of orders overruling motions to vacate orders appointing receivers or trustees in 1917, and the provision remains substantially unchanged today. At no time during the statute's almost ninety-year history have we held that it applies to a motion to remove an estate's executor."

1.37 "It did not equate an executor to a trustee for all purposes, and there is no evidence that the Legislature intended to permit immediate appeals of orders refusing to remove estate executors."

Since Doris L. Tipps is still alive and doing very well, there is no executor for the estate, and since there is a will, there is no administrator.

1.38 In Ayala v. Mackie, the Supreme Court of Texas distinguishes between an Executor and a Trustee, and since Appellee Thomas Tipps is not an executor, or administrator, but is a trustee, in that context, the statute [51.014(a)(2)] supports an appeal of an Order appointing Appellee Thomas Tipps as Trustee of the Tipps Family Trust(s).

Page 29 of 103 1.39 Further in Ayala v. Mackie, the Supreme Court of Texas has stated: "If there is an express statute, such as the one for the complete heirship judgment, declaring the phase of the probate proceedings to be final and appealable, that statute controls. Otherwise, if there is a proceeding of which the order in question may logically be considered a part, but one or more pleadings also part of that proceeding raise issues or parties not disposed of, then the probate order is interlocutory." Therefore 5 l.014(a)(2) applies and permits interlocutory orders to be appealed. 1.40 For these reasons, this Court has appellate jurisdiction over this appeal.

Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies that:

Starting with 2.4, pages 9-10

1.41 In regard to First Nat'l Bank v. First State Bank, 456 S.W.2d 173 (Tex Civ.

App.-Texarkana 1970, writ dism'd), Ayala v. Mackie is mandatory authority as

it describes the history of, and furnished guidance for, the rules of interlocutory

appeals from orders in probate courts in a difficult area of law. First Nat'l v. First

State is secondary authority. It is a case that purports to support the contentions of

Appellee, but fails on point as (1) it has nothing to do with estates or the estates

code in Texas, (2) in the context of the subject appeal, a trustee is replacing a

trustee, as opposed to a permanent receiver being replaced by a permanent receiver

in a commercial banking case, (3) in the subject Appeal, a trustee is appointing

himself as replacement trustee that could have resigned without becoming a party

to a court Order in which the successor trustee is re-appointed Trustee, and (4) a

receiver fails on point in the subject appeal, because there is no danger to trust

assets from creditors, third parties, or any other known source. Page 30 of 103 1.42 In regard to American Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Valley Reservoir & Canal Co., 209

S.W. 438, 440 (Tex. Civ. App. 1919, writ refd), Ayala v. Mackie is mandatory

authority? In the context of this Appeal, American Nat'l is secondary authority.

The case presented fails on point as ( 1) it is a commercial case that purports to

support the contentions of Appellee, (2) it is unrelated to estates and the Texas

Estates Code, and (2) a receiver is not on point as Appellant Doris L. Tipps is not a

lost person and there is no danger to trust assets from creditors, from third parties,

or from any known source.

1.42(a) Appellee in Reply, From (Appellee Reply Br. Para 2.5, p 10) Appellee

Thomas Tipps alleges a flaw in Appellant's answer to Citation of the Senior

Source Petition. (C.R. 217). The Prayer section of pleadings is a special section

where a litigant states what relief is sought. Within the Prayer section, Appellant

listed that relief: It included: (a) the retention of the Medical Power of Attorney

for Doris L. Tipps by Steven Tipps, for serious reasons as cited, (b) an Order by

the Trial Court to amend the "Do Not Resuscitate" order, (c) a new bed, (d) new

furniture for Doris L. Tipps' room at Prestonwood Nursing, and (e) reimbursement

of expenses accrued in late 2013 and early 2014 for substantial care giving

activities, (e) approval of passes that would allow Appellant Doris L. Tipps to take

local drives occasionally accompanied by family members, (f) expense

reimbursement on an ongoing basis, and (g) additional expense reimbursement for

Page 31 of 103 the Fall of 2013 and Winter of 2014. Appellee alleges that the expense

reimbursement question in para( s) ( f) and (g) are unique as compared to the other

five requests a - e. that were not addressed by the Trial Court. All of the requests in

the Prayer Section, were ignored by the Trial Court. Appellee alleges that the

request for monies caused the Final Order to be Interlocutory, therefore denying

appellate jurisdiction to the Fifth Court of Appeals and undermining one part of

Appellant's burden. Appellant disagrees. (Please See Appellee Reply Br., p 10,

Para 2.5).

Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:

Starting with 2.5, page 10 of Appellee Reply Br. Further to jurisdiction.

"Appellant filed an answer to Senior Source's motion in which he plead for

reimbursement of ongoing expenses" related to his "substantial visits" to

Prestonwood Nursing Home and the repair of Doris Tipps' Lincoln Continental."

Appellant Replies. The reimbursement request related to 500 hours of care giving

and 1,600 miles driven for Doris L. Tipps, between and including October 29,

2014 through April 24, 2014. Six months. Constant care giving. It was a brutal

winter. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, "Morbidity and

Mortality Weekly", it was the most deadly season for respiratory illness in the

United States in decades. Two hospitals. Three rehabilitation organizations. A long

Page 32 of 103 and difficult recovery. (Please See, Appt. Br. Appendix. P24, Crises & Survival,

Item 10).

1.43 Further, Appellant Steven Tipps replies: The Trial Court Orders are final as

to each of the following: Cumberland's Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge

Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee and the Senior Source Petition to Revoke Authority

ofAgent in accordance with the decision in Ayala v. Mackie and Tex. Civ. Prac.

and Remedies Code 51.014(a)(2). With respect to the Order removing the Medical

Power of Attorney, that order is Final and appealable, and this court has

jurisdiction? In both cases, whether final or interlocutory, an order may be

interlocutory but remains appealable under 51.014(a)(2).?

Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:

Starting with 2.6, page 10-11 of Appellee. Reply Br. "When the trial court

entered its Orders granting Cumberland's and Senior Source's motions, it

neither granted nor denied Appellant's claims for reimbursement.

1.44 Appellant Steven Tipps's replies: Appellant filed his answers to the

Cumberland Citation and the Senior Source Citation on Monday September 15,

2014. The request for expense reimbursement was included in the Prayer section

of Appellant's answer to the Senior Source citation. This filing with the clerk

arrived at the Trial Court thirty-six days before the Trial Court hearing on October

Page 33 of 103 21, 2014. The Trial Court had notice. Counselors for the opposition were served.

The issue of reimbursement was in the Trial Record. It was before the trial court,

but could not be addressed under the constraints imposed over cross-examination

and restrictions over general participation. Further, the Court could have acted on

its own Motion to deal with the requests in the Prayer Section of Appellant's

Answer to Citation of the Senior Source Petition. The Court was silent in response

to each of the seven (7) Prayer requests in the answer to the Senior Source Citation

and in the Prayer request set forth in Appellant's answer to the Cumberland

Citation filed with the Trial Court. Appellant was an excluded party?

1.45 In Ayala v. Mackie, the Supreme Court stated: "If there is an express statute,

such as the one for the complete heirship judgment, declaring the phase of the

probate proceedings to be final and appealable, that statute controls. Otherwise, if

there is a proceeding of which the order in question may logically be considered a

part, but one or more pleadings also part of that proceeding raise issues or parties

not disposed of, then the probate order is interlocutory."

Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:

Starting with 3.1, page 11, (Appellee Reply Br.) Appellee Thomas Tipps believes

that (i) this Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal; (ii) Appellant did not

preserve error with respect to his 1s1, 2nct and 4th issues; and (iii) the record is clear

enough for the Court to resolve this appeal....without oral argument.

Page 34 of 103

Appellant disagrees:

In order to open procedural due process, Appellant must show the Appellate Court that he has real standing. Removal of the expense reimbursement as an Issue in Appellant's Brief is an attack upon the legal standing of Appellant to bring this appeal and of ultimate recovery.

The Trial Court engaged in manifest abuse of discretion when it denied Appellant cross examination of witnesses and closed the Hearing to further participation of Appellant, including preservation of error, and raising the issue of the expense reimbursement and all other Prayer requests at the Hearing. There was insufficient time allotted during the hearing to cover every issue of every party and this was the responsibility of the trial court in controlling his Docket: enough time to consider all parties and all process. (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.8, pp.12-13). (Appt. Reply Br. Para 2.5-2.6, pp 61-62.).

In Goldberg v. Kelly, "The hearing must be at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner". (Armstrong v. Manzo). "The opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the [*269] capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard." "In almost every setting where important decisions tum on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses."(E. g., ICC v. Louisville & N.R. Co.). (Willner v. Committee on Character & Fitness).

The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc. 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985).

When we determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court unless its decision was so arbitrary that it exceeded the bounds of reasonableness. Clarendon Nat 'l Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 199 S.W.3d 482, 494 (Tex. App. - Houston [I st Dist. 2006, no pet].

1.46 Appellant objects to Appellee's Statement on Oral Argument. Appellant's

argument is based in constitutional protections and the Trial Court's manifest

abuse of discretion that led to a manifest injustice. Certain aspects of the Trial

Page 35 of 103

Court Hearing were breaches of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon

(3)(B)(8), and each of federal and State constitutional protections.

Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:

Starting with 4.1, page 11 Appellee Reply Br.

1.47 Appellee expresses his dissatisfaction with Appellant's Statement of Issues.

Appellant objects. The editing of Appellant's Statement of Issues serves to drive

up the cost of litigation and confuses the issues.

Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:

Para 5.1, p 12, Appellee Reply Br.). Appellee offers a summary of the Structure of

the Tipps Living Trust(s). Appellant replies that the main notion to be considered

in comparing the Tipps Living Trust documents, the Mediation Settlement

Agreement, and the Rule 11 Agreement is the fact that the Mediation Settlement

Agreement was an overlay of the Tipps Living Trust. There were two significant

differences between them. First, within the unopposed mediated settlement

agreement, the provisions for transitions between trustees supersede the language

and powers controlling the replacement of trustees. Further, the unopposed

Mediated Settlement Agreement required that a Corporate Trustee that resigns,

must be replaced with another Corporate Trustee. This was contractual, and all

parties agreed under the supervision of the Trial Court. Second, if the Mediated

Page 36 of 103

Settlement Agreement had been enforced by the Trial Court, the replacement

corporate trustee would stand alone as the controlling means for managing the

assets of the Trusts and with it, independent oversight and accountability. All

parties and beneficiaries would be passive. This was the independent oversight

that was agreed upon by all parties. The mediation settlement agreement did not

change any other significant provision of the Tipps Living Trust. (Appt. Reply Br.,

Appendix, Doris Tipps Opposition, III).

Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:

Para 5.2 p 12, Appellee Reply Br. Id.

Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:

Starting with 5.3, page 13 & 8.1, page 31

1.48 Appellant Steven Tipps objects to the statement in 5.3 that "Appellant Doris

L. Tipps suffered from total incapacity." In August 2012, Appellee Thomas Tipps

sought a referral from Dr. David Isaradisaikul, M.D., in order to have Appellant

Doris L. Tipps tested by a psychiatrist for dementia. The test report from the

Ho liner Psychiatric reflecting the examination of Doris L. Tipps was positive (or

good). Dr. David Isaradisaikul, M.D. indicated constant improvement, as a result.

In both instances these scientists concluded that Appellant has mild cognitive

disability (variations in short term memory. On October 29, 2013, within the

month that Dr. J. Douglas Crowder declared Appellant Doris L. Tipps totally

Page 37 of 103 disabled, she made the highest score on a test administered by Dr. Isaradisaikul

while under his direct care.

Appellant asks: on what science was Appellant Thomas Tipps basing his

allegation to the Trial Court that Appellant Doris L. Tipps was totally disabled?

The only information that Appellee Thomas Tipps had for alleging a determination

of total disability was in support of the opposite conclusion. Based on two

independent scientific evaluations, though one year earlier, concluded that

Appellant Doris L. Tipps had mild cognitive disability on September 4, 2014, the

date that Appellee Thomas Tipps alleged to the Trial Court that Doris Lee Tipps

was totally disabled. (Appt. Br. "Statement of Facts" p 12.). (Appt. Reply Br. Para

1.86, Dr. Crowder and Dr. Saine, pp.57-59).

1.49 Medical Power of Attorney & Guardianship. Appellant Steven Tipps

held the medical power of attorney for Doris L. Tipps at different intervals over

many years. In the summer of 2012, Appellant transferred the medical power of

attorney to Appellee Thomas Tipps. This decision was, in part, due to an event in

which Appellee Doris L. Tipps became lost on the highways in north Texas.

Appellant assisted the Carrollton police and an Amber Alert was issued. Doris was

located by Denton, Texas Police Department and returned home after 2:00A.M. by

Appellant. This event occurred in the general time frame of June 5, 2012. Since

Appellant lives in Carrollton, Texas, with or without the medical power of attorney

Page 38 of 103 or the guardianship of the person or estate of Doris Lee Tipps, Appellant has

fulfilled the roles related to the official papers described in this Reply Brief, in an

advisory capacity since 2005.

Trust and Estate Advisory Role - 2008 Financial Crises. By example, in the

third weekend of February 2008, when Behr Stearns & Company disappeared,

Appellant agreed to advise Doris on preparations to deal with the Trust( s) exposure

to the financial crises. This was an unpaid activity. In the capacity of a person

trained in finance, Appellant advised his mother for three months. In mid-May

2008, Appellant Doris L. Tipps made the decision to liquidate the portfolio assets,

including the tax free municipal bonds held by the Tipps Family Trust(s). These

monies totaled approximately $800,000 and were placed directly into Trust

controlled certificates of deposit with matching F .D.I.C. insurance. At the time of

the liquidation, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was approximately 11,500. This

disinvestment procedure was objected to by Appellee Thomas Tipps. Six months

later on September 15, 2008, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped to

approximately 6.500. Appellant Steven Tipps has never requested to hold family

powers: the medical powers of attorney, guardianship powers of Appellants

person, the Durable Power of Attorney, the guardianship of Appellant's estate, or

to be Trustee of the Tipps Family Trust(s). In review, the decision to remove the

powers, especially the medical power of attorney was fortuitous and made prior to

Page 39 of 103 the date that Appellant Doris L. Tipps being declared. The transfer of that power

from Appellee Thomas Tipps occurred seven weeks before the two critical

illnesses that occurred between October 29, 2013 and April 24, 2014. The medical

power of attorney should always be in the hands of a person that knows Doris Lee

Tipps and supports life in all circumstances; it should not be in the hands of a third

party guardian that has demonstrated callous disregard for the safety and well­

being of Appellant Doris L. Tipps and has invoked punitive measures against

Appellants Doris L. Tipps and Steven Tipps for reporting negligent endangerment

and other deficiencies. (C.R. s 7). (C.R. s 15). (C.R. s 42)

Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:

1.50 Starting with 5.4 , pp 14. Appellant objects. The powers that were

removed from Appellee Thomas Tipps by Appellant Doris L. Tipps were removed

for cause and were removed before Appellant Doris L. Tipps was declared

incompetent. Please See Findings of Kathleen C. Saine, Ph.D. (neuro-psychologist

(Appt. Br. - Appendix II, Item 11, p 25).

Appellee Thomas Tipps Replies:

1.51 Starting with Para 5.5, p 14. Appellant objects. The date of the

psychiatric evaluation of Appellant Doris L. Tipps was Friday, October 4, 2013 at

2:00P.M. Appellant Steven Tipps brought Doris Lee Tipps to Dr. Crowder's

Page 40 of 103 office. There were three scientific reports or opinions that ultimately disagreed

with Dr. J. Douglas Crowder's report of total disability: (1) that of Dr. David

Isaradisaikul, M.D. of Dallas Neuro-Stroke, OP, (2) Dr. Joel Holiner. M.D., of the

Holiner Psychiatric Group at Medical City Dallas, and (3) of Dr. Kathleen C.

Saine, Ph.D (Clinical Neuropsychology) with Ron Paulman, Ph.D. All three of

these scientific reports or opinions disagree with the findings of Dr. J. Douglas

Crowder. (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix, Findings of Psychiatrist J. Douglas Crowder,

M.D., IX). (App. Reply Br. Appendix, Findings of Neuropsychologist Kathleen C.

Saine, Ph.D. X).

1.52 Para 5.6, p 15. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant objects to the finding that

Appellant Doris L. Tipps is totally incapacitated. (Para 1.51 above). (Please See

Para 5.6 of Appellee Reply Brief, pp 15-16).

1.53 Para 5.7, P 16. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant objects. The

unanticipated difficulties alleged by Cumberland were actually the unanticipated

difficulties of Appellant Steven Tipps when Appellee Cumberland and Appellee

Thomas Tipps engaged Steven Tipps in a squeeze play. (C.R. 217). In both public

and private communications with Appellant, neither party dealt in good faith in

their efforts to eject Appellant from Hood Street in February 2014. (Please See

Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.55, pp. 41-42).

Page 41 of 103 1.54 Para 5.8, P 16 - 17 Appellee Reply Brief. (C.R. at 7) In Agents Answer to

Petitioner's Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent, Appellant Steven Tipps

addresses the issues of the Senior Source - Prestonwood responsibility under State

and federal rules to (1) furnish a safe environment and (2) to provide prudent care

for their patients. The conflict that emerged between Senior Source and Appellant

was due to abuses and neglect that were brought to the attention of Senior Source

and Prestonwood by Appellant. As holder of the medical power of attorney for

Appellant Doris L. Tipps, Appellant Steven Tipps was extremely concerned and

did not trust Senior Source or Prestonwood to meet their obligations in (1) and (2)

above. (C.R. at 7). Of greater concern was the emerging influence of Appellee

Thomas Tipps with Senior Source and the close coordination of Appellee Thomas

Tipps and Senior Source in suing for removal of the medical power of attorney of

Doris L. Tipps. Earlier, Appellant's transfer of the medical power to Appellee

Thomas Tipps in 2012 was a serious mistake.

1.55 Para 5.9, Pl 7. Appellee Reply Brief. "When the trial court considered

Cumberland's motion, Cumberland elaborated on the difficulties that it had

experienced when it tried to assume control of the Trust's real property ... (RR. 16-

18)."- In Reply, Appellant states: The property at Hood Street is not owned by

the Trust(s) and therefore, the Trust has no equitable interest in the property.

While Doris L. Tipps' and Thomas Tipps' names are on the Deed, Appellee

Page 42 of 103

Thomas Tipps is one of several remainder-men whose equitable ownership will

only be realized at the death of the second to die. Until then, the Trust is not the

equitable owner of 1844 Hood Street. That equitable ownership resides with the

person of Appellee Doris L. Tipps, the life tenant, As is described at (C.R. 217) or

(Appt. Reply Br. Appendix, III). Cumberland and Appellee Thomas Tipps

tortuously interfered with the Guardianship held by Steven Tipps, placing the

urgent situation of Appellant Doris L. Tipps' emergencies in a subordinate position

in order to pursue a real-estate play based on misrepresentation of authority,

misrepresentation of ownership, intimidation, duress, and tortuous interference

with the Guardian of Appellant Doris L. Tipps. Appellee Cumberland and

Appellee Thomas Tipps were working together to force Appellant Steven Tipps

into a circumstance where his care giving responsibilities for Appellant Doris L.

Tipps would be interrupted, when Doris Lee Tipps was most vulnerable. This was

egregious tortious interference by Cumberland and by Appellee Thomas Tipps.

I. 1.55 (a) Para 5.10, P 18-19. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant Steven Tipps

objects. The following is quoted from: Appt. Br., "VII. Real cross-

examination of Karen Ashworth and Appellee Thomas Tipps (Appt. Br.

"Standard of Review" pp 17-18).

"What could have come from cross examination of the first key fact witness,

Karen Ashworth? Was Appellee Cumberland responsible for mistakes made by

Page 43 of 103 their Special Assets Group, in failing to identify legal encumbrances attached to

the real estate portfolio? Was Cumberland's allegation that Appellant Steven

Tipps was the cause of their resignation fair and reasonable in light of the existence

of readily available documents (a Deed of Trust with attached reservation legal life

The Trial Courts' denial of cross-examination of Karen Ashworth is central to

these issues. The unrestrained cross-examination of Karen Ashworth and

Appellee Thomas Tipps by Appellant Steven Tipps could have established whether

Appellee Thomas Tipps, with his legal duty to disclose, fraudulently concealed the

existence of the life estate from Karen Ashworth. (I. C.R. at 217) or (Appt Reply

Br. Appendix, III). In the alternative, were Appellee Thomas Tipps or Karen

Ashworth, working together to disassemble a reserved legal life estate,

circumventing the legal protections of Appellant Doris L. Tipps by the

establishment offacts on the ground." (Appt. Br, Para VII, pp 17 - 18.).

1.56 Para 5.11, P19. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant Steven Tipps alleges that

there were two alternatives available to the Trial Court on October 21, 2014:

First, to enforce the Rule 11 Agreement and the Mediation Settlement Agreement.

The first option was a rote exercise: a simple ministerial act of issuing an Order

enforcing two legally binding contracts that originated under the supervision of the

Trial Court. The second option was to engage in bypassing of two enforceable

contracts, in favor of a solution that is a source of this appeal. Further, Appellant

Page 44 of 103

Steven Tipps was ordered by the Trial Court to address his questions to Appellee

Thomas Tipps. The only question directed to Appellee Thomas Tipps was

intercepted by the Trial Court. (RR. 28) (Appellant Reply Brf. Para 1.1-1.5, pp. 9-

11 ).

1.57 Para 5.12, P20. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant objects to the first

paragraph ... "Cumberland is unable to perform its duties as Trustee since a

condition of its acceptance was that Appellant Steven Vinson Tipps move out of

the Hood real property ... " This part of the Order originated by specific

intervention by the Trial Court, when the Trained Court stated: "I am going to

deny your right to cross-examine." The protection by the Trial Court of adverse

witnesses barred the exploration of Cumberland's interference with Appellant

Steven Tipps, denied him of his procedural due process rights, and fixed an

important part of the Trial Record to the detriment of Appellant. (Please See,

Appt. Reply Br.-Cumberland-Para 2.5-2.6, pp. 65-67).

Appellant objects to the second paragraph that states in part ... "Based on the

circumstances of this case, the Court finds that it will not be possible to find a

Corporate Trustee willing to serve as Trustee of the Trusts." Appellant asks, how

many trust companies are in this U.S. national marketplace? What does it take to

encourage cooperation? Appellant believes a contract among the parties would

Page 45 of 103 ease the transition to a new corporate trustee, possibly backed by sanctions for

breach of the lower court Order.

1.58 Para 5.13, P19. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant Replies. The Notice of

Appeal included the Order Granting Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge

Trustee and Reinstate Trustee. That order is final and appealable? The Trial Court

order to Revoke Authority of Agent is also final and appealable. Appellant has

legal standing in both orders. At a later date, the Fifth Court Ordered that the

following counsel and parties be added to the case management system.

(l)Doris Lee Tipps, Appellant, represented by W. Thomas Finley, 5500 Preston Rd., Suite 390, Dallas, Texas 75205

(2) Senior Citizens of Greater Dallas D/B/A Senior Source, Appellee, represented by attorney John H. Phillips, 4313 W. Lovers Lane, Dallas, Texas 75209.

1.59 The Fifth Court of Appeals Ordered that the record of the Motion to Show

Authority be included in the Appellate Record, including ( 1) Doris Lee Tipps'

Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Investment Company's Motion to Accept

Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; (2) Demand for

Accounting; and (3) Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated

Settlement Agreement (W. Thomas Finley, Counsel for Doris Lee Tipps (C.R. s

15) and Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to the Senior Source's Petition to Revoke

Authority of Agent (W. Thomas Finley, Counsel for Doris L. Tipps (C.R. s 42).

Page 46 of 103 1.60 Para 6.0(a), P21. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant has not preserved error

with respect to his first, second and fourth issues. Appellant objects. (Please See

Appt. Reply Br. 1.8, p 12).

1.60(a) Para 6.1, P21. Appellee Reply Brief. "Appellant did not tell the trial

judge his particular complaints." Appellant Steven Tipps did not have an

opportunity to confront the trial judge for preservation. (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.1

thru 1.8 pp. 9-13) (Fed. R. C.P. 51). Having a conversation with the Trained Court

had proven futile in each of the cross examinations. (RR. 22, 28)

1.61 Para 6.l(b)P 22. Appellee Reply Brief. "The trial court properly

terminated Appellant's Medical Power of Attorney." Appellant objects. (C.R. s

7, Part I - VII). Appellant asserts (1) that reckless endangerment of Appellant

Doris L. Tipps by Senior Source and Prestonwood Nursing, (2) that punitive steps

by Senior Source and Prestonwood Nursing violated State regulations prohibiting

retaliation against an elderly person, or her Agent, for communicating a complaint

about safety issues (reckless endangerment) and prudent care. Further, the

retaliation by Senior Source and Prestonwood was intended to suppress and

intimidate each of Doris L. Tipps and her son Appellant Steven Tipps, while at the

same time denying each of them of their civil and constitutional rights. The great

weight and preponderance of the evidence is in favor of Appellant Doris L. Tipps

Page 47 of 103 and Appellant Steven Tipps on the issue of the unreasonable cancellation of the

medical power of attorney then held by Appellant Steven Tipps. (C.R. s 7).

1.62 From (C.R. s 7 at VIII), "While withdrawn by the Petitioner, these punitive

actions by the Petitioner violated the Constitutional and Civil rights of the Mother

as well as of the Agent that directly and specifically violated, without limitation,

The Texas HUMAN RESOURCES CODE, TITLE 6, CHAPTER 102 SECTION

102.003 (t)." (Appt. Br. Appendix. III).

1.63 From the Prayer ... "Therefore we further PRAY that the Court will balance

the Mother's rights and interests against the Petitioners petition for more power:

powers that the Petitioner and the Petitioner's Agent have shown they are willing

to abuse." (C.R. s 7). ). (Appt. Br. Appdx. 111).

1.64 Para 6.2(c) P 22. Appellee Reply Brief. "Appellant has not properly

briefed his fourth issue and has not requested a ruling on his request for

reimbursement." Appellant asserts that the reimbursement demand was based

upon an ancient doctrine in contract law which infers a promise to pay a reasonable

amount for labor and materials, even if the absence of a specific legally

enforceable agreement between the parties. The request for funding was raised in

the PRAYER, Para (f) and (g). The legal doctrine is: QUANTUM MERUIT, and it

was declared in Appellant's Brief. (Appt. Br. under "Appellant's Burden", p 21.)

Page 48 of 103

During the trial court Hearing, there was no opportunity to raise this issue. The

trial court closed the Hearing to all other issues.

Para 6.3 P22. Appellee Reply Brief. Id.

1.66 Para 6.4 P22. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant Replies. Given the Trial

Court's agenda, there was no opportunity to present the Trial Court with a detailed

information. This was a Hearing; it was not a Trial. The association of the cost

accruals with the answer to the Senior Source Petition was to alert the Trial Court

of this need. The detailed invoice information completed but the opportunity to

make requests was constrained by the Trial Court's management of his Docket.

1.67 7(a) Standard of Review. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant's Issues.

1.68 Para. 7.1 P23. Appellee Reply Brief. "The standard of review applicable

to complaints about exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. ( City of

Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750, 753 (Tex. 1995). In order to obtain

reversal, the appellant must show the trial court committed error and that the error

was reasonable calculated to cause and probably did cause the rendition of an

improper judgment. .. " McCraw v. Marris, 828 S.W.2d 756, 757 (Tex. 1992).

Appellant Replies: Appellant Steven Tipps argues plain, manifest, clear, and

gross abuse of discretion. Appellant was barred from cross-examination of

adverse witnesses, effectively preventing any challenge of readily controvertible

Page 49 of 103 witness testimony of two key fact witnesses. (Appt. Reply Br., Para 1.8, p. 12).

(Appt. Reply Br. -Cumberland-Para 2.5 - 2.6, pp. 65-67.) The Trial Court's

error was failure to enforce the Rule 11 Agreement and the Mediation Settlement

Agreement, which caused an improper judgment that resulted in the loss of

independent oversight of the Tipps Family Trusts and all of the legal costs

associated with the Rule 11 Agreement and the Mediation Settlement Agreement.

As a signatory of the Mediation Settlement Agreement, Appellant Steven Tipps,

was the only adverse signatory that signed a release of liability for the benefit of

Appellee Thomas Tipps, releasing Appellee of liability for all decisions and

actions taken during his term as Co-Trustee. This was a significant protection for

Appellee Thomas Tipps, that he retained, and retains, whereas Appellant Steven

Tipps released the right to pursue litigation against Appellee Thomas Tipps for

wrongful interference and other wrongs committed personally against Appellant

Steven Tipps by Appellee Thomas Tipps as Co-Trustee. (Appt. Reply Br., Para

1.8, p. 13). (Appt. Reply Br.--Cumberland-Para 2.5 - 2.6, pp. 65-67).

Standard of Review: Appellant's Issue 3 (Appellee's second issue).

1.69 Para. 7.2 P23. Appellee Reply Brief. "In his third issue, Appellant

complains that the trial court erred in withdrawing the Medical Power of Attorney

held by Appellant for Doris L. Tipps. This issue incorporates a complaint about

the trial court's findings that (i) a conflict exists between the powers granted the Page SO of 103

Document Page 50 of 240

·----------------~--

Guardian of the Person and the powers claimed by Appellant under a medical

power of attorney; (ii) the conflict is not in the best interest of the Appellant Doris

L. Tipps and may be detrimental to the health and proper care of Appellant Doris

L. Tipps; and (iii) the authority of Appellant under the medical power of attorney

from the Ward should be revoked.

Appellant Steven Tipps replies: Id. Para 6.l(b). Appellant Steven Tipps

incorporates by reference, in its entirety, Appellants Agent's Answer to

Petitioner's Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent. (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix

IV), or (C.R. s 7), and (C.R. s 41).

1.70 Para 7.3 P 24. Appellee's Reply Brief. "A trial court's findings of fact are

reviewed for factual sufficiency of the evidence using the same legal standards as

are applied to review jury verdicts for factual sufficiency." Appellant Steven

Tipps replies that a factual sufficiency review should be included in a de Novo

review in the appellate Court. When a party is substantively excluded from

significant aspects of a Hearing, the factual sufficiency review is an analysis of

what is there as well as what is not there and why it is not there." The Trial Record

was affected by the Trial Court's manifest abuse of discretion in declining

Appellant's right to cross examine witnesses. "A trial court abuses its discretion

if3it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or without reference to any

guiding rules or principles." Walker v. Gutierrez, 111 S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex.2003).

Page 51 of 103

(Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.8, p 13). (Appt. Reply Br. Para 2.5-2.9, pp 65-69). Appt.

Reply Br. Para 1.44, pp. 33-34).

Standard of Review: Appellant's Issue 4 (Appellee's third issue).

1.71 Para. 7.4 P24. Appellee replies: "In his fourth issue, Appellant complains

that the trial court erred by failing to address Appellant's request for

reimbursement of various expenses and costs (even though Appellant did not

request a ruling). The trial court's decision in this respect is reviewed for abuse of

discretion..." Appellant Replies. When the Hearing commenced at 3 :30 p.m. on

Tuesday October 21, 2014, the Docket was already full with big issues. Appellant

Steven Tipps could not have known that the trial court would object to his presence

as a pro se party, would ignore his standing under TRCP Rule No. 7, would ignore

his substantial right to due process and to procedural due process, would decline

his right to cross-examination of key fact witnesses, and would close the hearing to

further participation: including raising the issues of reimbursement and

preservation. Appellee's abuse ofdiscretion standard is related to Appellant's

complaint of manifest abuse ofdiscretion, and each of these can be considered in

de Novo review. (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.8, Page 17).

1.72 Para 8(a) P25 Appellee's Reply Brief. Appellant did not preserve error

with respect to issues 1 and 2. Appellant replies: "With respect to Issue One

and Issue Two of Appellant's Brief, the preservation of error issue was discussed Page 52 of 103 in the context of a Hearing that excluded the cross-examination of the first key fact

witness, giving the effect of protections to adverse witnesses that may be cross­

examined under the confrontation and cross-examination clause(s) of the Sixth

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This act, without consideration of how the

Trial Court conducted itself in other matters, resulted in undue prejudice against

Appellant and was manifest abuse of discretion? (Please See, Appt. Reply Br!.

Para 1.3 - 1.7, pp. 10-12) & (Para 1.8 - 1.17, pp 13 - 19). (Appt, Reply Br. Para

2.5 - 2.9, pp. 65-69).

1.73 Para 8.2 P 26 Appellee's Reply Brief. Appellee replies: "Tex. Rule. App.

P. 3 3.1 encompasses the concept of "party responsibility," which requires the

complaining party to tell the trial judge his particular complaint, including the

precise and proper application of the law as well as the underlying

rationale ..."(Pena v.State, 285 S.W.3d 459, 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

Appellant Replies: Certiorari lies to correct proceedings erroneous upon the face

of the record when there is no other adequate remedy. It is available in the

exercise of super intending control over a tribunal which is proceeding illegally

where no other mode of review has been provided. Certiorari lies where there is a

want of jurisdiction or an act in excess in excess of jurisdiction which is apparent

on the face of the record. (State v. Nelson, 246 Ark, 210, 438S.W.2d ( 1969).

Page 53 of 103 1.74 Para 8.3.P 27 Appellee Reply Brief. Appellant did not object when the

trial court stated: I am going to deny your right to cross-examination. Appellant

reply: Please See: (Appt. Reply. Br. Para 1.8, p 12). (Appt. Reply Br. Para 2.5 -

2.6, pp. 65-67). (Goldberg v. Kelly), 397 US 254, 268, 90 S. Ct 1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d

287 1970. (Appt. Reply Bf. Para 1.13 - 1.16, pp. 17-18). (Appt. Reply Bf. Para

1.17, p. 18).

1.74(a) Para 8(b) P 27 Appellee's Reply Brief. The trial court properly

controlled its docket with respect to Appellant's cross examination of witnesses.

Appellee Replies: (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.8-1.12, pp 13 -17).

1.75 Para 8.4 P 27. Appellee Reply Brief. "Even if Appellant preserved error

with respect to his first two issues, the trial court did not err by exercising control

over the examination of witnesses. Appellant Replies: Please See: (Appt. Reply

Br., Para 1.8 -Para 1.17, pp. 12-18).

1.76 Para 8.5 P28. Appellee Reply Brief. "An appellate court will not reverse a

judgment due to the exclusion of evidence unless the appellant establishes that: ( 1)

the trial court's ruling was in error; and (2) the error was reasonably calculated to

cause and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment." (Please See)

(Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.67, pp 46-47.). (Appt. Reply Br. - Cumberland- Para

2.5-2.9, pp. 65 - 69)

Page 54 of 103 1.77 Para 8.6. P 28. Appellee Reply Brief. "As applied to the facts of the

present case, Appellant has not informed the trial court or this Court why he

needed to cross-examine Cumberland or what he hoped to establish by questioning

Cumberland ... " Appellant directed a request to the Trial Court to cross-

examination of Cumberland's first key fact witness. The Trial Court asked a few

questions of Appellant, then stated: "I am going to deny your right to cross-

examine." Appellant replies, as persuasive authority, that Francis L. Wellman's

"The Art of Cross Examination clearly establishes that cross examination is an art

that involves a plan, secrecy, randomness, and the element of surprise. (Appellant

Reply Brief. Para 1.1 thru 1.8, pp 10-- 12).

1.78 Para 8.7. P29 Appellee Reply Brief. Appellee states: "Similarly, with

respect to Appellant's complaint that the Trial Court did not allow him to cross-

examine Thomas Tipps ... he directed his questions to the trial court instead of

conducting a proper cross-examination ... (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.4-1.8, pp 9-12).

