Preview
FILED
9/4/2020 1:29PM
”O'TESERVE
14 CIT ESERVE C
DISFTERLI'SWL'EEE
DlgTEsC'TACTESE
DALLAS 00.,
CO.,TEXAS
Angie AvinaDEPUTY
DC-20-1 2534
CAUSE NO.
RENATA PETRYLIENE and BIG RIVER
NV LLC
Plaintiff,
V'
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
BRADFORD PHILLIPS AS THE
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF GENE
PHILLIPS, BRADFORD PHILLIPS
INDIVIDUALLY, ICC SURFWOOD
CORR, CHEYENNE ASSET
MANAGEMENT, INC., DONALD W.
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PHILLIPS, MICKEY NED PHILLIPS, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
NICKEY TED PHILLIPS, LONGFELLOW
INVESTORS LLC, LONGFELLOW
WJWOCO’JCMmmmflmmmmmflmmmmmmmmmmmm
I,
INVESTORS II, LLC, LONGFELLOW
INVESTORS III, LLC, LONGFELLOW
INVESTORS IV, LLC, LONGFELLOW
INVESTORS V, LLC, LOUIS, J. CORNA, 191ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
KENNETH K. FOGG, AND BENNETT,
WESTON, LAJONE & TURNER, P.C.
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
Plaintiffs Renata Petryliene and Big River NV, LLCI (hereafter collectively “Plaintiff” or
0r
“Petryliene”), files this, her Original Petition, against Defendants Bradford Phillips as the
executor of the
0f Estate of Gene Phillips, Bradford Phillips individually, ICC Surfwood Corp.,
Cheyenne Asset Management, Inc., Donald W. Phillips, Mickey Ned Phillips, Nickey Ted
Phillips, Longfellow Investors I, LLC, Longfellow Investors II, LLC, Longfellow Investors III,
LLC, Longfellow Investors IV, LLC, Longfellow Investors V, LLC, Louis, J.Coma, Kenneth K.
1
Big River NV, LLC is wholly owned by Renata Petryliene.
an entity Wholly Petxyliene. Given the complexity of the schemes against
withholding from her some 0f
her and the information defendants are Withholding of the claims presented herein may belong to Big
River NV, LLC. Accordingly, Petryliene brings suit hereon itsbehalf.
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 1 of 16
Fogg, and Bennett, Weston, LaJone & Turner, P.C. (collectively “Defendants”) and alleges as
follows:
DISCOVERY—CONTROL PLAN
1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 0f Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 190.3 and affirmatively pleads that this suit isnot governed by the expedited actions
process in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 because Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over
$100,000.00.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $1,000,000.00.
3. The amount in controversy is Within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Petryliene is an individual domiciled and residing in Dallas County,
Texas.
5. Plaintiff Big River NV, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company with a
principle office at 2010 Valley View Lane, Suite 145, Farmers Branch, TX 75234.
6. Defendant Bradford Phillips isthe executor 0f the Estate of Gene Phillips Which
is pending in the Probate Court of Dallas County, Texas Cause No. PR-19-02830-21. Bradford
Phillips resides in Dallas County at 5515 Lobello, Dallas, Texas 75229-5520. He may be served
there 0r at his place 0f employment 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 701, Dallas, Texas 75234-6802
7. Defendant ICC Surfwood Corp. is a Nevada corporation with a principle place of
business in Dallas county at 2010 Valley View Lane, Suite 145, Farmers Branch, Texas 75234-
8921. Itmay be served 0n its registered agent for service 0f process National Registered Agents
ofNevada, 701 S. Carson St. Suite 200, Carson City, Nevada 89701-5239.
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 2 of 16
8. Defendant Cheyenne Asset Management, Inc. is a Wyoming corporation With a
principle place 0f business in Dallas County at 2010 Valley View Lane, Suite 145, Farmers
Branch, Texas 75234-8921. It may be served on its registered agent for service of process
National Registered Agents Inc., 701 S. Carson St. Suite 200, Carson City, Nevada 89701-5239
9. Defendant Donald W. Phillips is an individual residing in Denton County at 140
S. Hook Street, Hickory Creek, Texas 75065-3206. He may be served there or at his place of
employment 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75234-6061.
10. Defendant Mickey Ned Phillips is an individual residing at 264 Rolling Hills
Circle, Gaffney, SC, 29340-6738.
11. Defendant Nickey Ted Phillips is an individual residing at 4622 Wilkinsville
Highway, Gaffney, SC, 29340-5746.
12. Defendant Longfellow Investors I, LLC is a Nevada corporation with a principle
place 0f business at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75234-6061. Itmay be served
on its registered agent for service of process National Registered Agents Inc. 701 S. Carson St.
Suite 200, Carson City, NV 89701-5239.
13. Defendant Longfellow Investors II, LLC is a Nevada corporation With a principle
place of business at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75234-6061. Itmay be served
0n its registered agent for service of process National Registered Agents Inc. 701 S. Carson St.
Suite 200, Carson City, NV 89701-5239.
14. Defendant Longfellow Investors III,LLC is a Nevada corporation with a principle
place of business at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75234-6061. Itmay be served
on its registered agent for service 0f process National Registered Agents Inc. 701 S. Carson St.
Suite 200, Carson City, NV 89701-5239.
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 3 of 16
15. Defendant Longfellow Investors IV, LLC is a Nevada corporation with a principle
place 0f business at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75234-6061. Itmay be served
on its registered agent for service of process National Registered Agents Inc. 701 S. Carson St.
Suite 200, Carson City, NV 89701-5239.
16. Defendant Longfellow Investors V, LLC is a Nevada corporation With a principle
place of business at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75234-6061. Itmay be served
on its registered agent for service of process National Registered Agents Inc. 701 S. Carson St.
Suite 200, Carson City, NV 89701-5239.
17. Defendant Louis, J. Coma. is an individual residing in Tarrant County at 1113
Brazos Drive, Southlake, Texas 76092-6028. He may be served there 0r at his place of
employment at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75234-6061.
18. Defendant Kenneth K. Fogg is an individual residing in Denton County at 9478
Crane Street, Lantana, Texas 76226-6463.
