Motion to Abate in VIRGINIA O. KINSEL, ET AL (RESTYLED PER ORDER 7/16/2020) vs ALICE LINDSEY PEACOCK, ET AL

On September 09, 2008 a DEFN'S AMND MOT TO EXCLUDE TEST & STATEMT MAYRA CA was filed involving a dispute between and for OTHER CIVIL, TEMP RESTRAINING ORDER/INJUNCTION in the District Court of Tarrant County.

Preview
CAUSE NO. 153-232668-08

VIRGINIA 0. KINSEL, ET AL. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
v. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
§
JANE 0. LINDSEY, ET AL. § 153 rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE
TESTIMONY AND STATEMENT OF MAYRA CASTILLO

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COME Defendants, and, in support of this Amended Motion to

Exclude Testimony and Statement ofMayra Castillo, would respectfully show

the Court as follows: --,
::x:
Cl
t:
;::;
-'4
l>"
I. S3 ~ ~
~ J:>· ~ ,,,. -,,
~CJ) - z-
SUMMARY OF RELIEF REQUESTED AND , ~J::>
-·
·-
-tr
c-,r'l
n· -,, oO
BASIS FOR EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE ,- ::i:: :,:: C
gr= ca~
::,:CJ C) -< ..J
Movants seek to exclude from evidence at the trial of th~ ~se,Uilny :-rw
~,
testimony of Mayra Castillo, the statement of Mayra Castillo dated May 19,

2010, and any references to such testimony or statement. Ms. Castillo was

untimely listed by Plaintiffs in their Responses to Defendants' Disclosure

Requests. And, her statement w~~ untimely provided _to Defendants. Further, the
-"
.•'.

address and contact informatiqi:i 1event1,1ally provjded relative to Ms. Castillo
.. ..i, . . l; .......
,) l., "~:Oc

·.' ·-·
... ./ .'
DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE STATEMENT AND
TESTIMONY OF MAYRA CASTILLO Page 1
MD ST .\Tt:MUrr or M,\l'RA CASTIU.O...,.
G,\Klr-'Jt:UA\FIUUIIUNDSH ..... IUNS[LIPIL\Dll;D STATEMENT or MA \'RA ~u.o....
Kinsel's testamentary gifts. The other Movants are attorneys practicing in Fort

Worth, Texas, who have also been sued by the Kinsels.

Plaintiffs filed this suit within weeks of Mrs. Kinsel' s death. Plaintiffs are

attempting by this suit to set aside two amendments to a trust executed by Mrs.

Kinsel prior to her death. Plaintiffs are also seeking to set aside a portion of the

sale of a ranch located in Atascosa County, Texas, which was sold before Mrs.

Kinsel' s death. 1 Plaintiffs claim that Mrs. Lesey Kinsel was unduly influenced

by Movants to execute two amendments to her trust into which she had

previously placed all of her property. Plaintiffs also claim that Mrs. Kinsel was

unduly influenced by Movants to sell her interest in the ranch, despite the fact

that Plaintiffs also sold their interests in the ranch at the same time. Plaintiffs

also claim that Mrs. Kinsel lacked sufficient mental capacity to properly amend

her trust and sell her portion of the ranch. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' claims of

undue influence and lack of capacity. Defendants also assert that Plaintiffs are

estopped to seek to set aside a portion of the sale of the ranch, as Plaintiffs long

ago agreed to the terms of such sale and have accepted its benefits.

1
Mrs. Kinsel owned only a portion of the ranch sold before her death- sixty (60%)
percent. Before the sale, certain of the Plaintiffs owned the other forty 40%) percent..

DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE STATEMENT AND
TESTIMONY OF MAYRA CASTILLO Page 3
Trial was scheduled to commence on March 5, 2012. But, the trial was

continued and re-set to October 15, 2012, because of Plaintiffs' failure to timely

provide a witness statement and contact information regarding one Mayra

Castillo. See below for details.

B. Plaintiffs' Failure to Timely Disclose Mayra Castillo and Failure to
Timely Produce Her Statement

Plaintiffs filed their Original Petition on September 9, 2008. On

November 12, 2008, Jane Lindsey served her Request for Disclosure to

Plaintiffs. On December 11, 2008, Plaintiffs served their Responses to the

Request for Disclosure in which they stated that to their knowledge, no witness

statement existed. Further, Ms. Castillo was not listed as a person with

knowledge of relevant facts. A true and correct copy of the Response is attached

hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein for all purposes. See p. 13.