1.79 Para 8.8. P 29. Appellee's Reply Brief. "Because the trial court properly

exercised control over Appellee' s cross-examination of witnesses, it did not abuse

its discretion and there is no error on this record." (Appellant Reply Brief. Para

1.1 thru 1.8, pp 10-12).1.80 Para 8.8(c) P 29. Appellee Reply Brief. "There

is nothing to suggest that the trial court's restriction of Appellant's cross-

examination probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment." (Please See

Page SS of 103

Appt. Reply Br., Para 1.18 thru 1.19, pp 19-20). (Appt. Reply Br.

(Cumberland) Para 2.5- 2.6, pp. 65- 67).

1.81 Para 8.9 P29 Appellee Reply Brief. "Alternatively, even if the trial court

erred by restricting Appellant's cross-examination of Karen Ashworth

and Thomas Tipps, the record does not establish that such error was reasonably

calculated to cause and probably did cause the rendition of an improper

judgment." ... Appellant Replies: (Please See Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.18 thru

1.19, pp 19-20). (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.67, pp 49-50).

1.82 Para 8.10. p 30. Appellee Reply Brief. "Appellant's allegation that the

trial court improperly restricted his examination of Thomas Tipps ...directed legal

questions to the court .•• " (Please See Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.1 thru 1.16, pp. 10-

17).

1.83 Para 8.a p 30. Appellee Reply Brief. Issue No. 2 responds to Appellant's

third issue:) The trial court properly terminated Appellant's Medical Power of

Attorney because it was executed very near the time when Doris Tipps was found

incompetent and because it conflicted with the powers held by Doris Tipps' duly­

appointed guardian..." (Appellant Reply Brief, Para 1.22, & Para 1.24 thru Para

1.28. pp 18 thru 21). (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix IV). (Appellant Brief, Index II,

Item 1 1, p 25).

Page 56 of 103 1.84 Para. 8.11 p 31. Appellee Reply Brief. "Appellant next argues that the trial

court erred in terminating his Medical Power of Attorney for Doris Tipps because

the Texas Health and Safety Code requires the Court to consider the principal's

preferences as expressed in the medical power of attorney when determining

whether to terminate agent's medical power of attorney ... " Appellant Replies:

Please See: (Appt Reply Bf. Appendix III & IV). Or (C.R. s 7). Or (C.R. s 42).

1.85 Para. 8.12 p 31. Appellee Reply Brief. Appellee alleges that Appellant

Doris L. Tipps ... unequivocally disqualified Appellant Steven Tipps as the

guardian of her person or her estate on July 19, 2012 ... " Appellant Replies:

Doris L. Tipps reached a decision in July 2013 that she could no longer afford to

trust her eldest son with her money and her medical power of attorney. (C.R. s 7).

(C.R. s 42). (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.86, p 57, Appellant Reply re: Dr. Crowder

and Dr. Saine).

1.86 Para. 8.13 p 32. Appellee Reply Brief. "Given the evidence that Doris

Tipps did not want Appellant acting as her guardian in 2012, and only allegedly

changed her mind in close proximity to the date on which she was deemed to be

incompetent, the record establishes that the Court properly took Ms. Tipps wishes

in consideration when it terminated Appellant's Medical Power of Attorney .... "

Page 57 of 103

Appellant responds: On Friday October 4, 2013, at 2:00 P.M., Dr. J. Douglas

Crowder, M.D. conducted a test of Doris L. Tipps and concluded that Appellant

Doris L. Tipps was totally disabled due to severe dementia. On December 2, 2013

and December 16, 2013 Dr. Kathleen C. Saine, Ph.D, a neuro-psychologist

performed a broad array of tests, two weeks apart, and concluded that Doris L.

Tipps has mild dementia. Dr. Saine's report was presented in Appellant's Brief in

the Appendix II, Item 11, p 25). The results that were found by Dr. Crowder were

unfound in Dr. Saine's evaluation as a neuropsychologist whom has been retained

by Dr. Crowder for confirmatory testing of Dr. Crowder's patients. Doris L. Tipps

remains "declared" but does not suffer from severe dementia. There are two other

scientists that disagree with Dr. Crowder's findings. None of the two opposing

reports or opinions were ever presented by Appellee Thomas Tipps to the trial

court. When Doris L. Tipps made the decision to transfer the medical power of

attorney to Appellant Steven Tipps, it was within 30 days of Dr. Crowder's report

that was used to declare Doris Tipps and 112 days of being undeclared by Dr.

Kathleen C. Saine. The other two scientific tests were performed in August to

November 2012. Appellee Thomas Tipps had a duty to inform the Trial Court of

the strength of the scientific evaluations that existed at the time that he, Appellee

Thomas Tipps, presented his Application for Temporary Guardianship to the Trial

Court. (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix, Findings of Dr. Crowder Item 9). (ApptReply

Page 58 of 103

Br. Appendix, Findings of Dr. Kathleen C. Saine). (Appt. Br. P 21 under

"Appellant's Burden")

1.87 Para. Issue No. 3 P 32. (responds to Appellant's fourth issue): "The trial

court was not required to address Appellant's request for reimbursement given that

Appellant failed to request a ruling and failed to present any evidence of his costs

or expenses to the court. In any event, Appellant has failed to preserve and waived

his point of error .... " Appellant Replies: Please See, (Appt. Reply Br. Para 1.64,

pp. 48-49). (Appt. Repl. Br. Para 1.71, P 48), & (Para. l.42(a), p. 30).

1.88 Para. 8.15 P 33. Appellee Repl. Brief. "Appellant sets forth his position

that the trial court erred by failing to address his "valid expense and cost claims" in

four sentences none of which contain any citations to statute or case law... "

Appellant replies. The Prayer section of the Senior Source answer to citation lists

seven (7) requests as well as the general requests: "The Agent seeks

reimbursement from the petitioner of all costs associated with this Petition, and all

other relief, both general and special, legal and equitable, to which the Agent may

be entitled."

None of the seven specific requests included in the Prayer section of the Answer to

Citation from Senior Source were acted on by the Trial Court.

(Please See, Appt. Br. at 19). (Appt. Reply Br. Para l.42(a), pp 29-30).

Page 59 of 103 1.89 Para. 8.16 P 34 Appellee Reply Brief. "As applied to the facts of the

present case, the record reveals that Appellant did not request hearing on his

application for reimbursement, did not argue his request before the court at the

hearing on October 21, 2014, and did not request a ruling or object to the lack of a

ruling ...." Id. (Para 1.88 above).

1.90 Para 8(c) P 35. Appellee Reply Brief. "Appellant did not provide evidence

of the costs and expenses for which he sought reimbursement .... " Id. (Para(s) 1.88

& 1.89 above).

1.91 Para 8.17 P 35 Appellee Reply Brief. Even if this Court finds that

Appellant did not waive his fourth point of error by failing to properly brief the

issue and failing to request or obtain a ruling on his request for reimbursement,

Appellant presented no evidence to the court to support his request for

reimbursement .... " Id. (Para(s) 1.88 - 1.90).

"Appellant asserts that the reimbursement demand was briefed with two words:

quantum meruit, which is based upon an ancient doctrine in contract law that

infers a promise to pay a reasonable amount for labor and materials, even if the

absence of a specific legally enforceable agreement between the parties. The

request for funding was raised in the PRAYER, Para ( f) and (g). This legal

doctrine was declared in Appellant's Brief. (Appt. Br. under "Appellant's

Page 60 of 103

Burden", p 21.) During the trial court Hearing, there was no opportunity to raise

this issue. The trial court closed the Hearing to all other issues. (Appt. Reply Br.,

Para 1.64, pp. 48-49).

Appellant Reply Brief

To Reply Brief of Thomas Tipps

Ends Here

Page 61 of 103

CAUSE NO. 05-14-01495-CV

In the COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF DORIS L. TIPPS

Appealed from Cause No. PR-13-03072-3 In the Probate Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas Honorable Judge Michael E. Miller, Presiding

APPELLANT'S COMBINED REPLY BRIEF TO SECOND APPELLEE REPLY BRIEF CUMBERLAND TRUST AND INVESTMENT COMPANY

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant, Steven Tipps, submits this Appellant Reply Brief, in accordance

with Rule 9.4, 9.4 (i) (2) (c), and Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure and all local rules of this Court. In support of this Appeal from Final

Judgement, Appellant respectfully asserts the following

Page 62 of 103

APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF

2.0 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY

TO APPELLEE CUMBERLAND TRUST'S REPLY BRIEF

A. Pro se litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys.

2.1 Appellant incorporates by reference from Appellant's Reply Brief- Reply

to Appellee Thomas Tipps, Argument and Authorities in Reply, Section 1.0,

Paras 1.1, and 1.2, (p 9), Para(s) 1.3, and 1.4 (p 10), Para(s) 1.5 and 1.6 (p

11), Para(s) 1.7 (p 13), and Para 1.8 (pp 13-14).

2.l(a) Appellant further incorporates by reference, Appellant Doris Lee Tipps'

Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Investment Company's Motion to

Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for

Accounting; and Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated

Settlement Agreement. (Appt. Repl. Br. Appendix, 111).

2.l(b) The statutes that govern procedures in civil cases in Texas courts are the

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure ("TRCP") and Texas Rules of Civil

Evidence. ("TRCE"). Among those rules, Rule No. 7 of the TRCP states:

"Any party to a suit may appear and prosecute or defend his rights therein,

either in person or by an attorney of the court." The cases cited in

Cumberland's Reply Brief Section lA, pp 8-9 are noted, but they do not

address the significant issue in this Appeal that is: a plain, manifest, and

Page 63 of 103 gross abuse of discretion that led to a manifest injustice. The Trial Court

stated: "I am going to deny your right to cross-examine." (Goldberg v.

Kelly). (Davidson v. Great Nat 'l Life Ins. Co.).

2.J(c) Appellee Cumberland Replies. In Mansfield, "It is well established that

the "right of self-representation is not a license to abuse the dignity of the

courtroom. Neither is it a license not to comply with the relevant rules of

procedure and substantive law." MansfieldState Bank v. Cohn, 573

S.W.2d 181, 184 (Tex. 1978) (quoting Feretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806,

835 n. 46 95S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.E.2d 562 (1975)).

2.2 In contrast with Mansfield, judicial officials are not permitted to make their

own rules or laws for pro se litigants to abuse or to be abused by, nor to

foster circumstances in the court room that are contrary to the Texas Canons

of Judicial Conduct, specifically Canon (3)(b)(8). "A trial court abuses its

discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or without

reference to any guiding rules or principles." Walker v. Gutierrez, 111

S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex.2003). Considering just the basics, the guiding

principles that the Trial Court failed to consider were the due course of law

clause of the Texas Constitution, the Due Process clause(s) of the U.S.

Constitution, theSixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and its

confrontation and cross-examination clause(s), and the Fourteenth

Page 64 of 103

Amendment that makes the Fifth and Sixth Amendments applicable to the

states. Over time, the due course of law clause in the Texas Constitution has

become congruent with the federal due process clause(s) in the U.S.

Constitution (Para 1.13 through 1.16, pp. 18-19) case summaries of

Appellant's Reply Brief to Appellee Thomas Tipps, are incorporated herein

by reference); procedural due process of the federal system is congruent with

the State of Texas procedural due process. (Para 1.17 pp. 18-19) case

summaries of Appellant's Reply Brief, are incorporated herein by reference).

2.3 A trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying

the law to the facts. Cayton v. Moore, 224 S.W.3d 440 Tex. App. - Dallas

2007, no pet. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court clearly failed to

analyze and determine the law correctly or applied the law incorrectly to the

facts. Id.

2.4 When we determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, we may not

substitute our judgment for that of the trial court unless its decision was so

arbitrary that it exceeded the bounds of reasonableness. Clarendon Nat 'l

Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 199 S.W.3d 482, 494 (Tex. App).-Houston [1st Dist.

2006, no pet].

2.5 In the subject Appeal, the Trial Court chose between two alternatives: (1) to

enforce the uncontested Mediated Settlement Agreement that required an

Page 65 of 103 independent corporate trustee, by agreement among the parties, along with

the uncontested Rule 11 Agreement that was read into the record on

September 13, 2013, or (2) to abandon the main purpose of the Mediation,

the Mediation Settlement Agreement, and forego the independent oversight

of a corporate trustee and related accountability altogether. (C.R. s 15).

(Appt. Reply Br. Appendix p III).

2. 6 In the October 21, 2014 Hearing, (1) those parties that supported

enforcement of the mediation settlement agreement and the Rule 11

Agreement, Appellants, were excluded from their right to due process, their

procedural due process right of cross examination of adverse witnesses, and

their right to be Heard?; and (2) those that supported abandonment of the

Mediation Settlement Agreement and the Rule 11 Agreement were Heard

by the Trial Court, given full access to procedural due process, and their

witnesses were protected from cross-examination? (R.R. 22, 28, & 1-31)

(C.R.s 15). These parties were also represented by legal counsel. Within the

Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, under Adjunctive Responsibilities, Canon

(3) (B) (8) states, in relevant part: "A judge shall accord to every person

who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, a right to be

heard according to law." This Canon (3) (b) (8) is nearly identical to the

basic meaning of due process as cited in Goldberg v. Kelly: "The

Page 66 of 103 fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard."

(Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914). A trial court has broad

discretion and we may not disturb its ruling absent manifest abuse of

discretion. Champion Int'! Corp. v. Twelfth Court ofAppeals, 762 W.W.2d

898,899 (Tex. 1988; TEX.R. CIV. P. 320.) The "due course" clause in our

state constitution requires the same level of "due process" as the federal

constitution. (City ofFort Worth v. Park), 2011, Tex. APP LEXIS 5725

(2011) (14)

B. Steven Tipps did not make an offer of proof

2. 7 Within the Cumberland Reply Brief, Part I A, Page 8, Appellee Cumberland

states: "Steven Tipps complains on appeal of the probate court's refusal to

allow cross-examination of Karen Ashworth and Thomas Tipps. (Appt. Br.

At 5). The probate court gave Steven Tipps the opportunity to cross Thomas

Tipps; Steven simply did not ask any questions of the witness."

2.8 Appellant denies this allegation. In each of the requests to interact with

the two adversarial witnesses, the Trained Court engaged Appellant Steven

Tipps in a conversation that was substantively a cross-examination of

Appellant, while Appellant was requesting permission to cross examine

Appellee Cumberland's key fact witness, Karen Ashworth and Appellee

Thomas Tipps. (Appellant Brief, Para. IV, p 16). It was confusing. This

Page 67 of 103 occurred twice, a clear indication that it was not a mistake by the Trained

Court? None of the other parties were put to this test. In Goldberg v. Kelly,

"The hearing must be at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner".

(Armstrong v. Manzo). "The opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the

[*269] capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard." "In

almost every setting where important decisions tum on questions of fact, due

process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse

witnesses."(£. g., ICC v. Louisville & N.R. Co.). (Willner v. Committee on

Character & Fitness). "Certain principles have remained relatively

immutable in our jurisprudence. One of these is that where governmental

action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action

depends on fact findings, the evidence used to prove the Government's case

must be disclosed. While this is important in documentary evidence, it is

even more important where the evidence consists of the testimony of

individuals whose memory might be faulty or who, in fact might be perjurers

or persons motivated by malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or

jealousy. We have formalized these protections in the requirements of

confrontation and cross-examination. They have ancient roots. They find

expression in the Sixth Amendment. This Court has been zealous to protect

these rights from erosion. It is spoken out not only in criminal cases ... but

Page 68 of 103 also in all types of cases where administrative ... actions were under

scrutiny." (Greene v. McElroy).

2.9 Appellant was subpoenaed to court, fully compliant with the requirement of

answers in each of two separate citations, having arrived to court on time

and available to sue or defend. He was in a fundamental way barred from

participation. As is stated above in Section A, Para 2.5 and 2.6 above, there

were two choices before the trial court on October 21, 2014. Appellant was

on the side that challenged the Motion( s) in which he had legal standing and

was denied his procedural due process rights?

2.10 - 1.4 "After cross-examination of Appellant by the Trained Court, Appellant

was allowed to address one question to the second fact witness, and, as

ordered by the Trial Court, the question was directed to Appellee Thomas

Tipps. Appellant stated: "How does the court handle a life estate that is

attached to 1844 Hood Street? It is not in the trust(s), it is not transferable

under Texas law into the trust(s)?" (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix. I). In any

other courtroom in this country, by hypothesis, a Trained Court would have

asked: are you addressing this question to the witness, or are you addressing

the question to this court? The Trial Court then stated: "I'm not going to

give you legal advice." Further questions were denied. (Appellant. Br.

Appendix. Pp. 28-29, No. 7 (RR. 28-29). In Murray, "the purpose of cross-

Page 69 of 103 examination is to sift and to modify and to have the witness explain what has

been said on his direct examination, and if the witness by this process can be

discredited and the weight of his testimony weakened, the right should not

be denied." (Murray v. Morris, 17 S.W.2d 110, 111 (Tex. Civ. App.)­

Amarillo 1928, writ dism'd).

2.11 - 1.5 That question of the second key fact witness, Appellant Thomas Tipps

was the only question allowed by the Trial Court's undue constraint of

cross-examination?

It was a significant question under those circumstances.

2.12 - 1.6 The question was central to the controversy over Hood Street where on

February 3, 2014, Appellee Thomas Tipps sued Appellant Steven Tipps for

forcible detainer. Appellee Cumberland (Karen Ashworth) and Appellee

Thomas Tipps were engaged together in a squeeze play against Appellant in

January and February 2014. (C.R. 217). The litigation brought by Appellee

Thomas Tipps together with Cumberland's interference had a pernicious

timing. The interference against Appellant Steven Tipps extended, in its

effects, to interference with a substantial care giving process for Appellant

Doris L. Tipps, for its duration but also on the weekend of a life threatening

emergency that required full-time attention of Appellant Steven Tipps.

(Appellant Brief, page 11). (C.R. 217) (Appellant Brief - Appendix Item 15

Page 70 of 103 & 16). On February 3, 2014, Appellee Thomas Tipps', role under the Rule

11 Agreement that stipulated his resignation as co-trustee, changed from

ministerial duties of paying bills and receiving receipts for the Trust, to the

formation of a joint effort with Appellee Cumberland in litigation and

harassment of Appellant Steven Tipps. Cumberland was Trustee "in

Waiting" during the interval of Thursday January 23, 2014, the date of the

Mediation Settlement Agreement, to Monday February I 7, 2014, the date of

the Trial Court Order that adopted the Mediation Settlement Agreement and

installed Cumberland as Trustee of the Tipps Family Trust(s).

2.13 -1.7 Impeachment through cross-examination of Appellee Cumberland's

Karen Ashworth and Appellee Thomas Tipps' testimony would have

developed the extent of the respective roles of each individual in the

attempted circumvention of the legal life estate (life tenancy) attached to

Hood Street. The impingement by the Trial Court, of Appellant's right to

cross-examination of adverse witnesses is inconsistent with the procedural

due process commands as expressed in Goldberg v. Kelly and in University

of Texas Med. Sch. v. Than? (Federal and State of Texas procedural due

process).

2.14 - 1.8 The Sixth Amendment and its confrontation and cross examination

clause(s) are mandatory authority in U.S. courts. It is a rare circumstance

Page 71 of 103 where these rights are quashed by a trial court in the United States. Through

the 14th Amendment, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the U.S.

Constitution apply to the States. (Cran v. Hale, 745 S.W.2d 129 (1988)

(Ark. Sup. Ct.) (563). On the face of the Record, the Trained Court

excluded Appellant from procedural due process: the right to be heard. As

Appellant was denied cross-examination, the first Cumberland witness was

immediately dismissed. There was no opportunity declare an exception for

preservation of error or discuss reimbursement issues because the Trained

Court interrupted Appellant in a restrictive manner and prematurely ended

all attempts to participate in the process. (RR. 22). (RR. 28). Each of the two

attempts to cross-examine adverse witnesses were either denied or unduly

restricted. Given this experience, the Trial Court was closed that day to

additional presentation of issues including the Reimbursement Issue, the

Fourth Issue in Appellant's Brief and preservation. "If a party does not

have an opportunity to object to a ruling or order, the absence of an

objection does not later prejudice that party [on appeal]". (Fed. R. CP.

51). A trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in

applying the law to the facts. (Cayton v. Moore, 224 S.W.3d 440 (Tex.App.

- Dallas 2007), no pet. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court

Page 72 of 103 clearly failed to analyze and determine the law correctly or applied the law

incorrectly to the facts. Id." (Appellant incorporates by reference from

Appellant's Reply Brief- Reply to Appellee Thomas Tipps, Argument and

Authorities in Reply, Section 1.0, Para(s) 1.1, and 1.2, (p9), Para(s)l.3, and

1.4 (p 10), Para(s) 1.5 and 1.6 (p. 11 ), Para(s) 1.7 (p 12), and 1.8 (pp 13-

14)).

2.15 Appellant Steven Tipps' requests to proceed with cross-examination --

directed to the Trial Court-- were substantive exceptions? In each, it is clear

that Appellant Steven Tipps requested to confront his accusers, but was

forced to endure nearly identical, cross examinations by the judge in each of

the attempts to gain access to cross examination and procedural due process.

(RR. 22 & 28). Appellee Cumberland states: "Here it is well within the

probate court's discretion to recognize that cross examining Ms. Ashworth

had no bearing on the resolution of Cumberland's motion." (Appellant

incorporates herein by quotation, Para 1.19, (p 17) through Para 1.23 (p 20 ).

2.16 -1.19 A review of the facts suggests that the Trained Court was moving

toward acceptance of the Cumberland Motion including approval of

Appellee Cumberland's unconditional resignation, consideration of the

resignation of Appellee Thomas Tipps as co-trustee, and recognition of

Appellee Thomas Tipps' s self-appointment to the position of Trustee of the

Page 73 of 103

Tipps Family Trusts. The replacement of a Trustee was, nominally, effected

by the transition language in the Trust documentation that stated that a

Trustee could appoint a replacement trustee for the Tipps Living Trust(s).

The Trial Court agreed to accept this language even though these Tipps

Family Trust procedures had been overlaid with real independent oversight

that was understood and accepted by the signatories, including Appellee

Thomas Tipps, of the Mediation Settlement Agreement. Cross-examination

of the Appellee Cumberland's fact witness Karen Ashworth and of Appellee

Thomas Tipps was clearly unwelcome in the Trial Court on that date, at that

time, and in that place. There were two courses of action that were before

the Trial Court: ( 1) to enforce the Rule 11 Agreement and the Mediation

Settlement Agreement or (2) to bypass the ministerial act of enforcing the

two contracts and allow Appellee Thomas Tipps to replace Appellee

Cumberland as corporate trustee of the Tipps Family Trust(s).

2.17 At the Hearing that occurred on October 21, 2014, there were three closely

linked, overlapping, interlocutory phases: each phase involving a discrete

issue under the authority of the Trained Court.

2.18 -1.21 In Phase I, Appellee Thomas Tipps initiated a motion to show

authority that resulted in the isolation of Appellant Doris L. Tipps from her

legal counsel and the striking of Appellant Doris L. Tipps objections in W.

Page 74 of 103

Thomas Finley's pleadings in opposition. (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix. III).

From January 23, 2014 through October 21, 2014, Mr. Finley's most

important and regular role was to urge, with leverage, that Senior Source, as

Guardian to engage Prestonwood Nursing, as agent of the Guardian, to meet

their federal and State mandates of (a) the requirement to provide a safe

environment for Appellant Doris L. Tipps and (b) generally, the obligation

to provide prudent care, and moreover, specifically to provide timely and

decisive responses to Appellant Doris L. Tipps continuing emergencies

while in the care of Select Specialty Hospital in Plano, Texas, Axel

Rehabilitation on Communication Parkway in Plano, Texas, and at

Prestonwood Rehabilitation and Nursing Center in Hebron, Texas.

2.19 Phase II was initiated by Appellee Thomas Tipps in which Appellee

requested Appellee Senior Source to file a Petition against Appellant Steven

Tipps for removal of the medical power of attorney from Appellant Steven

Tipps, thus separating Appellant Doris L. Tipps from a known and trusted

source of medical decisions and protection(s) in and for her life. A by-

product of the Phase II termination of Appellant Steven Tipps medical

power of attorney, whether intended or not, was in effect, to legally

terminate Appellants immediate and decisive interventions in Doris L. Tipps

health emergencies that were year after year for past five years, clearly in

Page 75 of 103 favor of her survival. In several of these emergencies her survival was

uncertain, in the last series of emergencies in late 2013 and early 2014, she

nearly died.

2.20-1.22 In Phase III Appellant Thomas Tipps moved with Cumberland to

initiate litigation alleging that Appellant Steven Tipps was responsible for

the resignation of Cumberland, that Cumberland-with its absolute right to

resign without the Trial Court's permission, chose to seek official court

approval of its resignation together with its recommendation that Appellee

Thomas Tipps be approved by the Trial Court as the replacement Trustee of

the Tipps Family Trust(s). In the need that developed with Cumberland's

resignation, the party that was more likely than not to benefit from the

struggle between Cumberland and Appellant Steven Tipps, was the party

that organized the struggle in the first place. Consider the outcome of the

Trial Court Hearing: ( 1) Cumberland resigned, Appellee Thomas Tipps

replaced Cumberland as Trustee, and (2) both Appellees Cumberland and

Thomas Tipps then assigned blame to Appellant Steven Tipps. In the

ensuing litigation Cumberland argued that Steven Tipps interfered with

Cumberland and was the prime cause of Cumberland's resignation: a suit

over a single asset that was legally beyond the reach of Cumberland's

portfolio management. (C.R. 217) or (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix I).

Page 76 of 103 2.21 Appellee Cumberland Replies from Page 8.

Argument & Authorities. For Cumberland: "It is well established that the

"right of self representation is not a license to abuse the dignity of the

courtroom. Neither is it a license not to comply with the relevant rules of

procedure and substantive law. " Appellant Replies. In the cited cases, in

Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, in Drum v. Calhoun, and in Culver v. Culver,

claims of manifest abuse of discretion and violation by the courts of

substantial rights were not at issue. In the subject appeal, the claim of

manifest abuse of discretion is more an issue of needed protections of a party

then an issue of needed protections of the dignity of the court. "In the area

of procedural due process, the protections afforded under the State

Constitution are congruent with those provided by the Federal Constitution.

(Price v. City ofJunction, 711 F.2d 582, 590). "The hearing must be at a

meaningful time and in a meaningful manner" (Armstrong v. Manzo). "The

opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the capacities and circumstances

of those who are to be heard." (Goldberg v. Kelly). The "due course" clause

in our state constitution requires the same level of "due process" as the

federal constitution. (City of Fort Worth v. Park, 2011, Tex. APP LEXIS

5725 (2011) (14). Procedural due process involves basic notions of justice

and fair play. The sufficiency of procedures must be judged in light of the

Page 77 of 103 parties, the subject matter and the circumstances involved. (Gene Harmon

Ford, v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 997 W.W.2d 298, 312 (Tex. App.­

Austin 1999, writ denied). The Due Process Clause does not mandate the

parties be heard at the arbitration hearing; rather, the Due Process Clause

requires that the parties be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the

arbitration hearing. (Ewing v. Act Catastrophe-Texas LC, 375, S.W.2d

545 (2012) (17).

Appellant Reply Brief

To Reply Brief of Cumberland Trust

Ends Here

Page 78 of 103

CAUSE NO. 05-14-01495-CV

In the COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF DORIS L. TIPPS

Appealed from Cause No. PR-13-03072-3 In the Probate Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas Honorable Judge Michael E. Miller, Presiding

APPELLANT'S COMBINED REPLY BRIEF TO THIRD APPELLEE REPLY BRIEF SENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER DALLAS d/b/a/ SENIOR SOURCE

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant, Steven Tipps, submits this Appellant Reply Brief, in accordance

with Rule 9.4, 9.4(i)(2)(c), and Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

and all local rules of this Court. In support of this Appeal from Final Judgement,

Appellant respectfully asserts the following.

Page 79 of 103

APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF

3.0 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY

TO SENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER DALLAS D/B/A "SENIOR SOURCE"

3.1 Senior Citizens of Greater Dallas, D/B/A Senior Source has incorporated

into the Senior Source Reply Brief, much of the Appellee Reply Brief for Appellee

Thomas Tipps. Appellant's Reply to the Reply Brief for Thomas Tipps is set forth

in Section 1.01, page 9- 55, Para(s) I.I- 1.91 of this Combined Appellant Reply

Brief.

3.l(a) Appellant incorporates by reference, Appellant Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition

to The Senior Source's Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent. (Appt. Repl. Br.

Appendix, IV).

3.2 In Appellee Senior Source's Reply Brief (Sr. Reply Br.), Senior Source sets

forth its authority as Texas Estates Code § 1151.051 and the alleged conflict

between the Medical Power of Attorney held by Appellant and the duties and

responsibilities set forth in § 1151.051. Those authorities and those responsibilities

do not exist in a vacuum. From the beginning, Senior Source and its Agent,

Prestonwood Nursing, demonstrated, starting in February 2014, proved to

Appellant that they together were willing to abuse those authorities and

Page 80 of 103 responsibilities to the detriment of Appellant Doris L. Tipps and Appellant Steven

Tipps.

3.3 Agents Answer to Citation of Senior Source's Petition follows in its entirety.

In Para VII of Agent's Answer, Appellant Steven Tipps relates his direct support

for the Cumberland and Senior Source appointments. Appellant Steven Tipps was

the only person to take that stand, and through the mediated settlement conference

to make certain that both Cumberland and Senior Source were positioned and

supported for court approval in each of their forthcoming appointments. Appellant

made these efforts in behalf of Senior Source in good faith; Appellant made these

efforts in behalf of Cumberland in good faith. Without Steven Tipps' intervention

with Doris L.Tipps on January 23, 2014-the date of the Settlement Conference--

at Select Specialty Hospital, Senior Source's appointment would not have occurred

on February 17, 2014 under the Trial Court's Order. (Appt. Br. Appendix - Crises

& Survival p 4, line 90). Without Doris' assent, and the confirming telephone call

to her hospital bedroom from her attorney Tom Finley and her ad litem attorney

Scott Weber, neither Senior Source, nor Cumberland could have been appointed

under the Settlement mediation settlement agreement on Thursday January 23,

2014. Appellant regrets his support of either of these organizations.

3.4 It is reasonable to ask: why did Senior Source commence an investigation of

Appellant Steven Tipps at Select Specialty Hospital on February 14, 2014? (Appt.

Page 81 of 103

Br. Appendix - Crises & Survival, p2, line 199). Appellant and Appellee Senior

Source were complete unknowns to each other. Cumberland and Appellant, were

complete unknowns to each other, yet Cumberland engaged Appellant in an

adversarial struggle in the same relative time as Senior Source commenced its

investigation, and later filed suit against Appellant. There is no reason why these

two substantial corporate and charitable interests are adverse to Appellant?

3.5 - Step I. In Re Appellee Reply Brief -Thomas Tipps. In July-August 2012,

Appellant transferred the Medical Power of Attorney to Appellee Thomas Tipps.

Also, in August 2012, one month after Doris L. Tipps signed the July 19, 2012

Declaration of Guardian in the Event of Later Incapacity or Need of Guardian: a

document that is purported to have disqualified Appellant from serving as guardian

of her person and estate. In late August 2012, Appellee Thomas Tipps emailed the

Texas Department of Adult Protective Services, with and copied the email to

Appellant Steven Tipps. This was the first of the known allegations of abuse

alleged by Appellee Thomas Tipps. Appellant cooperated with TDAPS'

investigators. In October 2012, Appellant suggested that a TDAPS investigator

could interview Doris L. Tipps at her apartment at Lakeview in Carrollton, Texas.

Later, TDAPS stated that the indicated interview had occurred. On the afternoon

of the interview of Doris, TDAPS dropped its investigation. In the follow-up

conversation, the investigator gave Appellant information on what TDAPS

Page 82 of 103 recommends for families with these issues. They suggest independent corporate

trustees. (October 2013). (Appt. Br. Appendix - Crises & Survival).

3.6 Step IL A second investigation was initiated in the relative time frame of

January 2, 2014, by the investigation staff of Probate Court No. 3. Patricia

McArdle was the investigating officer for the probate court. (Appt. Br. Appendix -

Crises & Survival - Email to Tom Finley p2, line 199). In August 2013, Probate

Court No. 3, Appellee Thomas Tipps alleged in his Application for Appointment

of Temporary Guardian of the Person and Estate of Appellant Doris L. Tipps the

following:

( 1) "There is imminent danger that the physical health or safety of the

Proposed Ward will be seriously impaired unless the Court takes immediate

action to appoint Applicant as Proposed Ward's Temporary Guardian, and

(2) ... (T)he Proposed Ward is making poor financial decisions and said

decisions are contrary to the Proposed Ward's long-standing expressed

wishes. The Proposed Ward is unable to care for herself and her finances."

(Note): This bid to become guardian of her person and estate failed.

3.7 Step Ill. On September 30, 2013, the Trial Court issued its Order On Motion

For Independent Mental Examination in which the Trained Court stated: " IT IS

FURHTER ORDERED that no one communicate with the physician or psychiatrist

prior to the issuance of his report except as may be necessary to schedule the

Page 83 of 103 examination." On Friday October 4, 1013 at 2:00 P.M., J. Douglas Crowder, M.D.

tested Doris L. Tipps and found that Doris was totally disabled and specifically

unable to handle her finances. Appellant had absolutely no conversation with Dr.

Crowder, other than in introducing Doris to the examining physician. Appellant

then left Dr. Crowder's office until the testing was complete. When Dr. Crowder

tried to have a conversation with Appellant, Appellant informed the doctor that he

was barred by court Order not to have any discussions with the physician

exammer.

3.8 Step IV. In the week of February 14, 2014, Senior Source commenced its

investigation of Appellant. This occurred by visiting Doris at Select Specialty

Hospital in Plano (Hwy 544) Plano, Texas. (Appellant Br. Appendix- Crises &

Survival - Emails to Tom Finley, p2, line 209). After that event, the interactions

between Appellant and Senior Source became adversarial. as indicated in Agents

Answer to Petitioner's Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent. The interaction

between Appellant and Cumberland had also become adversarial by January 2014.

Appellant then became the target of three investigations and the beneficiary of five

lawsuits initiated by Appellee Thomas Tipps. (C.R. s 7). (C.R. s 15). (C.R. s 42).

Page 84 of 103

[Source: (C.R. s 7)]

GUARDIAN SHIP OF & IN THE PROBATE COURT DORIS LEE TIPPS, & NO. 3 OF INCAPACTATED & DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

AGENTS ANSWER TO PETITIONER'S PETITION TO REVOKE AUTHORITY OF AGENT (Also located at: (Appt. Reply Br. Appendix. IV) & At (C.R. s 42) & C.R. s 7)

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

I

3.9 Now Comes Steven V. Tipps, Agent, and brings this Answer under Rule No. 7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, that Agent comes without counsel, pro se defensio, that Doris Lee Tipps is represented by her legal counsel, W. Thomas Finley ("Mr. Finley"), that Thomas R. Tipps, Glenda D. Jordan, and Sally J. Tipps (each) are represented by legal counsel (Sullivan & Cook),and that Agent has no position adverse to Doris Lee Tipps, the Mother, whose rights, protections, health, and safety are paramount. The Petition names the Agent, and now Agent comes to confront and defend against all accusations of Petitioner.

II

3.10 Steven V. Tipps, Agent of Doris Lee Tipps represents that he is holder of a Medical Power of Attorney for Doris Lee Tipps, ("the Mother") and complains of Petitioner for violation of Texas HUMAN RESOURCES CODE, Title 6, Chapter 102 RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY; SEC 102.002 (a), (b) PROHIBITION(S), SEC 102.003 (a) RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY and SEC 1002.003 (b) DIGNITY, and SEC102.003 (f) RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY. "An elderly individual may complain about the individual's care or treatment. The complaint may be anonymously or communicated by a person designated by the elderly individual. The person providing service shall promptly respond to resolve the complaint. The person providing service may not discriminate or take other punitive action against an elderly individual who makes a complaint."