19. Defendant Bennett, Weston, LaJone & Turner, P.C. is a Texas Professional
Corporation with a principle place 0f business at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 280, Dallas, Texas
75234-6001. It may be served 0n its registered agent for service 0f process Jay LaJone at 1603
LBJ Freeway, Suite 280, Dallas, Texas 75234-6001.
VENUE
20. Venue for this suit is appropriate in Dallas County under Texas Civil Practice &
Remedies Code section 15.002 because Dallas County is the county in Which all 0r a substantial
portion of the events giving rise t0 these claims occurred. Dallas County is also the county in
Which multiple individual Defendants reside. Dallas County is also the county in which
organizational defendants maintain their principle office in Texas. Because Dallas County isthe
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 4 of 16
proper venue for one or more defendants, venue isproper as to all defendants in Dallas County.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.005. This Complaint’s foregoing and subsequent paragraphs
are explicitly incorporated into this paragraph by reference as if fully set forth herein and as
allegations stated in furtherance of establishing venue.
JURISDICTION
21. The Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas because they either
reside for jurisdictional purposes in Texas 0r they have committed specific actions and torts
Within Texas from Which the claims in this suit arise.
FACTS
22. This case concerns fraud and breaches 0f fiduciary duty by the recently deceased
Gene Phillips and his network 0f associates. In some circles, Gene Phillips was known simply as
a successful businessperson. In many other circles, however, ithas become known that Phillips
clandestinely operated a network of entities t0 facilitate fraudulent and illegal schemes. As but
one example, in 2002 Phillips and a group 0f his entities called the “Phillips Group” agreed t0 an
$850,000 settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission after the Commission
brought a complaint that the Phillips Group violated the antifraud and stock accumulation
reporting provisions of the securities laws. As another example, the Office of Thrift Supervision
compelled Phillips and related companies to enter a Consent Order stating that they had
“engaged in unsafe or unsound practices 0r breaches of fiduciary duty, or Violations of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act ...” That Order barred Phillips from the banking industry and
required $20 million 0f restitution. Other examples abound. Here, however, Phillips and his
associates ensnared the plaintiff in Phillips’ schemes.
23. In about 2008 Petryliene met Gene Phillips while working as a wellness counselor
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 5 of 16
sometimes referred t0 as a brain education ambassador in Dallas, Texas. As the two developed a
professional relationship and friendship, Gene Phillips learned that Petryliene had significant
financial resources. Thereafter, Gene Phillips offered to provide her with financial counseling.
24. Gene Phillips represented himself as a successful commercial real estate and stock
investor. He offered t0 invest Petryliene’s funds in his business operations and otherwise be her
sole financial advisor.
25. As one example, Gene Phillips asked Petryliene t0 invest a substantial portion of
her liquid assts in an apartment complex. Phillips represented that this would be a safe
investment because 0f the collateral and tendency of apartments t0 appreciate over time. Phillips
also represented that the investment would provide ongoing income from rental revenues.
26. Petryliene agreed and in late 2010 initially invested approximately $900,000 With
Gene Phillips. These initial investments included a $100,000 investment in Prime Income Asset
Management, a company Gene Phillips owned and controlled, and a promissory note in Which
Petryliene paid $750,000 to ICC Surfwood Corp., a company owned and controlled by one of
Gene Phillips’ close associates, Marsana Demonserat.
27. Between 2009 and 2019 Gene Phillips managed Petryliene’s investment and
provided her with a monthly return 0n that investment. At times, Gene Phillips would provide
these returns as payments directly t0 Petryliene. At other times, Gene Phillips indicated that he
would retain these returns for her benefit in an investment account or in other assets Phillips
controlled. Gene Phillips’s estate 0r companies and ICC Surfwood stillretain Petryliene’s
principal investment. Until Phillips’ death, his companies routinely paid Petryliene returns 0n
the principle he held for her. Following his death, however, all payment has stopped. Gene
Phillips’ son, Brad Phillips, has taken control over Gene Phillips’ network 0f companies and is
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 6 of 16
acting as the executor 0f Gene Phillips’ estate. It is unknown whether Gene Phillips retained
Plaintiff’s assets in his own possession 0r in his network of companies. Regardless, Brad
Phillips has refused to acknowledge the existence of any investments held for Petryliene.
28. As a financial advisor and investor, Gene Phillips owed Petryliene fiduciary
duties. This fiduciary relationship 0f trust and reliance continued t0 develop over time and
became significant. Petryliene allowed Gene Phillips access to her online investment accounts
and some bank accounts. On many occasions, Phillips transacted money into and out of those
accounts. Petryliene understood and believed this was part of Phillips’ fiduciary duties t0 her as
an investment advisor. Gene Phillips was assisted by many employees and business associates
including a Certified Public Accountant, Craig Landess.
29. Craig Landess not only acted as an accountant for Phillips, but also became an
accountant and fiduciary for Petryliene. Landess prepared tax filings for Petryliene and entities
she controlled. Landess likewise prepared various documents for investments Which Gene
Phillips was providing for Petryliene. Landess would provide advice and other communications
from Phillips.
30. Gene Phillips went to great lengths t0 convince Petryliene that he was working in
her best interest. For example, to induce Petryliene to invest the aforementioned $900,000, Gene
Phillips represented that he would purchase a $2 million life insurance policy on himself naming
Petryliene as the beneficiary. On 0r about December 31, 2009 Petryliene was presented With a
document entitled Cheyenne Asset Management, Inc. Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust
(“Cheyenne Trust”). That trust named Petryliene the beneficiary and purported t0 contain “an
undivided one-half interest in the Principal life insurance policy in the total face amount 0f
four million dollars ($4,000,000.00).” Landess signed the document 0n behalf of the purported
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 7 of 16
settler, Cheyenne Asset Management, Inc. The trust document also contained a representation
that Cheyenne Asset Management, Inc. owned the purported life insurance policy. That
representation was signed by Landess, Donald Phillips, Mickey Phillips, and Nickey Phillips.
31. Now that Phillips has passed, it appears that the Cheyenne Trust and related life
insurance policy were frauds. Petryliene has never been presented a copy of the supposed life
insurance policy and has received n0 funds from said policy since Gene Phillips’ death. Rather,
the Cheyenne Trust and related life insurance policy were only t0 fraudulently induce Petryliene
t0 invest with Phillips.