Disclosure of any witness statement would have been required by December 4,

2008, as the Disclosure called for documents supporting the Plaintiffs'

contention that Lesey Kinsel lacked capacity to execute the documents in

question. See below.

DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE STATEMENT AND
TESTIMONY OF MAYRA CASTILLO Page4
C. Plaintiffs' Late Identification of Ms. Castillo and Late Production of
Her Witness Statement

Discovery in the case progressed. Trial was set for March 5, 2012.

Discovery was to be cut off on December 16, 2011. On December 14, 2011, two

days before the discovery cut-off and three years after having been requested to

do so, Plaintiffs produced a witness statement of one Mayra Castillo. Ms.

Castillo was represented by Plaintiffs to be one of Lesey Kinsel' s caregivers.

The statement was dated May 19, 2010, more than a year and one-half before it

was produced. The statement was six pages and purported to state that Ms.

Castillo was a temporary caregiver for Mrs. Kinsel for six months. It also

purported to go into great detail about Ms. Castillo's dealings with Mrs. Kinsel,

Mrs. Kinsel's capacity, and Plaintiffs' claims of undue influence. The next day,

December 15, 2011, Plaintiffs amended their Disclosures, disclosed Ms. Castillo

in "Saginaw, Texas," and provided a telephone number that was incorrect. True

and correct copies of the statement, the e-mail, and the accompanying letter and

enclosure providing the statement are attached hereto as Exhibit B and

incorporated herein for all purposes.

DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE STATEMENT AND
TESTIMONY OF MAYRA CASTILLO Page 5
D. Earlier Motion and Court's Continuance of Case

On February 22, 2012, Movants filed their Supplemental Motion in Limine

in which they asked the Court to exclude from evidence at the then-forthcoming

trial (again, scheduled for March 5, 2012), the statement of Mayra Castillo and

any testimony of Ms. Castillo, because the statement was untimely produced.

The Court heard the Motion on February 29 and continued the case from its

March 5, 2012 trial setting (and reset it for October 15, 2012) so that Defendants

could take the deposition of Ms. Castillo.

E. Defendants' Efforts to Locate Ms. Castillo After Continuance of Trial

Since the continuance of the trial, Movants have diligently tried to locate

Ms. Castillo to interview her and notice her deposition, without success. This,

Defendants believe, is because Plaintiffs' counsel have engaged in a plan

designed to prevent Defendants' counsel from locating and contacting Ms.

Castillo until the eve of trial, in derogation of the specific purpose for which the

Court continued the case.

Plaintiffs' untimely Disclosures provided shortly before the March trial

date simply stated that Ms. Castillo's address is "Saginaw, Texas." And,

Defendants later learned that Plaintiffs provided an incorrect phone number.

DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE STATEMENT AND
TESTIMONY OF MAYRA CASTILLO Page6
Because of the insufficient address and incorrect telephone number Plaintiffs

provided for Ms. Castillo, Defendants' counsel inquired of Plaintiffs' counsel

whether they would produce Ms. Castillo for a deposition. On April 25, 2012,

Plaintiffs' counsel said they would not, but disingenuously advised that the

address they provided ("Saginaw, Texas") "is good." See Exhibit C.

On May I, 2012, Defendants' counsel again e-mailed Plaintiffs' counsel

to get an address and contact information for Ms. Castillo. See Exhibit D. On

May 7, 2012, Plaintiffs' counsel responded by e-mail that "Mayra Castillo's

address is 2922 Lipscomb St., Fort Worth, TX 76110" (not Saginaw), and that

they did not have a telephone number. See Exhibits E and F. Defendants'

counsel then tried reaching Ms. Castillo at the original telephone number

provided by Defendants again, but again, no call was returned. Defendants'

counsel left a specific message regarding the purpose of the call. However, no

one ever answered messages left at the telephone number for Ms. Castillo

provided in the Disclosures and Defendants' attempts to locate Ms. Castillo at

that address failed.