Page 85 of 103

III

3.11 The Agent denies the claim of Petitioner that Agent attempted to direct the care of the Mother. The Agent denies the claim of Petitioner that Agent tried to elicit medical information about the Ward claiming authority by a medical power of attorney. On one occasion, Agent stated to Prestonwood Staff that Agent held a Medical Power of Attorney and that statement of fact was made while reporting an emergency condition directly caused by the Agent of the Guardian while the Guardian case managers were out of state in a conference.

IV

3.12 Agent complains of Petitioner, as Principal, and Prestonwood Nursing (Agent of Petitioner) that Agent of Petitioner recklessly endangered the Mother at 8:00 p.m. local time on April 23, 2014 by "tossing the Mother into the air, as in a "sack of potatoes" and that the Mother became airborne and crashed into a hard bed in Room 406 at Prestonwood Nursing. Agent witnessed, in stunned disbelief, the take-off, the flight, and the crash landing of the Mother, as Agent opened the door to Room 406 at that time, on that date, and in the location.

v

3.13 Agent, in behalf of the Mother, gently complained to Prestonwood Staff, to Senior Source's management, and to the Office of the Ombudsman. Agent was peaceful, respectful, and civil in all communications with Petitioner, Agent of Petitioner, the staff of Agent of Petitioner, and the Ombudsman.

VI

3.14 In a letter dated April 29, 2014, the Petitioner informed the Agent that, effective immediately, (1) Agent's rights to visit the Mother on the evening shift at Prestonwood Nursing were terminated, that (2) Agent's visitation rights were restricted to 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., (3) that continued interference by the Agent would result in complete denial of the Agent's rights to visit the Mother, (4) that Agent may be exposed to judicial recourse,( 5) that Agent would be denied access to any medical information of Petitioner's Agent, and (6) that Agent would be subjected to police intervention. This, notwithstanding that the Agent is in possession of a substantial fund of knowledge concerning the Mother's historical medical information, that the Agent has substantial knowledge of the Mother's medical history, medications, illnesses, predispositions, emergencies, and

Page 86 of 103

Document Page 86 of 240

------- --------

recoveries. Petitioner, and the Agent of Petitioner desires to remove the threat of this knowledge in order to increase my mother's health and safety.

3.15 Between October 29, 2014 and April 24, 2014, the Agent committed 500 hours in daily visits (7 days per week) in support of the Mother and over 1,600 miles driven between 1844 Hood Street and Baylor Medical Center Carrollton (first bronchial pneumonia), Axel Rehab on Mash Lane in Plano, Baylor Medical Center Carrollton (second bronchial-pneumonia), Select Specialty Hospital Plano, and Axel Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. All of the major decisions made between those dates were made by the Agent, without consultation with anyone other than physicians, specialists and nursing staff under the Guardianship or the Medical Power of Attorney held by the Agent.

3.16 Petitioner's wholly unreasonable power to restrict medical information is unrealistic. Agent of the Petitioner occasionally asks the Agent to assist in persuading the Mother to take the medicines that she has refused. The Agent cannot perform this assistance without knowledge of the medicines the Mother is refusing. Petitioner's request to restrict medical assistance, under certain circumstances, could be construed as unlawful under the Texas Samaritan statutes. The Mother's refusal to accept medications has been, in one known instance, due to her medicines being swapped with another resident at Prestonwood Nursing. As a result, the Mother became very ill with vomiting and pain and other discomforts resulting from errors by the Agent of the Petitioner. This list of other concerns about the Agent of the Petitioner is prolific and includes: ( 1) refusal or inability to respond to the Mother's calls for assistance on the night shift, (2) poor management of the Mother's oxygen requirements, (3) refusal of staff on the night shift with bathroom assistance, (4) refusal to recognize the symptoms of a heart attack, to report such symptoms the physicians, and failure to record the incident or communicate it to the Agent of the Petitioner (5) failing to fill the Mother's water jug at night, and (6) failing to secure the call button to the Mother's bed to prevent the communication unit from falling to the floor on the night shift.

VII

3.17 On Friday September 13, 2013, the trained Court was assembled to consider the guardianship petition presented by Sullivan & Cook, attorneys for Thomas R. Tipps, Glenda D. Jordan, and Sally J. Fink. The Agent had recently received the transfer of the Durable Power of Attorney, the Medical Power of Attorney, and the Guardianship of the Mother. Prior to the trained Court session, the Agent met with the Mother's at /item attorney, Scott Weber and Mr. Finley. Attorney's Weber and Page 87 of 103

Finley each advanced the notion of a corporate trustee and Mr. Finely suggested an independent guardian. As the Mother's temporary guardian, the Agent advanced and supported both objectives.

3.18 During the Settlement Conference on Thursday January 24, 2014, the Mother's attorneys requested the approval of an independent guardian: the Mother refused. To avoid further dismemberment of the Trusts, the Agent traveled to Select Specialty Hospital to meet with the Mother. In that meeting, the Mother changed her mind and agreed to have an independent guardian. The Agent has supported the Petitioner.

VIII

3.19 While withdrawn by the Petitioner, these punitive actions by the Petitioner violated the Constitutional and Civil rights of the Mother as well as of the Agent that directly and specifically violated, without limitation, The Texas HUMAN RESOURCES CODE, TITLE 6. CHAPTER 102 SECTION 102.003 (f).

PRAYER

3.20 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that citation issue as required by law to all persons interested in this matter, and that upon hearing the trained Court find that a no conflict exists between the powers granted the Petitioner and the Medical Power of Attorney held by the Agent. Petitioner together with the Agent of Petitioner have abused their discretion, they have together or separately recklessly endangered the Mother's health and safety, they have engaged in an act of suppression that violated State law, and they have consistently withheld services and assistance from the Mother on the night shift at Prestonwood Nursing. Therefore we further PRAY that the Court will balance the Mother's rights and interests against the Petitioners petition for more powers: powers that the Petitioner and the Petitions Agent have shown they are willing to abuse. 3.21 In Accordance with these general requests, the Agent requests the following specific relief:

a) The Agent desires to retain the Medical Power of Attorney for the Mother as a counterbalance to the reckless acts of the Petitioner's Agent and the unlawful acts and abuse of power by the Petitioner and the Agent of the Petitioner.

Page 88 of 103 b) The Agent petitions the Court to order the Petitioner to amend the "Do Not Resuscitate" order established and approved by the Petitioner to include language that instructs medical personnel attending an emergency in connection with the care of the Mother, to be permitted to use non- invasive electrical and chemical means to revive the Mother.

c) The Agent seeks to have the Court approve a new and more comfortable bed for the Mother at Prestonwood Nursing and Rehabilitation expense,

d) The Agent seeks to have additional furniture, such as a recliner, furnished by Prestonwood Nursing to Room 406,

e) The Agent seeks to have the Court approve, by order to the Petitioner, occasional passes that will permit the Agent to take the Mother on local drives to visit her home at 1844 Hood Street and for lunch or dinners out, with small oxygen bottles furnished by Prestonwood Nursing. Agent's requests for this additional degree of freedom have been denied by Petitioner during in recent months,

f) The Agent seeks to have the Court issue an order for reimbursement of ongoing expenses related to the very substantial visits to Prestonwood Nursing and to order the repair of the Mother's Lincoln Continental for such transportation (costs totaling $2, 100),

g) The Agent seeks reimbursement, from the Tipps Living Trust(s), of costs incurred during the Guardianship for between October 29, 2014 and February 24, 2014 and for the additional interval between February 24, 2014 and April 30, 2014.

3.22 The Agent seeks reimbursement from the Petitioner of all costs associated with this Petition, and all other relief, both general and special, legal and equitable, to which the Agent may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

Steven V. Tipps Pro Se Litigant 5015 Addison Circle

Page 89 of 103

Addison, Texas 75001 214-223-6358 Fax 254-731-2522 Email: casing@prodigy.net Email: casingscientific@'Jgmail.com

3.23 Appellee Reply Br. Page 5, Para 1. Appellee states that "there is inherently a

conflict created between the charge put upon a guardian of the person under Texas

Health & Safety Code § 1151.051 and the authority granted Appellant under the

Medical Power of Attorney". Appellant replies that there is a disconnection

between the actual world and the imaginary world. Appellant's concerns about the

Senior Source - Prestonwood arrangement have been based on disturbing facts that

were addressed in Agents Answer to Petitioner's Petition to Revoke Authority of

Agent.

3.24 The medical power of attorney that was transferred in August 2012 to

Appellee Thomas Tipps, then back to Appellant Steven Tipps, and then by court

Order to Senior Source is now in the hands of an organization that has shown itself

capable of abuse of power that should never been exercised against an elderly

resident for making a complaint while resident at Prestonwood.

3.25 Appellant continues to have a serious concern about the possession of the

medical power of attorney. After the transfer of the MPA to Appellee Thomas

Tipps in August 2012, Appellant observed Doris L. Tipps in a life threatening

emergency that was caused by the holder of the medical power of attorney and his

Page 90 of 103 influence with a physician to remove Doris from her blood thinner, coumadin.

Steven took Doris to the emergency room at 2:30 A. M. at Baylor Medical Center

- Carrollton with a blood clot in her left calf. She was in agony with chronic pain,

and that event could have ended in amputation or death. Ten days at Baylor. This

is the reason why the issue of the holder of the medical power of attorney is

contested. Appellant believes Senior Source has shown itself to be vulnerable to

undue influence. A medical power of attorney carries with it the right to terminate

health care services, and in cases where a rally is possible, as it was for Doris Lee

Tipps in the winter of 2013 - 2014, Life should be the overwhelming and absolute

consideration in the decision.

Appellant Reply Brief

To Reply Brief of Thomas Tipps

Ends Here

Page 91 of 103

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was served on the following counsel on this the 24th day of July 2015 by email:

Appellant Counsel:

Steven Tipps Steven Tipps, Pro Se Party 5015 Addison Circle Addison, Texas 75001

Appellant: Counsel:

Doris L. Tipps W. Thomas Finley Finley Law Group, 5500 Preston Road, Suite 390 Dallas, Texas 75290

Cumberland Trust & Investment Co. Counsel:

Appellee: Alvin J. Golden Laurellen Ratliff Ickard Golden Jones, P.C. 400 West 15th Street, Suite 975 Austin, Texas 78701-1646

Senior Citizens of Greater Dallas, Counsel:

d/b/a Senior Source John H. Phillips Boone, Boone, & Phillips Appellee: 4313 Lovers Lane Dallas, Texas 75209

Page 92 of 103

Counsel:

Thomas Tipps Jeffrey Cook Adam Barela Sullivan & Cook, L.L.C.

Appellee: 600 E. Las Colinas Blvd Suite 1300 Irving, Texas 75039

ls/Steven Tipps Steven Tipps Pro Se Appellant

Page 93 of 103

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies that this brief complies with the typevolume limitations because it is within the 50 page limit for briefs on the merits.

The undersigned further certifies that this brief complies with the typeface requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(e) because this brief was prepared in proportionally spaced typeface using "Microsoft Word 2013" in fourteen (14) point "Times New Roman" style font.

ls/Steven Tipps Steven Tipps

Page 94 of 103

Document Page 94 of 240

-------------

CONCLUSION Appellant's efforts to conduct cross-examination were either completely

denied or unduly restricted, indicating the direction of the decisions that were

being taken.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully

prays that this Court, upon consideration of these matters, reverse and remand to

the Trial Court in favor of Appellant Doris Tipps and Appellant Steven Tipps.

Appellant further prays for general costs and general relief, and such other relief to

which he may show himself entitled.

Respectfully submitted:

ls/Steven Tipps Steven Tipps, Pro Se Appellant 5015 Addison Circle Addison, Texas 75001 214.223.6358 Fax 254.731.2522 Email: casingscientific@gmail.com casing@.prodigy.net

Page 95 of 103

COMBINED APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF INDEX OF APPENDIX AS RELATED TO THREE APPELLEE REPLY BRIEFS

I. AppellantSteven Tipps Answer to Citation - Cumberland.........................97

II. AppellantSteven Tipps Answer to Citation-SeniorSource................... 103

III. W. Thomas Finley- For Doris L. Tipps, Objection to Appointment....112

IV. W. Thomas Finley- For Doris L. Tipps Objection toSeniorSource....140

V. Case excepts- De Ayala v. Mackie..........................................................155

VI. CaseSummaries..................................................................................158

a. Texas procedural due process congruent with Federal procedural due process....................................................159

b. Texas due course clause of the Texas Constitution congruent with U.S. Constitution's due process clause.......................................161

c. Davidson v. Great Nat'l Life Ins. Co.- Case Reference Summaries.165

d. Texas abuse of discretion cases..........................................................166

VII. Application for Appointment of Temporary Guardian Of the Person and Estate of Doris L. Tipps

VIII. Order on Motion For Independent Medical Examination.................179

IX. Mental Examination Report - J. Douglas Crowder, M.D...............181

X. Mental Examination Report - Kathleen C. Saine, Ph.D................187

XI. Reporters Record - October 21, 2014 Hearing................................198

XII. Crises and Survival- 10-29-2013 to 04-24-14, Two Pneumonias......230 Page 96 of 103

I.

APPELLANT STEVEN TIPPS ANSWER TO CITATION

CUMBERLAND TRUST & INVESTMENT COMPANY .. [] ORIGINAL .FILED NO. PRB-3072-3 ;zoi ,, 9: 56 . � GUARDIAN SIDP OF & INTiffiPROBA��E\\N 'DALLAS COUNTY DORIS LEE TIPPS, & N0.30F INCAPACTATED & DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AGENTS ANSWER TO MOTION TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION, DISCHARGE 1RUSTEE AND REINSTATE TRUSTEE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES, STEVEN VINSON TIPPS ("the Agent"), individually, and brings this Answer to the Petition under Rule No. 7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Agent c9mes without counsel, pro se defensio. Doris Lee Tipps {"the Mother'') is represented by her legal counsel, W. Thomas Finley ("Mr. Finley"), that Thomas R. Tipps, Glenda D. Jordan, and Sally J. Fink (each) are represented by legal counsel (Sullivan & Cook). The Agent has no interest adverse to the Mother. The Petition names the Agent, and now Agent comes to confront and defend against all accusations of Petitioner.

I

In order for there to be compliance with Judge Miller's order which was signed by the Judge on Monday Febf1:WY 14, 2014, there were two steps that had to be fulfilled: Step I: Cumberland would accept responsibility as the replacement trustee, upon the simultaneous resignation of Thomas R Tipps and Doris L. Tipps, the Co-Trustees. Step II: All of the transferrable assets had to be moved to Cumberland, at which time compliance with the February 17, 2014 order would have been complete.

The financial assets and other transferable assets, the great majority of the bounty, were held generically in the Tipps Living Trust and its Sub-Trusts, and these assets were to be moved to Cumberland Trust as the successor trustee. The financial assets should have been in the form of investments in stock and bond mutual funds, ordinarily, of the highest quality, any tax free municipal bonds that were held in the name of the Trusts, bank accounts, and insurance annuities and p0licies. Other assets were the three rent houses, a tree farm, and the Mother's residence at PR-:,3-:..·0:1012:-i"-

--··-

COAM ORIGINAL ANSWER

iiiilm1111�1m1111111a,, .........__---- .....

1844 Hood Street Carrollton, Texas 75006, in which the Mother maintains a Life Estate. Hood is held in the Mother's name and is non-transferrable in the Trusts during her lifetime.

Cumberland was fully aware of the agreed treatment for the Tipping-I real estate . In fact, the real estate portfolio, as a whole, was a known quantity as it was evaluated -by Cumberland by the time Cumberland infonned the Court that it was ready to serve. There were, therefore, no known surprises in any of the real estate portfolio: four houses and one tree farm. In Section 4.5, Petitioner st.ates that "Cumberland discovered that administration of the Trust would be fraught with unanticipated difficulties". The only "unanticipated difficulty" was the Life Estate that the Mother retained in Hood Street that barred transfer of Hood Street to the Trusts before the death of the second to die.

Assuming that Hood Street was equivalent to ten percent of the overall valuation of the Trusts, one might ask: why did Cumberland fail to insist that the Co-Trustee, Thomas R. Tipps, proceed with the transfer of the financial assets to the Trust. If the "unanticipated difficulties" in Section 4.5 of the Petition only related to a relatively small portion of the overall bounty, why did Cumberland fail to ask for an increase in fees, for the unanticipated loss in fee income associated with Hood Street? Tiris recovery would have been reasonable and would have resolved that issue, if the issue was related to lost income at Cumberland, rather than an apparent ''Tug of War', connected with 1844 Hood Street. If there were not a struggle connected with Hood Street, why was the Co-Trustee filing a lawsuit for eviction of the Agent from Hood Street and why was Cumberland participating with the Co-Trustee in what amounted to a "squeeze play" against the Agent.

II

The Settlement Agreement did establish for the replacement of the Corporate Trustee, in event 11at a corporate Trustee were to resign. Frost Bank was the other interested party at the time of Cumberland's appointment. Thomas R. Tipps is the same individual that engaged in self dealing $125,000 in Trust assets, a violation of Texas Trust law. Thomas R. Tipps is the same individual that off-loaded $75,000 of unauthorized distributions to Sally J. Fink and Glenda D. Jordan ("the Sisters") and caused the disappearance of approximately $200,000 in legal fees from the Mother's retirement assets.

218

Counsel for Cumberland has stated in Section 4.8 of the Petition that the former Co-

Trustee "continues to deal with the funds in the Trust" and in Section 4.9 he states "it would be in the best interest of the Ward to accept the resignation of Cumberland and to approve the appointment of Thomas Tipps as Trustee".

III

The Court Order signed by Judge Miller on Monday February 17, 2014 required that the Co-Trustee resign as Co-Trustee. The Settlement Agreement attached to the Judge's Order was not furnished with a reincarnation clause reserved for the Co-Trustees' return. Resignation meant resignation. Transfer of the Assets meant Transfer of the Assets.

Sanctions should be applied.

IV

l 844 Hood Street has become central to the discussions and arguments in the Petition and Petitioners infer wrong doing in its occupancy arrangement. Petitioner refers to the Mother as the Ward, as the Totally Disabled Person. In these daily visits, it never occurs to me that she has dementia. I make visits four to five times per week for at least two hours over what seems an endless track. From October 29, 2013, during my Guardianship, through April 30, 2014, the Agent spent 500 hours in daily trips to the hospitals, rehabilitation centers, and skilled nursing facilities for one purpose during the worst season for respiratory illness in decades. Not one day was missed, and the support that was provided to Mom during these visits included daily briefu1gs from the nurses and physicians assistants, review with her physicians, sometimes flower or newspaper deliveries, back scratching. and calling in the nurses for pain medications or bathroom assistance. This was a struggle for survival. The most important information I conveyed to her each day were her vital signs, prognosis, and likely departure date for rehabilitation and return Home. I was a full time care giver.

During that six months she had two fully involved bronchial pneumonias. The first infection commenced on October 29, 2014 with admission to Baylor Medical Center Carrollton on the morning of November 30, 2014. Dr. Richard Sohmer was the emergency room physician and Baylor Carrollton. The key to getting her through these emergencies was to get her to the

219

emergency room before the infection became a health emergency. Mom was transferred to Acee} Rehab Center, and she arrived Home at Lakeview on November 11, 2013.

The Mother, s residence at Lakeview was staffed with full time 24 hour nursing and monitoring personnel. On Sunday January 5, 2014, I called Lakeview at 11:15 a.m. Mom had another cough that is the principal warning signal for bronchial pneumonia I took her to Baylor Medic al Center at 2:30 p.m., after lunch and lung treatment. we drove to Baylor Carrollton Emergency to have her checked. Dr. Harris, the Emergency Room physician admitted Mom at 7:00 p.m. that evening with bronchial pneumonia. This infection was different. I visited Mom that Monday morning and this extremely fast moving infection was at an early state of sepsis. She was moved to the Baylor ICU. This illness was chronic compared to the first bronchial pneumonia. She stayed in Baylor for nearly two weeks and then was transferred to Select Specialty Hospital in Plano, where she became critically ill. This was new. She stopped eating. Dr. Hardeep Rai, Mom's primary care physician was worried that she had stopped eating and was giving up. Agent started to assist during her meals and enlisted the support of the outside agency to assist with meals, keeping her comfortable, pulling her up in her bed, calling for bed pan assistance, calling for nursing assistance, and scratching her back.

The illness progressed to a stage that Dr. Rai approached me to ask whether we should save her or let her die. Dr. Rai was told that she deserved the last full measure. I ordered Dr. Rai to get all of the specialists on deck. Dr. Boorla, the cardiologist. Dr. Wilson, the nepbrologist. Dr. Torton the infectious infectious disease specialist. Dr. Sam Eljamell, the lung specialist. Dr. Tomkins, a cardiologist.

Dr. Sohn, observed that Mom's condition continued to deteriorate. She was taken to Baylor Carrollton Radiology for draining her pleural sacs. Her chest expansion was approaching zero. She was breathing with her neck muscles to the extent that her neck was about eight inches in diameter. Six hundred milliliters of fluid were removed, and on return from the procedure, her neck has returned to a four inch diameter. She returned to Select Specialty Hospital where she gradually recovered. She was transferred to Accel Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center on Communication Parkway in Plano, Texas. This second pneumonia and recovery started on Sunday January s. 2014 and continued to early July 2014 when she finally recovered and stabilized.

220

1844 Hood Street was, and is, the base for all of the support activities related to Mom's emergencies while living at Lakeview and during her hospitalizations and rehabilitation. Being cost free has made it possible for Agent to give the Mother an extraordinary level of personal care and protection. This direct involvement and continuing presence has been ongoing. Hood Street has been at the centre of those activities for the last decade. If strictly measuring the avoided cost to the Trusts resulting from the Agents 500 hours of service from Hood Street, those amounts would be substantial. The proximity of 1844 Hood Street to Lakeview is half a mile. The proximity of 1844 Hood Street to Accel Rehabilitation located on Communication Parkway is 12 minutes, to Select Specialty Hospital 12 minutes, and Fifteen to twenty minutes one way to Baylor Hospital Carrollton. There have been days when the Agent made three or four round trips per day. Petitioner engaged in malicious prosecution, intimidation, and tortuously interfered with the Guardian, in the exercise of bis duties. Agent was further damaged by Petitioner's refusal to fund expenses and other costs that were intended to inflict economic losses on the Agent.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, PRESMISES CONSIDERED, Steven V. Tipps, the Agent prays that the Court will Order that Frost Bank be named successor Trustee, and that Co-Trustee is ordered to turn over the transferable assets of the Trust to Frost Bank ("Frostn) and to complete the transfer of assets to Frost within thirty days of the acceptance of the Cumberland's resignation. Cumberland's release from Liability must be conditional upon an accounting for all Trust income for the period between the date of Cumberland's acceptance of its Trust duties and the date that all transferable assets are moved to the replacement corporate trustee. The Agent prays for such other and further relief to which he may show himself entitled.

eve V. Tip , ro Se Party 5015 Addison Circle Addison, Texas 75001 214-223-6358 Fax 254-731-2522 Email: casingscientific.gmail.com Email: casing@prodigy.net

II.

APPELLANT STEVEN TIPPS ANSWER TO CITATION

SENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER DALLAS, D/B/A

SENIOR SOURCE

. • /Jff-/J-801~ [] ORIGINAL · GUARDIAN SHIP OF &

DORIS LEE TIPPS, &

INCAPACTATED .& DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS . AGENTS ANSWER TO PETITIONER'S PETITION TO REVOKE AUTHORITY OF AGENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Now Comes Steven V. Tipps, Agent, and brings this Answer under Rule No. 7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, that Agent comes without counsel prose defensio, that Doris Lee Tipps is represented by her legal counsel, W. Thomas Finley {"Mr. Finley"), that Thomas R. Tipps. Glenda D. Jordan, and Sally J. Tipps (each) are represented by legal counsel (Sullivan & Cook},and that Agent bas no position adverse to Doris Lee Tipps, the Mother, whose rights, protections, health, and safety are .

paramount. The Petition names the Agent, and now Agent comes to confront and defend against all accusations of Petitioner.

n

Steven V. Tipps, Agent of Doris Lee Tipps represents that he is holder of a Medical Power of Altomt.y for Doris Lee Tipps, ('<the Mother') and complains of Petitioner for violation of Texas HUMAN RESOURCES CODE. Title 6, Chapter 102 RJGHTS OF THE ELDERLY; SEC 102.002 (a), {b) PROHIBITION(S), SEC 102.003 (a) RIGIITS OF THE ELDERLY and SEC 1002.003 (b) DIGNITY, and SECI 02.003 (t) RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY ...An elderly individual may complain about the individual's care or treatment.· The complaint may be anonymously or communicated by a person designated by the elderly individual. The person providing service shall promptly respond to resolve the complaint. The person providing servfoe may not discriminate or ta.Ice other punitive action against an elderly individual who makes a complaint."

m

The Agent denies the claim of Petitioner that Agent attempted to direct the care of the Mother.

The Agent denies the claim of Petitioner that Agent tried to elicit medical information about the Ward claiming authority by a medical power of attorney. On one occasion, Agent stated to Prestonwood Staff that Agept held a Medical Power of Attorney and that statement of fact was made while reporting an PR-13-03012:.3 -- coAtt ORIGINAL ANSWER 114040

~11titt11t111111111111111m111

emergency condition directly caused by the Agent of the Guardian while the Guardian case managers were out of state in a conference.

IV

Agent complains of Petitioner, as Principal, and Prestonwood Nursing (Agent of Petitioner) that Agent of Petitioner recklessly endangered the Mother at 8:00 p.m. local time on April 23, 2014 by "tossing the Mother into the air, as in a "sack of potatoes" and that the Mother became airborne and crashed into a hard bed in Room 406 at Prestonwood Nursing. Agent witnessed, in stunned disbelief, the take-off, the flight, and the crash landing of the Mother, as Agent opened the door to Room 406 at that time, on that date, and in the location.

v

Agent, in behalf of the Mother, gently complained to Prestonwood Staff, to Senior Source'

management, and to the Office of the Ombudsman. Agent was peaceful, respectful, and civil in all communications with Petitioner, Agent of Petitioner, the staff of Agent of Petitioner, and the Ombudsman.

VI

In a letter dated April 29, 2014, the Petitioner informed the Agent that, effective immediately, (l)

Agent's rights to visit the Mother on the evening shift at Prestonwood Nursing were terminated, that (2) Agent's visitation rights were restricted to 11 :00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. , (3) that continued interference by the Agent would result in complete denial of the Agent's rights to visit the Mother, (4) that Agent may be exposed to judicial recourse.(5) that Agent would be denied access to any medical information of Petitioner's Agent, and (6) that Agent would be subjected to police intervention. This, notwithstanding that the Agent is in possession of a substantial fund of knowledge concerning the Mother's historical medical information, that the Agent has substantial knowledge of the Mother's medical history, medications, illnesses, predispositions, emergencies, and recoveries. Petitioner, and the Agent of Petitioner desires to remove the threat of this knowledge in order to increase my mother's health and safety.

Between October 29. 2014 and April 24, 2014, the Agent committed 500 hours in daily visits (7 days p7r week) in support of the Mother and over 1,600 miles driven between I 844 Hood Street and Baylor Medical Center Carrollton (first bronchial pneumonia), Axel Rehab on Mash Lane in Plano, Baylor Medical Center Carrollton (second bronchial-pneumonia). Select Specialty Hospital Plano, and Axel Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. AU of the major decisions made between those dates were made

9

by the Agent, without consultation with anyone other than physicians, specialfsts and nursing staff under the Guardianship or the Medical Power of Attorney held by the Agent.

Petitioner's wholly unreasonable power to restrict medical infonnation is unrealistic. Agent of the Pe,itioner occasionally asks· the Agent to assist in persuading the Mother to take the medicines that she has refused. The Agent cannot perform this assistance without knowledge of the medicines the Mother is refusing. Petitioner's request to restrict medical assistance, under certain circumstances, could be construed as unlawful under the Texas Samaritan statutes. The Mother's refusal to accept medications has been, in one known instance, due to her medicines being swapped with another resident at Prestonwood Nursing. As a result, the Mother became very ill with vomiting and pain and other discomforts resulting from errors by the Agent of the Petitioner. This list of other concerns about the Agent of the Petitioner is prolific and includes: (1) refusal or inability to respond to the Mother's calls for assistance on the night shift, (2) poor management of the Mother's oxygen requirements, (3) refusal of staff on the night shift with bathroom assistance, ( 4) refusal to recognize the symptoms of a heart attack, to report such symptoms the physicians, and failure to record the incident or communicate it to the Agent of the Petitioner (5) failing to fill the Mother's water jug at night, and (6) failing to secure the call button to the Mother's bed to prevent the communication unit from falling to the floor on the night shift.

VII

On Friday September 13, 20 I 3, the trained Court was assembled to consider the guardianship petition presented by Sullivan & Cook, attorneys for Thomas R. Tipps, Glenda D. Jordan, and Sally J. Fink. The Agent had recently received the transfer of the Ow-able Power of Attorney, the MedicaJ Power of Attorney, and the Guardianship of the Mother. Prior to the trained Court session, the Agent met with the Mother's at !item attorney, Scott Weber and Mr. Finley. Attorney's Weber and Finley each advanced the notion of a corporate trustee and Mr. Finely suggested an independent guardian. As the Mother's temporary guardian, the Agent advanced and supported both objectives.

During the Settlement Conference on Thursday January 24, 2014, the Mother's attorneys requested the approval of an independent guardian: the Mother refused. To avoid further dismemberment of the Trusts, the Agent traveled to Select Specialty Hospital to meet with the Mother. In that meeting, the Mother changed her mind and agreed to have an independent guardian. The Agent has supported the Petitioner.

vm While withdrawn by the Petitioner, these punitive actions by the Petitioner violated the Constitutional and Civil rights of the Mother as well as of the Agent that directly and specifically violated, without limitation, The Texas HUMAN RESOURCES CODE, TITLE 6. CHAPTER l02 SECTION l 02.003 (f).

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that citation issue as required by law to all persons interested in this matter, and that upon hearing the trained Court find that a no conflict exists between the powers granted the Petitioner and the MedicaJ Power of Attorney held by the Agent. Petitioner together with the Agent of Petitioner have abused their discretion, they have together or separately recklessly endangered the Mother's health and safety, they have engaged in an act of suppression that violated State law, and they have consistently withheld services and assistance from the Mother on the night shift at Prestonwood Nursing. Therefore we further PRAY that the Court will balance the Mother's rights and interests against the Petitioners petition for more powers: powers that the Petitioner and the Petitions Agent have shown they are willing to abuse.

In Accordance with these general requests, the Agent requests the following specific relief:

a) The Agent desires to retain the Medical Power of Attorney for the Mother as a counterbalance to the reckless acts of the Petitioner's Agent and the unlawful acts and abuse of power by the Petitioner and the Agent of the Petitioner.

b} The Agent petitions the Court to order the Petitioner to amend the '<oo Not Resuscitate" order established and approved by the Petitioner to include language that instructs medical personnel attending an emergency in connection with the care of the Mother, to be pennitted to use non-invasive electricaJ and chemical means to revive the Mother.

c) The Agent seeks to have the Court approve a new and more comfortable bed for the Mother at Prestonwood Nursing and Rehabilitation expense,

d) The Agent seeks to have additional fum.iture, such as a recliner, furnished by Prestonwood Nursing to Room 406,

11

e) The Agent seeks to have the Court approve, by order to the Petitioner, occasional passes that will pennit the Agent to take the Mother on local drives to visit her home at 1844 Hood Street and for lunch or dinners out, with small oxygen bottles furnished by Prestonwood Nursing. Agent's requests for this additional degree of freedom have been denied by Petitioner during in recent months,

f) The Agent seeks to have the Court issue an order for reimbursement of ongoing expenses related to the very substantial visits to Preston wood Nursing and to order the repair of the Mothers Lincoln Continental for such transportation (costs totaling $2, I 00),

g) The Agent seeks reimbursement, from the Tipps Living Trust(s), of costs incurred during the Guardianship for between October 29, 2014 and February 24, ?014 and for the additional interval between February 24, 2014 and April 30, 2014.

The Agent seeks reimbursement from the Petitioner of all costs associated with this Petition, and all other relief, both general and special, legal and equitable, to which the Agent may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

~~CZJ~ Steven V. Tipps Pro Se Litigant 5015 Addison Circle Addison, Texas 75001 214-223-6358 Fax 254-731-2522 Email: casing@prodigy.net Email: casingscientific@gmail.com

BOONE, BOONE & PIDLLIPS, L.L.P.

LAWY!RS 4313 W. LOVERS LANE DALLAS, TEXAS 75209-2803

JOHN H. PHIILIPS DIRECT DIAL (214) 902-8036 BOARO CERTIFIE&, ESTATE PIMNING ANO PROBATE lAW DIRECT FAX (214)206-9975 TEXAS BOAAD OF t.eGAI. SPECIALIZATION E·MAU. 'Jhphillips@swbell.net"

April 29, 2014 Mr. Steven Tipps 1844 Hood St Carrollton. TX 75006 via email lo cqsing@prodigy.net and by certified mail/return receipt requested and regular mail

RE: Guardianship of Doris Lee Tipps, Incapacitated Cause No. Pr-13-3072-3 in the Probate Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas

Dear Mr. Tipps:

I am counsel of record for SENIOR CITIZENS OF OREATER DALLAS d/b/a The Senior Source, Guardian of the Person of DORIS LEE TIPPS, an Incapacitated Person, in the above matter.

The Guardian of the Person bas the right to physical possession of Mrs. Tipps and has the duty to- provide care; supervision and protection· for-her-.

Effective immediately _you may onJy visit Mrs. Tipps from 11:00 o'clock a.m., until 3:00 o'clock p.m. (local ti.me).

Your continued interference with the Guanlian and with the staff at Prestonwood Nursing and Rehabilitation are an unnecessary burden to both and are detrimental to the well-being of Mrs. Tipps. If you continue to interfere, the Guardian will exercise its right to deny you any visits to Mrs. Tipps, and may seek ju<iicial recourse against you as well.

If you have questions or concerns about Mrs.. Tipps' health or care, you may contact Alex Scheibner who is her case manager at The Senior Source. His phone number is 214-823-5700 ext 6186. .

Prestonwood Nursing and Rehabilitation is instructed not to give you any infonnation about Mrs. Tipps, and is encouraged to exercise its right to require you to leave its premises if you become troublesome and to call for police assistance immediately .if needed.

Sincerely,

~\.\ J~llips cc: client

Fron,: Tom Finley [mailto:tom@finleylawgroup.com} Sent; Thursday, May 01, 2014 8:43 PM To: John H. Phillips (jhphillips@swbell.net) Cc: Jean Jones Subject: In the Matter of the Guardianship ofDoris L. Tipps, Proceeding No. PR-B-3072-3, Dallas County Probate Court No. Three .

. Mr. Phillips.

I act as counsel for Doris Lee Tipps. I attach for your ease of reference the Order Appointing Guardian of the Person and Approving Mediation Settlement Agreement that has been entered in the case file of the guardianship proceeding identified above. This is the order appointing your client Senior Citizens of Greater Dallas as the guardian of the person (only) of Doris Lee Tipps.

Your letter to our client's son Steven V. Tipps dated April 29, 2013 (which I attach), ~as been given to me for response. Your letter is quite extraordinary.

As you know probably better than I, our client has rights. Section 1151.001 (Rights and Powers Retained by Ward) of the Texas Estates Code provides that "[a]n incapacitated person for whom a guardian is appointed ,retains all legal and civil rights and powers except those designated by court order as legal disabilities by virtue of having been specifically granted to the guardian." {Emphasis supplied.)