32. Beginning in about 2015 Gene Phillips presented Petryliene with a so-called
investment opportunity in the Villager Apartments located in Fort Walton Beach, Florida.
Petryliene Visited the apartments With Phillips and invested in them due t0 his advice. Phillips
represented to Petryliene that she would own the apartments in return for an approximately
$785,000 investment (Which may have actually been a $1.5 million investment according to
Defendant Fogg as described infra). Petryliene provided the funds and signed relevant deal
papers prepared by Phillips and his agents, including Landess. The deal documents, however,
were not What was represented to Petryliene. Rather than making Petryliene the owner, Phillips
and his agents structured the deal to their benefit. The Villager Apartments became owned by
ICGH Villager Associate, Ltd. Petryliene’s $785,000 purchased her only a 1% interest as the
owner 0f ICGH Villager Associate, Ltd.’s general partner Big River NV, LLC. The remaining
99% was owned by limited partners Longfellow Investors I,LLC, Longfellow Investors II, LLC,
Longfellow Investors III, LLC, Longfellow Investors IV, LLC, and Longfellow Investors V,
LLC. Each of these Longfellow Investors entities was controlled directly 0r indirectly by
Phillips, as is demonstrated by each being represented by Phillips’ long-time associate Louis, J.
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 8 of 16
Coma. Thus, Phillips, with Coma’s assistance, used Petryliene’s funds fraudulently and for his
own benefit.
33. Phillips employed several agents in facilitating this fraudulent scheme against
Petryliene. One 0f these agents was the law firm Bennett, Weston, LaJone & Turner, P.C.
(“BWLT”). That firm, officing in Philips’ building along With the other entities in his various
fraudulent schemes, purported to represent Big River NV, LLC. In doing so, the firm prepared
and presented deal documents t0 Petryliene and Big River NV, LLC. However, the firm was a
longtime associate 0f Phillips and represented Phillips and his entities’ interests in the
transaction. As but a few examples 0f BWLT’S prior associations with Phillips: (1) in Lain et al
v. Southmark Corporation, et al., Cause No. 3:12-CV-729 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2012) BWLT
represented long time Phillips associate and co-defendant Ronald Akin, (2) In Carlton Energy
Group, LLC v. Gene E. Phillips, et al. Cause No. 01-09—00997 (Tex. App. — Houston [lst Dist]
2012), BWLT again represented Phillips’ associate and co-defendant, Natron Investments, Inc.,
(3) BWLT represented a number of Phillips entities in negotiating, executing and consummating
a $30 million loan with Sunset Management LLC and later with resolving contested litigation
over that loan in Sunset Management, LLC v. American Really Investors, et al.,Cause N0. 4:06-
cv-18 (E.D. TeX. 2006).
34. Another agent Phillips employed in his fraudulent scheme was Kenneth Fogg.
Mr. Fogg is a certified public accountant. Fogg ostensibly represented Petryliene in tax filings
and business dealings. Fogg, however, worked as a conduit for misinformation from Phillips and
his companies that disguised the ongoing fraud against Petryliene. For example, a September 16,
2016 letter from Fogg indicates that he prepared Petryliene’s taxes based 0n information
obtained from Phillips’ Pillar Income Asset Management. Fogg noted that over $1.5 million 0f
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 9 of 16
Petryliene’s securities and financial instruments had been used “t0 purchase the Villager
Apartments in Florida.” In that letter and in later correspondence, Fogg continuously referred t0
Petryliene as the “owner” and “beneficial owner” 0f the Villager Apartments. Fogg likewise
prepared tax returns, based 0n information from Phillips and his companies, indicating that
Petryliene was taking income and depreciation from the Villager Apartments as an owner.
35. In reality, the efforts 0f Phillips, Landess, Fogg and others were merely meant to
hide the fraud and breaches 0f fiduciary duty they had committed against Petryliene. Each
worked t0 provide her With a nominal income and other information indicating that she did in
fact own investments With Phillips and his companies including by way of example, the Villager
Apartments. However, shortly after Phillips’ death, the fraud became apparent When his co-
conspirators dropped the pretense and denied Petryliene’s ownership and rights t0 any
investments or income.
36. The foregoing are merely examples 0f the frauds and breaches 0f fiduciary duty
Phillips and his associates committed against Petryliene. Ms. Petryliene requires, and is entitled
to a full accounting of all funds she entrusted to Phillips and his businesses in order to determine
the full extent of wrongdoing.
COUNT 1 — ACCOUNTING
37. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
38. At all times relevant hereto, Phillips, Landess, Fogg, and BWLT owed t0
Petryliene fiduciary duties as a result 0f their positions as financial advisers, accountants,
attorneys and other relationships of trust and confidence. Accordingly, Petryliene is entitled t0 a
full accounting from each 0f all funds she invested and all returns owed t0 her. This accounting
also extends to each of the various entities in which her funds were invested.
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 10 of 16
COUNT 2 — BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
39. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
40. At all times relevant hereto, Phillips, Landess, Fogg, and BWLT owed to
Petryliene fiduciary duties as a result 0f their positions as financial advisors, accountants,
attorneys and other relationships of trust and confidence. These duties included the duty 0f
loyalty, candor, good faith, to refrain from self—dealing, t0 protect Petryliene’s assets, t0 serve
Petryliene’s best interests at all times, and the duty t0 act with integrity 0f the strictest kind.
41. Each 0f these fiduciaries has breached their duties t0 Petryliene in various ways.
By way of specific example and not 0f limitation, With respect to the Villager Apartments each
0f these fiduciaries was involved in the misrepresentation 0f Petryliene’s interest, in the taking of
her funds for an interest that was not 0f fair value, in the self—dealing by Phillips involved in that
transaction, and in the cover-up 0f the same. These breaches are ongoing and continue t0 this
date. With respect t0 other investments these fiduciaries have likewise been involved in failing
t0 disclose the self—dealing and conflict interests each had as well as the improper taking and
retention 0f Petryliene’s funds and income derived from those funds. With respect t0 the
purported life insurance policy upon which Petryliene relied to make investments With Phillips,
at least Defendants Gene Phillips and Landess were involved in fraudulently representing the
existence and/or maintenance 0f such policy.