On May 21, 2012, Defendants' counsel e-mailed Plaintiffs' counsel yet

again to let them know that Defendants' counsel had not been able to contact

DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE STATEMENT AND
TESTIMONY OF MAYRA CASTILLO Page7
Ms. Castillo at the address given. Plaintiffs' counsel responded shortly thereafter

to say again that he had provided Defendants' counsel with the "most recent

address we have for Mayra Castillo in Fort Worth." See Exhibit G. Plaintiffs'

counsel then said that he did not have a phone number for her, concluding by

representing to Plaintiffs' counsel: "Your office currently has all of the most

recent information that our office has with regard to contacting Mayra Castillo."

See Exhibit G.

On May 22, 2012, Defendants' counsel then issued a subpoena and private

process server Jim Gilbert tried to serve Ms. Castillo at the new address given

to them by Plaintiffs' counsel. The woman who answered the door told Mr.

Gilbert that Ms. Castillo no longer lived there. Mr. Gilbert left a card and the

lady called someone on a cell phone. Mr. Gilbert was of the opinion that the

woman was Ms. Castillo's mother. Mr. Gilbert never heard anything else. See

Exhibit H.

On May 24, 2012, and again on June 11, 2012, Defendants' counsel again

confirmed with Plaintiffs' attorneys that Defendants' counsel was having

trouble locating and serving Ms. Castillo and asked for information. Plaintiffs

did not respond to these e-mails. And, no one for the Plaintiffs' side of the case

DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE STATEMENT AND
TESTIMONY OF MAYRA CASTILLO Page 8
G,IKJ-\JllUAIHU!IN.INDl'I!.!.,,,_11518700
Susanna Johnson
State Bar No. 22136550
201 Main Street, Suite 1400
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: (817) 336-2800
Facsimile: (817) 877-1863

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
JANE 0. LINDSEY, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE LESEY
B. KINSEL TRUST, AND
ROBERT N. OLIVER

~
Marsliall M.
State Bar No.
ll!~d--~
searcy,f.
17955500
Frank P. Greenhaw IV
State Bar No. 24002179
KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP
201 Main Street, Suite 2500
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: (817) 332-2500
Facsimile: (817) 878-9280

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
JACKSON & WALKER, L.L.P. AND
M. KEITH BRANYON

DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE STATEMENT AND
TESTIMONY OF MAYRA CASTILLO Page 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 12, 2012, a true and correct copy

of the foregoing was sent via e-mail and U.S. First-Class mail (unless otherwise

indicated) to:

Messrs. J. Lyndell Kirkley and
and Sean R. Looney
Kirkley & Berryman, L.L.P.
100 N. Forest Park Blvd., Suite 220
Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Ms. Alison H. Moore
Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P.
700 North Pearl Street
th
25 Floor - Plaza of the Americas
Dallas, Texas 75201

Ms. Frances Garza
5435 FM 541
McCoy, Texas 78113
VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL ONLY

Ms. Ida Castillo
5437 FM 541
McCoy, Texas 78113
VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL ONLY

Mr. Lindy Jones
Jones, Allen & Fuquay, L.L.P.
8828 Greenville Avenue
Dallas, Texas 76243-7143

DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE STATEMENT AND
TESTIMONY OF MAYRA CASTILLO Page 15
Mr. Scott C. Kinsel
Scott C. Kinsel, P.C.
8708 South Congress, Suite B200
Austin, Texas 78745

Messrs. Marshall M. Searcy, Jr.
and Frank P. Greenhaw IV
Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP
201 Main Street, Suite 2500
Fort Worth, Texas 76102

l~~
W~.Kirkm~

DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE STATEMENT AND
TESTIMONY OF MAYRA CASTILLO Page 16
G,ll'fr-,.\JUl.lAIFILt:S\LINDSEY .... KINS[Lll'IL\lllNC.'f',.\M~NDF.D MOTION TO t.'1.CLUDE USTIMONY AND !ITATU,UNT or MAYRA C-'STILl.0..,.1
EXHIBIT . -· .
''A''
DEt-11-2~08-TBU 03:18 PM K• f-BEP.RYMAN, LLP FAX llo. B17 3~- =3 P. 004