What are the legal and civil rights that our 91-years-old client retained? Subsection 102.003(a) (Rights ofthe Elderly) of the Texas Human Resources Code provides that "[a]n elderly individual has all the rights, benefits, responsibilities, and privileges granted by the constitution and the laws of this state and the United states, except where lawfully restricted. The elderly individual has the right to be free of interference, coercion, discrimination, and reprisal in exercising these rights." Our client is entitled to meet with her family members whenever she d.esires. I see nowhere in the court's order where your client i_s specifically granted the power to restrict our client from meeting with her family at any hour or at all hours, if she so desires, as section 1151.001 of the Texas Estates Code would require. Our client is not incarcerated in a penal institution. and your client is not the warden.

Further, insofar as Prestonwood Nursing and Rehabilitation is concerned, subsection I 02.003(f) (Rights ofthe Elderly) of the Texas Human Resources Code provides that "[a]n elderly individual may complain about the individual's care or treatment. The complaint may be made anonymously or communicated by a · person designated by the elderly individual. The person providing services may not

14

discriminate or take other punitive action against an elderly individual who makes a complaint.', (Emphasis supplied.) Your client should understand that Steven V. Tipps is our client's only living relative who resides within thousands of miles of Dallas, Texas, and he has been her constant and daily caregiver for at l~ast the past five to ten years. He is her closest and favorite child. As such, he is-and always has been-her designated personal representative. Your attempt to restrict our client from meeting with her son in the evening after his work, and your unvarnished threats to (i) deny our client any visits with her son, (ii) initiate police action against her son, and (iii) sue her son constitutes what any competent judge would characterize as "punitive action".

Prestonwood Nursing and Rehabilitation was engaged by your client and is acting at your client's direction. It is, therefore, your client's agent, and your client is the principal. As the principal, your client is legally responsible for any and all violations of the legal and civil rights of our client by Prestonwood Nursing and Rehabilitation.

With respect, I urge your client to immediately rescind the restriction contained in your attached April 29, 2014 letter. ff your client refuses, then we will commence the necessary actions in Judge Miller's court, at the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services. and at the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to protect our elderly client's legal and civil rights.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Tom

III.

W. THOMAS FINLEY COUNSEL FOR

APPELLANT DORIS L. TIPPS

OPPOSITION TO CUMBERLAND TRUST & INVESTMENT

COMPANY'S MOTION TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION, DISCHARGE

TRUSTEE AND REINSTATE TRUSTEE; DEMAND FOR ACCOUNTING;

AND MOTION TO ENFORCE RULE 11 AGREEMENT AND MEDIATED

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (C.R. s 15)

FILED 10/17/2014 5:44:45 PM JOHN F. WARREN COUNTY CLERK DALLAS COUNTY

No. PR-13-3072-3

In the Matter of the § In the Probate Court § Guardianship of § No. Three § Doris L. Tipps § Dallas County, Texas

Doris Lee Tipps' Oppositjon to Cumberland Trust &. Investment Company's Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for Accounting; and Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement

This began as a contested guardianship proceeding. Thomas Tipps

applied to become the guardian of the person and estate of his mother, Doris

Lee Tipps. Doris Lee Tipps did not want Thomas Tipps to be the guardian of

either her person and certainly not of her estate, and she does not want him to

be trustee of her trust. She filed a contest to Thomas Tipps' application. On

September 13, 2013, Thomas Tipps and Doris Lee Tipps, acting through her

personal counsel as well as through the attorney ad litem, entered into a Rule

11 agreement, the essential terms of which were that (i) Doris Lee Tipps and

Thomas Tipps would resign as co-trustees of the Tipps Living Trust dated

March 6, 1992, as amended and restated (the "Tipps Living Trust"), and (ii) that

"a corporate trustee [will] take over the role of the trustee". Later, both Doris

Lee Tipps, again acting through counsel, and Thomas Tipps entered into that

certain Mediation Settlement Agreement dated January 23, 2014, that requires

Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Investment Company's Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for Accounting; and Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement - Page 1

16

the appointment of a corporate trustee of the Tipps Living Trust. The Court

should enforce both those agreements. On February 17, 2014, the Court

11

appointed Cumberland Trust &. Investment Company ( Cumberland") as sole

trustee of the Tipps Living Trust. Seventy-four days after its appointment by the

Court, Cumberland resigned as trustee on May 2, 2014, citing "unanticipated

difficulties which made their continued service as Trustee impractical" and

declaring "that it has not received Trust property from the prior Trustee,

Thomas Richard Tipps, and, therefore, has no accounting to provide to any

beneficiary". A trustee, especially an institutional fiduciary in the business of

serving as a corporate trustee, is under a duty to take such steps as are

reasonable to secure and keep control of trust property. Doris Lee Tipps, the

sole primary and income beneficiary of the trust, is entitled to receive an

accounting from Thomas Tipps and Cumberland as to the disposition of the

trust's receipts, disbursements, assets, and liabilities.

Chronology

1. On September 4, 2013, Thomas Tipps filed his Application for

Appointment of Temporary Guardian of the Person and Estate of Doris Lee

Tipps.

2. On September 12, 2013, Doris Lee Tipps filed her Contest of

Appointment of Thomas Tipps as Temporary Guardian.

Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Investment Company's Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for Accounting; and Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement - Page 2 2

17

3. On September 13, 2013, Thomas Tipps filed his Application for

Appointment of Permanent Guardian of the Person and Estate of Doris Lee

Tipps.

4. At a hearing held on September 13, 2013, counsel for Thomas

Tipps and Doris Lee Tipps in open court dictated into the Court's record a Rule

11 agreement requiring them both to resign as co-trustees of the Tipps Living

Trust and to appoint a corporate trustee. Mona Richard, the court reporter, is a

certified shorthand reporter; both Thomas Tipps and Doris Lee Tipps, together

with their respective counsel, were present in court; and they both orally

acknowledged the terms of the agreement before the Court, who pronounced it

"a fair deal" and "I definitely approve it". A transcript of the hearing is appended

as "Exhibit A".

5. On December 20, 2013, the Court signed a Memorandum of

Informal Docket Control Pre-Trial Order, ordering Thomas Tipps and Doris Lee

Tipps to mediate their dispute on or before March 1, 2014.

6. On Januai:y 23, 2014, Nathan K. Griffin conducted a mediation that

culminated in a Mediation Settlement Agreement, in accordance with which

Thomas Tipps agreed to resign as trustee of the Tipps Living Trust in favor of

Cumberland as the sole trustee. The agreement provides, in pertinent part, that

Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Investment Company's Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for Accounting; and Motion to Enforce Ru1e 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement - Page 3 3

If one or m_ore disputes arise with regard to the interpretation and/or performance of this Agreement ..., the Parties agree to attempt to resolve same with Nathan K. Griffin .... If litigation is brought to construe or enforce this Agreement, the party who substantially prevails shall be entitled to recover attorney's fees, as well as court cost and expenses, including the cost of mediation.

A copy of the agreement is appended as *Exhibit "B,,.

7. On February 17, 2014, the Court signed an Order Appointing

Guardian of the Person and Approving Mediation Settlement Agreement. In

the order, Cumberland was appointed the sole corporate trustee of the Tipps

Living Trust, and Thomas Tipps was ordered to resign as trustee. Senior

Citizens of Greater Dallas doing business as "The Senior Source" was appointed

the guardian of the person of Doris Lee Tipps with limited authority in

accordance with the provisions of section 1101.152 of the Texas Estates Code.

8. On May 2, 2014, Cumberland executed and distributed its Notice of

Resignation as Successor Corporate Trustee, declaring "that it has not received

Trust property from the prior trustee, Thomas Richard Tipps, and therefore, has

no accounting to provide to any beneficiary" of the Tipps Living Trust. A copy

of the resignation document is appended as "Exhibit C".

Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Investment Company's Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for Accounting; and Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement - Page 4 4

Opposition to Acceptance of Resignation, Discharge of Cumberland, and Reinstatement of Thomas Tipps as Trustee

9. A trustee is under a duty to keep clear and accurate accounts,

showing exactly what the trustee has received and spent and all investment

gains and losses. Any expenses and costs that arise as a result of the trustee's

failure to keep proper accounts are chargeable against the trustee personally,

rather than against the trust estate.

10. Not only must the trustee keep accounts, the trustee must render

an accounting upon a beneficiary's reasonable request. Faulkerv. Bost, 137

S. W.3d 254 (Tex. App. 2004).

11. Cumberland should not be permitted to resign and be discharged

unless and until it has accounted to the Tipps Living Trust sole primary and

income beneficiary, Doris Lee Tipps.

12. Thomas Tipps should not be reinstated as trustee of the Tipps

Living Trust because (i) he is unqualified and ill-suited to serve as a trustee, and

(ii) in both an enforceable Rule 11 agreement and in the Mediation Settlement

Agreement he agreed that only a corporate trustee may serve as sole trustee of

the trust. He is ill-suited and unqualified because he declared himself bankrupt

as recently as May 28, 2009, and was ordered to successfully complete a course

Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust&. Investment Company's Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for Accounting; and Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement - Page 5 5

in personal financial management by a federal bankruptcy judge as recently as

September 27, 2009.

Demand for Accounting

13. Doris Lee Tipps demands that Thomas Tipps and Cumberland

deliver to her as the sole primary and income beneficiary of the Tipps Living

Trust a written statement of accounts covering all transactions since the

creation of the trust on or before January 19, 2015, in accordance with the

provisions of section 113.151 of the Texas Trust Code and containing the

information set forth in section 113.152 of the Texas Trust Code.

Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediation Settlement Agreement

14. The Court should enforce the Rule 11 agreement entered of record

on September 13, 2013, that requires that only a corporate trustee may serve as

the successor sole trustee to Doris Lee Tipps and Thomas Tipps as co-trustees

of the Tipps Living Trust. The Court has a ministerial duty to enforce a valid

Rule 11 agreement. In re Guardianship of White, 329 S.W.3d 591, 592 (Tex. App.

2010, no pet.); Scott-Richterv. Taffarello, 186 S.W.3d 182, 189 (Tex. App. 2006,

pet. denied); ExxonMobil Corp v. Valence Operating Co., 174 S.W.3d 303, 309 {Tex.

App. 2005, pet. denied).

15. Of equal force, the Court should enforce the Mediation Settlement

Agreement approved by the Court on February 17, 2014, that also requires that

Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Invesbnent Company's Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for Accounting; and Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement - Page 6 6

20

Document Page 118 of 240

- - - - - - - - - - --·--

only a corporate trustee may succeed Thomas Tipps as trustee of the Tipps

Living Trust. The agreement states that it "is a written settlement as

contemplated by Section 154.071 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies

Code." That statute provides that, "If the parties reach a settlement and execute

a written agreement disposing of the dispute, the agreement is enforceable in

the same manner as any other written contract. H

Doris Lee Tipps asks the Court to:

• Decline to accept Cumberland's resignation as court-appointed

corporate trustee of the Tipps Living Trust;

• Order Thomas Tipps and Cumberland to deliver a written

statement of accounts to Doris Lee Tipps on or before January 19, 2015,

covering all transactions since the creation of the trust in accordance with the

provisions of sections 113.151 and 113.152 of the Texas Trust Code;

• Refuse to discharge Cumberland from any liability unless and until

Thomas Tipps and Cumberland have delivered their accounting to Doris Lee

Tipps;

• Reject the application of Thomas Tipps to be appointed as the

successor to Cumberland as trustee of the Tipps Living Trust;

• Order that a corporate trustee ~o be selected by Doris Lee Tipps,

the sole primary and income beneficiary of the Tipps Living Trust, be appointed Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Investment Company's Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for Accounting; and Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement - Page 7 7

22

to succeed Cumberland in accordance with the provisions of the Rule 11

Agreement and the Mediation Settlement Agreement; and

• Order Thomas Tipps and Cumberland to pay Doris Lee Tipps'~

attorney's fees and costs as required by the Mediation Settlement Agreement.

Respectfully submitted,

Finley Law Group PLLC

By:_ _-'-",c,._;_.::..-_-,.....::;_;..__-++-,.---

W. Thomas Finle State Bar of Texas Member Number 07025500

Finley Law Group PLLC 5500 Preston Road, Suite 390 Dallas, Texas 75205-2676 Telephone: 972.581.2880 Fax: 972.581.2881

Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust & lnveshnent Company's Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Rt.1instate Trustee; Demand for Accountingi and Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement - Page 8 8

Certificate of Service

I certify that on Octa ber 17, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Investment Company's Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for Accounting; and Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement was served by electronic mail, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, and by facsimile transmission to the following counsel and prose party of record:

Jeffrey Cook Lisa Leffingwell Sullivan & Cook, L.L.C. 2301 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75201-7837

Scott D. Weber Calloway, Norris, Burdette & Weber, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Suite 400 Dallas, Texas 75219-4531

Steven V. Tipps, Pro Se Party 5015 Addison Circ1e Addison, Texas 75001-3008

Alvin J. Golden Katherin C. Akinc Ikard Golden Jones, P .C. 400 West 15th Street, Suite 975 Austin, Texas 78701-1646

939986..J

Doris Lee Tipps' Opposition to Cumberland Trust & Investment Company's Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee, and Reinstate Trustee; Demand for Accounting; and Motion to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and Mediated Settlement Agreement - Page 9 9

Exhibit A

1

1 CAUSE NO. PR-13-3072-3 2 In re The Guardianship of )( IN THE PROBATE COURT 3 Doris Tipps, )( NUf1BER THREE OF 4 Alleged Incapacitated Person )( DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 5 6 7 REPORTERS RECORD

8

9 APPEARANCES: 10 Mr. Jeffrey E. Cook Ms. Lisa Leffingwell 11 2301 Cedar Springs Rd, Ste. 200 Dallas, Texas 75201 12 SB: 04734495 SB: 12158575 13 Attorneys for Thomas Tipps, son of ward 14 Mr. Scott Weber ATTORNEY AT LAW 15 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd, Ste. 400 Dallas, Texas 75219 16 SB: 21044875 (214)521-1520 17 Attorney ad litem for Doris Tipps, the ward 18 Mr. W. Thomas Finley ATTORNEY AT LAW 19 5500 Preston Rd, Ste. 390 Dallas, Texas 75205 20 SB: 07025500 (972)580-2880 21 Attorney for Doris Tipps, the ward 22 BE IT REMEf1BERED THAT on the 13th day of September, 2013, A.O. 23 the above-entitled cause came on for hearing before the

J 24 25 HONORABLE COURT, MICHAELE. MILLER, Judge Presiding, and the following proceedings were taken down by MACHINE SHORTHAN~:

1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 THE COURT: This is Cause Number PR-13-3072-3, 3 regarding Doris Tipps. 4 Go right ahead, sir. 5 MR. COOK: Thank you, Your Honor. 6 Your Honor, I'm Jeff Cook with Lisa Leffingwell, 7 and I filed an Application for Appointment of Temporary 8 Guardian of the Person and Estate of Doris lee Tipps. That 9 application is set this morning, it was filed in time last 10 week. 11 The court appointed Scott Weber as the attorney 12 ad litem for Ms. Tipps upon our filing, and Mr. Weber has 13 worked with us since his appointment to understand the facts 14 and visit with Ms. Tipps, and we have worked out an agreement 15 that we're going to dictate into the record that will eliminate 16 the need for a temporary guardianship. 17 What I'd like -- We have present Tom Tipps, the 18 potential guardian of the person who filed the application, is 19 here in court. Ms. Tipps is here-· 20 Looking very lovely this morning. 21 MS. TIPPS: Thank you. 22 MR. COOK: -- and Mr. Weber is here. And then 23 Mr. Finley is here, who yesterday filed a contest on behalf of 24 Ms. Tipps, to the Application for Temporary Guardianship, and 25 then there are some other family members. Also, who's here is

11

25

Document Page 123 of 240

-~--- - - - ,-------

1 an attorney who drafted all the underlying documents going back 2 20 years, nothing to do with what we're going to do today, but 3 is here. And then Glenda who is one of the children, and 4 Steve, another one of the adult children. 5 Might I proceed? 6 THE COURT: Go right ahead. 7 MR. COOK: Your Honor, I believe the agreement 8 is as follows: Hs. Tipps currently is a resident at a location 9 called Lakeview at Josey Ranch, where she has resided for more 10 than a year. And the agreement is, until either further 11 written agreement of the parties or order of the court, she 12 will continue to stay at that place; that will be her 13 residence. 14 Number two, there are some trusts which are 15 generically called the Tipps Family Trust. I think there are 16 technically two names, there is the Tipps Living Trust, it's 17 the Tipps Family Trust, so the Living Trust gives way to the 18 survivors trust; and the Family Trust. Whatever they are 19 technically called, currently, the co-trustees of those trusts 20 are Doris Tipps and Thomas Tipps, and we have agreed that they 21 have resigned as trustees. And we will agree to appoint a 22 corporate trustee to take over the role of the trustee of all 23 of those trusts, whatever the technical names are. 24 In the meantime, until the corporate trustee is 25 located, Thomas Tipps has been the one writing the checks,

1 paying the bills, he's been handling the money for a long time, 2 he will continue to do that until those duties are turned over 3 to the corporate trustee, subject to this specific agreement. 4 No distributions will be made to any of the 5 adult children of Ms. Tipps at all, and the bills that are paid 6 will be the customary living expenses and normal expenses that 7 he has been paying for Ms. Tipps. That will be in place until 8 the corporate trustee is put in place. 9 Ms. Tipps will agree to submit to a mental 10 status examination. We have agreed that Dr. Crowder will do 11 that and we will not proceed then with this Application for 12 Temporary Guardianship. And we have filed an Application for 13 Permanent Guardianship that will be on hold until the mental 14 examination is complete and we see what the results of that 15 are. I believe that is the agreement. 16 MR. WEBER: That is the agreement. 17 THE COURT: Very good. Sounds like a fair deal. 18 Thank you all for agreeing. 19 MR. COOK: Hay I get some testimony? 20 THE COURT: Go ahead. 21 MR. COOK: Mr. Tipps, you have been present -- 22 THE COURT: Let me swear him in,

23

24

25 (NO OMISSIONS)

13

27

Document Page 125 of 240

- - - - - - - ----- ----

1 THOMAS TIPPS 2 After being sworn, testified on his oath as follows: 3 DIRECT EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. COOK:

5 Q. State your name, please. 6 A. Thomas Tipps. 7 Q. Mr. Tipps, you've been present in court this morning 8 when I read·- and Mr. Weber has agreed on behalf of your 9 mother·- the arrangement that has been dictated into the 10 record of the court; is that correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q, And are you okay and agree with the agreement and the 13 terms as I have dictated them? 14 A. Yes, I agree. 15 Q. Do you request that the court approve that agreement? 16 A. Yes, please. 17 Q. Do you think that agreement is a reasonable way to 18 accomplish the things that you hoped to accomplish by filing 19 this application? 20 A. Yes, I do. 21 MR. COOK: Pass the witness. 22 MR. WEBER: I have no questions, Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: All right. 24 MR, COOK: I have nothing further. 25 THE COURT: Who is going to submit the order?

1 MR. COOK: I don't think there needs to be an 2 order since we have dictated it as a Rule 11 agreement -- 3 assuming you approve it? I don't think we need a written 4 We'll just have this transcribed. 5 THE COURT: Well, I definitely approve it. 6 MR. COOK: We will need an order for Dr. 7 Crowder. 8 MR. WEBER: Right. 9 MR. COOK: Do you want to draft that, Scott? 10 MR. WEBER: I can. 11 MR. COOK: You can? 12 MR. WEBER: That's fine, Jeff. 13 MR. COOK: We'll work that out, Your Honor, and 14 we' 11 get an order down to you. 15 THE COURT: Anything else? 16 MR. WEBER: I can't think of anything. 17 THE COURT: Thank you all very much. 18 MR. COOK: Thank you, Judge. 19 (END OF PROCEEDINGS) 20 21

22 23

24 25

7

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 THE STATE OF TEXAS )

COUNTY OF DALLAS )

3 4 I, MONA L. RICHARD, Official Court Reporter in and for the 5 Probate Court Number Three of Dallas County, State of Texas, do 6 hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true and 7 correct transcription of all portions of evidence and other 8 proceedings requested in writing 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 of the 13 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any, 14 admitted by the respective parties. 15 I further certify that the total cost for the preparation 16 of this Reporter's Record is $42 and was paid by W. Thomas 17 Finley .. 18 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 7th day of July, 2014. 19 SIMONA L. RICHARD 20 Mona L. Richard, Texas CSR 2384 21 Expiration Date: December 2015 Official Court Reporter 22 Probate Court Number Three Dallas County, Texas 23 Dallas, Texas 24 25

16

30

Document Page 128 of 240

----- ----------~

' r Exhibit B

CAUSE NO. PR-13-3072-3 IN RE: THE GUARDIANSJDP OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT § DORIS LEE TIPPS, f NVMBEll THREE OP'

§ ALLEGED INCAPAaTATED PEBSON I DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

'lbePartiesb.ereto,DoriaL Tipps("Doris"), ThomasRic:hanlTippsf7omj,GlendaJordan ("Glenda"), Sally Fink ("Sally"). and Steven Tipps C'Steveiceac11 a "Patty" and colleclivelyrefenul to herein as the "Parties~ agree that this lawsuit and all related claims and controversies betweea them are hereby settled in accordance with the following terms of this Settlement Agreement.

1. The Parties acknowledge that bona fide disputes and conttovmies exist between them. and by reason of such disputes and CODtJ:ovenies they desire to compromise and settle all claims and causes of action of any kind whatsoever which the Parties have or may have arising 001 of the tmnsaction or occummce wbkh is the subject of this litigation. It is ftmher understood liDd agreed that this is a compromise of a disputed matter, and nothing conwined haein shall be coastmcd as an admission of liability by any Party, all such liability being expressly denied.

2. P.ach signatory htnto hereby W8l'fllltS and represents that they have full authority to enter into this Settlement Agreement; that eacll bu had an opportunity to discuss tbe Settlement A,reemem with the lawyer of their own choosing. and that they me entering into same freely and vohmtarily, and it is contemplated that this Settlement Agreemmt is a complete and full Settlement Agreement among tb.e Parties as it relates to the above styled and numbered action:

3. The Parties agree on the following settlement terms subject to Court appioval:

L Senior Source shall be the Owudian of the Person of Mrs. Tipps. In the event that Senior Source shall resign, then the Parties agn,e to medi• with Nathan K. Griffin as tbe mediator, in order to select a suitable succeuor. In lhe event that the Parties cannot agree upon a successor Guantiaa of the Person, then Glenda or Sally may apply, but in no event shall Tom or Steve seek to be appoinled Succeuor Gumdian of the Person of Doris. Tom and Steve :reserve any and all rights to contest the appoiotment of a SUccessor Guardian of the Person;

b. Tom, as Trustee. frnrnrdiately upon Coult appmval shall appoint CUmbedand TuJSt & Investment Company as his Successor Trustee of the Tipps Family Trusts f7rusts"), punuant to the tenns of the Trusts, Tom shall iesign as the Tn1ltee. and Cumberland shall serve as the sole Trustee in aoc:ordance with die terms of the trust documents ~ by Tcay Lustig, whida are attached hcieto u Exlu'bit A·l through A-169;

MEDIATION SBTILBMENT AGREEMENT-Page 1

CAUSE NO. PR-13-3072-3

c. Tom represents and warrants that he, as the Trustee of the Trusts, did not sign any notes or guarantees with regard to the Trusts' acquisition of an interest in the Fitzhugh Property or Tipping T. U.C (collectivdy 'Tipping T');

d. Tom, Glenda, and Sally shall naive Crom the Trusts, as an advance on their inheritance and valued at the aggiegate sum of $125,000, the Trusts' intelest ill the Tipping T, so that they will each have an undivided 116tb interest in the Tipping T;

e. Tom, Glenda. and Sally shall defend and indemnify the Trusts from any all claims arising out of or related to the Trusts' ownership interest in Tipping T prior to the transfer of the Trusts' interest io Tipping T. as descn'bed above;

f. The fees and expenses of Scott D. Weber, the attomey ad litem for Doris, shall be paid out of the Trusts, and the fees and expenses of Tom Finley, counsel for Doris, in the amount of $20,000 shall be paid out of the Trusts within tblee business days of the Court's approval of dm Agreement; and

g. Not subject to Court approval, the fee for mediation sball be paid out of the Trusts.

4. Tom shall be released from all liability as Trustee of the Trusts through the date of bis iesignation, as set out in paragraph 3(b).

S. Except for the agreements set forth herein. the Parties hereby agree to n,Jease.

discharge and forever hold the other harmless 1iom any and all claims. demands, or suits, known or unkno~ fixed or contingent. liquidated or uoJ.iquidatcd. whether or not asserted in the above case, as of this date, arising from or related to the events aod ttansadions which are the subject matter of tbJs cause from the begjnniog of time to the effective date of this Agreement. 'This mutual release rum to the be.nefi1 of all attomeyl, agents, employees, officers, directors, sbamlolden, partners. heirs, assigns, and legal representatives of the Parties hereto.

6. . The Parties and lhcir counsel agree to coopente with each other in the drafting and execution of such additional documents as are reasonably MqUCSted or required to implemeot the provisions and spirit of this Settlement Agreement. but notwithstanding such additional documents the Patties CODfirm that this is a written settlement agreement as contemplated by Section 1S4.071 of the Texu Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

7. 'Ibis Settlement Agreement is made and performable in Dallas County, Texas, and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas.

8. If one or more disputes arise with regard to the interpidation and/or ped'ormaoce of thia Agreement or any of its provisions, the Parties agree to attempt to resolve same with Nathan K.

MEDIATION SETl"LEMENT AGREEMENT-Page 2

CAUSE NO. PR-13-3072-3

Griffin, the Mediator who facilitated this settlement If litigation is brought to construe or enforce this Agreement. the Party who substantially prevails shall be entitled to recover attorney's fees, as well as court costs and expenses, including the cost of the mediation.

9. Although the Mediator has provided a basic outline of this Settlement Agreement to the Parties and/or their counsel as a courtesy to facilitate the final resolution of this dispute, the Parties and/or their counsel have thoroughly reviewed such outline (and, in the case of any Patties who are not represented by counsel, have had an opportunity to consult with counsel of their own choosing regarding such outline, have declined to do so, and are not relying on any other counsel for any other Party) 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, have been advised by the Mediator in writing that this Settlement Agreement should be independently reviewed by counsel before executing lhe Agreement.

AGREED. this 23n1 day of January, 2014.

}L.

,"' r..r OFORM:

Jeff • a Leffingwell Scott . e Attomeyfor Thomas Tipps Attorney Ad Litem for Doris L. Tipps

~~ TomF'mley Attorney for Doris L Tipps

MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT- Page 3

Exhibit C

NOTICE OF RMIQNATIQN AS SUCCBSSQR CQRJ!ORA'l'B DWSTEB CUMBERLAND TR.UST AND INV.BSTMBNT COMPANY hereby resigns as the successor

corporate Trustee of The Tipps Famn, Trust and nppi Survivors Trot o/a Tbomu Viuon

Tipp, and Doril Lee Tipps dated Marcia 6, 1992, a, aJDeDded aad restated January 231 2003,

pursuant to Artide m Section 3 of said TnJst, to be eflecmve Immediately.

CUMBERLAND TR.UST AND INVBSTMBNT COMPANY affinns 1hat it bas not received

Trvst property from the prior 1rustee, Thomas Ridwd Tipps, and, thereforo, has no accounting to

pn:,vide to any beneficiary thereof

FILED 10/20/2014 5:54:21 PM JOHN F. WARREN COUNTY CLERK DALLAS COUNTY

NO. PR-13-3072-3

IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF § IN THE P.ROBATE COURT § DORIS LEE TIPPS § NUMBER THREE OF § AN ALLEGED INCAPACffATED § ADULT § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

MOTION TO SHOW AUTBQR!TX TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES fflOMAS RICHARD TIPPS, ("Movant'') herein. and files this Motion to

Show Authority complaining ofW. THOMAS FINLEY, alleged attorney for DORIS LEE TIPPS,

and shows the Honorable Court the following:

I.

W. TBOI\'t.\S FINLEY does not have authority to act as counsel for DOR.IS LEE TIPPS

in this matter. DORIS LEE TIPPS does not have sufficient capacity to retain counsel as she was

adjudicated to be totally incapacitated on February 17, 2014. W. THOMAS FL�LEl:' is in fact

representing STEVEN VINSON TIPPS.

II.

Based upon these facts. Movant believes that \V. THOMAS Fm'LEYis prosecuting this suit

without proper authority of DORIS LEE TIPPS. Pursuant to Rule I 2 of the Texas Rules of Civi1

Procedure, Movant requests that W. THOMAS FINLEY should be cited to appear before this court

and show his authority to act on behalf of DORIS LEE TfPPS. Should W. THOMAS FIIVLEY

fail to show sufficient authority to prosecute this suit on behalf of DORIS LEE TIPPS, then W.

THOMAS FINLEY should be banned from further appearing in this case and the pleadings of W.

THOMASFINLEY's alleged to be filed on behalf of DORIS LEE TIPPS should be stricken. MQTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY-Pye l Calli!C No. PR-13-3072-3 (Tipps)

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS, Movant

herein, respectfully prays that:

1. W. THOMAS FINLEY will be cited to appear and to answer herein and to

present to this court :mfficient proof of,authority to prosecute the suit on behalf of DORIS

LEE TIPPS;

2. Upon the failure of W. THOMAS Flr~LEY to present such proof to the

court, the Court order that \V. THOMAS FINLEY is no longer allowed to appear in this

cause and to further order pleadings filed by W. THOMAS FINLEY to be stricken from the

record;

3. The Court should enter an order denying any and all attorney's fees requested

by W. THOMAS FINLEY; and

4. For such other and further relief, in law or in equity, to which THOMAS

RlCHARD TIPPS, Movant herein, may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

Isl Jeffrey Cook

Jeffrey Cook State Bar No. 04734495 Lisa Leffmgwell State Bar No. 12158575 2301 Cedar Springs Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel. (214)520-7494 Fax. (214)528-6925

ATTORNEYS FOR TlIOMAS RICHARD TIPPS

,MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY- Pue 2 Cause No. PR-13-3072~3 (Tipps)

c_tRTIFICA:TE OF SERVI(;!

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent via facsimile to all counsel of record on this 20th day of October, 2014.

/s/ Jeffrey Cook

Jeffrey Cook Lisa Leffingwell

MOTWN TO SHOW AUTHORITY - Pue 3 Cause No. PR-13-3072-3 (Tipps)

VER.IEICATIQN STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALLAS §

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared THOMAS RICHARD

TIPPS, who, on oath, stated that the statements made in the foregoing Motion to Show Authority to Act are true and correct to the best of his lmowledge and belief.

1\1 . .

..THOMAS :::.:~ ~~-;_,_, RICHARD TIPPS ·,,

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this the ~ a y of __ (k~,, 2014, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.

~~

LISA R LEFFINGWELL My commission Expires Junt 26. 2018

MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY- PaJ.C 4 Cause No. PR-13-3072-3 (Tipps)

·•·, I

~ .. ··r.· ....... 0 LJ ORIGINAL o ORIGINAL NO. PR-13-3072-3

INTHE ESTATE OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT § DORIS LEE TIPPS, § NUMBER THREE OF § AN JNCAPACITATED PERSON § DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION, DISCHARGE TRUSTEE AND REJNSTATE TRUSTEE

On this 21st day of October, 2014, ~ame on to be he~d the joint Motion to Accept

Resignation, Discharge Trustee and Reinstate Trustee filed by CUN.t:BERLAND TR:UST AND

INVESTMENT COMPANY (hereinafter"CUMBERLAND") and 1HOMAS TIPPS. After hearing

and considering the pleadings filed herein and evidence submitted, the Court finds as follows:

1. Pursuant to the M.ediatlon Settlement Agreement filed herein and approved by the

Court on February 17, 2014, THOMAS TIPPS resigned as Trustee ofthe Tipps Family Trusts (.. the

Trusts") on March 1~, 2014, pursuant to the Court's order;

2. CUMBERLAND was appointed as Successor Trustee and executed its acceptance on

March 17, 2014;

3. CUMBERLAND is unable to perform its duties as Trustee since a condition of its

acceptance was that STEVEN VINSON TIPPS move out of the Hood real property owned by the

Trust~. STEVEN VINSON TIPPS has failed to move as he agreed, and CUMBERLAND has

executed its resignation dated May 2, 2014 subject to the Court's acceptance;

4.. Based on the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that it will not be possible to

find a Corporate Trustee willing to serve as Trustee of the Trusts;

5. CUMBERLAND notified all beneficiaries of the Trust of said resignation pursuant to

Section 3 of Article 3 of the Trusts on May 2, 2014;

PR 0-13 -03072°:3 - - - - - - . . COOR ORDER . 0783118

m:~i~G MOTION TO ACCEPr RESIGNATION, DIS@ARGE TRl ~ll il l l ~m111111111111~ 0 0 6. Although CUMBERLAND· accepted the appointment of Trustee of the Trusts,

CUMBERLAND never took possession or control of any of the assets of the Trust, no account is

required by CUMBERLAND and it should be discharged from liability, if any;

7. 1HOMAS TIPPS has continued to pay the expenses of the Ward so her care has been

assured and collect all receipts due the Trusts pending the transfer to CUMBERLAND;

8. THOMAS TIPPS was previously appointed as Trustee by Ward when she had

capacity to make such appointment; and

9. It is in the best interest of Ward that 1HOMAS TIPPS be reinstated and con finned as

Successor Trustee of the Tipps Trusts.

IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court as follows:

1. The resignation of CUMBERLAND TRUST AND INVESTMENT COMPANY is

accepted by the Court;

2. No accounting is required from CUMBERLAND TRUST AND INVESTMENT

COMPANY and it is hereby discharged as Trustee of the Tipps Family Trusts; and

3. THOMAS TIPPS is reinstated and confirmed as Trustee of the Tipps Family Trusts.

SIGNED this ;;)..., f day of 2014.

ORDER GRAN']'ING MOTION TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION. DISCHARGE TRUSTEE AND REINSTATE TRUSTIE- Page 2 40 .. . .,

Q 0 lJ ORIGINAL NO. PR-13-3072-3

IN THE ESTATE OF § · IN THE PROBATE COURT § DORIS LEE TIPPS, § NUMBER THREE OF § AN INCAPACITATED PERSON § DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY

On this 21st day of October, 2014, came on to be heard the Motion to Show Authority filed

by TIIOMAS TIPPS. After hearing and considering the pleadings filed herein and evidence

submitted, the Court finds that the Motion should be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE. ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court as follows:

1. The Motion to Show Authority is granted;

2. W. THOMAS FINLEY is banned from further appearing in this case and the

pleadings of W. THOMAS FINLEY alleged to be filed on behalf of DORIS LEE TIPPS should

be stricken;

2. Any_ attorney's fees r ~ S FINLEY should be denied.

SIGNEDthis1:J_dayo~~ ,2014.

~rno=____

PR-13-03072-3. COOR ORDER 878711

ORDKR GRANTING MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY· Page l ~II!ll l l l ~lil l ~l lI

IV.

W. THOMAS FINLEY, COUNSEL FOR DORIS L. TIPPS

APPELLANT DORIS LEE TIPPS' OPPOSITION TO SENIOR SOURCE'S

PETITION TO REVOKE AUTHORITY OF AGENT

(C.R. s 42)

FILED 10/21/2014 12:33:28 PM JOHN F. WARREN COUNTY CLERK DALLAS COUNTY

No. PR-13-3072-3

In the Matter of the § In the Probate Court § Guardianship of § No. Three § Doris L. Tipps § Dallas County, Texas

Dorris Lee Tipp's Opposition to The Senior Source's Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent

1. On September 10, 2013, Doris Lee Tipps, as principal, executed a

Medical Power of Attorney naming her son Steven Vinson Tipps as her agent

for making health care decisions for her in accordance with the provisions of

title 2, subtitle H, chapter 166, subchapter D, of the Texas Health and Safety

Code. A copy of the Medical Power of Attorney is appended as "Exhibit A".