42. Following Gene Phillips’ death, individuals controlling Phillips’ companies,
including those companies in which Plaintiff had supposedly invested have denied any and all
investments, incomes, monies, ownership rights 0r other rights held by Petryliene. None 0f these
Defendants have worked t0 protect 0r establish her interests, despite their duty t0 d0 s0, and in
fact each have participated in the complete loss of her interests as administered by Gene Phillips
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 11 of 16
and the other fiduciaries named herein.
43. Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty were a proximate cause of damages to
Plaintiff and for which Plaintiff seeks actual and exemplary damages. Plaintiff also seeks
disgorgement 0f all monies and other items of benefit paid by her, conferred by her, 0r otherwise
retained by any Defendant.
COUNT 3 — AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
44. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fiJlly set forth herein.
45. As Count 2, supra, describes Phillips, Landess, Fogg, and BWLT owed t0
Petryliene fiduciary duties and have (and continue to) breach those duties. Each 0f these
defendants have worked in coordination with each other and With the remaining defendants
named in this case t0 aid and abet the various breaches 0f fiduciary duties. Each 0f the
Defendants named herein ispart of a network of legitimate and illegitimate entities, investments,
and representations calculated t0 harm Plaintiff and enrich the Defendants.
46. Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty and those Who aided and abetted them
were a proximate cause 0f damages t0 Plaintiff and for which Plaintiff seeks actual and
exemplary damages. Plaintiff also seeks disgorgement 0f all monies and other items of benefit
paid by her, conferred by her, or otherwise retained by any Defendant.
COUNT 4 — CONSPIRACY TO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
47. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
48. As Count 2, supra, describes Phillips, Landess, Fogg, and BWLT owed t0
Petryliene fiduciary duties and have (and continue to) breach those duties. Each 0f these
defendants have participated in and taken affirmative steps t0 further a conspiracy t0 breach the
fiduciary duties owed t0 Petryliene. Each 0f the Defendants named herein is part of a network of
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 12 of 16
legitimate and illegitimate entities, investments, and representations calculated t0 harm Plaintiff
and enrich the Defendants.
49. Defendants’ breaches 0f fiduciary duty and those who conspired t0 breach them
were a proximate cause 0f damages to Plaintiff and for which Plaintiff seeks actual and
exemplary damages. Plaintiff also seeks disgorgement 0f all monies and other items of benefit
paid by her, conferred by her, or otherwise retained by any Defendant.
COUNT 5 — FRAUD AND AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD
50. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
51. Gene Phillips, Landess, Donald Phillips, Mickey Phillips, Nickey Phillips each
committed fraud and/or conspired t0 commit fraud by creating the false Cheyenne Trust
documents. Those documents were false, were intended t0 be relied upon by Petryliene, and
were in fact relied upon by Petryliene.
52. Phillips and Landess misrepresented the purchase and maintenance 0f a life
insurance policy on Phillips that induced Petryliene to invest with Phillips.
53. Phillips, Landess, Fogg, and BWLT misrepresented the status 0f Petryliene’s
investment in Villager Apartments and that she would not be an owner thereof. As a part 0f and
in furtherance 0f this fraud, Landess and Fogg prepared tax returns for Petryliene indicating that
she owned various investments, including the Villager Apartments. Given the current
repudiation by Phillips’ estate 0f any investment held by Petryliene, these also appear t0 be
fraudulent.
54. Each 0f the remaining defendants participated in and assisted these fraudulent acts
by their involvement in Phillips’ web 0f companies and transactions.
55. Defendants’ fraud and aiding and abetting fraud were a proximate cause 0f
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 13 of 16
damages to Plaintiff and for Which Plaintiff seeks actual and exemplary damages. Plaintiff also
seeks disgorgement 0f all monies and other items 0f benefit paid by her, conferred by her, or
otherwise retained by any Defendant.
COUNT 6 — CONVERSION
56. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
57. As described herein, Petryliene invested substantial monies with Gene Phillips.
These monies were t0 result in various investments, gains, and other items of monetary value for
Petryliene.
58. Mr. Brad Phillips Who controls the entities Which supposedly held Plaintiff’s
investments and is the executor of Phillips’ estate, Which may hold some 0f Plaintiff’s
investments, has denied the existence 0f any and all such investments, gains, interest, 0r other
items of monetary value. In doing so, Phillips and his entities have improperly exercised
dominion and control over Petryliene’s property and thereby converted it.
59. Defendant’s conversion was a proximate cause 0f damages to Plaintiff and for
which Plaintiff seeks actual and exemplary damages. Plaintiff also seeks disgorgement of all
monies and other items of benefit paid by her, conferred by her, or otherwise retained by any
Defendant.
COUNT 7 — UNJUST ENRICHMENT
60. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
61. As described herein, Petryliene invested substantial monies with Gene Phillips.
These monies were t0 result in various investments, gains, and other items 0f monetary value for
Petryliene.
62. Mr. Brad Phillips who controls the entities which supposedly held Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 14 of 16
investments and is the executor 0f Phillips’ estate, which may hold some of Plaintiff’s
investments, has denied the existence of any and all such investments, gains, interest, or other
items of monetary value. In doing so, the executor has improperly retained assets Which in
equity and fairness belong to Petryliene and should be delivered t0 Petryliene.
DISCOVERY RULE
63. Plaintiff affirmatively alleges that all causes of action presented herein are subject
to the discovery rule to the extent any defendant intends to rely 0n a defense under any relevant
statute 0f limitations.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
64. Under Texas Rule 0f Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that the Defendants
disclose, Within 50 days of the service of this request, the information 0r material described in
Rule 194.2.
PRAYER
65. For these reasons, Plaintiff asks that the Court issue citation for Defendants t0
appear and answer, and that Plaintiff be awarded a judgment against Defendant for the
following:
P Actual damages,
.U‘ Economic damages,
.0 Direct and consequential damages,
Pd Exemplary damages,
Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
Court costs,
meo Reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees, and
A11 other relief to Which Plaintiff is entitled.