CAUSE NO. l 53-232668-08

VIRGINIA 0. KINSEL, as Attorney-in-Fact for § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
J. FRANK KINSEL, §
J. FRANK KINSEL, JR., Individually, §
CAR0LEK. EDWARDS, Individually, and §
CATHERINE K.. CoLL.JNS, Individually, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§ OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
vs. §
§
JANE 0. LJNDSEY, Individually and as §
Co-Trustee of the Lesey B. Kinsel Trust, §
and ROBERTN. OLIVER, §
§
Defendants. . § 153rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLA,JNTIFFS' RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT JANE 0. LINDSEY'S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

TO: Defendant Jane 0. Lindsey, by and through her attorney of record, M. Keith Branyon,
JACKSON WALKER, L.L.P ., 301 Co=~rce Street, Suite 2400, Fort Worth, Texas 7 6102.

Plaintiffs Virginia 0. Kinsel-.as Atto!'ney-in-Fact for J. Frank Kinsel, J. Frank Kinsel, Jr.

- Individually - Carole K.. Edwards - Individually - and Catherine K. Collins - Individually.

("Plaintiffs") hereby submit their Responses to Defendant Jane O. Lindsey's Request for Disclosure.

194.2(a) - Correct names of parties to the lawsuit:

To Plaintiffs' knowledge, the names of the parties, as listed in Plaintiff's Second Amended
Petition and Suit for a Declaratory Judgment, and Application for a Temporary Injunction,
are correct.

194.2(b) • Name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties:

Plaintiffs are currently unaware of any potential parties at this time. •Plaintiffs will
supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

v, .. nr-r,,:,,:,c-•
1.1-r-<:1>nNi::n:-.~ -rn ni:-.FF'NDAJ,rr JANE 0. LINDSEY'S RE.QUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGEl
• • r. DEC-I 1-2008-TRU 03: 18 PM Kl1....______-BERRYMAN, LLP FAX !lo,817 33~ F. 005

194.2(c) - Plaintiffs' legal theories, contentions, and factual bases for same:

Standing

Plaintiffs have standing to bring this suit. Each Plaintiffis specifically named as a
beneficiary in the original Trust Agreement for Lesey' s Trust. The Kinsel Ranch was owned in part
by the Trust, so the sale of the Kinsel Ranch necessarily involved administration of the Trust. The
sale of the Kinsel Ranch affected the interests of the Plaintiffs. As a result, Plaintiffs are persons
"affected by the administration of the trust."

· Additionally, money remains in the Trust. Whether the Trust is administered according to
the Third Amendment or the· Fourth/Fifth Amendments affects each of the Plaintiffs.

The purported change of beneficiaries and altering of !rust property by way of undue
influence, fraud, conspiracy, and breaches of fiduciary duty has resulted in Plruntiffs having standing
to bring their claims against Defendants. The Plaintiffs have both legal and equitable claims arising
from their status under the Trust Agreement as beneficiaries of the Trust. They are clearly
"interested persons" with standing to bring these claims.

Suit for Declaratory Judgment that_ Fourth and Fifth Amendments of Lesey's Trust are
Invalid and Should Be Set Aside, and Claims for Conspiracy, Fraud, Undue Influence, and
Lack of Testamentary Capacity

Plaintiffs sue Defendants for a declaratory judgment under Sections 37.003 and 37.005 of
the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and for damages.

When Defendants arranged for Lesey to sign the Fourth Amendment to her Trust and mark
on the signature lines of the ranch sale documents and the Fifth Amendment to her Trust, Lesey did
not understand or appreciate the nature and consequences of doing so, and was easily influenced.
By the time Defendants had Lesey sign the Fourth Amendment, she was frail, confused, very ill,
taking several medications, and could not read documents. ·

Lesey did not understand the nature and effect of the sale of the Kinsel Ranch, and the Fourth
and Fifth Amendments to the Trust. She did not have the requisite mental or physical capacity to
· validly execute those documents and understand .the effect of such documents.