2. In accordance with the provisions of section 166.152 ("Scope and

Duration") of the Texas Health and Safety Code, the medical power of atto1ney

given to Steven Vinson Tipps is effective indefinitely.

3. Subsection 166.156 (•Appointment of Guardian") of the Texas

Health and Safety Code mandates that, as between a guardian and the agent to

whom the principal has delegated the authority to make health care decisions

for her, the Court must •consider the preferences of the principal as expressed

in the medical power of attorney."

Doris Lee Tipp's Opposition to The Senior Source Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent - Page 1

43

4. Section 1151.001 ("Rights and Powers Retained by Ward") of the

Texas Estates Code provides that "[a]n incapacitated person for whom a

guardian is appointed retains all legal and civil rights and powers except those

designated by court order as legal disabilities by virtue of having been

specifically granted to the guardian."

5. Subsection 102.003(a) ("Rights of the Elderly") of the Texas Human

Resources Code provides that "[a]n elderly individual has all the rights,

benefits, responsibilities, and privileges granted by the constitution and laws of

this state and the United States, except where lawfully restricted. The elderly

individual has the right to be free of interference, coercion, discrimination, and

reprisal in exercising these civil rights."

6. Subsection 102.003(f) ("Rights of the Elderly") of the Texas Human

Resources Code provides that "(a]n elderly individual may complain about the

individual's care or treatment. The complaint may be made anonymously or

communicated by a person designated by the elderly individual. The person

providing services may not discriminate or take other punitive action against an

elderly individual who makes a complaint."

7. Steven Vinson Tipps is-and has been for the past many years-the

constant caregiver for his mother, Doris Lee Tipps.

Doris Lee Tipp's Opposition to The Senior Source Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent - Page 2 8. Doris Lee Tipps prefers that all decisions about her health care be

either made or, at least, ratified by her son Steven Vinson Tipps.

9. The Senior Source's petition to revoke the authority of Steven

Vinson Tipps is plainly an attempted act of reprisal and a punitive action taken

against Doris Lee Tipps and her designated agent, Steven Vinson Tipps, that

violates the legal and civil rights reserved to her by the Texas Estates Code and

by the Texas Human Resources Code.

Doris Lee Tipps asks the Court to reject the petition of The Senior Source

to revoke the authority of her duly designated health care agent, Steven Vinson

Tipps.

Respectfully submitted,

Finley Law Group PLLC

---

By:,____:{....:;..Ov,A.1.-!..;.:·-·- - - , = . x . ~ ~ - -

W. Thomas Finl y State Bar of Texas Membe Number 07025500

Finley Law Group PLLC 5500 Preston Road, Suite 390 Dallas, Texas 75205-2676 Telephone: 972.581.2880 Fax: 972.581.2881

Doris LeeTipp's Opposition to The Senior Source Petition to R~voke Authority of Agent - Page 3

3

44

Document Page 143 of 240

----~---~·----~ - - --

Certificate of Service

I certify that on October 21, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Doris Lee Tipp's Opposition to The Senior Source's Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent was this day sent by electronic mail, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, and by facsimile transmission to the following counsel of record and pro se party:

Scott D. Weber Calloway, Norris, Burdette & Weber, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Suite 400 Dallas, Texas 75219-4531

Steven V. Tipps, Pro Se Party 5015 Addison Circle Addison, Texas 75001-3008

John H. Phillips Boone, Boone & Phillips, L.L.P. 4313 West Lovers Lane Dallas, Texas 75209-2803.

939987_1

Doris Lee Tipp's Opposition to The Senior Source Petition to Revoke Authority of Agent - Page 4

Exhibit A

MEDICAL POWER OF ATIOR.NRY

OF

DORIS LEE TIPPS

Dated: September 10, 2013

5

46 '

DISCLOSURE STATEMENI Information Concerning The Medical Power of Attome)!

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT LEGAL DOCUMENT. BEFORE SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT, YOU SHOULD KNOW THESE IMPORTANT FACTS:

Except to the extent you state otherwise, this document gives the person you name as your agent the authority to make any and all health care decisions for you in accordance with your wishes, including your religious and moral beliefs, when you are no longer capable of making them yourself. Because "health care" means any treatment, service, or procedure to maintain, diagnose, or treat your physical or mental condition, your agent has the power to make a broad range of health care decisions for you. Your agent may consent, refuse to consent, or withdraw consent ta medical treatment and may make dedsions about zuithdrawing or wit'1holding life~s11staini11g treatment. Your agent may not consent to volrmtary inpatient mental health seroices, convulsive treatment, pStJChosurgery, or abortion. A physician must comply with your agent's instructions or allow you to be transferred to another physician.

Your agent's authority begins when your doctor certifies that you lack the competence to make health care decisions.

Your agent is obligated to follow your instructions when making decisions on your behalf. Unless you state otherwise, your agent has the same authority to make decisions about your health care as you would have had.

It is important that you discuss this document with your physician or other health care provider before you sign it to ensure that you understand the nature and range of decisions that may be made on your behalf. If you do not have a physician, you should talk to someone else who is knowledgeable about these issues and can answer your questions. You do not need a lawyer's assistance to complete this document; but, if there is anything in this document that you do not understand, then you should ask a lawyer to explain it to you.

The person you appoint as agent should be someone you know and trust.

The person must be eighteen (18) years of age or older or a person under eighteen {18) years of age who has had the disability of minority removed. If you appoint your health or residential care provider (e.g., your physician or an Disclosure Statement • Page 1 ltiitialed for Authenticity .LY?J D.L.T.

employee of a home health care agency, hospital, nursing home, or residential care home, other than a relative), then that person has to choose between acting as your agent or as your health or residential care provider. The Jaw does not permit a person to do both at the same time.

You should inform the person you appoint that you want the person to be your health care agent. You should discuss tl1is docu111e11t with your agent and your pltysicia11 a11d give each a signed copy. You should i11dicate on the doc11me11t itself the people and institutions who l1ave signed copies. Your agent is not liable for health care decisions made in good faith on your behalf.

Even after you have signed this document, you have the right to make health care decisions for yourself as long as you are able to do so and treatment cannot be given to you or stopped over your objection. You have the right to revoke the authority granted to your agent by informing your agent or your health or residential care provider orally or in writing, or by your execution of a subsequent medical power of attorney. Unless you state otherwise, your appointment of a spouse dissolves on divorce.

This document may not be changed or modified. If you want to make changes in the document, then you must make an entirely new one.

You may wish to designate an alternate agent in the event that your agent is unwiUing, unable, or ineligible to act as your agent. Any alternate agent you designate has the same authority as your primary agent to make health care decisions for you.

THIS POWER OF AITORNEY IS NOT VALID UNLESS IT IS SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO COMPETENT ADULT WITNESSES. THE FOLLOWING PERSONS MAY N.QI ACT AS ONE OF THE WITNESSES:

(a) The person you have designated as your agent;

(b) A person related to you by blood or marriage;

(c) A person entitled to any part of your estate after your death under a Will or Codicil executed by yoi1 or by operation of law;

(d) Your attending physician;

(e) An employee of your attending physician;

Disclosure Statement • Page 2 Initialed for Authenticity ez<rL);:/ D.L.T.

7

48

Document Page 147 of 240

- ---------------------

(f) An employee of a health care facility in which you are a patient if the employee is providing direct patient care to you or is an officer, director, partner, or business office employee of the health care facility or of any parent organization of the hea]th care facility; or

(g) A person who, at the time this power of attorney is executed, has a claim against any part of your estate after your death.

SIGN BELOW TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PRIOR TO YOUR EXECUTION OF THE MEDICAL POWER OF A ITORNEY AND TO AFFIRM THAT YOU HA VE READ AND DO UNDERSTAND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN.

* * * * *

I acknowledge receipt of this Disclosure Statement prior to execution of the Medical Power of AttomeJ/, and I affirm that I have read and understand the information contained in this Disclosure Statement.

Doris Lee Tipps

Disclosure Statement • Page 3 ~J Initialed for Authenticity D.t.T.

MEDICAL POWER OF ATTORNEY 1. Designation of Health Care Agent. I, Doris Lee Tipps, appoint:

Steven Vinson Tipps 3210 East Beltline Road, #146 Farmers Branch, Texas 75234-2324

as my agent to make any and all health care decisions for me, except to the extent I state otherwise in this document. This Medical Power of Attorney takes effect if I become unable to make my own health care decisions and this fact is certified in writing by my physician.

2. Limitations on Decision-Making Authority. Limitations on the decision-making authority of my agent are as foUows: My agent must honor any Directive to Physicians and Family or Surrogates that I have made under the Texas Advance Directive Act if, but only if, that Directive would otherwise require ( under the circumstances then existing) that life- sustaining procedures be withheld or withdrawn. The fact that I have executed a Directive to Physicians and Family or Surrogates must not limit the power of my agent to act under this Medical Power of Attorney, unless the Directive would otherwise operate to require that life-sustaining procedures be withheld or withdrawn. This document is not intended to revoke any such Directive.

3. Medical Information. My agent is to be considered a personal representative under privacy regulations related to Protected Health Infonnation ("PHI") and is to be entitled to all health information in the same manner as if I personally were making the request. Accordingly, I confirm that, in connection therewith, my agent will be treated as my personal representative for all purposes as provided by regulation subsection l 64.502(g) of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the medical information privacy Jaw and regulations generaJly referred to as "HIPAA:

4. Designation of Alternate Agent. (You are not required to designate an alternate agent but you may do so. An alternate agent may make the same health care decisions as the designated agent if the designated agent is unable or unwiUing to act as your agent. If the agent designated is your spouse, the designation is automatically revoked by law if your marriage is Medical Power of Auomey- Page I Initialed for Autllcnticity ~o<'..:J D.L.T.

dissolved.) If the person designated as my agent is unable or unwilling to make health care decisions for me, then I designate the following person to serve as my agent, to make health care decisions for me as authorized by this document:

Alternate Agent: None The original of this document is kept at:

3210 East Beltline Road, #146 Farmers Branch, Texas 75234-2324.

The folJowing individuals or institutions have signed copies:

W. Thomas Finley, Esq. Finley Law Group PLLC 5500 Preston Road, Suite 390 Dallas, Texas 75205-2676.

5. Duration. I understand that this power of attorney exists indefinitely from the date I execute this document unless I establish a shorter time or revoke the power of attorney. If I am unable to make heaJth care decisions for myself when this power of attorney expires, then the authority I have granted my agent continues to exist until the time I become able to make health care decisions for myself.

6. Prior Designations Revoked. I revoke any prior medical power ;>{ attorney previously signed by me.

7. Acknowledgement of Disclosure Statement. I have been provided with a Disclosure Statement explaining the effect of this document. I have read and understand the information contained in the Disclosure Statement.

I sign my name to this Medical Power of Attorney on this tenth day of September, 2013, at Dallas, Dallas County, Texas.

Doris Lee Tipps

Medical Power of Attorney Page 2 ¥

Initialed for Authcntici1y

10

51

Document Page 150 of 240

----------------------------------

Statement of First Witness

I am not the person appointed as agent by this document. I am not related to the principal by blood or marriage. I wou)d not be entitled to any portion of the principal's estate on the principal's death. I am not the attending physician of the principal or an employee of the attending physician. I have no claim against any portion of the principal's estate on the principal's death. Furthermore, if I am an employee of a health care facility in which the principal is a patient, I am not involved in providing direct patient care to the principal and am not an officer, director, partner, or business office employee of the hea1th care facility or of any parent organization of the health care facility.

(Print Na ¥MbfC 10, UJG "'(Pate) i _·-

~J N'ov~ vtt(~tt~lfes ,we"'ve, .{Address)

J)er\\cis, ,e~s 151/JT-~126 (City and State)

Signature of Second Witnes~

~nntlvdtg~;'Jk6 -:,-s Iez.

(City and State)

933380_1

Medical Power of Attorney - Page 3 lnilialed for Authenticity ad;Y-s:l" O.LT.

CAUSE NO. PR-13-3072-3 D ORIGINAL GUARDIANSHIP OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT DORIS LEE TIPPS, § NO. 3 OF fNCAPACITATED § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER TO REVOKE AUTHORITY OF AGENT

On the 21 ' 1 day of October, 2014, the PETITION TO REVOKE AUTHORJTY OF AGENT filed by SENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER DALLAS dlb/a The Senior Source, Guardian of the Person of DORIS LEE TIPPS, an Incapacitated Person, (the "Ward") on June 2, 2014, was heard and considered by the Court, and after hearing and considering the pleadings filed herein, testimony given and arguments, the Court finds that a conflict exists between the powers granted the Guardian of the Person and the powers claimed by STEVEN V. TIPPS under a medical power of attorney from the Ward, that is not in the best interest of the Ward and may be detrimental to the health and proper care of the Ward, and that the authority of STEVEN V. TIPPS under a medical power of attorney fyom be Ward should be revoked.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the authority of STEVEN V. TIPPS under any medical power of attorney from the Ward, DORIS LEE TIPPS, is hereby revoked.

SIGNED this f.--' ~fOctober, 2014.

f'R--\3-0aG'l2~3 Cl)OR --

OROER TIPPS GUARDIANSHIP - ORDER TO REVOKE AUTHORITY OF AGENT CAUSE NO. PR-13~3072-3 - Page Solo :-iiiiim1111111111t Document Page 152 of 240 _J

54

\ . -. . .. - --·-· · -----~. ···-·-"··---·. . -···~---,. . . --.·. ---·· · . . _. . - . - . . . - . - FIL ED oS-1"'1-ol'-\'lt-CV ISJAN-1 IJ!Wtfll A~l:_1 '

No. PR-13-3072-3 tiiirvW~RR N'l_ DALLAS do~~~~ In the Matter of the In the Probate Court Guardianship of No.3 Doris L. Tipps Dallas County, Texas Notice of Appeal Steven V. Tipps, pro se Appellant, gives notice of his intent to appeal the trial court's Order Granting Motion to Accept Resignation, Discharge Trustee and Reinstate Trustee signed on October 21, 2014.

This appeal is taken to the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas

~ctfully submitted, •

(.x:t..:: ~ 1;

Steven V. Tipps ~!

5015 Addison Circle ~ ~ Addison, Texas 75001 c :i 214-223-6358 [";; YI 800-358-6866 J g Fax 254-731-2522 Email: casing@prodigy.net casingscientific@gmail.com

PR-13-03072-8 .. ·: ... CNA 1 ........ ·'.""'> NOTIC[ - APPEAL

i[iil~illllil\l\lllll Document Page 153 of 240

..... . .. .;, .,., ......-........ ·- ........... ............... _... _ ...

, , , .... ~· ~-·~······-- .. , .............. · ~ ..... -·-··· -· .................._.._ ...... .

Certificate of Service I certify that on November 19, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal was sent by electronic email, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, and by facsimile transmission to the following counsel of record.

Jeffrey Cook Lisa Leffingwell Sullivan & Cook, L.L.C. 2301 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 200· Dallas, Texas 75201-7837

Alvin J. Golden Katherine C. Alcine Ikard Golden Jones, P.C. 400 West 15th Street, Suite 975 Austin, Texas 78701-1646

Steven V. Tipps

v.

CASE EXCEPTS - De Ayala v. Mackie

Document Page 155 of 240

--- - --�-- �

COMBINED APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF TO THREE APPELLEE REPLY BRIEFS

CASE EXCERPT

In DeAyala v. Mackie, the Texas Supreme Court states:

"Probate proceedings are an exception to the "one final judgment" rule; in such cases, "multiple judgments final for purposes of appeal can be rendered on certain discrete issues." Id. at 192. The need to review "controlling, intermediate decisions before an error can harm later phases of the proceeding" has been held to justify this rule. Logan v. McDaniel, 21 S.W.3d 683, 688 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. denied). Not every interlocutory order in a probate case is appealable, however, and determining whether an otherwise interlocutory probate order is final enough to qualify for appeal, has proved difficult."

"In the past, courts relied on the "substantial right" test to decide whether an ostensibly interlocutory probate order had sufficient attributes of finality to confer appellate jurisdiction. See, e.g., Huston v. F.D.I.C., 800 S.W.2d 845, 848 (Tex.1990); Estate o(Wright, 676 S.W.2d 161, 163 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1984, writ refd n.r.e.). Under that standard, once the probate court adjudicated a "substantial right," the order was appealable. That phrase soon became a fruitful source of litigation as appellate courts struggled to delineate its parameters. Eleven years ago, we attempted to clarify appellate jurisdiction in this complex area. See Crowson v. Wakeham, 897 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex.1995) (acknowledging that "our language heretofore has been somewhat ambiguous")."We noted that, while adjudication of a "substantial right" was one factor to be considered, equally important was our earlier precedent requiring that the order dispose of all issues in the phase of the proceeding for which it was brought. Id. at 782-83. To sidestep "potential confusion" about the appropriate test for jurisdiction, we adopted this test:

"If there is an express statute, such as the one for the complete heirship judgment, declaring the phase of the probate proceedings to be final and appealable, that statute controls. Otherwise, if there is a proceeding of which the order in question may logically be considered a part, but one or more pleadings also part of that proceeding raise issues or parties not disposed of, then the probate order is interlocutory." Page 97 of 103

"Id. at 783. Recognizing the inherent difficulties in applying any test to determine appealability, we urged parties to seek severance orders to eliminate ambiguities about whether the order was intended to be final and appealable. Id. at 783 (explaining that "[l]itigants can and should seek a severance order either with the judgment disposing of one party or group or parties, or seek severance as quickly as practicable after the judgment")." Moreover, under Crowson, the trial court's order was interlocutory because it did not dispose of all parties or issues in a particular phase of the proceedings. Because an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction and refusing to remove an executor does not end a phase of the proceedings, but sets the stage for the resolution of all proceedings, the order is interlocutory. See, e.g., Fischer v. Williams, 160 Tex. 342, 331 S.W.2d 210, 213-14 (1960) "The Legislature enacted the statute permitting interlocutory appeal of orders overruling motions to vacate orders appointing receivers or trustees in 191 7, and the provision remains substantially unchanged today. See Act of March 30, 1917, 35th Leg., R.S., ch. 168, § 1, 1917 Tex. Gen. Laws 379, 379 (now codified at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE§ 51.014(a)(2))At no time during the statute's almost ninety-year history have we held that it applies to a motion to remove an estate's executor. Our statement in Bailey - that an administrator is designated trustee of estate property - referred to the administrator's obligation, as holder of legal title to the estate's property, to pay ad valorem taxes accruing during administration. Bailey, 862 S.W.2d at 583, 586. It did not equate an executor to a trustee for all purposes, and there is no evidence that the Legislature intended to permit immediate appeals of orders refusing to remove estate executors. Accordingly, we conclude that section 51.014(a)(2) does not permit Ayala to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's order."1 5

Page 98 of 103

VI. CASE SUMMARIES

a. TEXAS PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CONGRUENT WITH

FEDERAL PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

COMBINED APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF TO THREE APPELLEE REPLY BRIEFS CASE SUMMARIES

Texas Procedural Due Process congruent with federal Procedural Due Process

1. In the area of procedural due process, the protections afforded under the Texas Constitution are congruent with those provided by the Federal Constitution.

See Price v. City o{Junction, 711 F. 2d 582, 590 (5th Cir. 1983); cf University o{Texas Med. Sch. v. Than. 901 S.W.2d 926, 930-31 (Tex. 1995) cert. denied, 528 499, 499 U.S. 1160, 120 S. Ct. 1171, 145 L. Ed.ed 1080 (2000). 2. Generally, procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Brown v. University o{Texas Health Ctr., 957 W.W.2d 911, 915 (Tex. App.- Tyler 1997, no writ).

3. Procedural due process involves basic notions of justice and fair play. The sufficiency of procedures must be judged in light of the parties, the subject matter and the circumstances involved.

Id. GeneHarmonFordv. DavidMcDavidNissan, Inc., 997 S.W.2d298, 312 (Tex. App.-Austin 1999, writ denied).

The sufficiency of procedures must be judged in light of the parties, the subject matter and the circumstances involved.

Id. (quoting Brewer v. Austin lndep. Sch. Dist. 779 F.2d 260, 263 (5 1h Cir. 1985

Page 99 of 103 b. TEXAS DUE COURSE CLAUSE CONGRUENT WITH

FEDERAL DUE PROCESS CLAUSE(S)

COMBINED APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF TO THREE APPELLEE REPLY BRIEFS

State of Texas Due Course of Law congruent with federal Due Process of Law

"While the Texas Constitution is textually different in that it refers to "due course" rather than "due process", we regard these terms as without meaningful distinction. Fleming v. State, 376 S.W.3rd 854 (2012) (35)

"Due process at a minimum requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Tex. Comm. On Env. Quality v. Denbury Onshore, LLC, Texas. App. LEXIS 7177 (41)

"The Supreme Court of Texas has stated that the language of the Due Course of Law Clause of the Texas Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution is nearly identical" and that there is no meaningful distinction between "due course" and "due process". Richard v. Dretke, Tex. App. LEXIS 2261 2009 (20)

In analyzing a claim of deprivation of procedural due process, we apply a two-part test: we must determine ( 1) whether the plaintiff had a liberty or property interest entitled to procedural due process; and(2) if so, what process is due. Dallas County v. Gonzales, (2006) (17)

The Due Process Clause does not mandate the parties be heard at the arbitration hearing; rather, the Due Process Clause requires that the parties be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the arbitration hearing. Ewing v. Act Catastrophe-Texas LC, 375, S.W.2d 545 (2012) (16)

--holding that although Texas Constitution refers to "due course" rather than the U.S. Constitution's "due process", the phrases are not meaningfully distinct and federal due process are persuasive authority when interpreting Texas's "due course" guarantee. Brantley v. Texas Youth Commission, 2011, 365 S.W.3d 89 (2011) (17)

The "due course" clause in our state constitution requires the same level of "due process" as the federal constitution. City of Fort Worth v. Park, 2011, Tex. APP LEXIS 5725 (2011) (14)

Page 100 of 103

What process is due is measured by a flexible standard that depends on the practical requirements of the circumstances. Collins v. Texas Natural Resource, 2002, 94 S.W.3d 876 (2002) (16)

At a minimum, due process requires a person who may be deprived of a liberty or property interest to be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Anthony v. State, 209 S.W.3d 296 (2006) (37)

Page 101 of 103 c. DAVISON V. GREAT NAT'L LIFE INS. CO.

CASE REFERENCE SUMMARIES

COMBINED APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF TO THREE APPELLEE REPLY BRIEFS CASE SUMMARIES Davidson v. Great Nat'I Life Ins. Co. (TEX.SUP.COURT)

Confrontation and Cross Examination

1. Texas Employers Ins Assoc v. Garza, 308 S/W.2d 521, 527 (TEX.CIV.APP) Amarillo 1957, writ refd n.r.e.

"This court, as have many others, has held that right to cross-examine a witness is a substantial one, and it is error to so restrict it as to prevent the cross-examining party from going fully into all matters connected with the examination in chief'.

2. Texas & N.O.R. Co. v Barham, 204 S.W.2d 205, 214 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1947, no writ)

"... prompted reversal because the trial court did not allow full development of facts which might have placed him (appellant) in a more favorable light before the jury."

3. Murray v. Morris, 17 S.W.2d 110, 111 (Tex. Civ.App.)-Amarillo 1928, writ dism'd "saying: The purpose of cross-examination is to sift and to modify and to have the witness explain what has been said on his direct examination, and if the witness by this process can be discredited and the weight of his testimony weakened, the right should not be denied.

4. Pecos & N.T. Ry. Co. v. Porter, 156 S.W. 267, 274-275 (Tex.Civ.App.) -

Amarillo 1913, no writ)).

The court went [*479] on in Pecos to say, "A witness may be cross examined as to his examination in chief in all its bearings and as to whatever goes to explain or modify what he has stated in his examination in chief, and prejudice will be presumed where this right is denied."

Page 102 of 103 d. TEXAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION CASES

COMBINED APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF TO THREE APPELLEE REPLY BRIEFS

CASE SUMMARIES - TEXAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION

A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Walker v. Gutierrez, 111 S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex.2003).

A trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. Cayton v. Moore, 224 S.W.3d 440 Tex.App. - Dallas 2007, no pet. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court clearly failed to analyze and determine the law correctly or applied the law incorrectly to the facts. Id.

The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc. 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985)

When we determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court unless its decision was so arbitrary that it exceeded the bounds of reasonableness. Clarendon Nat 'I Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 199 S.W.3d 482, 494 (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist. 2006, no pet].

A trial court has broad discretion and we may not disturb its ruling absent manifest abuse of discretion. Champion Int'! Corp. v. Twelfth Court ofAppeals, 762 W.W.2d 898,899 (Tex. 1988; TEX.R. CIV.

Certiorari lies to correct proceedings erroneous upon the face of the record when there is no other adequate remedy. It is available in the exercise of super intending control over a tribunal which is proceeding illegally where no other mode of review has been provided. Certiorari lies where there is a want of jurisdiction or an act in excess in excess of jurisdiction which is apparent on the face of the record. (State v. Nelson, 246 Ark, 210, 438 S.W.2d (1969).

Page 103 of 103

VII.

APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY

GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE

OF

DORIS L. TIPPS

>,,.

Ll ORIGINAL - CAUSE NO. ft213-;;o12. -3 A~~~ IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT 2tfG'sEP -i. PH 2= ,.

§ JOr;;i F. WARREN DOJUS LEE TIPPS, § OF COUNTY CLERK § DALLAS COUNTY AN ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS and files this Application for Appointment of

Temporary Guardian of the Person and Estate of DORIS LEE TIPPS, an Alleged Incapacitated

Person, ("Proposed Ward 11 ) and respectfully shows the Court as follows:

l. That Proposed Ward, DORIS LEE TIPPS, is an adult female whose date of birth is

November 11, 1922. Her address is Lakeview at Josey Lane, 2105 North Josey Lane, Carrollton,

Dallas County, Texas 75006-3027, and citation may be served at this address. She is a resident of

Dallas County, Texas.

2. Applicant THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS desires to be appointed Temporary Guardian of

the Person and Estate. He resides at 1 Beach Drive SE, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701. He is a son

of the Proposed Ward. Applicant was named by Proposed Ward in her Declaration of Guardian, a

copy of which is attached hereto.

3. Applicant seeks Temporary Guardianship of the Person and Estate of Proposed Ward as it

is necessary for the protection and welfare of the Proposed Ward. Applicant believes that a

Temporary Guardianship would be in the Proposed Ward·s best interest and that there is imminent

danger that the physical health or safety of the Proposed Ward will be seriously impaired unless the

Court takes immediate action to appoint Applicant as Proposed Ward's Temporary Guardian. In

,\Pl'!.JCA TION FOR APPOINT:\1ENT OF THlPORARY Gl .ARDIAj'IS OF THE P~RSO:'\A:\D ESTA TE - Pagr

PR-13-03072-3 CLG APPLICATION (OCA - NEW CASf FILEU) 264383

l IIHllllllflllflHf~IIIJ~

addition, the Proposed Ward is making poor financial decisions and said decisions are contrary to the

Proposed Ward's long-standing expressed wishes. The Proposed Ward is unable to care for herself

and her finances.

4. The Proposed Ward is incapacitated. It is requested that the Proposed Ward receive such

protection and assistance as necessary to protect the person of the Proposed Ward and that the all

powe -s be granted to Temporary Guardian as provided in the Texas Probate Code, including the

following:

To sign all medical release for the Proposed Ward;

To authorize all medical and dental treatments for Proposed Ward;

To apply for all public, private and governmental benefits available for medical care, dental care and living arrangements for Proposed Ward, and to file insurance claims for Proposed Ward;

To make all decisions regarding Proposed Ward's living arrangements and to execute all agreements, releases, authorizations and contracts necessary to provide such living arrangements; and

The power and authority to gain access to the Proposed Ward's medical records.

To take any and all actions necessary to collect, preserve and protect the estate of Proposed Ward, and to incur costs necessary and execute any contracts necessary for such collection, preservation, and protection;

To take possession of all assets of whatever kind and nature in the estate of Proposed Ward and to collect all monies due to Proposed Ward's Estate;

To gain access to Proposed Ward's home and all financial, medical, legal, and other records;

To conduct all estate, trust and financial transactions, including spending estate/trust funds, closing and opening accounts in Proposed Ward's name, closing and opening accounts held in trust for Proposed Ward, negotiating checks and instruments payable to Proposed Ward, and any other financial and estate transactions with Proposed Ward's bank, brokerage service, savings and loan, credit union or other financial institution; and

To sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of personal property in Proposed Ward's Estate.

APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF TE\lPORAR\'Ji~ '..\RDl..\:"i~ OF nn: l't;;RSO!"i AND £STAH: - Pagr 2

Further, Applicant requests that the Court enter an Order that the Proposed Ward lacks the power

to execute estate-planning documents pending the Temporary Guardianship.

5. The Proposed Ward is currently incapacitated as a result of dementia of unknown

diagnosis. The Proposed Ward is unable to properly care for herself and there is imminent danger

that the physical health or safety of the Proposed Ward will be seriously impaired and her finances

jeopardized.

6. Applicant executed a Power of Attorney naming Applicant, THOMAS RICHARD

TIPPS, as her Agent.

7. Both of the Proposed Ward's parents are deceased. Proposed Ward's surviving siblings

are::

BERNICE EVERITT 1322 Jacinth Drive Weslaco, Texas 78596

ELIZABETH COGDILL 3918 Corral Canyon Road Bonita, California 91902

8. Her husband, THOMAS V. TIPPS, predeceased her, having died in October, 2005, and

she is not married.

9. The Proposed Ward has four children born to or adopted by her, as follows:

THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS, Applicant DOB: October 2, 1946; Adult 1 Beach Drive SE St. Petersburg, FL 33701

GLENDA DELL JORDAN DOB: August 25. 1944; Adult P.O. Box 792 Battle Mountain. Nevada 89820

APPLl<;ATJO:,O: FOR APPOINTMENT OF TE~1PORA8\' GL\RDIA:"iS OF rm; Pt:RSO" A:-.D ESu.n; · Pae, 3 .

SALLY JOYCE FINK DOB: October I, 1948; Adult 709 S. 501h Street Renton, Washington 98055

STEVEN VINSON TIPPS DOB: November 20, 1950; Adult 3210 E. Beltline Road, #146 Carrollton, Texas 75006

10. Most of Proposed Ward's assets are held in Trust. However, there are the following

assets held outside the Trust:

Cash on deposit at Bank of America as of the filing of this Petition: $500.00 (approx)

2000 Lincoln Town Car and 1998 Ford Aerostar Van

Personal Property located in apartment

Monthly income: $12,584.00 from rentals, retirement plans, annuities, social security and investments, transferred into Trust monthly

11. This Court has venue over these proceedings because the Proposed Ward is a resident of

Dallas County, Texas.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant prays that the Court consider this

Application for Appointment of Temporary Guardian of the Person and Estate of DORIS LEE

TIPPS; that notice and citation be issued as required by law; that an Attorney Ad Litem be

appointed to represent the interests of the Proposed Ward; that a time for hearing on this application

be set; that on hearing that THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS be appointed Temporary Guardian of the

Person and Estate of the Proposed Ward; that Letters of Temporary Guardianship be issued to

THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS as Temporary Guardian of the Person and Estate on taking the oath

and giving bond as required by law; and Applicant prays for such other and further relief to which he

may be entitled .

.-\PPI.ICATIO;", FOR APPO!i',Tl\-11::i'\T OF Tf.:\IPORAR\' Gl".-\RDIAi\S OF Tl![ Pl::RSO:'\ A'.'ID ESTA TE - Page-

Respectfully submitted,

COOK, L.L.C.

Je ey Cook State Bar No. 04734495 Lisa Leffingwell State Bar No. 12158575 2301 Cedar Springs, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 520-7494 (214) 528-6925 (fax) ATrORNEYSFORPLAINTIFF

APPLICATION FOR AfPQ[NTMENT OF TEMPORARY GUARDIANS OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE· Page

STATE OF FLORIDA §

COUNIY OF e{1....,,,//K, § §

BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS, who, being by me duly sworn on his oath, deposed and said that he has read the above and foregoing Application for Appointment ofPenn anent Guardians of the Person and Estate and that the allegations contained therein are within his personal knowledge to be true and correct.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO)IEFORE ME by THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS on this, the ~ day of ~ \ , 2013 .

• ~ • '

MY~~ EXPMB: Aclrll 8, 2017 liCIICled 'nru Notayi'd; UnderwrleB NkMAL

bPPUCATlON FOR APtpJNJr,1ENT OF Ttr,b1P<>llARY G1JARDIANi.on11K PKRSON AND ESTATE· Pne 6

Declaration of Guardian in the Event of Later Incapacity or Need of Guardian I, DORIS LEE TIPPS, make this Declaration o f ~ to operate if the need for a guardian for me later arises.

l. I designate my son, THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS, to sen·c as guardian of my person. In addition; I appoint my daughter, GLENDA DELL JORDAN, to serve as first alternate guardian of my person.

2. I designate my son, moMAS RICHARD TIPPS, to serve as guardian of my estate. In addition, I appoint my daughter, GLENDA DELL JORDAN, to serve as first alternate guardian of my estate.

3. If any guardian or altemate guardian dies, does· not qualify, or resigns. the next named altcmatc guardian becomes my guardian.

4. I expressly disqualify the following person from serving as guardian of my person:

STEVEN VINSON TIPPS.

S. I expressly disqualify the following·person from serving as guardian of my estate:

STEVEN VINSON TIPPS.

I, DORIS LEE TIPPS. as Deetarant, after beiDg duly swom, declare to the undersigned witnesses and to the undersigned authority that this instrument is my Declaration ·of Guanlian in the Event of Later Incapacity or Need of Ouaniian. and that I have made and executed it for the purposes expressed in the declaration. I now aign this declaration in the presence of the attesting witnesses and the undersigned authority-on this 19th day of July, 2012.

DORIS LEE TIPPS, Declarant

The undersign~ Sari Northcutt and RDbin Clarko, each being J4 years of age or older, after being duly sw~ declare to the Declarant and to the undersigned authority that the Declarant declared to us that this instrument is the Declarant's Declaration of Guardian in the Event of Later Incapacity or Need of Guardian and that the Declanmt executed it for the purposes expressed in the Declaration. Tho Dcclarant then signed this declaration and we believe the Dcclarant to be of sound mind. We new sign our names u attesting witnesses on this 19th dayofJuly, 2012.

Witness Witness Print Name: Sari Northcutt Print Name: Robin Clarke

240

CIVIL CASE INFORMATION SHEET CAlJR Nl/MUR (FOR Cl.EU USE ONLY): ~ '0-:"" ~] 1. 3 COURT (FOR CURJ{ l/SE ONLY}:

s~ Po r I s .~ L ---1J.a.~ ~ (e.g.,Jdlll Slllllh v. All.Amerieui ~ Qe Mary ADii Joacs; In the Maaw of the &late ofG~Jelacboa).

-·----

. · A civil case information sheet must be completed and submitted when an 11fi$in.i pDtition or application is filed to iniliatc a. new civil, family law, probate or mcatal . healtb r:a.se or when a post'iUd8meat petition for modi&alion or motion .fbr enforceincm i.s filed in a funily law case. The infomation should be tru: bc:lt ~vailllble et ~~d· . .