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 15 of 16
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ R. Ritch Roberts, III
R. Ritch Roberts, III
Texas Bar No. 24041794
roberts@1robertslaw.com
The Law Offices of R. Ritch Roberts PLLC
Ross Tower
500 Akard Street, Suite 2150
Dallas, TX 75201
214.237.0900 telephone
214.237.0901 facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR RENATA PETRYLIENE
AND BIG RIVER NV LLC
Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 16 of16
Preview
FILED 9/4/2020 1:29PM ”O'TESERVE 14 CIT ESERVE C DISFTERLI'SWL'EEE DlgTEsC'TACTESE DALLAS 00., CO.,TEXAS Angie AvinaDEPUTY DC-20-1 2534 CAUSE NO. RENATA PETRYLIENE and BIG RIVER NV LLC Plaintiff, V' IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BRADFORD PHILLIPS AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF GENE PHILLIPS, BRADFORD PHILLIPS INDIVIDUALLY, ICC SURFWOOD CORR, CHEYENNE ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., DONALD W. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PHILLIPS, MICKEY NED PHILLIPS, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm NICKEY TED PHILLIPS, LONGFELLOW INVESTORS LLC, LONGFELLOW WJWOCO’JCMmmmflmmmmmflmmmmmmmmmmmm I, INVESTORS II, LLC, LONGFELLOW INVESTORS III, LLC, LONGFELLOW INVESTORS IV, LLC, LONGFELLOW INVESTORS V, LLC, LOUIS, J. CORNA, 191ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT KENNETH K. FOGG, AND BENNETT, WESTON, LAJONE & TURNER, P.C. Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Plaintiffs Renata Petryliene and Big River NV, LLCI (hereafter collectively “Plaintiff” or 0r “Petryliene”), files this, her Original Petition, against Defendants Bradford Phillips as the executor of the 0f Estate of Gene Phillips, Bradford Phillips individually, ICC Surfwood Corp., Cheyenne Asset Management, Inc., Donald W. Phillips, Mickey Ned Phillips, Nickey Ted Phillips, Longfellow Investors I, LLC, Longfellow Investors II, LLC, Longfellow Investors III, LLC, Longfellow Investors IV, LLC, Longfellow Investors V, LLC, Louis, J.Coma, Kenneth K. 1 Big River NV, LLC is wholly owned by Renata Petryliene. an entity Wholly Petxyliene. Given the complexity of the schemes against withholding from her some 0f her and the information defendants are Withholding of the claims presented herein may belong to Big River NV, LLC. Accordingly, Petryliene brings suit hereon itsbehalf. Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 1 of 16 Fogg, and Bennett, Weston, LaJone & Turner, P.C. (collectively “Defendants”) and alleges as follows: DISCOVERY—CONTROL PLAN 1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 0f Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.3 and affirmatively pleads that this suit isnot governed by the expedited actions process in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 because Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $100,000.00. CLAIM FOR RELIEF 2. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $1,000,000.00. 3. The amount in controversy is Within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Petryliene is an individual domiciled and residing in Dallas County, Texas. 5. Plaintiff Big River NV, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company with a principle office at 2010 Valley View Lane, Suite 145, Farmers Branch, TX 75234. 6. Defendant Bradford Phillips isthe executor 0f the Estate of Gene Phillips Which is pending in the Probate Court of Dallas County, Texas Cause No. PR-19-02830-21. Bradford Phillips resides in Dallas County at 5515 Lobello, Dallas, Texas 75229-5520. He may be served there 0r at his place 0f employment 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 701, Dallas, Texas 75234-6802 7. Defendant ICC Surfwood Corp. is a Nevada corporation with a principle place of business in Dallas county at 2010 Valley View Lane, Suite 145, Farmers Branch, Texas 75234- 8921. Itmay be served 0n its registered agent for service 0f process National Registered Agents ofNevada, 701 S. Carson St. Suite 200, Carson City, Nevada 89701-5239. Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 2 of 16 8. Defendant Cheyenne Asset Management, Inc. is a Wyoming corporation With a principle place 0f business in Dallas County at 2010 Valley View Lane, Suite 145, Farmers Branch, Texas 75234-8921. It may be served on its registered agent for service of process National Registered Agents Inc., 701 S. Carson St. Suite 200, Carson City, Nevada 89701-5239 9. Defendant Donald W. Phillips is an individual residing in Denton County at 140 S. Hook Street, Hickory Creek, Texas 75065-3206. He may be served there or at his place of employment 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75234-6061. 10. Defendant Mickey Ned Phillips is an individual residing at 264 Rolling Hills Circle, Gaffney, SC, 29340-6738. 11. Defendant Nickey Ted Phillips is an individual residing at 4622 Wilkinsville Highway, Gaffney, SC, 29340-5746. 12. Defendant Longfellow Investors I, LLC is a Nevada corporation with a principle place 0f business at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75234-6061. Itmay be served on its registered agent for service of process National Registered Agents Inc. 701 S. Carson St. Suite 200, Carson City, NV 89701-5239. 13. Defendant Longfellow Investors II, LLC is a Nevada corporation With a principle place of business at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75234-6061. Itmay be served 0n its registered agent for service of process National Registered Agents Inc. 701 S. Carson St. Suite 200, Carson City, NV 89701-5239. 14. Defendant Longfellow Investors III,LLC is a Nevada corporation with a principle place of business at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75234-6061. Itmay be served on its registered agent for service 0f process National Registered Agents Inc. 701 S. Carson St. Suite 200, Carson City, NV 89701-5239. Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 3 of 16 15. Defendant Longfellow Investors IV, LLC is a Nevada corporation with a principle place 0f business at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75234-6061. Itmay be served on its registered agent for service of process National Registered Agents Inc. 701 S. Carson St. Suite 200, Carson City, NV 89701-5239. 16. Defendant Longfellow Investors V, LLC is a Nevada corporation With a principle place of business at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75234-6061. Itmay be served on its registered agent for service of process National Registered Agents Inc. 701 S. Carson St. Suite 200, Carson City, NV 89701-5239. 17. Defendant Louis, J. Coma. is an individual residing in Tarrant County at 1113 Brazos Drive, Southlake, Texas 76092-6028. He may be served there 0r at his place of employment at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75234-6061. 18. Defendant Kenneth K. Fogg is an individual residing in Denton County at 9478 Crane Street, Lantana, Texas 76226-6463. 