Alternatively, Defendants exerted undue influence over Lesey when Lesey could barely sign
the Fourth Amendment to her Trust and could barely mark her initials on the Ranch sale documents
and the Fifth Amendment to her Trust. Defendants' undue influence over Lesey operated to subvert
and overpower Lesey's mind. Lesey would not have signed the Fourth Amendment to her Trust or
marked her initials on the documents selling the Kinsel Ranch and the Fifth Amendment to her Trust
but for her lack of capacity and the exertion of undue influence by Defendants. The sale of the
Kinsel Ranch, and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to Lesey's Trust, are wholly inconsistent with
Lesey's original Trust, with the first three amendments to the Trust (when she was competent and
not subject to undueinfluence), and withLesey's intended overall estate plan and promises she made

PLAIHTIFFS' RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT JANI: 0. LINDSEY•s REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE2
.. .
DEC-! l-2008-THU 03: 18 PM Kil::= 0
BERRYMAN,LLP FAX No.817 33~ P. 006

during her lifetime when she was healthy and not subject to undue influence.

Suit to Remove Defendant Lindsey as Successor Co-Trustee of Lesey's Trust

Plaintiffs request that the Court remove Defendant Jane 0. Lindsey ('1..indsey" or "Defendant
Lindsey") as Successor Co-Trustee ofLesey's Trust, as allowed by Section 113.082 of the Texas
Property Code. There is cause to remove Defendant Lindsey as Successor Co-Trustee because of
Defendant Lindsey's undue influence and course of conduct and because Defendant Lindsey has
breached her fiduciary duties to Lesey. Plaintiffsare beneficiaries under Lesey's Trust and are
therefore interested parties.

Defendanti,indsey owed formal and informal fiduciary duties to Lesey. Al; attorney-in-fact
under a general power of attorney executed l?y Lesey, and as the person who undertook to care for
Lesey and her financial affairs, Defendant Lindsey owed Lesey fiduciary duties ofloyalty and good
faith, strict integrity, fair and honest dealing, and strict accountability.Defendant Lindsey violated
those duties, using the fiduciary relationship to benefit her own personal interests to the detriment
of Lesey and her intended beneficiaries. By way of example and not as a limitation, Defendant
Llndsey violated the fiduciary duties that she owed Lesey by using undue influenc,e to cause Lesey
to sign the Fourth Amendment to her Trust and to cause Lesey to mark on the signature Jines for sale
of the Kinsel Rarich and the FifthAmendmentto Lesey' s Trust, the provisions of which all purported
to increase the benefit to Defendants by millions of dollars, and which were wholly inconsistent with
Lesey's Trust, all previous .amendments thereto, and Lesey's overall intended estate plan.

An informal fiduciary duty arises from a moral, social, domestic, or purely personal
relationship of trust and confidence. A fiduciary duty based on an informal relationship.may arise
when a high degree of trust, influence, or confidence has been acquired. A fiduciary relationship
may arise either as a result of dominance on the part of one or weakness and dependence on the part
of the other.

Lesey relied on Defendant Lindsey to help her and to take care ofber, and Lesey placed a
high degree oftrust in Defendant Lindsey. Defendant Lindsey acquired Lesey' s confidence and had
a great amount ofinfluence over her. Consequently, Defendant Lindsey owed Lesey a fiduciary duty
of the rughest degree.

Defendant Lindsey breached fiduciary duties owed to Leseyby failing to act with loyalty and
utmost good faith toward Lesey, failing to act with candor toward Lesey, failing to act toward Lesey
with integrity of the strictest kind, and by failing to be fair and honest with Lesey in Defendant
Lindsey's dealings with Lesey. By way of example and not as a limitation, Lesey's mind was
controlled by DefendantLindsey's undue influence and breaches offiduciary duties when Defendant
Lindsey obtained and used a power of attorney and caused Lesey and others to sell the Kinsel Ranch,
and arranged for Lesey to sign the Fourth Amendment to her Trust and mark on the Fifth
Amendment to her Trust. Further, Lesey was operating under false representations, confusion,
and/orinsarie delusions when she sold the Kinsel Ranch,signed theFourthAmendment to her Trust,
and marked on the Fifth Amendment to her Trust, and Defendant Lindsey knew of Lesey's
vulnerable condition. Defendant Lindsey breached fiduciary duties that she owed to Lesey when she
and others manipulated Lesey into signing the Fourth Amendment and marking on the Fifth