Na.ma or Penoa ·or entl If 111eet IJ:

for PlaintiffJPctitioncr Plaintiff{s)/Pctiti OPro St Plaintifti'Pctidoner · OTitle IV-D· Agency P.fl'ltl "'2 · OOtlter: - - - - - - - rifuv J.- ·. - - - - - - 1 T,Lld).:>...____,__ V Additional Parties In Cliild Support Case:

Dcfcndant(s)/Respondcnt(s}: · Cusrodi.111 Parent:

{Jprt-s Let:..

Non-Custodial Parent:

Presumed Father:

Pon-Jlldpaat Adiou Contnict aoa--TftlelV·D Debt/C:,ntmet Assault/Battery Annulrncnt .Enforcement 0ConswnerlDTPA ()Construction 0Declarc Marriage Void Modific:atioo-CuStOdy . [}DebtlContract ODcfllmMion Dtvorce 0Modific:alioa--Othcr OFraud/Mistepresentation Majp_raciit:e qwi~ Childrtn_ _ TideJV-D OO!her Ocbt/ContraQt O.Accounting ONo Cbildien Enf~odific:ation (JLogal Paternity For,c/o.nJn 0Medical tl~(UIPSA)

0Homc Squity-Bxpedited OOthcr Professional 0Support Order 00ther Foreclosure Liability: t}Franehise llelated to Criminal Oinsurance 0Motor Vehicle Accidal.t Matten Pal'Cllt-chlld RclltiOm'III OLandlord/Teoant 0Promiscs xp11t1ction rce Foreign Of»iowAdoptioll with 0Noo-Compctition Pnxluct LflJb1tuy 0Jlldgment-Nisi Judgment Tcrminatton 0P11111Cr$ip 0Asbcstos/Slllca ONon·Disclosurc OHabeas Corpus [JChild Protection OOtber Connet: 00thor Product Liability OSea:um!Forteiture IJNamc Change ·0Child Support List Pfoduct; 0Wrlt of Habeas Corpus-- (JProtectivc Order 0Custody <H' Visitation Pre-Indictment 0Removal of Disabilities OGcstational Pamttln& OOtbcr Injury or Damage: OOther: _ _ _ __ of Minority 00raodparcnt Access 00ther: 0P8ten~ty OTcnninatiDI! of Parental Em ment . Rights '

OOtbcr Parent-Child:

ODisctlmination . 0Administratlvc: Appeal 01.awyer Diseiplino 0Retallation 0Andtrust/Unfitir IJPerpctuatc Testimony Qrennination Competition 0Securities1Stodc 0Worlcers' Compensttion 0Code· Violations 0Tortlous llltcrfcrencc OOthct Employment: · 0Foreign Judgment OO!hcr: - - - - -

PR-13-03072-3 Olntcllcctual Property CIIIC CASE INITIAIION t.uVER SHEU Tax ProbtU~ & Meiu Hu/th 264384 Tax Appraisal Prooate/Wilt,/1~/ale AdmillutraJIOtl OTllC Delinquency. 00therTax QDcpcndent Adn_iinistnltion 0Indt:pcndent Administration 00thcr Estate Procccdinp ·B=il~t!r Ill!lillllflfllllllflHIJfllllfI OOtber:~..-~~~~

"udgmcnt R.pmedy OProtcetive Order OR.ecoivcr 0ScquestratiOI.\ . 0Tcmporaty Restraining OrdctJlnjunclion OTumovcr · ·

. 12 Document Page 176 of Rev2/l3 _/:;:...-:---..._ / .....J'. ..9.. -:\.. I!. 1 ~~ CITATION IN PROBATE THE STATE OF TEXAS Probate Court No. 3 CAUSE NO. PR-13-03072-3 GUARDIANSHIP OF DORIS TIPPS, An Alleged Incapacitated Person

TO ANY SHERIFF OR ANY CONSTABLE WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS - GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SUMMON:

DORIS LEE TIPPS LAKEVIEW AT JOSEY LANE 2105 N. JOSEY LANE CARROLLTON, TEXAS 75006

To appear before the Probate Court Probate Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas, on September 13, 2013 at 11 :30 A M. then and only then and there to file written answer and/or contest and show cause why this Temporary Guardianship, provided for by law in section 875(e) of the Texas Probate Code should not be allowed as stated in the attached application filed by:

THOMAS RICHARD TIPPS filed in said Court on September 04, 2013 AD. in the matter of the estate No. PR-13-03072-3on the Probate Docket of said court, the nature of which petition is as follows: APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY GUARDIAN OF TIIE PERSON AND EST ATE. You are notified that you have the right under Texas Probate Code Section 632G) to file with the clerk a written request that you be notified of any or all specifically designated motions, applications, or pleadings filed by any person, or by a person specifically designated in your request, relating to the application for the guardianship that has been filed or relating to any subsequent guardianship proceeding involving the ward after the guardianship is created, if any. If you make such a request. you are responsible for the fees and costs associated with furnishing you the documents specified in the request. The clerk may require a deposit to cover the estimated costs of furnishing you \.Vith the required notice.

The purpose of the hearings is for the Court to act on the attached application. A possible oonsequenoo of the hearings is that DORIS LEE TIPPS may temporarily lose the right to:

I. manage personal and financial affairs; 2. possess a fire arm;

3. hold or obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle; 4. make decisions regarding marital status; 5. make personal living decisions regarding residence; 6. make medical, dental, psychological or psychiatric treatment decisions; and vote in public elections.

DORIS LEE TIPPS has the following rights:

1. The right to be represented by an attorney; 2. The right to prior notice of any hearing; 3. Tue right to be present at any hearing; 4. The right to present evidence and to confront and cross-examine witnesses; and 5. The right to request a closed hearing.

And you will deliver to the said DORIS LEE TIPPS, a true copy of this Citation. F A1L NOT, but have you then and there before said Court this writ, with yow· return there on, showing how you executed the same.

WITNESS: JOHN F. WARREN. Clerk of the Probate Courts of Dallas County. Texas GiVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE, at Dallas County. Texas, and issue.cl Septembe.r 05, 2013 JOHN F. WARREN, COUNTY CLERK DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

By:

~a..'rb~ Andrea Boone, Deputy

RETURN OF SERVICE

PR-13-03072-3 Probate Court No. 3

GUARDIANSHIP OF DORIS TIPPS

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE:

DORIS LEE TIPPS LAKEVIEW AT JOSEY LANE 2105 N. JOSEY LANE CARROLLTON, TEXAS 75006

Came to hand the __ day of , 20__, at o'clock __M., and executed in County, Texas by delivering to each of the within named defendants in person, a true copy of this Citation with the date of delivery endorsed thereon, together with the accompanying copy of the APPUCATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF TB:M:PORARY GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND EST ATE, at the following times and places, to-wit:

Name Datetrime Place, Coune and Distance from Courthouse

And not executed as to thedefendant(s), - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The diligence used in finding said defendant(s) being:

and the cause of failure to execute this process is:

·-----~-.--~----·-··.---·,·-,·-----~-·--······-

and the information received as to the whereabouts of said defendant(s) being:

---"----·--------------------------· Fees: Serving Petition and Copy$ _ _ __ TOTAL$ _ _ __ _ __ ------------·Officer

- - - - - - - -..~ - - - - - • County, Texas

B y : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' Deputy

Affiant

XIII.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION

25

----------~-

[)ORIGINAL NO. PR-13-3072-3

fN RE: ESTATE OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT § DORIS LEE TIPPS, § NUMBER THREE OF § AN ELDERLY/DISABLED PERSON § DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS

ORDER ON MOTION FOR INDEPENDENT MENTAL EXAMINATION

On September 13, 2013, came on to be considered the Motion for Independent Mental

Examination filed by Thomas Richard Tipps. Based on the agreement of the parties, the Court finds

that it is well taken and should be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Doris Lee Tipps shall, as soon as possible, undergo an

Independent Mental Examination by Jaye Douglas Crowder, M.D., the court-appointed psychiatrist;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the examination shall be conducted with no one else

present other than Doris Lee Tipps and Jaye Douglas Crowder, M.D. and his staff and medical

advisors;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no one communicate with the physician or psychiatrist

prior ~o the issuance of his report except as may be necessary to schedule the examination.

SIGNED on thi::[Jday of September, 2013.

JUDGE PRESIDING

PR - 13--03072 - 3 COOR OIIOER :101)066

~ I;11111111111111100/II ORDER ON MOTION FOR INDEPENDENT MENTAL EXAMINATION - Solo Page

IX.

MENTAL EXAMINATON REPORT

J. DOUGLAS CROWDER, M.D.

[J ORIGINAL QHYSICIAN'S CERTIFICATE OF MEDICAL EXAQATION ~evlsionJunq I, 1014 NO. ___,f3'-"l,/~3-·~-....JL.,!!2::;...-,._.3t:--.-----

CAUSE In the Matter of the Guardianship of for Court Use Only FJLFO Doris L. Tipps, Court Assigned: Yes an Alleged Incapacitated Person ~50 The purpose of this certificate is to enable the Court to determine whether the individual idejlfjfiexl~bfI'tmREN is incapacitated according.to the legal definition, and whether a guardian should be appointee~8i'1tlERK him or her. . DALLAS COUNTY LEGAL DEFINITION OF INCAPACITY For purposes of this certificate, .an "Incapacitated Person" is "an adult individual who, because of a physical or mental condition, is substantially unable to provide food, dothing or shelter for himself or herself, to care for the individual's own physical health, or to manage the individual's own financial affairs." Texas Proqate Code § 601 (14).

GENERAL INFORMATION Proposed Ward's Name Doris L. Tipps Date of Birth November 11, 1922 Age 91 Gender M F O 121 Current.Location of Ward: Lakeview@ Josey Ranch Retirement Center, 2105 N. Josey Lane, Apt. 320, Carrollton, Tx 75006 Physician's Name J. Douglas Crowder, MD Phone: (469-330·7378)

Office Address 8604 Greenville Avenue, Suite 201, Dallas, Texas 75243

12J YES O N0·-1 am a physician currently licensed to practice in the State of.Texas:

I have been the da<;:tor for the Proposed Ward since 10/14/2013. I last examined the Proposed. Ward on 10/14/2013 · at:.

D a Medical facility O the Proposed Ward"s residence 181 Other: Physician's Address as noted above DYES [8J NO··The Proposed Ward is under my continuing treatment. t'8J YES O NO--Prior to the examination, I Informed the Proposed Ward.that communications with me would not be privileged. · DYES 1:81 NO··A m.inHnental status exam was given. If "YES," please attach a copy.

Based upon my last examination of the Proposed Ward, I provide the following information: 1. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED WARD'S PHYSICAL CONDITION Physical Diagnosis: Atrial Fibrillation by patient report, otherwise as by treating physician Conditions underl.ying diagnosis:

a. Prognosis: _'b. Severity: ' D Mild O Moderate O Severe c. Treatment: Coumadin

2. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED WARD'S MENTAL FUNCTION Mental Diagnosis:- Dementia Conditions underlying diagnosis:

a. Prognosis: _ b. Severity: O Mild O Moderate 181 Severe c. Treatment:

. O YES [81 NO·· A summary of Proposed Ward's medical history is attached (if reasonably available).

[81 YES ONO·· Would the Proposed Ward benefit from supports and services that would allow the indiVidual to live in the least restrictive setting? · 181 YES O NO·· Does this mental diagnosis inclucle dementia?

if-"13 - 03072 - 3 PAGE10F4 CMRL MEDICAL R£POR1 UR LEIHII 369838

I \ lllltllllllllltllllllllllllllll lll Document Page 182 of 240

------ ------·----

QHYSICIAN'S CERTIFICATE OF MEDICAL Ex..OATION ~evision June ! • 1014 2. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED WARD'S MENTAL FUNCTION continued {2g YES ONO -- Would the Proposed Ward benefit from placement in a secured facility for the elderly or a secured nursing facility that specializes in the care and treatment of people with dementia?

IZl YES D NO·· Would the Proposed Ward benefit from medications appropriate for the care and treatment of dementia?

O YES fgJ NO·: Does the Proposed Ward have sufficient capacity to give informed consent to the administration of dementia medications?

3. DECISION MAKING A[(•rtness, Attention, and Deficits Alertness: l8) Alert O Lethargic O Stupor Proposed Ward is oriented to the foltowing (check all that apply):

lg) Person ~ Time O Place O Situation In my opinion, the ability of the Proposed Ward to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning himself or herself is affected by the Proposed Ward's deficits and abilities as indicated: Deffcft(s) (check all that apply): C8l Short-term memory t8:l long-term memory @ Immediate recall O YES 18:1 NO-- Able to understand or communicate (verbally or otherwise) O YES [;83· NO -7 Able to recognize familiar objects and persons O YES · f2l NO·· Able to perform simple calculations O YES C8J NO-· Able to reason logically O YES l8I NO·· Able to grasp abstract aspects of his or her situation o~ to interpret idiomatic expressions or proverbs O YES g, NO·· Able to break complex tasks down into simple steps and carry them out D YES t8J NO-- The Proposed Ward's periods of impairment from the deficits indicated above (If any)

vary substantially in frequency, severity, or duration

In my opinion, the Proposed War.d is ab{e to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning himself or herself regarding the following: · A. Business and Managerial Matters; Financial Matters . O Y-':S 181 NO.·- Contract and incur obligations; handle a bank accou11t; apply for, consent to and receive governmental benefits and services; accept employment; hire employees; sue · and defend on lawsuits; make gifts of real or personal property?

O YES ONO·· If "YES," should amount deposited In any such bank"account be limi~ed? O YES l8l NO·- Execute a Durable Power of Attorney? O YES rgJ NO·· Execute a Health Care Power of Attorney? B. Personal Living Decisions O YES 181 NO·- Determine own residence? O YES 12:1 NO·· Safely operate a motor vehicle? O YES ~ NO--Vote fn a public election? O YES C8J NO -- Make decisions regarding marriage? c. Medical Decision-Making O YES 181 NO •. Consent to m~dical, dental, psychological, and psychiatric treatment? O YES [gJ NO·· Administer own medications on a dally basfs? D. Daily Life Activities Administer daily life activities (e.g:, bathing, grooming, dressing, walking, toileting):

O YES, independently ~ YES, with assistance ONO, requires total care

PAGE 2 OF4

27

Document Page 183 of 240

------ - ---· ----------- ------------------

HYSICJAN's CERTIFICATE OF MEDICAL ExAQATION

4. DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY O YES {gJ NO·· Does th~ Proposed Ward·have developmental disability? If "NO," skip to number 5 on the next page. If "YES," is the disability a result of the following? (Check all that apply)

O YES O NO - • Autism? O YES O NO·· Static Encephalopathy? O YES O NO -- Cerebral Palsy? O YES O NO·· Down Syndrome? O YES ONO·· Intellectual Disability (MR)**? O YES ONO-· Other? P{ease Explain

**1r "the basis of a proposed ward's alleged inc~pacity is mental retardation"\ please answer the questions in the box below only if you are making a "Determination of Mental Retardation" in accordance with Section 593.005, Texas Health & Safety Code. If you are not ma.king such a determination, please skip to number s·on the next page.

"DETERMINATION OF MENTAL RETARDATION" flt is not required that you complete this box; see·· above.) A "Determination of Mental Retardation" made in accordance of§ 593.005 of the Texas Health & Safety Code requires that the determination tie based on an Interview with the Proposed Ward and on a professional assessment that, at .a minimum, must include:

1) a measure of the Proposed Ward's intellectual functioning; 2) a determination of the Proposed Ward's adaptive ·behavior level; and 3) evidence of origination during the Proposed Ward's developmental period.

As a physic::Jon, you may use a previous assessment, social history, or relevant record from a school district, another physician, o psychologist, a public agency, or a private agency if you determine that the previous assessment, social history, or record is valid. · By checking the boxes below, you are representing that you have made a "Determination of Mental Retardation" fn accordance with § 593.005 of the Texas Health & Safety Code. 1. What is your assessment of the Proposed Ward's lev,el of intellectual functioning and adaptive · behavior?

O Mild (IQ of 50·55 to approx. 70) D Moderate (IQ of 35·40 to 50·55J O Severe (IQ of 20·25 to 35·40) O Profound (IQ below 20·25)

2. O Yes O No -rs there evidence that the intellectual disability originated during the Proposed Ward's developmental period?

Hote to attorneys: If o physician makes a «Determinodon of Mental Retardation" In «cordance wfch Tetos Nea(t.h lt Safety Code §°593.005 - see box above - o Court may sront a guardlonshlp apptlcotion I/ ttie "Dett>rmlnotlon of Mental Retardation• is based on on eKOminati011 mode not earlier than 2-4 months before the date of the hearing. But If o phy,ldan's diognosb of lntetrectuol disability Is !!S!l. mode In accordance with Tel«U Httilth li Safety Code§ 593.00S - and the above bo1< is not filled out - the court mey grant a guordlanshlp opptlcoHon only If the Pl1ysldon's Certificate of Medical Exomlnotl~ ·1s based on on e1<omlnation the physician performed within 00 days of the dote the application for guordlaMhlp was filed. St>e Texas Probate Code§ 687(c)(A) Et {a)_ ·

1 /n H.B. 1481, the 2011 Legislature directed the Legislature and Texas Legislative Council to avoid using the term "mental retardation" In new statutes and co change that term as exislfny statutes are otherwise amended. Because the Probate Code stl(I refers to "mental retardation" as a basis for o guordio.nship, and Health Et Sofety Code ~till requires a udeterminotlon of mental retardation"(§ 593.001 et seq.), this form quotes that phrase from the statutes when necessary.

PAGE 3 OF4

QPHYSICIAN'S CERTIFICATE OF MEDICAL EOATION f,i('visionJune I, zo1i 5. EVALUATION OF CAPACITY f.2] Y£S ONO·· Based on the information above, it is my opinion that the Proposed Ward is incapacitated according to the legal definition given at the top of page 1.

If ''YES," please indicate the level of incapacity O PARTIAL* (8J TOTAL

*if you answered "~O" to all of the questions regarding decision-making in Section 3 (on page 2) and believe the Proposed Ward is partially incapacitated, please explain:

If you answered "YES". to any of the .questions regarding decision-making in Section 3 (on page 2) and · believe the Proposed Ward is totally incapacitated, please explain: Ms. Tipps's exectutive funcitoning, concentration, memory, and general ability to protect herself from undue influence/exploitation are all deficient. She·feels one of her sons took advantag~ of her for a substantial period of·time. If true, this shows she cannot protect herself. If it is untrue, she is either deluded or has been deceived. Either way, it should be apparent she cannot look after her own interests. Regrettably, Ms. Tipps's prognosis is poor.

6. ABILITY. TO AlTEND COURT HEARING .

If a hearing on a11 application for the appointment of a guardian is scheduled fn court: O YES rgJ NO -- The Proposed Ward would be able to attend, understand, and participate in the· hearing.

D YES rgJ NO·· Be<::ause of his or her incapacities, it would not be advisable for the Proposed Ward to appear at a Court hearing because the Proposed Ward would not be able to understand or participate ln the hearing.

O YES ~ NO ·- Does any current medication taken by the Proposed Ward ~ffect the demeanor of the · P.roposed Ward or his or l:ler ability to participate fully in a court proceeding

7. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF BENEFIT TO THE COURT If you have additional information concerning the Proposed Ward that you betieve the Court should be aware of or other concerns about the Proposed Ward that are not included above, please explain: Ms. Tipps's memory for her medications is. suspect. However, for what it fs worth, she did not recall taking cognitive enhnacing medications such as Aricept, Namenda, and Cerefolin NAC. If she is not, . she could improve with this kind of inte.ryention. Ms. Tipps atso displayed a left upper extremity piU·rolling tremor. If not already evaluated, this may need to be looked into as welt.

October 17,2013 Physician's Signature Date J. Douglas Crowder, MD Physfcian's Name Typed

PAGE 4 OF 4

- - - - - ··-·----

~( , DORIGINAL NO. PR-13-3072-3

fN RE: ESTATE OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT § DORIS LEE TIPPS, § NUMBER THREE OF § AN ELDERLY/DISABLED PERSON § DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS

ORDER ON MOTION FOR INDEPENDENT MENTAL EXAMINATION On September 13, 2013, came on to be considered the Motion for Independent Mental

Examination filed by Thomas Richard Tipps. Based on the agreement of the parties, the Court finds

that it is well taken and should be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Doris Lee Tipps shall, as soon as possible, undergo an

Independent Mental Examination by Jaye Douglas Crowder, M.D., the court-appointed psychiatrist;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the examination shall be conducted with no one else

present other than Doris Lee Tipps and Jaye Douglas Crowder, M.D. and his staff and medical

advisors;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no one communicate with the physician or psychiatrist

prior ~o the issuance of his report except as may be necessary to schedule the examination.

SIGNED on thi~day of September, 2013.

JUDGE PRESIDING

PR-lf-03072-3 COOR OltOEA :IOUD66

,1111m1111mm1111111 ORDER ON MOTION FOR INDEPENDENT MENTAL EXAMINATION - Solo Page

x.

MENTAL EXAMINATION REPORT

KATHLEEN C. SAINE, Ph.D.

NEURO PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING

DORIS L. TIPPS

EXAMINER: DR. KATHLEEN SEINE

Document Page 188 of 240

~~·------------------

FEB-05-2014 09:13 From~972 566 3935 \· ,. ·,

tL L'.,

':-'· '

North Texas Neuro-Strokei OP 7777 forest Lane, Bldg C Suite 300 Dallas, Tx 75230 ;, Phone: 972-566-3472 Fax: 972-566-3488

To: From: Dr. David lsaradisaikul k· . .. ,. •;, •.· Phone: Date:

__REPLY

Conflrlentlallty Ntitia!

The 'documents accompartvfng thts tt.insri\lnlan contain conftdentlal prlvl~ lnfonnwun. The information Is the property of the Hnder and II Intended onty fof use by the Individual or entity named abCM!. The recipient of this lnfvrmation Is pmhlblftd from distloslng the: contents of the Information tu another party; Jf you are Mlthlf the Intended l'Klplent nor the eniP.loyee or apnt responsible for delivery to the Intended rec:lplen\, you ate herebt notlt1ed that dlsdolure of contents In any fflll'.I'*' .Is: strktly prohibited, PleaH notify me lmmedla«!IV If-you n:ce!Yed this lnformatlun In emir.

FEB-05-2014 09:13 From:972 566 3935 . 011:31/2014 11·29 2143739614 PSVOFFICE #2125 P. 002/008

Office of Ronald G. :Paulman, Ph.D. Clinical Neuro12chology = 1!PF! £?

Ronatd G. Paulman, Ph.D. 9400 N. Central Jb:pwy.. Suite 1211 Clmkal~ Danas. Texas75231-S03l (214) 373-4688 · 373-9614 (Fax)

JutbJeen C. Saine, Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsythol.ogy

Nenropsythological Evaluation

Namci: Dom Tipps

Age: 91

D.O.B..: I 1/11122

Handedness: Right

Referral Source: David Isaradisaitul. M.D.

Date Evatnauid: llf.l./1:$ &: 12/16/13

Examiner: Kat.h.leen C. Same. Ph.D. ldeol.i.licauon!Ra,~11 for Referral:

Ms. .Doris Tipps is a 91-yw-oid Caucasian female with cognitive dee!'* ofunconain duration. Her neurologist Dr. Da.vid lsaradisallml, has diagnosed her-with mild cognitive imp;lnmmt, but psychiatrist, Dr. Jaye Crowder; has diagnosed her with seyt.ro domont.ia.. To Gl5ist with dia2[lostic clarification, a neuropsyc:hological evaluation wmi. requested by Pr. isaradisaikul to objeaively eharacteri~ Ms. Tipp11.i' CUTTP,nt co~itive status. We undorstand that the question of competence to h1111dla lega.1/flnancial mall.els has been raised as well, ll!'ld lll:!COrdiTJi 1I> Ms. Tipps, care providers u wet! as filmily mmi~ ruwe o:fRred different opinions. Cuttently. her )'QIIllger son, Mr. Steve Tipps. who accompanied her to the evaluation, has Medical P~er of AttQrn~·. Tn his presence,. Ms. Tipps agrt:G(l to undergo Wessmetl~ of'her cogniiivc llbilitiu (inchlding hutnot lim.Ited to attenrl®'i:On.ccnttution. Ianeuaee, problem sowing, reasoning, and :nemory) for the purpose of diagnostic and treatment plamiin&, wi:lh the understanding that: the finclings may be subsequently introduced in court to address tb.o quOGuon of her competence to make decisions and handle her own lffil.irs.

Rti:ords Reviewed:

Relevant~· was obtained from ll rev ic,w nf recOfds pr;>vided by Dr. 1sara.dtsaikul's office (office 1:1ot0s dated 11/2912, 5122113, and 8/1:2/13) and through interviews with Ms. Tipps and her son, Mr. Stove Tipps. Mr. Tipps also provided the following records: Office note completed by Ann MoJTison PA·C 1nd Joel Holiner, MD dated 11126/12: and Physician's Certificate ofMediCDJ Exominlltion completed by Dr. Jaye Crowder dated 10/I 7113.

Hi$tory of Present lll.ness & Cur.rent Complaints:

On initial questionini, Ms. Tipps denied cognitive changes beyond what she eo.nsiders norm.a.I for her age. She also denied experiencing sievere emotional distress, alth¢urh sho Sa.id that 811¢ was stressed about the ongoing qucst;ons about her compctcmie. She expressed dlsappointrncmt in one of her IOIIS who had allegedly spent some of her money on a trip ovOf"..eas. She an.id that sbo h119 chanaed hor will and has decided to leave her e~l..l!li;:: to h~r other scm, but hmdecision 1o do so is being contested. Spa:ifically, sh!:! said that ber older son wants to have her declared incompetent to that the reoentwill is ma.do nuU and. void.

Physically. Ml;. Tipps' current complaints include numbDcss or loss of feelings in her fi1Jgon. She also conrplamcd of .frequent left ftonml headaches. When que$tioncd atloui llor heallh problems, Ms. Tipps said she did not know whai she had. She knew she was takine medications, but could not recall their names. When th~ were read to her, she had

FEB-05-2014 09:14 From:972 566 3935 Pase:3/8 01/31/2014 17·30 214S7S9614 PSVOFFICE #2125 P.00'3/008

Neinvpll)'chologic:al Eval\lati.on Dori$ TiJ>ps --Page2 of7

1rouble saying what each medication was for. She denied reoent change in weight and appetite. and also denied sleep .problems.

Currently. Ms. Tipps lives in a two bedroom two batfl apartment at Lakeview, a retirement community. She said th4t ~he goes downstairs fot nre&ls, and does everything else on her own. Her medications are stt oot in a tray, and zl'ie believes 1hat she is adh.oront to hc::r treatment regimen; ber son did not contradict ber. Her son said tbm a. nurse checb in on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. She alt:<> has a.ida from Mom'• Best Friends who come in for 12-holIT overnight shifts. She is on portable oxygen and. h11$ b=il ,aiog a oebulizer as well She wears an alert button. and knows to preas it if she needs help.

Medical History;

As noted above, Mt. Tippt we:s wiablc to li.C hot hoalln problems when questioned. According to her son an& availablo records, m4DCliw history is remarkal,Je for atrial fibrillation, homt fllilure and rccurtont brondiifu/ pneumonia. She was mOSt rccerttl}' .hospitalized from IOl.l9/l3 to 11/2/13 for pneumonia and 1hrush. She a.lso hu arthriti,, and records show a history of deep vein thrombosis.

Surgeries include placement of a pacemaker. removal of ~in r:Anr:P."r ftnm her upper lip, bltddet suspension, and .surgeries on her foet,

There i$ .no history of 1igniftc1Jl't head t.tallmll.. Ms. T!pr,s dcn.ied hisl.OIY of dl1lg and al'10hol use. She bas never smoked tobacco.

Ms. Tipps d~nied hi&to.cy oftn:atmcnt fur ps,Yohiittrjc dlsturbanoo. Howev~. bet son reported thzlt Ms. Tipps was seen by Ann Morrison, PA..c/Joel Holmer, M D (~,;-lliauist} ou 11126112. Records ofdlat visit show that sho underwi;nt clinical interview/exam and took computerized "tests lhat screened for symptoms of depression, 1111x:ii:ty ad post. trauma.~ ~ disorder. The int.erview and test result.$ were apparently intorJ,reted to mean that Ms. Tipps, did not meet DSM-IV criteria for depreuiOD. dylthymia, anxiety or pQJt.traumadc slfeSs disorder (PTSD), However, mental status txam apparently revealed abn~I immediate and recent memory, and a pre$umptive di.agnoalt of''Mffltal Disorder NEC" was given. She was scheduled tw- furthor testing with 1he Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) on the next visit. It i.s unelear if she returned for full~np tc:sting.

A CT 1can without contra.st wrted 7113/12 revealed mild diffuse prominence ofventricles and extra IJX.ial space thought to be consi5tmrt with iigo-~lDd 11Tophy. Low menumon cbanges in tlle periventricular and deep whn:e mar was thought i;~e8tivc ormJcrovascular ischemla, which had progressed slightly since the previous scan of7/J 3/07. CT angiography of the cin:l~ of Willis w~ umemarhble, but CT angiography of exi:z'a-cmnial ocrvicol circulation revealed some atherosclerotic calcification within the aortic: arch.

Ms. Tipps bu boen followed by Dr. l&aradisaikul, neurologist, since 11/29112. At her ':,fllJI3 vi'lit, she had iUI MMSE score of 23/30. She was dia.anosed with Mild CognitivP. ltnp:,iinnP.nt :mn prescribed Done-pegil. On hff subseq~t visit on 8/12113, she had an MMSE score of 26./'30. She was to continue with donepezil. and because of concerns about comp4'tefl~. t"M()fflll to a psych.latrisl wu recommended. Accordmg to MI son, 1\.ltth« cognitive Improvement wu seen in her most recent follow up with :Or, Isarad.i$aoo.1I when she eame.:1 o. GWfO of 28130 (preowntlbly on the MMSE).

Ms. Tipps w11111pparently ov;Nw;d by peycbiattist. Dr. Jaye Crowder on 10/14/13. The results of that evaluadQJl, docwnented in a Physician's Ctrtifigam of Medical Examination da~d 10/17/13, wa.11 thought to be consistent with a KVlrrll dom.onti11. She Wll:l deemed totally incapacitated as. ..her ~ecutive functioning, concentration, memory and general ability to protect herself from undue Influence/exploitation are all deficient." Dr. Crowder also indicated that Ms. Tipps did not recall taking cognitive c,han¢m lit d!a.t timo. imd rocommended th1t sho could boncfit frotn these uiedicatiott!l. Ho~ reoommended follow-up for a left upper- extremity pill-rolling tremor. As noted below, she has been tak.inz Donepezil, but it is unclesr if she ~ \lndergone folIO\\o'-up fbr the hand tTe-mor.

Ma. Tippa was unable to list tin:: ,nodica.tlons she was taking at the time of this evaluation. According to her son, Mr. Steve Tipps, she was taking the followin&- Dos.ages were ll.01 specified on some oflhe medications:

FEB-05-2014 09:14 From:972 566 3935 01/31/2014 17:30 2143739814 PSVOFFICE 12125 P.004/008

Neuropsychological Bvaluotion Doris TipJ)I -Pag~3 of7

Warfarln (Coumadin) .s mg Aspirin 81 mg Lasix Benecar Danepozil Albuterol/PulmBCQrt.

Family medical histoty is significant for heart problems in her :father who died following a heart attack at age 69, Rer mo1he. reportedly died of "neglect'' .it a.gc 87. One slstor has hccn diagnoSfld with dementia; she had a stroke and suffers ft'om heart disease. Two brothers died of Al2heimer's disease. another died from a mob and he also had a biaia tumor. The fourth brother had an aneurysm and died of a stroke..

DevelopmentaJ, &dueationa.l, Occupattonat & Social History:

According to Ms. Tipps (wilh additional infonnation provided by her son). she wu born and raised in Denton, Texaa. Her :falher was a farmcrJjack--of-all-tradcs, and h~r m!'Aher wu a homemaker. Four brothers are deceased; two were donti!Jtl, ono wa, In lnsi.nnce, and d>e other was in sales. Her 97-year-old sister is a retired tcacbcr who lives in Weslaco, Tex.as, and ~Cl' 83-year-old sister is a retired hlgh school principle who lives in San Diego.

To her knowledae, Ms. Tjpps is the Jm)duct of a full-term pregnmcy lDJd unoompli~ doliVOJ)', She was prone to pneumonia. in childhood, but developmenta.l delays wore not rc,portad.. Sha completed high school without difficulty, and 5\lbscquondy comocl 1.Baobelor's de:ree io Joumalismftom Texas Women's University in 1942. Re!ilides raising her children., she taught ar the Carrolton Independent School Dimict from the early l S>509 to 1976.

Mi, Tipps was married to an .iutcmal revenue agent. who :reportedly di~ 6 )"illr3 ago· of"old ~ 1111.d 11omeehing else." She said that they had been good friends since hlS}, sebool and \VeNI married tor "many years." Ms. Tipps said trutt llbe hu ii. tol:41 of l 8 children. grand.cbildren and gra:1:jJrandcliildren, all of whom she had made provisions f'or in I will. She gave the names of he: 4 children, when they were born, where they live., and their m.artc:al srams. Her ,on suppHed medi,;al hisb;JI)·. Ms. Tipps sa.id that her 69·year-okl daughter is married, and lives in Nevada where she works as m "11:ist Her 67-year-o Id son i$ a. retired marketing executive who lives in Florida with his fmnily. Ho has a hard condition 11nd had a defibrillator placed, but is otherwise heatthy. Her 6,.cyea:r·old daughter i3 a chW'ch organist who resides with her family in WuhingtQn Stde. She has Lymes disease and an unspecified autoimmune disorder. Her 63-year-,old son who accompanied her to the evalllZll:ion is single, and dcseribed himself M an ontropl'Ollcur. He has arthritis.

Ms, Tippa' oldot soo had boon CO-TIU8'et of her assets until recontl)r, whm the cowt ordered appointment of a corporate 1:l'U!tl!e. Power-of-attciffle}' h!!S been gtm,t'ed. to her younger son, who will <1Ssume guardjanshlps should she bo doemcd i.ngomp$twlt co mona.,si., hw 11.fmin. She '°1Jo mo that lho I\Da 1avorcl ront hou:ies i.n the colony, owns one tree farm, hu interest in another, arid owns a home on Hood Street where her younger son lives. She has some investmenrs 8$ well, bur could not rccal..l details.

Clh•kal Prese»bitiou:

Ms. Tipps presented 10 the evaluation iJ:t fa&hionablo attiro, with good hygiene and grooming. She walked slowly and for short dl1tanoos using~ rolling walk.er. She had portl!ble oxygen, which she used throughout the evalwrtian. She had a '° mild le.fl hand tremor, bl.It Wat al>IO carry out llimds-on tulc& without lipinc;.mt difficulty, Vision was a-dequate for testing. However, she was hard ofhearing, and the ex.rutiiner had to raise her voice and use visual cues when approprla.le and not prohibited by standardized procedures. Spee¢b w" normal for tone, volume and inflection. but noticeable for frequent word-finding diffleult.iea_ She Wl.darstood instructions, but would get eonfu$ed or forget wh~ shq wai r~uired to do. Mood was reponed to be euthymic., while affe¢t wti eo.n.Qruent. TIIOUQl'ltprocesses were generally logical and pl-oift1.:w", though she sometimes returned to topics that had been discussed during lni!ial lnterview. Thought content was unremarlcable., v.i;ith no e'fidence of delulion.s or 1uicidal/homicidAI idmtiom- She nlso deniad hal111cinations. Records indicate tha(she may lmvc had dclu:.iol18 (ofhl!llging out with thi= Queen of England) some time in the pasl

Document Page 192 of 240

·- -·- - --- - - -

FEB-05-2014 09:14 From:972 566 3935 Page:5/8 o,1s1;2014 11:21 2143739814 P~\IOFl=IC~ #2125 P. 005/008

Neuropsychological ~-aluation Doris Tipps · -Page4 of7

Ms. Tipp, was alert: Bt1d cooperative with the initial interview, but when questioned,. she acknowledged nm $he was tired, S."'ld she was also recov~ing from a toc.cnt buut of pnc:wuouia. Whe11 option.s we1 e offered, she dioi;e to defer tl!!sting to maximize pcr,ssibility for giving optimal perfunmmce. She subsequently returned 2 weeks fullowing the inf.erview, and testing ~as completed without incident. Throughou.t the evaluation. she was pleasant and cooperative, and appeared 10 pm ~rm oonsistcm ~ffort. We wm able to obtain a valid sampling of her ~ent functioning, However, interpretati(??I cf tho reaults is challcngq as th~ a.re limited nonm for her age group. Compared to younger Individuals, her resultj; may appear severe though the level of impairment does not take into account the impact cf aaing.