19. Defendant Bennett, Weston, LaJone & Turner, P.C. is a Texas Professional Corporation with a principle place 0f business at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 280, Dallas, Texas 75234-6001. It may be served 0n its registered agent for service 0f process Jay LaJone at 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 280, Dallas, Texas 75234-6001. VENUE 20. Venue for this suit is appropriate in Dallas County under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 15.002 because Dallas County is the county in Which all 0r a substantial portion of the events giving rise t0 these claims occurred. Dallas County is also the county in Which multiple individual Defendants reside. Dallas County is also the county in which organizational defendants maintain their principle office in Texas. Because Dallas County isthe Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 4 of 16 proper venue for one or more defendants, venue isproper as to all defendants in Dallas County. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.005. This Complaint’s foregoing and subsequent paragraphs are explicitly incorporated into this paragraph by reference as if fully set forth herein and as allegations stated in furtherance of establishing venue. JURISDICTION 21. The Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas because they either reside for jurisdictional purposes in Texas 0r they have committed specific actions and torts Within Texas from Which the claims in this suit arise. FACTS 22. This case concerns fraud and breaches 0f fiduciary duty by the recently deceased Gene Phillips and his network 0f associates. In some circles, Gene Phillips was known simply as a successful businessperson. In many other circles, however, ithas become known that Phillips clandestinely operated a network of entities t0 facilitate fraudulent and illegal schemes. As but one example, in 2002 Phillips and a group 0f his entities called the “Phillips Group” agreed t0 an $850,000 settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission after the Commission brought a complaint that the Phillips Group violated the antifraud and stock accumulation reporting provisions of the securities laws. As another example, the Office of Thrift Supervision compelled Phillips and related companies to enter a Consent Order stating that they had “engaged in unsafe or unsound practices 0r breaches of fiduciary duty, or Violations of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ...” That Order barred Phillips from the banking industry and required $20 million 0f restitution. Other examples abound. Here, however, Phillips and his associates ensnared the plaintiff in Phillips’ schemes. 23. In about 2008 Petryliene met Gene Phillips while working as a wellness counselor Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 5 of 16 sometimes referred t0 as a brain education ambassador in Dallas, Texas. As the two developed a professional relationship and friendship, Gene Phillips learned that Petryliene had significant financial resources. Thereafter, Gene Phillips offered to provide her with financial counseling. 24. Gene Phillips represented himself as a successful commercial real estate and stock investor. He offered t0 invest Petryliene’s funds in his business operations and otherwise be her sole financial advisor. 25. As one example, Gene Phillips asked Petryliene t0 invest a substantial portion of her liquid assts in an apartment complex. Phillips represented that this would be a safe investment because 0f the collateral and tendency of apartments t0 appreciate over time. Phillips also represented that the investment would provide ongoing income from rental revenues. 26. Petryliene agreed and in late 2010 initially invested approximately $900,000 With Gene Phillips. These initial investments included a $100,000 investment in Prime Income Asset Management, a company Gene Phillips owned and controlled, and a promissory note in Which Petryliene paid $750,000 to ICC Surfwood Corp., a company owned and controlled by one of Gene Phillips’ close associates, Marsana Demonserat. 27. Between 2009 and 2019 Gene Phillips managed Petryliene’s investment and provided her with a monthly return 0n that investment. At times, Gene Phillips would provide these returns as payments directly t0 Petryliene. At other times, Gene Phillips indicated that he would retain these returns for her benefit in an investment account or in other assets Phillips controlled. Gene Phillips’s estate 0r companies and ICC Surfwood stillretain Petryliene’s principal investment. Until Phillips’ death, his companies routinely paid Petryliene returns 0n the principle he held for her. Following his death, however, all payment has stopped. Gene Phillips’ son, Brad Phillips, has taken control over Gene Phillips’ network 0f companies and is Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 6 of 16 acting as the executor 0f Gene Phillips’ estate. It is unknown whether Gene Phillips retained Plaintiff’s assets in his own possession 0r in his network of companies. Regardless, Brad Phillips has refused to acknowledge the existence of any investments held for Petryliene. 28. As a financial advisor and investor, Gene Phillips owed Petryliene fiduciary duties. This fiduciary relationship 0f trust and reliance continued t0 develop over time and became significant. Petryliene allowed Gene Phillips access to her online investment accounts and some bank accounts. On many occasions, Phillips transacted money into and out of those accounts. Petryliene understood and believed this was part of Phillips’ fiduciary duties t0 her as an investment advisor. Gene Phillips was assisted by many employees and business associates including a Certified Public Accountant, Craig Landess. 29. Craig Landess not only acted as an accountant for Phillips, but also became an accountant and fiduciary for Petryliene. Landess prepared tax filings for Petryliene and entities she controlled. Landess likewise prepared various documents for investments Which Gene Phillips was providing for Petryliene. Landess would provide advice and other communications from Phillips. 30. Gene Phillips went to great lengths t0 convince Petryliene that he was working in her best interest. For example, to induce Petryliene to invest the aforementioned $900,000, Gene Phillips represented that he would purchase a $2 million life insurance policy on himself naming Petryliene as the beneficiary. On 0r about December 31, 2009 Petryliene was presented With a document entitled Cheyenne Asset Management, Inc. Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (“Cheyenne Trust”). That trust named Petryliene the beneficiary and purported t0 contain “an undivided one-half interest in the Principal life insurance policy in the total face amount 0f four million dollars ($4,000,000.00).” Landess signed the document 0n behalf of the purported Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 7 of 16 settler, Cheyenne Asset Management, Inc. The trust document also contained a representation that Cheyenne Asset Management, Inc. owned the purported life insurance policy. That representation was signed by Landess, Donald Phillips, Mickey Phillips, and Nickey Phillips. 31. Now that Phillips has passed, it appears that the Cheyenne Trust and related life insurance policy were frauds. Petryliene has never been presented a copy of the supposed life insurance policy and has received n0 funds from said policy since Gene Phillips’ death. Rather, the Cheyenne Trust and related life insurance policy were only t0 fraudulently induce Petryliene t0 invest with Phillips. 