'P1 J.TNTrTT~• RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT JANE. 0. LINDS'CY'S RtQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE. PACE3
DEC-11-2008-TITTl 03: I 8 PM K~ !-BERRYMAN, LLP FAX No. 817 3:1. :3 P. 007

Amendment

Fraud and Conspiracy Claims

Defendant Lindsey made material, false representations to Plaintiffs when sbe advised them
that the Trust did not have sufficient money lo maintain Lesey's health care and pay her living
expenses, and that the Kinsel Ranch needed to be sold as a result. \\/hen she made those
representations to Plaintiffs,Defendant Lindsey knew they were false or made them recklessly
without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive assertion. Defendant Lindsey made the
representations to Plaintiffs with the intent that Plaintiffs would act on them. Plaintiffs acted in
reliance on the representations when they consented or arranged for the consent to the sale of the
Kinsel Ranch, and suffered damages as a result.

Both Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to defraud 'Plaintiffs and to breach Defendant
Lindsey's fiduciary duties when they engaged in the above-descnoed sch=e to increase Defendants'
share ofLesey's Trust's assets to the detriment of Plaintiffs and others. Defendants bad a meeting
of the minds on the object to be pursued (increasing their interests) and the course of action they
would take. The conspiracy involved multiple unlawful acts, including, but not limited to, fraud,
undue influence, and breaches of fiduciary duties perpetrated byDefendant Lindsey. The conspiracy
involved multiple overt acts, including, but not limited to, Defendant Lindsey's making false
statements to Plaintiffs and Lesey regarding the status of the money and assets ofLesey' s Trust, and
Defendants' attempt to loot the Trust by exercising undue influence over Lesey to have her sell the
Kinsel Ranch, sign the Fourth Amendment to her Trust, and mark·on the Fifth Amendment to her
Trust }'lai."lti.ffs have been damaged as the proximate result of such conspiracy in that the Kinsel
Ranch was sold based on fraud., misrepresentation, and a scheme to enrich Defendants, which, along
with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Trust, would drastically reduce Plaintiffs' interests in
the Trust by millions of dollars, while drastically increasing Defendants' interests in the Trust by
millions of dollars.

Action for a Constructive Trust

Plaintiffs request that the Court impose a constructive trust in favor ofPlaintiffs on all money
and property in the Trust and in Defendants' possession that is subject to distribution to Plaintiffs
,mder the Trust Agreement and the Third Amendment (disregarding the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments). Plaintiffs also request that the Court impose a constructive trust in favor of Plaintiffs
on all proceeds from the sale of the Kinsel Ranch. ·

Defendants have attempted to obtain inoney and property in Lesey' s Trust by way of the
undue influence, breaches of fiduciary duties, fraud, and conspiracy described above, and
Defendants' attempt to unjustly enrich themselves. Plaintiffs request the Court impose a
constructive trust in favor of Plaintiffs on all money and property in the Trust and in Defondants'
possession that is subject to distribution to Plaintiffs under the Trust Agreement and the Third
Amendment (disregarding the Fourth and Fifth Amendments). Plaintiffs.also request that the Court
impose a constructive trust in favor of Plaintiffs on all proceeds from the sale of the Kinsel Ranch.

·- 0. L1NDSEY 1 S REQUEST Jt0RDtSCL..OSURE
------·--.. -" nr-.:-c-"'n""-..,. .lANr. PAGE4
• DEC-Jl-2008-THU 03:19 PM KJ!I... I BERRYMAN,LLP FAX No. 817 3'.l. P. 008

Unjust Enrichment

By way of their actions described above, Defendants have unjustly enriched themselves, and
Plaintiffs seek restitution against Defendants to correct such unjust enrichment Defendants have
obtained benefits from Lesey and Plaintiffs by way of fraud, duress, and the taking of undue
advantage. Defendants wrongfully secured the above-described benefits relating to Lesey's Trust,
and it would be unconscionable for the Defendants to retain such benefits. Plaintiffs request that the
Court order iha1 the money and assets in Lesey's Trust be distributed according to the Trust
Agreement and the Third Amendment (disregarding the Fourth and Fifth Amendments). Plaintiffs
also request that the Court order that all proceeds from the sale of the Kinsel Ranch be distributed
according to the percentages of the Kinsel Ranch interests stated in the Trust Agreement and the
· Third Amendment (disregarding the Fourth and Fifth Amendments).