Tests Adminmered: i

Rewrds .Revlciw Clinical Interview CoUaiota.l lntervlow i Neuropsycholo,ay Qu~onnafre NeuropsychologicaJ ~ptom Checklist Wecllsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) selected subt:ests Test Qf Pmnotbid Fr.mctiotring Dementia Rating Sea~ - 2 Trail Making Test i WiscOtllin C::ud Sorting Ttsl Controlled Oral Word Association Category Fluency Boston Naming Test ! Cloek Drawing : Callfomla Verbal Lespiing Test- Second Editi<Jn, Short Form Wecbsler Meinory Scjalc - Fourth Edftl.on (WMS-CV) Logical Memory and Visual R.eproduction Motor Programming ! Tosu. ot' Praxis 1 Geriatric Dcpre&liiOJI Slllllo Activities of daily living chec.kmt Texa; Func:tional l.iving Seale (TFT..S)

Neuropsycholoe,ical ~nits;

'

i,DtellactuaJ Functioning and Global Cognitive Abilities: Ms. Tipps' in1ellect wa.,; predicted to he in the Average ran&e. Her score of 1171144 on lho DRS-2 ls lndlcativc of mild impairment of global cognitive abilities for someone her a&c md educational ~ackground. She had particular difficulty 011 iiems usosslng memory, and subLle inefficiencies 6.n graphomotor itam.s.11hese deficits were !leen elsewhere in the evaluation on moni comprohonsivo measures.

Orientation. Attention & Woricing Memor_y: Ms. Tipps was oriented to person and year, but not to day, date or month. She was fully ~ware 1!'hat $h8 was undtlrgoing cognitive 11$Se8$TT1Cnt, in particular, t.o cl1~:u, her auention/eofl.Centtati<:fn. memory and decuiicm-making ~ap-1,ilitiec. Span of auditory attention was low average for her age (251ll percentile}. ~ith tepetltion of 5 digits forward. Working memOTY 1111 within nonn11l limit,, w i t h ~ af 4- diglts in reverse and ~"l\10111-ing o! 3 digits presented to he:r in jumbled order (6~ and 2Sth polcantila rupcctlvoly}. Wi1hin fhe relatlvely ~let test soning. she still 11-1.tld repetition of mstruct.ions as she for-got specifici; or was confused aboiit what she wa& micpec:ted to do.

Problem~Solying &. Execptivo Abilities: On a visuomotor task re.quiring. her to execu.te a 11imple numerical sequence, Ms. Tip~ made no errors, but was very ilow, ea.ming a mod4rate!y i.mprtlred score overall {i-score .. 23). Howcvor, when mental sst slltt13ng ~ 12dditionally required. and she bad to altemato betweon 6 soquonoos, she made numerous errors, said she was lost, expreucd eonfusion,, and slowed dmvn considerably; the task was discontinued. Novel probl91D :solvil~ \&Sing a trial-and-<mor learning approach was bordo,rllne !mpa.lred. She lost track of what strategy she was using at the outset. generated only one of 6 possible st!areiies, Md subi.equently petl,C!Vorutctl on dlin ~gy

Document Page 193 of 240

---~------~~~-

FEB-05-2014 09:15 From:972 566 3935 01/31/2014 17:31 2143739814 PSVOFFICE #2125 P 006/008

Neuropsychologica.l ~Brion Doris Tipps -~'of7

despite corrective feedback (29 perseverati"-e responses in 33 responses). In contrast, verbally rned~d conceptualizatioa/abst:raction WM low average and bC'AtO.r pn,sMVcid (25111. pen:entile). Within the s,rueture oftbe test sattlng. shew= not 11.t ~l izl1p11lslvo ot aoolally disi.nhibitediinappropriate.

VisuospatiaJ Abilit!g: Ms. Tipps' freehand drawing of a (;~k I;\'c:a1eQ significant di~lties with spatial plaml.!As on 12/2/13, which improved with a model to copy. l-Icr eloek drawiui 2 week.a later on 12116/13 was much boner, though SI)21ial plann~~ efficiencies remamed. She was able to depict the specified time. however, suizgesting broadl-y intact perceptual reasoning. Mild difficulties with spatial planning woro 1180 ..-. on her copies of simple figures. Ability to distinguish !similaritic3 and ditrerem.oes mnong geometric designs was generally i.nlacL

Language Abilities: On a CODV¢1'satlonal level, Ms. Tipps had ~ional word finding difficulti~. bli.t wi,15 able to convey her thoughts. !This was. reflected 011 formal Wi&e&Smellt, Confrontation .naming was mildly-to,.modmitely impaired cr-~re - 34), and she wnded to describe what she could not name (i.~... cht:I.Ul\lOcl.l1ion). Verbal flu.ency WU de:fuctive: Lettur/pb~ic fluency was mildly impaired (T-seore • ,R} Anri vMiahle from trial tQ trial. Caregory/s.emantic fh;ency was moderately,1to-,cvero]y Im-paired (T..score= 20). However, she was able to discem similarities among ~on objects/concepts, placing verbal reasoning at the low end of ave~ for her age (2s1" percentile). ·

Leaming & MemoJY: Memory was severely impaired for both vcrbDI 1111d nonverbal ma1.erial. Specifically, lmmtdiat.e: recall of structured v~ material in the fonn of short 51:0riei, was borderline for her age (cJ1' percentile). She did not bettefrt from repetiliop. $he also tended to mix up names of people 1111d places, at1.d lnitoduced i.nfonnadon from one story into another. A~er a 30-minute delay, she forgot both S\QriQB and d.id not benefit from cues. Rccognlt.ioQ memory assessed in.11. Yes!No;{onnat wu 11ot much better thiltl c:hr.mce. I...earnitli of less structured verbal material in fue fonn of a 9-itc:m WQrd li:;11 w~ ~c:...-Qtel)' implirod (T-aOOR • 19). She only recalled one word after me list wu road to her, but she improved with repetition, with 2, 3, and , words Ieameid oi,, subsequeiit 1rials Shi/\ n"Called only one word Clftm- an i.nlerference task, ani4 sh11 cotild not rmrimnber any ofihe. words after a 10-minute delay. Semantic cuM did not help; inst:lsad 1he cuea elici:Cld 7 intnaion errorn. Delayed recogomon memory was de1'ect.lvc as well; She oorrectly i.dentlfied 8 of the 9 words, but bdc 1Ofalsc-posftlve cttOft, suggesting difficulty diKriminatin& relevant from irrelevant infonmti.on, Vi3ulll -.cmory wu similarly poor. Specifically, immediate recall of simple geometric figures we.s mildly below expectation (Sf percentile), and after a 30-rnimrte delay, she oould n.ot rep~ any of ihe figures. Recognition memozy assessed wiTh a multi~co 'fbffllat we& 1imilarly dri"ective, with none of the figt1Te$ correctly idli:nti'*i when. each was shown to her alo.o& with 5 di$tractors. In sum, memory f¢1' both verbal W1d nonvwilal information was severely dete¢tlve. S~e learned minimal information, did uot benefit consistently from repetition or cues, and could not reco<>..,nize what she C?uld not recall. This pattmn is indicative of an arnnestio disorder.

Motor Skills; Screpning of motor skills revealed Jntact alternating hand movements, ~ut she hod difficulty ~c(;uting 3·stcp motor $eCJuenqes with !!lither h11nd. She was able to do the sequmcq with verbal guldance. Motor fnhibition to verbal commands ~ within nonnaJ lim1ts, and ideomotor and ideational praxis were intact.

Emotiooal Funcuonrng.:

Ms. Tippt endorsed C,,W symptoms on an lnvemory of cloprosaivo symptoms. This is consisrem with her interview presentation. She dewed experiencing significant distress. However, she reported that she has trouble with dcieision~ muing and her mind is not as clear before. On further review of her emotional status, Ms. Tipps expressed eoncem mat qu1stions hive been nuHd a.bout her capacity to mKO dociliou and choice1 11:>out what she wants to do with her poS$eMions and ~ - She expresad disappoinwmt with one of her sons, and indicated disgruntlement with what he had supposedly dono,aplnst bet wieha. M~I st.a.Ills exam revealed no evidenCI!: of'psyeho,ii; though records indicate possible delusional tl}inking in the past.

Funetio11.1H Skills: :

Ms. Tipps.' ability l.<l FClttY out infflumontal a¢tlvlties of dll.il)" living (!AOL) was c h ~ c d as moden11Bly impaired (t.score = 2&) on a 1*mds.-on measure of functional skills (Texas Functional Living Scale). Her skill level is slightly below that of normatjw ssmple.s of individuals residin! bl 1155fsted living ftclllt1oa and those diagnosed with probable

FEB-05-2014 09:16 From:972 566 3935 01/31/2014 '17.32 2143739814 PSVOFFICE #2125 P 007/008

Neuropsychological Eyllluatlon Doris Tipps -fagc6of7

Aliheimer's dlseasc. Spet.ifica.lly, $he was able to read 1he date and day on a ealerida.r, but had trouble determinlng the specific day of the monlh. She was only a few mlnntes offwheu tt:lling f.ime or depicting a specifiro lime cm a clock dnwing, but she had c:onsid"'8ble difficult), calcularing how much time would pau between timto.ne and time two. She st.id that she could not bop the times in her head. She was inconsistent in her ability to count change (e.g., UlQOiroct in counting 75 cents buticorr«:t in CQUJ'Jting $1.53). She also askod (rtq"YCDtly for repetition or clarificat!Q~ or took a long tiln~ to do the c!llculations. She a~o ~id om:; am01.Q1t. btit handed over a dlff'ercnt mnount..

In contr~ Ms_ Tipps was able to write oU! a check to pay a utility bill, llDd to addnm an envelope tD send in the check_ She Wil6 ill$o able to lpok up phone num\lert iD 11imulated phone book with white ~ yellow pages, and dialed them ool'l'Gcily. Hbwc.ver. When asked what number she should call in :m emergency, she iia.ve her home number_ She was also able to give verbal instructions on how to make a 11111dwicb, but was unable t o ~ out written directions on making a simple meal with the mic:row•ve. After a delay, she was unable to recall in{orm.otion W>Oul the cheek sho had wrnll'.n, specifical!y lie 'Pf.y.,G 111d the amount. She also could not recall what she wa:. to do when an alarm sounded. five mlni.ttes "before, s;he had been instructed to take a spcieific number of candies out from a bottle when the alann sounded_ Instead, wh~ the alann sounded, she asked ifthe examiner should answer the almm, llnd verbal and visual Cl.IDS did not holp hCll' romtmbtr what she had been iJistructed to do. In sum, !ICMening revealed moderate impaumcnt of lADL skills1 &Uggostipg 1hat Ms. Tipps Is requires more guidanee, struCture IWd assistance than ;she i~ rc:ce;ving currently. '

Smnmar)\ Co,icln1l~n1.1, IJl!.))litatiou .& kecommendations:

Ms. Tipps intellect W!1S pre4icted to be in lhc average range. Howeffl, most C(lgnitive acmams wtSSed were substantially waakar,:indiG8t.ina a : . ~ t decline from her pte-viou:s level of'functio.n.i.ng. Attention/conoentratio11 varied: Although int.a¢t on simple tasks and for bri.c.fpcrlodit sho tended tv lose track of whaL she was doing or thinking over J.onae, periodi of fune an<1 when r»sks involved higher l6vol cognitive proces~ r.r integrative thinking. Speed of processing also varied from mildly to severely impaired. Aspms of executive functions,. including problem solving and metttal flexibility we,e defective. Ms. Tipps was able to carry on a conversation, but she had word-finding pauses due in part to reduced thinking speed antl in part to a ruuniDg deficlr (Le_, dys.no.mili). Sho wa also able to comprehet.td 11t1d amy out simple lnsuµctions, but noodod repetition a11 she forgot or got c o ~ with what she had been asked to do- Ability t;i cium 1iulilmitics and di.ffe:rences among simple designs was intact, but she had difficulties with spatial p.lanning/orgmuzatiou. Memory was profoondly impaited. Sbe lwned minimal information. mixed up infomtltion from difment ixmtimr,, di~ not QOA&ista;i,tly bci:adit from repetition. and rapidly l"or_goL what $he had 1~ed after a bf,ef . delay. Cu.es did not hielp her recall what sho had !eaffl~ lnlltaad, the ClJe$ elicited intrusion errors (seffl.!lltieo.tly relab:id buc incorrect lnforn1*ion). keooillklon memory was also no better than spontaneous recall. Overall, the cogniti"ve profile is Indicative oh mild dementia for someone her age, with milder deficirs in aspeet5 of &IUQntiOllt Wl8\la&Q, -visuospe.tifll abilitia:i, and pr~essing speed, and more w,ere deficits in memOl)' end Cl«lwtive :functions.. Screening ioffunctlonal skilli; revealed moderately impaired. instruiriental activlliec uf daily living skills, .. rc:tloeLing ittl~ ot cognitive defklts or, day-tcHlay functioning. Sho had difti~ltie$ wilh making change, calculating cllpscd time. cmr)'iDg out written :instructions. md remembering to whom she had written a chmik and fu,. what amount When an alarm rang ~ minutes after Instructions had been givtn to bet, she could not remember what she hatl been instru~ to do, s~)fii:ally to cako a ~in number of candies out cf a bottle. Neither visuaJ cues nor qu.....ioning pmmpted .roeal.L ·

Ms. Tipps' cognitiVOf profile i& fA1ipsUve of a mix~ otiology. Most~ of her cognitive pattern are consist.oat with that seen ln dementia of1he Alzheimer's type, allhough contrlbutlons of cerebrovascu.12r disease appear prosom. C03fllti11e varlabilttylllClOSI two sonions spaced 2 weeks Apart AJJo suagests Sllpl';!'imposed impaci: of serious illness, in this 1n11t111100. pnount9flia. Odlor nouromoclical condttiona. sy,tomic;: and metabolic dis1llrbances will need to be ruled oul, Non-i.ntcllcctivc factors such w. hearing loss and mOQd/emotiol\$ could not account adequately for the e,,.1:ent 1!!1d sqvcrity of her dcf'ici15.

i

The cuTTent cognitiv~ findi11gs suggest that Ms. Tipps l.s likely to function best in a strucruted settiJ\g with regular rnonitorin.g, guidMco, tni:.l l'Ol1dily available l'J.Ssi!lt!lnoe_ Her fimrnion11.l ~ill~ are ot ihe low gnd of the range seen in seniors residing in e.~isted living facilities. Arnoug cognitive deficits, memory and executive impairment tend t0 have

FEB-05-2014 09!16 From!972 566 3935 Page!B/8 01/31/2014 17:32 21437398,4 PSVOFFICE #2125 P.008/008

Ncwop:sycholo3ica.l Eyciluarion Doris Tipps -Page7 of7

1he greatest impact on pnc· s ability to firncticnindependently. Additional dQficitrl in language (in Ms. Tipps' wac. d)'&n<ml.a) filtther cmripromise functional $kills. Co~itive debility camp0unds fra.lile health, and placement in a nursing: care setting inithe near future should be explored. A nurse reportedly che.cks in on her weekly or biweekly but she may need more frequent comact. Continuity of~ and an integrated. treatmmt team Oto strongly recommended.

While long-tenn mamcry remains rc1alivecy preserved lllltil later~ of dementia. progressive decline m ability to learn and retain new i•formation commonly intorfcros with daily functioning. Ms. Tipps nooaa supenrision and prompting for all mc~ory-dopondont activities such as medication intake. She c1111not be relied on to rcpon. on her beilltb conditiow;. let ~one changes in those conditions, or what ~enti are for what conditions. She should be accompanied 1.0 doctoris' ~ppuwtm=t:s by family/<.ngiYe~ who are familiar with hc.r health ia&Uli• and i n aQ)e tQ communicate relevtni in.formation and ensure follow ttirough with nicommended treatrnen~. Consistency &:I her environment, activity schedule and wayis of doing things would help to reduce the impact or her cognitive deficits on functioning.

Gurrant findin3s aJ.ao Indicate thc'lt Ms. Tipp should be able to cazry OU.t wsll-lemncd !llld routine actlvlllos :adeqnittely. However. she wilt ha"le slgn.lftcant difficulty in uv\'i,J ii.m.1 llhmging situations. She has trouLle focusing on and blt.egrating informa1i0;tt to l?,otlarai'o feaaible copmg straregies. and tends to bo inflwble in her thinking, somo times in 'tho~ of corrective jnput. These difficulties. compromise problem solvil!i and decision making, and indicate need for someolltl to assume responsibility for handling fi~ialllegal issues md addressmg hca1lh mmers. However, her wi.sheS should be routinely 60Ught. She is better able to make cholcwdecia.iona when the issues to be addI'081JOd are put in simple format, ~ectives reviewed and distiUed into .succinct points, solutions/aJternarlves presented, and consequences or pT0$ 1and cons reviewed with her.

Ms. Tipps Ls able to ciLrry on a. convenation and communicate het thoughu llild feelings, although Ahfl lw i.:ome word flndlng dlfflculries; s!Je may substitute slmllar words or describe what s.he is unable to name. Th.ts may Impact on 'her relationships with si~ficut others. and lead to misunderstanding!!. Signifieant01ben should be encouraged tr) clarify wiUl. borwhm she is i~tendingtooonvcy. Her communi~on skills mti likelyw decline ovc:r time:, ~,J lo11g·I.Cml planning should p r ~ SOO.D.CC than l.ator.

In sum, Ms. Tipps' n~gnitive findings show that she, tms progressed beyond Mild Cognitive lmpa.nm.ont to dementia. Altliough she diqplu.yod co;oitive d.efii:i13 similar tQ tha1 observed by Dr. Crowder who diagnosed her with. a $8V&e dementia, her currentpresentation i s ~ as mild, taking into a.cdlllnt her advanc.ed age of 91. From a :functional standpomli she is noed of Increased structure and guidance, and transfer to a musing home sening in the near fut~ should be coos,dered. Capacity 1D handle financial/legal mattcr&t mtko major decisions, and address hea!U\ illlliUU independently is quc~tioned, bJJt she sbouJd be giv~ every opponunity to mnk.c hor wishe:1 known.

Finally, wt! observed~ Ms. Tipps had a left hand tremor during tlta cva!LllltioJJ, and this should b~ assessed l!not already pwsuod. Hor.~ douge of the cognifuteenbaneer, dotwpeZII, is unclear. We rcoommcnd ~cw w determine if she is taking the optimal doS11ge, aiid if' addition of Niuntncla may bo beneficial. These concerm arc deferred to her refc,rln.g ncurologis'4 Dr. Isatadislikul. Ms. Tipps was unable to retum for follow-up to review these finding,. Accotdmi, to bet son. she had developed a wugh and wu subHquontly bospiwliz.od 11nc1 stllfted on three antibiotics.. reportedly for bronchitis and on the vetge of developing pneumonp and sepsis. These results and recommendations were rev[ewed In grearer detail with her son, Mr. Steve Tipps, in a recem feedback session.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in Ms. Tipps' care.

~C,.~iPk.~- ~ ~. ~,f>I..O. Kat111con c. Sa.mo, Ph.D. Ronald G. Paulman, Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychelogy Clinical Neuropsychology

I

XI. REPORTERS RECORD OCTOBER 21, 2014 HEARING

1 CAUSE NO. PR-13-03072-3 2 VOLUME 1 OF 1 3 In re The Estate of )( IN THE PROBATE COURT 4 Doris Lee Tipps, )( NUMBER THREE OF 5 An Incapacitated Person)( DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 6

7

8

9 REPORTERS RECORD 10 11 12 13 14

15 16

17 18

19

20

21 BE IT REMEMBERED THAT ON the 21st day of October, 2014, 22 A.O. the above-entitled cause came on for hearing before 23 the HONORABLE COURT, Michael E. Miller, Judge Presiding 24 and the following proceedings were taken down by MACHINE 25 SHORTHAND:

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166 Document Page 198 of 240 - - --------------- - ~-~---- ---··- ·-··-· - ·-·---- --··--

1 APPEARANCES: 2 W. Thomas "Tom" Finley 3 5500 Preston Rd, Ste 390 4 Dallas, Texas 75205 5 SB: 07025500 6 ATTORNEY FOR DORIS LEE TIPPS, WARD 7 John H. Phillips 8 4313 W. Lovers Lane 9 Dallas, Texas 75209 10 SB: 15935500 11 ATTORNEY FOR SENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER 12 DALLAS D/B/A SENIOR SOURCE, GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON 13 Mr. Alvin J. "Al" Golden 14 400 W. 15th Street, Ste. 975 15 Austin, Texas 78701 16 SB: 08079000 17 FOR CUMBERLAND TRUST & INVESTMENT COMPANY 18 Mr. Jeff W. Cook/Lisa Leffingwell 19 2301 Cedar Springs Rd, Ste. 200 20 Dallas, Texas 75201 21 SB: 04734500 22 SB: 12158575 23 ATTORNEY FOR THOMAS R. TIPPS, GUARDIAN 24

25 MR. STEVEN TIPPS, PRO SE

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166 Document Page 199 of 240 ... - -----·--·- -----

------------- --

1 W-1-T-N-E-S-S I-N-0-E-X 2 DE CE RD RC FD FC VOL PAGE 3 WITNESSES: 4 KAREN ASHWORTH 16 21 1 5 THOMAS R. TIPPS 23 1 6 THEODORE LUSTIG 29 1 7 8

9 10 11 12

13

14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22

23 24

25

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

4

1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 THE COURT: Could I have all the attorneys 3 in the case, please state your names one at a time. 4 MR. COOK: Jeff Cook for Tom Tipps. 5 MS. LEFFINGWELL: Lisa Leffingwell, Tom 6 Tipps. 7 MR. GOLDEN: Alvin Golden with Cumberland 8 Trust. 9 MR. PHILLIPS: John Phillips. I represent 10 Senior Citizens of Greater Dallas, D/B/A as the Senior 11 Source, Guardian of the Person for Ms. Tipps. 12 MR. FINLEY: Tom Finley representing Doris 13 Tipps. 14 MR. COOK: -- And that is contested. 15 THE COURT: Is that what we're here for 16 today? 17 HR. COOK: Well, not primarily, Your Honor, 18 although, incidentally, it is because pleadings were 19 filed on Friday purportedly on behalf of Ms. Tipps, so 20 we did file a motion to show authority when that was 21 filed Friday, so that will need to be addressed. 22 The court will recall, you entered an order 23 back on February 17th determining that Doris Lee Tipps 24 was totally incapacitated at that time. 25 THE COURT: Okay.

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

5

1 MR. COOK: And so we have a challenge of a 2 lawyer's authority to step in on her behalf. 3 THE COURT: May I ask how you, in what 4 respect you represent Ms. Tipps? 5 MR. FINLEY: Sure, Your Honor. As the 6 court ordered there was a mediation, and in the 7 mediation all of the parties agreed and the mediation 8 settlement agreement is in the record, it was signed by 9 all the members of the Tipps family as well as approved 10 as to form by the attorneys. As part of the mediation 11 settlement agreement, the claims, particularly, the 12 claims with respect to the motion to show authority, was 13 released and waived by all parties. Secondly -- that's 14 point number one. 15 Point number two, is that the order that 16 the court entered on February 17th, 2014 was 17 interlineated to provide that Ms. Tipps was 18 incapacitated within the meaning of incapacitated under 19 the Texas Estates Code, which does not mean total 20 incapacity, it means only substantial incapacity as 21 defined in the statute, to do certain things. 22 THE COURT: What do you have to say about 23 that? 24 MR. COOK: Well, Your Honor, I have this to 25 say about that, we withdrew the motion to show authority

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

6

1 because at that point the case was settled -- 2 THE COURT: This motion, I mean 3 MR. COOK: The prior motion to show 4 authority. 5 THE COURT: -- the prior motion. 6 This is a subsequent motion? 7 MR. COOK: Yes, Your Honor. At that time 8 there was a dispute about her capacity, the court 9 appointed Dr. Crowder, he did an evaluation, found her 10 to be totally incapacitated, we settled the dispute 11 totally, we thought -- and part of that was Scott Weber 12 had been appointed as her ad litem, he was authorized by 13 this court to finalize the settlement on Ms. Tipps' 14 behalf, he went forward and did that. And the court 15 entered its finding that she was totally incapacitated 16 at that point, totally, appointed Senior Source to be 17 the guardian of the person, and then we had an agreement 18 with respect to a new trustee of the trusts. That's 19 actually what we're here on. Because Steve Tipps, 20 because of some interference with that corporate 21 trustee, forced them to resign and they have resigned 22 and now we're here to kind of clean up that mess. 23 The order that you entered on February 17th 24 did not provide any provision for this lawyer to 25 continue as her lawyer after she was found to be totally

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166 Document Page 203 of 240

·-·--- ---------- ----

1 incapacitated. In fact the court made a finding that 2 certain documents were her trust documents, no other 3 documents were valid, so we filed a new motion when we 4 found out Friday that this counsel purports to continue 5 to represent her after the court entered its order on 6 February 17th, what happened before that went away 7 because the settlement, what happened after that has 8 become a big issue. He has filed a pleading opposing 9 us, he's filed a pleading opposing Mr. Phillips' relief, 10 allegedly on her behalf; this is new stuff. 11 THE COURT: Is that correct, sir? 12 MR. FINLEY: Well, it's partially correct. 13 I would ask the court to consider what's happened here. 14 We had a Rule 11 agreement that was dictated into the 15 record on September 13th, 2013, that provided that the 16 Tipps Living Trusts would be -- the sole trustee would 17 be a corporate trustee. Then there was a mediated 18 settlement agreement in which, again, all the parties 19 agreed that the Tipps Living Trusts' trustee would be a 20 sole trustee, would be a corporate trustee. 21 So now we come full circle whereby Thomas 22 Tipps is asking to be the trustee again of the Tipps 23 Living Trust in complete contradiction of both a Rule 11 24 agreement and a mediation settlement agreement. Now 25 with respect to the --

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214\ 653-6166 Document Page 204 of 240

------------------- -----

1 THE COURT: We're getting ahead of 2 ourselves. 3 MR. FINLEY: Okay. With respect to -- 4 THE COURT: I'm just asking, Ms. Tipps is 5 totally incapacitated, right? 6 MR. FINLEY: No, Your Honor. Your order 7 does not say she is totally incapacitated. It says that 8 she's incapacitated as defined within the Texas Estates 9 Code and in the case -- 10 THE COURT: When did she hire you? 11 MR. FINLEY: She hired me in, last summer. 12 MR. COOK: Well, 2013 summer, is what 13 you're talking about. before your order was entered. 14 MR. FINLEY: Yes, the summer of 2013. 15 THE COURT: And you admit that at this time 16 okay. Let me look at the -- Does anybody -- I'll have 17 to look it up on the computer but does anybody have the 18 order that I signed? 19 MR. COOK: That's it. 20 THE COURT: Oh, my goodness, where does it 21 say she's incapacitated? 22 MR. COOK: It says it in several places, 23 Your Honor, and if you start with page 1, paragraph 0, 24 the very first page. 25 THE COURT: Paragraph D?

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

9

1 MR. COOK: Yes, sir. You made a finding 2 that "Doris Lee Tipps is an adult incapacitated person 3 who is totally without capacity to care for herself 4 because of a mental condition." 5 THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to sustain 6 your motion to -- 7 MR. COOK: Thank you, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: -- in terms, I'm going to rule 9 that this gentleman, a gentleman though he is, does not 10 represent Ms. Tipps at this time. 11 MR. COOK: Thank you, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Do I need to sign an order to 13 that he effect? 14 MR. FINLEY: Your Honor, I believe if I 15 may, I believe that the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 16 requires that that can't be done until 10 days -- that 17 I'm entitled to have 10 days to have a specific hearing 18 on that motion? 19 MR. COOK: We're having that hearing now. 20 THE COURT: -- I think I just had the 21 hearing, sir. 22 MR. COOK: Your Honor, we will get you an 23 order. 24 THE COURT: That hearing has been held and 25 had and you may remove yourself from the counsel table

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166 Document Page 206 of 240

--------- --- ·-------~

1 and sit as a spectator. 2 HR. COOK: Your Honor, the other two 3 motions that have been filed, one motion is a joint 4 motion between Cumberland and Thomas Tipps, that was 5 filed in this court on August 14th, and it's a motion 6 basically to address the problems with Cumberland as 7 trustee. Mr. Phillips filed, on behalf of Senior 8 Source, the guardian of her person, a motion that 9 predated that, that procedurally probably needs to be 10 heard first, it was first filed, probably makes sense, 11 and I'll defer to Mr. Phillips at that point. Those are 12 the only two motions that need to be heard. 13 THE COURT: Okay. Are there fact witnesses 14 that need to be heard? 15 HR. COOK: Yes, sir. 16 THE COURT: Please call your first witness. 17 Somebody call your first witness. 18 MR. PHILLIPS: Judge, I filed on behalf of 19 Senior Source, a motion to suspend or revoke the medical 20 power of attorney claim by Mr. Tipps from his mother. 21 And, frankly, I thought long and hard about -- 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 MR. PHILLIPS: about whether or not to 24 call witnesses and engage in a swearing match between 25 the witnesses, and I've decided, Your Honor, that,

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214\ 653-6166

11

1 frankly, it's not necessary. The issue is, that there 2 is a conflict between the authority of an agent under a 3 medical power of attorney and the authority of the 4 guardian of the person, and the court having appointed 5 the guardian of the person and being charged with the 6 duties and responsibilities that they are under the 7 Estates code, it seems to me that it is a meaningless 8 exercise to have the guardian of the person, if the 9 court does not suspend or revoke the powers of the 10 medical power of attorney. 11 THE COURT: Is there an attorney here who 12 wishes to argue that point? 13 MR. COOK: Your Honor, Mr. Steve Tipps 14 filed a response to it; it is his medical power of 15 attorney that is the subject of Mr. Phillips' motion. 16 THE COURT: Whose? 17 MR. COOK: Steve Tipps. That gentleman 18 right there (indicating). 19 MR. TIPPS: Your Honor, I'm Steven Tipps. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 MR. COOK: And he filed it prose, so I 22 don't think he's a lawyer but he is here. 23 THE COURT: Okay. Do you wish to present 24 any facts or law on this issue, sir? 25 MR. TIPPS: Your Honor, the circumstances

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

12

1 that surround this for the last year, leading up until 2 the timeframe of the Senior Source being made the 3 guardian, and I was instrumental in bringing the 4 guardian to the table, and those circumstances are that 5 I am with my mother when Senior Source is not, four to 6 five nights, we went from October 29th, 2013, just after 7 the hearing, the 13th, on Friday the 13th, my mother 8 became very ill and I spent the beginning of 500 hours 9 taking care of her every single day at the Baylor -- 10 THE COURT: Are you saying that you should 11 be named guardian? 12 MR. TIPPS: No, Your Honor, I don't contest 13 the guardianship. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 HR. TIPPS: I assisted this court in making 16 sure that Senior Source was appointed but, in the fact 17 -- due to the fact that I'm with my mother at night a 18 lot of times and I see things happening over there, I 19 mean, it is an amazing, egregious process of neglect, 20 negligent endangerment by the agent of the guardian. 21 For example, I mean, we went through -- from October 22 29th until November the 21st, mom was in Baylor Medical 23 Center, fully staffed, did a great job with her, I was 24 there every day, on weekends, two or three times a day, 25 and as we look at this, we see that the role that I

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

13

1 played involved, according to the emergency situation 2 she was in, for instance, on the 29th of October, on the 3 29th of October 2013, a Tuesday, I took my mother to a 4 Dr. David Seckl es' ( ph) office for a psychological - - 5 MR. COOK: Your Honor, I'm going to object 6 to this on the basis of relevance. These are things 7 that predate your order entered in February. 8 THE COURT: What I'm getting at, sir 9 MR. TIPPS: Yes? 10 THE COURT: -- is, are you claiming that 11 you should have a medical power of attorney even though 12 you' re not 13 MR. TIPPS: My mother assigned me. 14 THE COURT: even though you're not her 15 guardian; is that what you're claiming? 16 MR. TIPPS: I claim that there are unique 17 circumstances to the care for my mother in connection 18 with Senior Source and with the agent of Senior Source 19 which at the present time was Prestonwood. When I go 20 there four to five times a week at the present time, I 21 see things we could go back until to April 24th, which 22 is just a -- that's within the period when Senior Source 23 has claimed to be guardian,. 24 MR. COOK: Your Honor, I'm going to object 25 as this is nonresponsive to your question. I don't

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214\ 653-6166

14

1 think we've ever got an answer. 2 MR. TIPPS: The point I'm making, having a 3 medical power of attorney that I've had, no one has 4 objected from all of this time, I'm in a position to 5 communicate 6 THE COURT: No one has filed anything to 7 remove Senior Source either; isn't that the point? 8 MR. TIPPS: I don't choose to remove Senior 9 Source. I'm saying that my mother's care needs someone 10 who's independent. Senior Source is not at the nursing 11 home, especially at night. They do not see these 12 medical mistakes, swapping medicines and other things, 13 and the ability to talk with some authority to the 14 Prestonwood Nursing Rehab facility, and I have not 15 abused that power, I've only raised this question once 16 when I showed up. 17 THE COURT: -- I'm going to grant your 18 request Mr. Phillips, except that you may, you may raise 19 this again in the context of a motion to remove Senior 20 Source. But at this time, your request is granted, Mr. 21 Phillips. 22 MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Judge 23 THE COURT: Gentlemen and ladies, I hate to 24 do this to you: See this? This has to be done within 25 probably about five to 10 minutes from now, and I know

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

15

1 you're all here waiting to go to the next stage of this 2 but this must be done, so I am going to take a short 3 break. And I assure you, I'm not back here -- I'll be 4 out as soon as I can. 5 MR. COOK: Thank you, Your Honor. 6 (SHORT BREAK IN PROCEEDINGS) 7 THE COURT: All right. Where are we now? 8 MR. COOK: Your Honor, we're ready to 9 proceed with the motion to accept resignation, discharge 10 trustee and reinstate trustee. And I think Mr. Golden 11 is going to call the first witness. 12 THE COURT: All right. 13 MR. GOLDEN: Yes, Your Honor, before I call 14 the witness, I'd like to give you a little background. 15 MR. COOK: -- I am sorry. 16 Your Honor, we had a witness that we 17 subpoenaed down here that we do not need anymore in 18 light of the court's ruling, Angela Grover. She 19 complied with the subpoena, and we appreciate it but 20 we're sending her back to work, if that's okay. 21 THE COURT: Is there any objection to this 22 witness being excused? 23 MR. GOLDEN: None. 24 MR. PHILLIPS: None, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: You're free to go, you're free

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

16

1 to stay. Thank you, ma'am. 2 MR. COOK: Thank you, Your Honor. 3 THE COURT: Please call your first witness. 4 MR. GOLDEN: My first witness is Karen 5 Ashworth. 6 THE COURT: Ms. Ashworth, come on up. 7 (WITNESS SWORN) 8 THE COURT: Please have a seat. 9 KAREN ASHWORTH 10 After being sworn, testified on her oath as follows: 11 DIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. GOLDEN: 13 Q. Ms. Ashworth, would you state your name for the 14 court, please. 15 A. Karen Ashworth. 16 Q, And during the time periods that are relevant 17 to this controversy how were you employed? 18 A. I worked with Cumberland Trust & Investment 19 Company as Vice-President and Regional Manager. 20 Q. And were you involved in the accepting and/or 21 and resigning with respect to the Tipps Family Trusts? 22 A. Yes. 23 a. Were you a party to the mediation? 24 A. No, Cumberland Trust was not a party. 25 a. And after the court's order appointing you, did

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

17

1 you have any concerns or considerations prior to your 2 acceptance? 3 A. Yes, there were multiple concerns, the assets 4 in the trust were what we consider complex, there was a 5 portfolio of marketable securities and annuities, at 6 least, three or four rental properties, residential 7 rental properties, some timberland, there was a 8 timeshare, condo. In other words, there were multiple 9 properties that we had multiple people looking into 10 during the process. 11 Q. I want you to focus on York Street.