32. Beginning in about 2015 Gene Phillips presented Petryliene with a so-called investment opportunity in the Villager Apartments located in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Petryliene Visited the apartments With Phillips and invested in them due t0 his advice. Phillips represented to Petryliene that she would own the apartments in return for an approximately $785,000 investment (Which may have actually been a $1.5 million investment according to Defendant Fogg as described infra). Petryliene provided the funds and signed relevant deal papers prepared by Phillips and his agents, including Landess. The deal documents, however, were not What was represented to Petryliene. Rather than making Petryliene the owner, Phillips and his agents structured the deal to their benefit. The Villager Apartments became owned by ICGH Villager Associate, Ltd. Petryliene’s $785,000 purchased her only a 1% interest as the owner 0f ICGH Villager Associate, Ltd.’s general partner Big River NV, LLC. The remaining 99% was owned by limited partners Longfellow Investors I,LLC, Longfellow Investors II, LLC, Longfellow Investors III, LLC, Longfellow Investors IV, LLC, and Longfellow Investors V, LLC. Each of these Longfellow Investors entities was controlled directly 0r indirectly by Phillips, as is demonstrated by each being represented by Phillips’ long-time associate Louis, J. Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 8 of 16 Coma. Thus, Phillips, with Coma’s assistance, used Petryliene’s funds fraudulently and for his own benefit. 33. Phillips employed several agents in facilitating this fraudulent scheme against Petryliene. One 0f these agents was the law firm Bennett, Weston, LaJone & Turner, P.C. (“BWLT”). That firm, officing in Philips’ building along With the other entities in his various fraudulent schemes, purported to represent Big River NV, LLC. In doing so, the firm prepared and presented deal documents t0 Petryliene and Big River NV, LLC. However, the firm was a longtime associate 0f Phillips and represented Phillips and his entities’ interests in the transaction. As but a few examples 0f BWLT’S prior associations with Phillips: (1) in Lain et al v. Southmark Corporation, et al., Cause No. 3:12-CV-729 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2012) BWLT represented long time Phillips associate and co-defendant Ronald Akin, (2) In Carlton Energy Group, LLC v. Gene E. Phillips, et al. Cause No. 01-09—00997 (Tex. App. — Houston [lst Dist] 2012), BWLT again represented Phillips’ associate and co-defendant, Natron Investments, Inc., (3) BWLT represented a number of Phillips entities in negotiating, executing and consummating a $30 million loan with Sunset Management LLC and later with resolving contested litigation over that loan in Sunset Management, LLC v. American Really Investors, et al.,Cause N0. 4:06- cv-18 (E.D. TeX. 2006). 34. Another agent Phillips employed in his fraudulent scheme was Kenneth Fogg. Mr. Fogg is a certified public accountant. Fogg ostensibly represented Petryliene in tax filings and business dealings. Fogg, however, worked as a conduit for misinformation from Phillips and his companies that disguised the ongoing fraud against Petryliene. For example, a September 16, 2016 letter from Fogg indicates that he prepared Petryliene’s taxes based 0n information obtained from Phillips’ Pillar Income Asset Management. Fogg noted that over $1.5 million 0f Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 9 of 16 Petryliene’s securities and financial instruments had been used “t0 purchase the Villager Apartments in Florida.” In that letter and in later correspondence, Fogg continuously referred t0 Petryliene as the “owner” and “beneficial owner” 0f the Villager Apartments. Fogg likewise prepared tax returns, based 0n information from Phillips and his companies, indicating that Petryliene was taking income and depreciation from the Villager Apartments as an owner. 35. In reality, the efforts 0f Phillips, Landess, Fogg and others were merely meant to hide the fraud and breaches 0f fiduciary duty they had committed against Petryliene. Each worked t0 provide her With a nominal income and other information indicating that she did in fact own investments With Phillips and his companies including by way of example, the Villager Apartments. However, shortly after Phillips’ death, the fraud became apparent When his co- conspirators dropped the pretense and denied Petryliene’s ownership and rights t0 any investments or income. 36. The foregoing are merely examples 0f the frauds and breaches 0f fiduciary duty Phillips and his associates committed against Petryliene. Ms. Petryliene requires, and is entitled to a full accounting of all funds she entrusted to Phillips and his businesses in order to determine the full extent of wrongdoing. COUNT 1 — ACCOUNTING 37. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 38. At all times relevant hereto, Phillips, Landess, Fogg, and BWLT owed t0 Petryliene fiduciary duties as a result 0f their positions as financial advisers, accountants, attorneys and other relationships of trust and confidence. Accordingly, Petryliene is entitled t0 a full accounting from each 0f all funds she invested and all returns owed t0 her. This accounting also extends to each of the various entities in which her funds were invested. Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 10 of 16 COUNT 2 — BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 39. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 40. At all times relevant hereto, Phillips, Landess, Fogg, and BWLT owed to Petryliene fiduciary duties as a result 0f their positions as financial advisors, accountants, attorneys and other relationships of trust and confidence. These duties included the duty 0f loyalty, candor, good faith, to refrain from self—dealing, t0 protect Petryliene’s assets, t0 serve Petryliene’s best interests at all times, and the duty t0 act with integrity 0f the strictest kind. 41. Each 0f these fiduciaries has breached their duties t0 Petryliene in various ways. By way of specific example and not 0f limitation, With respect to the Villager Apartments each 0f these fiduciaries was involved in the misrepresentation 0f Petryliene’s interest, in the taking of her funds for an interest that was not 0f fair value, in the self—dealing by Phillips involved in that transaction, and in the cover-up 0f the same. These breaches are ongoing and continue t0 this date. With respect t0 other investments these fiduciaries have likewise been involved in failing t0 disclose the self—dealing and conflict interests each had as well as the improper taking and retention 0f Petryliene’s funds and income derived from those funds. With respect t0 the purported life insurance policy upon which Petryliene relied to make investments With Phillips, at least Defendants Gene Phillips and Landess were involved in fraudulently representing the existence and/or maintenance 0f such policy. 42. Following Gene Phillips’ death, individuals controlling Phillips’ companies, including those companies in which Plaintiff had supposedly invested have denied any and all investments, incomes, monies, ownership rights 0r other rights held by Petryliene. None 0f these Defendants have worked t0 protect 0r establish her interests, despite their duty t0 d0 s0, and in fact each have participated in the complete loss of her interests as administered by Gene Phillips Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 11 of 16 and the other fiduciaries named herein. 43. Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty were a proximate cause of damages to Plaintiff and for which Plaintiff seeks actual and exemplary damages. Plaintiff also seeks disgorgement 0f all monies and other items of benefit paid by her, conferred by her, 0r otherwise retained by any Defendant. COUNT 3 — AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 44. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fiJlly set forth herein. 45. As Count 2, supra, describes Phillips, Landess, Fogg, and BWLT owed t0 Petryliene fiduciary duties and have (and continue to) breach those duties. Each 0f these defendants have worked in coordination with each other and With the remaining defendants named in this case t0 aid and abet the various breaches 0f fiduciary duties. Each 0f the Defendants named herein ispart of a network of legitimate and illegitimate entities, investments, and representations calculated t0 harm Plaintiff and enrich the Defendants. 46. Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty and those Who aided and abetted them were a proximate cause 0f damages t0 Plaintiff and for which Plaintiff seeks actual and exemplary damages. Plaintiff also seeks disgorgement 0f all monies and other items of benefit paid by her, conferred by her, or otherwise retained by any Defendant. COUNT 4 — CONSPIRACY TO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 47. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 48. As Count 2, supra, describes Phillips, Landess, Fogg, and BWLT owed t0 Petryliene fiduciary duties and have (and continue to) breach those duties. Each 0f these defendants have participated in and taken affirmative steps t0 further a conspiracy t0 breach the fiduciary duties owed t0 Petryliene. Each 0f the Defendants named herein is part of a network of Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 12 of 16 legitimate and illegitimate entities, investments, and representations calculated t0 harm Plaintiff and enrich the Defendants. 49. Defendants’ breaches 0f fiduciary duty and those who conspired t0 breach them were a proximate cause 0f damages to Plaintiff and for which Plaintiff seeks actual and exemplary damages. Plaintiff also seeks disgorgement 0f all monies and other items of benefit paid by her, conferred by her, or otherwise retained by any Defendant. COUNT 5 — FRAUD AND AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD 50. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 51. Gene Phillips, Landess, Donald Phillips, Mickey Phillips, Nickey Phillips each committed fraud and/or conspired t0 commit fraud by creating the false Cheyenne Trust documents. Those documents were false, were intended t0 be relied upon by Petryliene, and were in fact relied upon by Petryliene. 52. Phillips and Landess misrepresented the purchase and maintenance 0f a life insurance policy on Phillips that induced Petryliene to invest with Phillips. 53. Phillips, Landess, Fogg, and BWLT misrepresented the status 0f Petryliene’s investment in Villager Apartments and that she would not be an owner thereof. As a part 0f and in furtherance 0f this fraud, Landess and Fogg prepared tax returns for Petryliene indicating that she owned various investments, including the Villager Apartments. Given the current repudiation by Phillips’ estate 0f any investment held by Petryliene, these also appear t0 be fraudulent. 54. Each 0f the remaining defendants participated in and assisted these fraudulent acts by their involvement in Phillips’ web 0f companies and transactions. 55. Defendants’ fraud and aiding and abetting fraud were a proximate cause 0f Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 13 of 16 damages to Plaintiff and for Which Plaintiff seeks actual and exemplary damages. Plaintiff also seeks disgorgement 0f all monies and other items 0f benefit paid by her, conferred by her, or otherwise retained by any Defendant. COUNT 6 — CONVERSION 56. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 57. As described herein, Petryliene invested substantial monies with Gene Phillips. These monies were t0 result in various investments, gains, and other items of monetary value for Petryliene. 58. Mr. Brad Phillips Who controls the entities Which supposedly held Plaintiff’s investments and is the executor of Phillips’ estate, Which may hold some 0f Plaintiff’s investments, has denied the existence 0f any and all such investments, gains, interest, 0r other items of monetary value. In doing so, Phillips and his entities have improperly exercised dominion and control over Petryliene’s property and thereby converted it. 59. Defendant’s conversion was a proximate cause 0f damages to Plaintiff and for which Plaintiff seeks actual and exemplary damages. Plaintiff also seeks disgorgement of all monies and other items of benefit paid by her, conferred by her, or otherwise retained by any Defendant. COUNT 7 — UNJUST ENRICHMENT 60. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 61. As described herein, Petryliene invested substantial monies with Gene Phillips. These monies were t0 result in various investments, gains, and other items 0f monetary value for Petryliene. 62. Mr. Brad Phillips who controls the entities which supposedly held Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 14 of 16 investments and is the executor 0f Phillips’ estate, which may hold some of Plaintiff’s investments, has denied the existence of any and all such investments, gains, interest, or other items of monetary value. In doing so, the executor has improperly retained assets Which in equity and fairness belong to Petryliene and should be delivered t0 Petryliene. DISCOVERY RULE 63. Plaintiff affirmatively alleges that all causes of action presented herein are subject to the discovery rule to the extent any defendant intends to rely 0n a defense under any relevant statute 0f limitations. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 64. Under Texas Rule 0f Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that the Defendants disclose, Within 50 days of the service of this request, the information 0r material described in Rule 194.2. PRAYER 65. For these reasons, Plaintiff asks that the Court issue citation for Defendants t0 appear and answer, and that Plaintiff be awarded a judgment against Defendant for the following: P Actual damages, .U‘ Economic damages, .0 Direct and consequential damages, Pd Exemplary damages, Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, Court costs, meo Reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees, and A11 other relief to Which Plaintiff is entitled. Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 15 of 16 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ R. Ritch Roberts, III R. Ritch Roberts, III Texas Bar No. 24041794 roberts@1robertslaw.com The Law Offices of R. Ritch Roberts PLLC Ross Tower 500 Akard Street, Suite 2150 Dallas, TX 75201 214.237.0900 telephone 214.237.0901 facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR RENATA PETRYLIENE AND BIG RIVER NV LLC Plaintiff’ s Original Petition Page 16 of16