194.2(d)-The amount and any method of calculating economic damages:

Plaintiffs' economic damages are undetermined at this time. Plaintiffs will supplement this
response in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, ·

194.2(e) - Persons with knowledge of relevant facts:

Mrs. Virginia 0. Kinsel
c/o Mr. J. Lyndell Kirkley
KIRKLEY & BERRYMAN, LL.P.
10.0 North Forest Park Blvd., Suite 220
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone Number: 817-335-3311
Plaintiff (in her capacity as attorney-in-fact for J. Frank Kinsel) and wife ofJ. Frank Kinsel

Mr. J. Frank Kinsel
c/o Mr. J. Lyndell Kirkley
KIRKLEY &BERRYMAN, L.L.P.
100 North Forest Park Blvd., Suite 220
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone Number: 817-335-3311·
Plaintiff

Mr. J. Frank Kinsel, Jr.
c/o Mr. J. Lyndell Kirkley
KIRKLEY & BERRYMAN, L.L.P.
l 00 North Forest Park Blvd., Suite 220
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone Number: 817-335-33 l J
Plaintiff

- ,. , ... ,nc-,:-v>c:: "P.~n11r-$T FO'R D1SCLOSURE.
, · ..... n PAG£5
DEC~ll-20.08-Ti!U 03: 19 PM Kl .'-BERRYMAN, LLP FAX No. 817 3~ =3 P. 009

Mrs. Robin Kinsel
3 809 Hollow Creek Rd.
Fort Worth, Texas 76116
Telephone Number: 817-738-9198
/Wife of Plaintiff J. Frank Kinsel, Jr .
. Mrs. Carole K. Edwards
c/o Mr. J. Lyndell Kirkley
KIRKLEY & BERRYMAN, L.L.P.
100 North Forest Park Blvd., Suite 220
Fort Worth, Texas 761D2
Telephone Number: 817-335-3311
Plaintiff

Mr. Foster Edwards
118 Alta Plaza
Corpus Christi, Texas 7 8411
Telephone Number: 36!-853-0366
Husband of Plaintiff Carole K. Edwards

Mrs. Catherine K. Collins
c/o Mr. J. Lyndell Kirkley
KllUcr..EY & BERRYMAN, L.L.P.
100 North Forest Park Blvd., Suite 220
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone Number: 817-335-331 I
Plaintiff

Mr. David Collins
11302 Memorial Dr.
Houston, Texas 77024
Telephone Number: 713-784-2313
Husband of Plaintiff Catherine K. Collins

Mr. Joe B. Kinsel, Jr.
c/o Mr. Scott C. Kinsel
MOORELANDREY, L.L.P.
1609 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite JOO
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone Number: 512-499-8900
Intervener

PLAINTlFFS' RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT JANE. 0, LlNDSEY 1 S REQUEST TOR DISCLOSURE PAGJc 6
DEC-11-2008-THU 03:19 PY Kl .-BERRYMAN,LLP FAX No. 817 3'.L :3 P. 010

Mrs. Jane 0. Lindsey
c/o Mr. M. Kei

Case Info

Judge

Len A. Wade Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 12, 2012

Case Filing Date

September 09, 2008

County

Parties

Marshall Searcy Attorney
Frank Greenhaw Attorney
Susanna Johnson Attorney
Bradley Berryman Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kelly Gibbons Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Lindy Jones Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Scott Kinsel Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael Branyon Attorneys for Defendants
Colin Murchison Attorneys for Defendants
Brian Garrett Attorney
William Jenkins Attorneys for Defendants
J. Kirkley Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ana Forcum Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Phillip Ledbetter Attorney
William Kirkman Attorneys for Defendants
Sean Looney Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Joseph Johnson Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Dwayne Smith Attorney
Karin Cagle Attorneys for Plaintiffs
John Gilpin Attorney
Len Wade Attorneys for Defendants
John Cayce Attorney
William Willis Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for VIRGINIA O. KINSEL, ET AL (RESTYLED PER ORDER 7/16/2020) vs ALICE LINDSEY PEACOCK, ET AL

Preview

Case Info

Parties