James E. Wade v. Johnny Wade, Individually Amanda Wade, Individually, and Amanda Wade, as the Independent of the Estate of Edell Wade

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 27, 2015·No. 03-15-00100-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

03-15-00100-CV

6678421

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

8/27/2015 11:28:32 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

NO. 03-15-00100-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS AT AUSTIN 8/27/2015 11:28:32 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

Clerk

IN RE THE ESTATE OF EDELL WADE, DECEASED.

JAMES E. WADE,

Appellant,

v.

JOHNNY WADE AND AMANDA WADE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AMANDA WADE AS THE INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF EDELL WADE,

Appellees.

Appealed from the County Court at Law of Burnet County, Texas

APPELLANT’S BRIEF IN REPLY TO APPELLEES’ BRIEF

RICHIE & GUERINGER, P.C.

SHELDON E. RICHIE

State Bar No. 16877000

EMILY J. SEIKEL

State Bar No. 24072331

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1750 Austin, Texas 78701

512-236-9220 telephone

512-236-9230 facsimile

srichie@rg-austin.com Email eseikel@rg-austin.com Email ATTORNEYS FOR JAMES E. WADE

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................3 REPLY TO APPELLEES’ PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................4

REPLY TO APPELLEES’ ARGUMENTS ON ISSUE ONE ...........................10 A. Appellees’ Response Ignored That Bud Had No Legal Duty or Standing Until 2010 ................................................................................................................ 11 B. The Discovery Rule Does Apply to Bud’s Claims .................................................. 12 C. Bud Did Not Have Notice of His Claims ................................................................. 14 D. The Trial Court’s Summary Judgment was Based on Limitations, and Limitations Alone .................................................................................................... 16 REPLY TO APPELLEES’ ARGUMENTS ON ISSUE TWO ..........................17 A. Amanda Wade Testified that She Did Not Think About Fairness or Benefit to Edell ..................................................................................................................... 18 B. The Evidence does Not Support that Edell was Represented by Counsel in Both Transactions .................................................................................................... 19 C. The Evidence does Not Support that Edell Voluntarily, and with Full Disclosure, Chose to Sell the Ranch and Chose to Reduce the Principal in Connection with the Modification ........................................................................... 21 PRAYER .................................................................................................................25

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................................................26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................27

APPENDIX .............................................................................................................28 VERIFICATION....................................................................................................31

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Boucher v. Willis, 236 S.W.2d 519 ..........................................................................11 Chapal v. Vela, 461 S.W.2d 466 ..............................................................................11

Cobb v. TDCJ, 965 S.W.2d 59.................................................................................10

In re Estate of Herring, 970 S.W.2d 583 .................................................................10 Jordan v. Lyles, 455 S.W.3d 785 .............................................................................24

Kansa Reinsurance Co. V. Congressional Mortgage Corp., 20 F3d 1362 .............11

Matter of Estate of Matejek, 928 S.W.2d 742 .........................................................10 Moczygemba v. Moczygemba, -- S.W.3d --, No. 04-14-00110, 2015 WL 704405 .12

Mooney v. Harlin, 622 S.W.2d 83 ...........................................................................11

Stephen County Museum, Inc. v. Swenson, 571 S.W.2d 257 ...................................18 Texas Bank and Trust Co. v. Moore, 595 S.W.2d 502 ............................................18 Vogt v. Warnock, 107 S.W.3d 778 .................................................................... 18, 23

REPLY TO APPELLEES’ PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Appellees’ list of “Bud’s representations vs. the evidence” in their

Preliminary Statement contains inaccuracies. In reply Appellant would show the following.

2. Alleged misrepresentation #1: Appellees’ evidence does not controvert Bud’s representations that “Johnny and Amanda Wade were the clients of Michael Martin,” and that “there is no evidence that [Mrs. Wade] had the benefit of independent advice.” First, it is an undeniable fact that Mr. Martin clearly and repeatedly identified Johnny and Amanda as the ‘client’ in the physical file he created at the time in 2009 and that he was paid for his work on the Modification by Amanda Wade, not Edell Wade.1 While Michael Martin did testify at the trial in 2014 that he believed that Edell Wade had been his client, he also testified that he had considered the Modification a “joint project.”2 Mr. Martin further confirmed that he could have used the unique file number that he used for previous work he had done directly for Edell, yet he chose to list Johnny and Amanda as clients with a separate file number for his work on the

1 RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 14, 15, 19, 21 [Tab J, Martin & Millican File]; and SUPP. RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 116:17 – 118:1 [Tab K, Martin Trial Testimony].

2 SUPP RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 87:21-24 [Tab K, Martin Trial Testimony].

Modification. 3 He acknowledged that communications on the Modification were sent directly to Amanda and that Amanda paid for the work.4 3. Mr. Martin’s testimony that he believed he had an obligation to serve Edell’s interests does not, however, demonstrate that she had “the benefit of independent advice.” There is absolutely no evidence that Edell Wade was aware at all of the principal reduction of around $40,000.00, and the Modification document stated on its face in bold letters that its “SOLE PURPOSE” was elimination of interest. 5 Mr. Martin’s file entry on the matter stated that the note was to be modified for either an elimination of interest or reduction of the principal.6 Mr. Martin could hardly have given independent advice on something he knew nothing about, and he testified ignorance on the principal reduction. Mr. Martin testified “I may not have remembered at that time that they even talked about reducing the balance. And to this day I don’t know if or how much they reduced it” and that he thought he was reducing the interest to zero. 7 He testified that he did not scrutinize the numbers as “I really didn’t know what was going on. It changed two or three times. I really didn’t know and hoped that with the accountant they would work it out to where everybody was happy,” and “I didn’t

3 SUPP RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 116:2-19 [Tab K, Martin Trial Testimony].

4 SUPP RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 116:20 – 118:1 [Tab K, Martin Trial Testimony].

5 RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 39-46 [Tab L, Modification Agreement].

6 RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 15 [Tab J, Martin & Millican File].

7 SUPP RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 121:13 – 122:8 [Tab K, Martin Trial Testimony].

imagine they wanted my input.”8 Mr. Martin could not have provided any meaningful independent counsel because he was not cognizant of the fact that a principal reduction was even occurring as part of the Modification, much less in what amount.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

James E. Wade v. Johnny Wade, Individually Amanda Wade, Individually, and Amanda Wade, as the Independent of the Estate of Edell Wade, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

James E. Wade v. Johnny Wade, Individually Amanda Wade, Individually, and Amanda Wade, as the Independent of the Estate of Edell Wade (James E. Wade v. Johnny Wade, Individually Amanda Wade, Individually, and Amanda Wade, as the Independent of the Estate of Edell Wade) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re the Estate of Herring
970 S.W.2d 583 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Texas Bank and Trust Co. v. Moore
595 S.W.2d 502 (Texas Supreme Court, 1980)
Vogt v. Warnock
107 S.W.3d 778 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Cobb v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
965 S.W.2d 59 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Boucher v. Wallis
236 S.W.2d 519 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1951)
Chapal v. Vela
461 S.W.2d 466 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Mooney v. Harlin
622 S.W.2d 83 (Texas Supreme Court, 1981)
In Re the Estate of Fawcett
55 S.W.3d 214 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Matter of Estate of Matejek
928 S.W.2d 742 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Vic Koepke Excavating & Grading Co. v. Kodner Development Co.
571 S.W.2d 253 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1978)