12 A. Hood Street? 13 Q. York Street -- Hood Street? I'm sorry. 14 A. That was Mrs. Doris Tipps' residence. And of 15 course, she was i l 1 and in a ski 11 ed nursing facility 16 and no longer living there, and her son Steve was in the 17 house. And it was our understanding that the house was 18 an asset of the trust and the other three properties 19 that had been owned by the Tipps were rented and were 20 managed by a property management company called 21 Pacesetters. So we contacted Pacesetters with the 22 thought process that she's no longer living there, that 23 house either needs to be rented for fair market value 24 rent to the current tenant or to another tenant, and we 25 were informed that there may be some repairs that may be

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

18

1 required if we were going to rent to a third party, so 2 there were multiple issues regarding Hood Street. 3 Q. Were you concerned about Steven Tipps occupancy 4 of Hood Street? 5 A. Yes, because I understand he had been asked to 6 vacate the property in the past and had not done so, so 7 as a condition to our acceptance we said he either needs 8 to pay fair market value rent, preferably first and last 9 months' rent, deposit, and we had some other 10 stipulations, or, he needs to vacate the property. 11 Q. And what was the result of those conversations? 12 A. I spoke directly with Hr. Steven Tipps and he 13 agreed to vacate the property within a reasonable period 14 of time, and, although, we would like that in 30 days, 15 we agreed to 60 days. And that was prior to our 16 appointment that we agreed to all of this. 17 a. So that was one of the problems you wanted 18 resolved before you accepted, was whether he would be 19 out of the property? 20 A. Absolutely. Our special assets group would not 21 let us accept the appointment unless we had all of these 22 details resolved in regard to the multiple, especially 23 this particular asset. 24 a. And when 60 days arrived, what happened? 25 A. We learned that Mr. Tipps was still in the

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

19

1 home, and during the process the letter that he said 2 during the 60 days process he was going to allow the 3 property management company access so they could either, 4 one, determine if any repairs were needed and or fair 5 market value rent, and they were not allowed to enter 6 the property and he remained in the home after the 7 expiration of the 60 days. 8 a. And at that point did you determine that 9 because of that it was impossible for you to -- I don't 10 want to put words in your mouth -- it was necessary that 11 you resign? 12 A. Yes, we realized that managing this asset was 13 beyond our control. 14 a. And on May 2nd of 2014, you did resign as 15 trustee; is that correct? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. And the trust, the Tipps Family Trust which was 18 approved by this court allows you to resign by 19 notification; is that correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. During the period, the 60 day period where you 22 between the acceptance of 75 days between the 23 acceptance and resignation, did you take over any of the 24 assets of the estate? 25 A. No, sir.

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214\ 653-6166

20

1 Q. Under your general procedure do you ever 2 custody the financial assets? 3 A. No, under our model we never custody the 4 financial assets in-house. 5 THE COURT: You never do what now? 6 THE WITNESS: We don't custody financial 7 assets. 8 THE COURT: What does that mean "custody"? 9 THE WITNESS: That means, we don't actually 10 hold the assets in an investment account at our trust 11 company; it's very unique. We use third party financial 12 advisors. And Mrs. Tipps account was held at Edward 13 Jones, and then she had some annuities that created an 14 income stream payable to bank account, so we knew that 15 her assets were safe, they were in existing custodial 16 arrangements with the customary, you know. 17 Q. (By Mr. Golden): And how were Mrs. Tipps 18 income and expenses handled in this period before you 19 resigned? 20 A. Her son Thomas Tipps had been trustee with 21 Doris prior to her incapacity, and he had kept excellent 22 records and was very cooperative in providing us with 23 the history and asset lists, and all the details 24 necessary if we were to take over. 25 a. And you're asking this court today, even though

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

1 it's not necessary for the court to accept your 2 resignation, you're asking the court to accept your 3 resignation and discharge you as trustee; is that 4 correct? 5 A. Yes, absolutely. 6 MR. GOLDEN: Pass the witness, Your Honor. 7 MR. COOK: Your Honor, I have just a couple 8 of questions. 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. COOK: 11 a. Ma'am, I'm Jeff Cook. I represent Mr. Tipps, 12 Thomas Tipps. Did Mr. Tipps as the court order required 13 him to do, sign the resignation form that you all 14 tendered to him under this court's order? 15 A. Yes, he did. 16 a. And did he cooperate fully with Cumberland on 17 the request that you all made of him to facilitate the 18 change in trustees? 19 A. Yes, he did. 20 a. Did anything Thomas Tipps do cause Cumberland 21 to feel the need to resign? 22 A. No. 23 MR. COOK: Pass the witness, Your Honor. 24 MR. PHILLIPS: No questions. 25 MR. TIPPS: I'd like to ask --

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166 Document Page 218 of 240 ---- .. -- -·-·-

1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 MR. TIPPS: cross-examination of this 3 witness, Your Honor? I had 4 THE COURT: I have a concern there, you're 5 not an attorney and -- 6 MR. TIPPS: Your Honor, these people sued 7 me. They are, under rule number -- 8 THE COURT: Is that suit pending? 9 MR. TIPPS: Your Honor, well, this is a 10 hearing but they required me -- I was subpoenaed here to 11 answer it. 12 THE COURT: That's what I'm asking you. 13 And my question is, is that suit pending? 14 MR. TIPPS: Your Honor, I have not filed 15 the lawsuit against anyone at this stage. 16 THE COURT: I'm going to decline your right 17 to cross-examine. 18 Any other questions of this witness? 19 MR. COOK: No, Your Honor. 20 THE COURT: You may step down. 21 MR. COOK: Your Honor, it's my turn now? 22 MR. PHILLIPS: It's your turn. 23 MR. COOK: Your Honor, I' 11 call Tom Tipps 24 very briefly, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Tipps, come on

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

23

1 up. 2 MR. COOK: He has not been sworn yet, Your 3 Honor. 4 THE COURT: I know. 5 (WITNESS SWORN) 6 THE COURT:· Please have a seat. 7 THOMAS R. TIPPS 8 After being sworn, testified on his oath as follows: 9 DIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. COOK: 11 Q. State your name, please. 12 A. Thomas Tipps. 13 Q. Mr. Tipps, you are the son of Doris Lee Tipps; 14 is that correct? 15 A. That is correct. 16 a. And for a period of time up until you tendered 17 a resignation as part of this court's order dated 18 February 17th, 2014, were you a trustee of the Tipps 19 Family Trusts? 20 A. Yes. 21 a. All right. 22 A. Co-trustee. 23 Q. Co-trustee. When your mother became 24 incapacitated did you become the sole trustee? 25 A. Functionally, yes.

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

24

1 a. All right. And that was going to be my 2 question, were you the one that made sure the bills got 3 paid, rents got collected, right things happened? 4 A. Absolutely. 5 a. And have you done that for years and years? 6 A. Yes. 7 a. All right. Now under the order appointing 8 guardian, you were required to tender your resignation 9 to Cumberland and essentially cooperate with them so 10 that Cumberland could take over as trustee; is that 11 correct? 12 A. Absolutely, yes. 13 a. And did you as the prior witness said, 14 cooperate fully with Cumberland? 15 A. Yes, absolutely, yes. 16 a. Had Cumberland provided you, prior to their 17 agreement to serve, a copy of the letter that they had 18 with Steve Tipps, confirming he would leave the property 19 at issue, within 60 days? 20 A. Yes. 21 a. You understood that was one of their 22 requirements 23 A. Absolutely. 24 Q. to be trustee? 25 A. At some point did you learn that Mr. Tipps,

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

25

1 Steve Tipps, had not vacated the property and that 2 Cumberland was tendering its resignation as the trustee 3 of the trusts? 4 A. Yes. 5 A. And during that period of time, as the prior 6 witness testified, had you functionally continued to be 7 the person to take care of the trust business, including 8 most importantly, make sure that your mother's bills got 9 paid? 10 A. Yes. 11 a. And did you do that to the best of your 12 ability? 13 A. I did. 14 a. As far as you know did all of her bills get 15 paid? 16 A. As far as I know, yes. 17 Q. All right. When you learned that they had 18 resigned and after some discussion with your respective 19 counsel, did you authorize the filing, along with 20 Cumberland, of the motion which requests this court to 21 accept the resignation of Cumberland and reinstate you 22 as trustee? 23 A. I did, yes. 24 a. And is that the same functional position that 25 you've been serving for many, many years?

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

26

1 A. Many years. 2 a. Now with respect to that, I know you're not a 3 lawyer, do you have some familiarity with what are 4 referred to in our court order as -- they have a special 5 name for them, let me get it exactly right -- the Lustig 6 Estate Planning documents that this court found were the 7 operative documents for your mother's estate? 8 A. Yes. 9 a. And is i t your understanding that under these 10 circumstances, where there's a corporate trustee that 11 resigns you then if you're not incapacitated, become the 12 person with authority to designate the new trustee? 13 A. Yes, that's the way I understood it. 14 a. And have you agreed to that function, just like 15 you've been doing for years, and designate yourself to 16 do that? 17 A. Yes. 18 a. Your sisters are present in the court room, 19 they are beneficiaries of the trust; is that correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 a. And is it your understanding they approve of 22 that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. All right. And with respect to the relief 25 we're requesting is it your request that the court sign

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

27

1 an order so there's no dispute about it, that Cumberland 2 has been allowed to resign, confirm their resignation, 3 and that you continue to serve in the capacity of 4 trustee under these trusts -- 5 A. Yes. 6 a. -- and in accordance with the Lustig Estate 7 Planning documents? 8 A. Yes. 9 MR. COOK: Pass the witness, Your Honor. 10 MR. GOLDEN: I have no questions, Your 11 Honor. 12 MR. PHILLIPS: No questions, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Sir, I am going to go ahead and 14 let you ask a question or two. 15 MR. TIPPS: Thank you, Your Honor. Can I? 16 THE COURT: -- Do you have any problem with 17 him serving as Trustee? 18 MR. TIPPS: Absolutely. Absolutely. 19 THE COURT: What's the nature of your 20 quarrel? 21 MR. TIPPS: Hy brother removed $200,000 22 from the Tipps Family Trust. 23 THE COURT: Have you filed a lawsuit 24 complaining about that? 25 MR. TIPPS: Well, Your Honor, I certainly

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

28

1 can do that. I'm going to ask a couple of questions -- 2 THE COURT: Until you do that, sir, I'm 3 going to -- Is there anything else you want to ask your 4 brother about? 5 HR. TIPPS: Yes. How does the court handle 6 a life estate that is attached to 1844 Hood Street? It 7 is not in the trust, it is not transferable under Texas 8 law in the trusts. 9 THE COURT: I'm not going to give legal 10 advice. In fact, I'm forbidden by the Judicial Cannon 11 of Ethics to give legal advice, so I am very, very sorry 12 that I cannot be of service to you. 13 MR. TIPPS: I understand. I am sorry. 14 THE COURT: Is there any other -- 15 Please take your seat. 16 -- Is there any other witness that 17 MR. COOK: Yes, Your Honor. Terry Lustig, 18 we'll call him very briefly, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: You may take your seat. 20 Carrie Lustig. 21 MR. COOK: Terry Lustig. 22 THE COURT: Please have a seat. 23 (WITNESS SWORN) 24

25 (NO OMISSIONS)

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

29

1 THEODORE LUSTIG 2 After being sworn, testified on his oath as follows: 3 DIRECT EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. COOK: 5 a. State your name, please. 6 A. Theodore "Terry" Lustig. 7 Q, Are you an attorney? 8 A. Yes. 9 a. Are you board certified in anything? 10 A. I'm board certified in Estate Planning and 11 Probate law. 12 a. Were you the author of the Lustig Estate 13 Planning document as the court order of February of this 14 year referred to them? 15 A. Yes. 16 a. Are you familiar with their contents? 17 A. I am. 18 a. Did you draft them at the request of Mrs. Tipps 19 and her husband when they were alive and she had 20 capacity? 21 A. Yes. 22 a. In the circumstances that we have where there 23 was a corporate trustee appointed by agreement and that 24 corporate trustee has resigned and Mrs. Tipps 25 incapacitated, and Thomas Tipps was still alive and not

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166 Document Page 226 of 240

---- -- -------·-~----

1 incapacitated, how is it supposed to work under the 2 Lustig Estate Planning documents, as to who the new 3 trustee is? 4 A. Thomas Tipps has the power to appoint any 5 successor trustee, including himself or another person. 6 MR. COOK: Pass the witness, Your Honor. 7 MR. GOLDEN: I have no questions, Your 8 Honor. 9 HR. PHILLIPS: No questions. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, sir. 11 MR. COOK: Your Honor, we rest. 12 MR. GOLDEN: We rest. 13 THE COURT: Any other witnesses? 14 MR. PHILLIPS: Nothing further. Rest. 15 THE COURT: All right. Is there any - - 16 from the attorneys, any objection to my signing this 17 order? 18 MR. COOK: No, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: I am signing the order. 20 Thank you all for coming down. 21 MR. COOK: Thank you, Your Honor. 22 MR. PHILLIPS: Judge, if I may? I will 23 bring the court tomorrow an order with respect to the 24 suspension or revocation of the medical power of 25 attorney.

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

31

1 THE COURT: Thank you very much. 2 Do you all want me to sign this order on 3 the motion to show authority? 4 MR. COOK: Yes, I think that would be the 5 best, so the record is clear on that. 6 THE COURT: All right. ***** 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18

19

20

21 22

23 24

25

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 (214) 653-6166

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 THE STATE OF TEXAS )

COUNTY OF DALLAS ) 3

4 I, MONA L. RICHARD, Official Court Reporter in and 5 for the Probate Court Number Three of Dallas County, 6 State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above and 7 foregoing contains a true and correct transcription of 8 all portions of evidence and other proceedings requested 9 in writing by counsel for the parties to be included in 10 this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the 11 above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred 12 in open court or in chambers and were reported by me. 13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of 14 the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the 15 exhibits, if any, admitted by the respective parties. 16 I further certify that the total cost for the 17 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $320 and was 18 paid by Steven Tipps. 19 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 3rd day of 20 November, 2014. 21 SIMONA L. RICHARD 22 Mona L. Richard, Texas CSR 2384 23 Expiration Date: December 2015 Official Court Reporter 24 Probate Court Number Three Dallas County, Texas 25 Dallas, Texas

PROBATE COURT NUMBER 3 {214) 653-6166 Document Page 229 of 240

·-----~ - - - - - - -

.. ~

XII. CRISES & SURVIVAL OCTOBER 29, 2013 THROUGH APRIL 24, 2014

CAREGIVER ACTIVITIES - 180 DAYS Doris Lee Tipps OCTOBER 29, 2013 thru April 24, 2014 Part I Page 1 Winter Exhibit A Crises Assistance - Winter Spring 2013-2014 Hrs Date Hours Cum Rate ot Cumms O Oct 4 Fri Mom to Doctor Crowder 4 $ 50 $ 200 1 Oct 29 Tue Dr. David lsraediskul MD 7:00am 9 $ 50 $ 650 Dr. Rai 11 :45am; & 2:45 pm Developing Crises, Meds Developing Crises, Meds, Bronchia Pneumonia 2 Oct 29 Tue Lakeview- all night vigil - developing health care crises 8 $ 50 $ 1,050 3 Oct 29 Tue Baylor Emergency Mom (I checked Mom at 6:00am 8 $ 50 $ 1,450 and she could not speak.) To Baylor immediately.

4 Oct 29 Tue Baylor Emergency Mom 12 $ 50 $ 2,050 5 Oct 30 Wed Mom to Baylor 8:00AM Mom Admitted, Dr. Sohmer askec 4 $ 50 $ 2,250 Dr. Sohmer asked how I knew to bring her in.?

6 Oct 31 Thur Baylor Carrollton Mom 2 43 $ 50 $ 2,350 7 Nov I Fri Baylor Carrollton Mom 2 $ 50 $ 2,450 8 Nov 2 Sat Baylor Carrollton Mom 2 $ 50 $ 2,550 9 Nov 3 Sun Baylor Carrollton Mom 2 $ 50 $ 2,650 10 Nov 4 Mon Baylor Carrollton Mom 2 $ 50 $ 2,750 ll Nov 5 Tue Baylor discharge Home: mid-course pneumonia 4 $ 50 $ 2,950 medical discharge - patient dumping, no notice, no disc.

12 Nov 6 Wed Returned to Baylor afternoon next day: readmitted. 24 36 $ 50 $ 4,150 13 Nov 7 Thur Transfer to Accel Intensive Rehab Marsh Ln Wynn Kio 4 $ 50 $ 4,350 14 Nov 8 Fri Baylor Carrollton SVT Rev Fae, Social Worker Physical Tl 4 $ 50 $ 4,550 15 Nov 9 Sat Baylor Carrollton SVT Rev Fae, Social Worker Physical Tl 4 $ 50 $ 4,750 16 Nov 10 Sun Move to Acee! Inten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: No, 3 $ 50 $ 4,900 17 Nov 11 Mon Move to Acee! lnten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: Nm 3 $ 50 $ 5,050 18 Nov 12 Tues Move to Acee! Inten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: Nm 3 $ 50 $ 5,200 19 Nov 13 Wed Move to Acee! lnten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: NO\ 3 $ 50 $ 5,350 20 Nov 14 Thur Move to Acee! Inten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: Nm 3 $ 50 $ 5,500

Crises Care Part I Page 2 Hours Rate Cum ms 21 Nov 15 Fri Move to Acee! Inten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: No, 3 $ 50 $ 5,650 22 Nov 16 Sat Move to Acee! lnten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: No, 3 $ 50 $ 5,800 23 Nov 17 Sun Move to Accel Inten RehabDr. Kim Dr. Wynn (Email: Nm 3 $ 50 $ 5,950 24 Nov 18 Mon Acee!: Schedule with Whitney, Dr. Paulman's office Email 3 $ 50 $ 6,100 Reschedule Dr. Seine clinical review.

25 Nov 19 Tues Move to Acee! Intensive Rehab Marsh Lane Dr. Kim Dr. V 3 $ 50 $ 6,250 26 Nov 20 Wed Move to Acee! Intensive Rehab Marsh Lane Dr. Kim Dr. V 3 $ 50 $ 6,400 27 Nov 21 Thur Mom returns to Lakeview PM 2 $ 50 $ 6,500 28 Nov 22 Fri Mom returns to Lakeview PM 2 $ 50 $ 6,600 29 Nov 23 Sat Mom returns to Lakeview PM 2 $ 50 $ 6,700 30 Nov 24 Sun Mom returns to Lakeview PM 2 $ 50 $ 6,800 31 Nov 25 Mon Lakeview Meeting with Brandi Seabold and I $ 50 $ 6,850 Michelle Alexander: based on Brenda Holmes eval 32 Nov 26 Tue Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti I $ 50 $ 6,900 33 Nov 27 Wed Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 7,050 34 Nov 28 Thur Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 7,200 35 Nov 29 Fri Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 7,350 36 Nov 30 Sat Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 7,500 37 Dec I Sun Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 7,650 38 Dec 2 Mon Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 6 $ 50 $ 7,950 39 Dec 3 Tue Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 8,100 40 Dec 4 Wed Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Phann Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 8,250 41 Dec 5 Thu Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Phann Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 8,400 42 Dec 6 Fri Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 8,550 43 Dec 7 Sat Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Phann Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 8,700 44 Dec 8 Sun Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Phann Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 8,850 45 Dec 9 Mon Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 9,000 46 Dec 10 Tue Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Phann Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 9,150 47 Dec II Wed Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Phann Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 9,300 48 Dec 12 Thur Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 9,450 49 Dec 13 Fri Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 9,600

Crises Care - Doris L. Tipps Rate Page 3 Hours Cum ms 50 Dec 14 Sat Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 9,750 51 Dec 15 Sun Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 9,900 52 Dec 16 Mon Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 10,050 53 Dec 17 Tue Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 10,200 54 Dec 18 Wed Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 10,350 55 Dec 19 Thu Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 10,500 56 Dec 20 Fri Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 10,650 57 Dec 21 Sat Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 10,800 58 Dec 22 Sun Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 10,950 59 Dec 23 Mon Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Phann Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 11, l 00 60 Dec 24 Tue Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm PiJls Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 11,250 61 Dec 25 Wed Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 11,400 62 Dec 26 Thur Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 11,550 63 Dec 27 Fri Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm PiJls Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 11,700 64 Dec 28 Sat Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 11,850 65 Dec 29 Sun Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 12,000 66 Dec 30 Mon Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 12,150 67 Dec 31 Tue Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Pills Bedti 3 $ 50 $ 12,300

Crises Care - Doris L. Tipps Part II Rate Page 4 Hours Cumms 68 Jan I Wed Lake-V Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm P Recovery 3 $ 50 $ 12,450 69 Jan 2 Thr Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Recovery 3 $ 50 $ 12,600 70 Jan 3 Fri Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Recovery 3 $ 50 $ 12,750 71 Jan 4 Sat Lakeview Home SVT Pulmacort /Meals/ Pharm Recovery 2 $ 50 $ 12,850 72 Jan 5 Sunday 11 :OOa Call to Mom Baylor Emergency: 8 $ 50 $ 13,250 Dr. Healther lflarris Emerg: -2:30p arrival, admitted 73 Jan 6 Mon Baylor: Morning Visit, Afternoon Visit, Moved to ICU 4 $ 50 $ 13,450

74 Jan 7 Tue Baylor: Sepsus, Intensive Care, 8:00pm until 9:20pm, 4 $ 50 $ 13,650 Lactate levels receding: email 01/28/14 75 Jan 8 Wed Baylor: Sepsus, ICU, Reversal 4 $ 50 $ 13,850 76 Jan 9 Thur Baylor: Sepsus, ICU Dr. El Jammile. 4 $ 50 $ 14,050 77 Jan 10 Fri -Baylo Select Revovery 4 $ 50 $ 14,250 78 Jan 11 Sat -Baylo Select Revovery 2 $ 50 $ 14,350 79 Jan 12 Sun -Baylo Select Revovery 2 $ 50 $ 14,450 80 Jan 13 Mon -Baylo Select Revovery 2 $ 50 $ 14,550 81 Jan 14 Tuesday -Baylo Select Revovery 2 $ 50 $ 14,650 82 Jan 15 Wed Select Specialty Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 14,750 83 Jan 16 Thur Select Specialty Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 14,850 84 Jan 17 Fri Select Specialty [Email: in from Baylor 2 $ 50 $ 14,950 85 Jan 18 Sat Select Specialty Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 15,050 86 Jan 19 Sun Select Specialty Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 15,150 87 Jan 20 Mon Select Specialty Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 15,250 88 Jan 21 Tue Select Specialty Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 15,350 89 Jan 22 Wed Select Speciahy Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 15,450 90 Jan 23 Thur Select Speciahy Trip made to visit visit Mom, sl Mediatio11 8 $ 50 $ 15,850 refused to accept Senior Source as guardian. Mediation 91 Jan 24 Fri Select Speciahy Developing Crises 2 $ 50 $ 15,950

Crises Care - Doris L. Tipps Part II Rate Page 5 Hours Cumms 92 Jan 25 Sat Select Specialty Mom stopped eating, giving up, 6 $ 50 $ 16,250 Dr. Rai, needs feeding support 3 x per day 93 Jan 26 Sun Full time support - meals+Lisa Mom's Best Friend 6 $ 50 $ 16,550 94 Jan 27 Mon Full time support - meals+Lisa Mom's Best Friend 6 $ 50 $ 16,850 95 Jan 28 Tue Full time support - meals+Lisa Mom's Best Friend 2 $ 50 $ 16,950 96 Jan 29 Wed Full time support - meals+Lisa Mom's Best Friend 2 $ 50 $ 17,050 97 Jan 30 Thur Full time support - meals+Lisa Mom's Best Friend 2 $ 50 $ 17,150 98 Jan 31 Fri Friday at Select Specialty: 5:30P Pulmonary 5 $ 50 $ 17,400 pulmonary emergency (Lisa Numerick) Bypap machine 99 Feb 1 Sat Saturday Moved to Baylor Radiology- 7 $ 50 $ 17,750 pleural sacs drained, 600 ml of fluid off Sat Steve at Select, Baylor Select. Mom critical 100 Feb 2 Sun Select Specialty MBF sitters, feeding, Steve MBF 2 $ 50 $ 17,850 101 Feb 3 Mon Select Specialty MBF sitters, feeding Steve MBF 2 $ 50 $ 17,950 102 Feb 4 Tue Select Specialty MBF sitters, feeding Steve MBF 2 $ 50 $ 18,050 103 Feb 5 Wed Select Specialty - Pneumonia looking better 2 $ 50 $ 18,150 Dr. Seine Report Received.

104 Feb 6 Thursday Select Specialty Recovery 2 $ 50 $ 18,250 105 Feb 7 Fri Select Specialty Recovery 2 $ 50 $ 18,350 106 Feb 8 Sat Select Specialty Recovery 2 $ 50 $ 18,450 107 Feb 9 Sun Select Specialty Recovery Brother sneezing on Mom 2 $ 50 $ 18,550 108 Feb 10 Mon Select Speciallty Meeting DR. Seine Review 2 $ 50 $ 18,650 109 Feb 11 Tue Select Specialty Recovery 2 $ 50 $ 18,750 110 Feb 12 Wed Select Specialty Recovery 2 $ 50 $ 18,850 111 Feb 13 Thur Select Specialty Recovery 2 $ 50 $ 18,950 112 Feb 14 -Fri Select Specialty Recovery ; Lakeview - Senior 2 $ 50 $ 19,050 113 Feb 15 -Sat Saturday moved from Select Specialty to Accel 2 $ 50 $ 19,150 114 Feb 16 Sun Acee! Visited Mom while brother and wife wer Email: LC 2 $ 50 $ 19,250 Brother acting strange - offering Do Not Res Forms 115 Feb 17 Mon Acee! Visited Mom, e.g., pulled her up in her bed, 4 $ 50 $ 19,450 helped with her comforts 116 Feb 18 Tue Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 19,550 117 Feb 19 Wed Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 19,650

Crises Care - Doris L. Tipps Part II Rate Page 6 Cumms 118 Feb 20 Thur Accel condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 19,750 119 Feb 21 Fri Accel condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 19,850 120 Feb 22 Sat Accel 12:00pm to 3:40p Call button on floor, 7 $ 50 $ 20,200 Lunch unusual wait, no oxygen, Mom gasping for air, complete indifference staff 121 Feb 23 Sun Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 20,300 122 Feb 24 Mon Accel condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 20,400 123 Feb 25 Tue Acee] condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 20,500 124 Feb 26 We Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 20,600 125 Feb 27 Thur Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 20,700 126 Feb 28 Fri Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 20,800 127 Mar 1 Sat Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 20,900 128 Mar 2 Sun Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,000 129 Mar 3 Mon Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,100 130 Mar 4 Tue Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,200 131 Mar 5 Wed Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,300 132 Mar 6 Thur Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,400 133 Mar 7 Fri Acee] condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,500 134 Mar 8 Sat Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,600 135 Mar 9 Sun Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,700 136 Mar 10 Mon Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,800 137 Mar 11 Tue Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 21,900 138 Mar 12 Wed Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,000 139 Mar 13 Thu Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,100 140 Mar 14 Fri Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,200 141 Mar 15 Sat Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,300 142 Mar 16 Sum Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,400 143 Mar 17 Mon Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,500 144 Mar 18 Tue Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,600 145 Mar 19 Wed Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,700 146 Mar 20 Thur Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,800 147 Mar 21 Fri Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 22,900

Crises Care - Doris L. Tipps Part II Rate Page 7 Cumms 148 Mar 22 Sat Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,000 149 Mar 23 Sum Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,100 150 Mar 24 Mon Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,200 151 Mar 25 Tue Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,300 152 Mar 26 Wed Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,400 153 Mar 27 Thur Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,500 154 Mar 28 Fri Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,600 155 Mar 29 Sat Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,700 156 Mar 30 Sun Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,800 157 Mar 31 Mon Acee] condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 23,900 158 Apr I Tue Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,000 159 Apr 2 Wed Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,100 160 Apr 3 Thu Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,200 161 Apr 4 Fri Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,300 162 Apr 5 Sat Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,400 163 Apr 6 Sun Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,500 164 Apr 7 Mon Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,600 165 Apr 8 Tue Acee! condition, comforts, oxy, meds, pain 2 $ 50 $ 24,700 166 Apr 9 Wed Moved from Acee] to Prestonwood 2 $ 50 $ 24,800 167 Apr 10 Thu Preston wood 2 $ 50 $ 24,900 168 Apr 11 Fri Prestonwood - Friday evening 2 $ 50 $ 25,000 169 Apr 12 Sat Prestonwood - Saturday evening late - Flow Arr 2 $ 50 $ 25,100 170 Apr 13 Sun Moved from Prestonwood to Presbyterian Plano, 2 $ 50 $ 25,200 oxygen levels dangerous decline 171 Apr 14 Mon Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 25,300 172 Apr 15 Tue Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 25,400 173 Apr 16 Wed Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 25,500 174 Apr 17 Thu Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 25,600 175 Apr 18 Fri Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 25,700 176 Apr 19 Sat Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 25,800 177 Apr 20 Easter Sur Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 25,900 178 Apr 21 Mon Presby Plano bronchitis, clots heparin coumedin 2 $ 50 $ 26,000 179 Apr 22 Tue Mom arrives PW,8:00p in terrible situation 2 $ 50 $ 26,100 180 Apr 23 Wed PW. Opened Rm 406 witnessed techs swinging 2 $ 50 $ 26,200 Mom like a sack of potatoes, while conversing Communications Charges 64.5 $ 125 $ 8,063 Total charges $ 34,263

Emails Page 1 COMMUNTCATTONS WITH DORIS L TIPPS'

ATTORNEY - NEEDED ADVERSARY

180 Sept 8 2013 Neurologist reports and history Hours Cum

181 Sept 17 2013 Kathy Fink: Mom's neightbor stated that she was approached by my brother's attorneys for information about me.

182 Sept 17 2013 Mom's explanation of Jesus story: 2 3 Pill tossing ceremony, Security concerns about G&T 183 Sept 24 2013 Confrontation at Lakeview: Pill tossing l 4 a: Thursday evening Sept 12, 2013 before Friday court date.

184 Sept 25 2013 Met with Brenda Holmes, RN, re: 2 6 unstable TNR readings.

185 Sept 30 2013 Arranged to get Mom's appointment l 7 with Dr. Crowder established Court ordered mental examination.

186 Oct 2 2013 Dr. Crowder report to neurologist 2 9 Dr. David Isaradisaikul, M.D., 187 Oct 22 2013 Dr. Bennett Blum, M.D. Psychiatrist 2 11 188 Oct 2 2013 Dr. David Isaradisaikul I Oleta Farrell, 2 13 revocation of Tom Tipps powers 189 Nov 4 2013 Referral notice to Dr. Ron Paulman I 14 and Dr. Kathleen Seine 190 Nov 5 2013 Assistance from family for neuro psychology tests nc 14 from my brother Thomas Tipps 191 Nov 7 2013 Mom readmitted to Baylor on 11-6-13 nc 14 11-6-13 pm Bayor patient dumping Baylor culpable for 90 year old pneumonia patient

192 Nov 11 2013 Mom birthday at Acee! l 15 193 Nov 16 2013 Filling out test forms for Mom I 16 194 Nov 16 2013 Mom's condition at Accel, Dr. Kim 2 18 195 Nov 19 2013 Whitney at Dr. Paulman's office 1 19

Emails Page 2 196 Nov 19 2013 Dr. Paulman conversation notes l 20 197 Dec 12 2013 Mom walking again at Lakeview 2 22 198 Jan 5 2014 Called Mom on Sunday at 11 :OOa; heavy l 23 coughing; albuterol treatment, lunch to Baylor emergency Dr. Harris admit 199 Jan 2 2014 Patricia McArdle, TDAPS 2 25 Texas Dept of Adult Protective Svcs Investigation of Steve Tipps - Allegations Tossed 200 Jan 8 2014 Lactate lavels are falling (ICU-Baylor) 2 27 Sepsus declining in blood stream 201 Jan 26 2014 Worst Season for flu and respiratory I 28 illnesses in decades.

202 Jan 29 2014 Mom was in a very weak state, unable 1 29 to communicate with her nurses her pam issues 203 Jan 29 2014 Mom's diet: assisted feeding l 30 204 Jan 29 2014 Need more help from MBF, at Select Hosp 0.5 30.5 Mom's best friend, feeding, watching Mom critically ill.

205 Jan 31 2014 Mom in critical condition, Bypap, Emergency I 31.5 Steve spoke with facility dir of nursing Dr. Sohn came, full briefing, 206 Feb 5 2014 Dr. Torton, Dr. Rai, Dr. Wilson, 2 33.5 Dr. Boorla, Dr. Tomkins, Dr. Sohn 207 Feb 9 2014 Brother and wife in Mom's room 2 35.5 with their own infectious illnesses & sneezing on Mom.

208 Feb 13 2014 Summary I 36.5 209 Feb 14 2014 Senior Source investigating allegations 2 38.5 of abuse alleged by Tom Tipps at Select Specialty Hospital 210 Feb 16 2014 Acee! Reha! Plano: George the nurse 2 40.5 nurse told me that my brother was peddling another do not resucitate fonn 211 Feb 22 2014 Acee!. Call button on floor, oxygen 2 42.5 in room disconnected, request service

Emails: Page 3 no response. Hours Cum 212 Mar 20 2014 Acee) visitedMom at 9:45p, 3 45.5 need to get together - urgent issue urgent issue on fluid buildup - lacix 213 Mar 21 2014 Acee) arrived Friday 5:00 am 2 47.5 pneumonia from food aspiration 214 Mar 21 2014 Acee!,Mom is out of danger 2 49.5 215 Mar 29 2014 Acee!, edema, refused to disclose: 0 49.5 edema critical, drowning in her own fluids - get after Senior Source 216 Mar 30 2014 Acee!, Doctor refused Lacix, need for specialists 3 52.5 need specialists 217 Apr 4 2014 Guardian plans to terminate services ofMBF. 2 54.5 ifMBF, Loneliness to set in.

218 Apr 5 2014 Accel, George indicates big improvement 2 56.5 from the care and rehab at Acee! on Communicaton Parkway Plano.

219 Apr 16 2014 Prestonwood, swelling in Mom's feet 57.5 severe, toes turnning blue 220 Apr 23 2014 Prestonwood, mid evening, Nursing 3 60.5 Staff neglectingMom in her room.

221 Apr 24 2014 8:00pm Prestonwood, witnessed two techs 2 62.5 throwMom like a sack of potatoes onto hard mattress; fall risk band on her am1 222 Apr 29 2014 interaction with Prestonwood personnel 2 64.5 concerning wreckless endangerment ofMom.

Total Total 64.5 $ 125 $ 8,063