In re Frances Spanos Shelton v. the State of Texas

ACCEPTED 15-25-00152-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/8/2025 4:53 PM NO. 15-25-00152-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk IN RE FRANCES SPANOS SHELTON, Relator.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the 414th Judicial District Court, McLennan County, Texas, Cause No. 2024-3035-5, Hon. Judge Ryan Luna Presiding

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST VERNON LEUSCHNER’S, AS DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR KATHERINE LEUSCHNER, MOTION TO STAY THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Andy McSwain State Bar No. 13861100 Mark E. Firmin State Bar No. 4099614 Sameer Hashmi State Bar No. 24101877 BEARD KULTGEN BROPHY BOSTWICK & DICKSON, PLLC South Fourth Street Waco, Texas 76701 Tel (254) 776-5500 Fax (254) 776-3591 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] COUNSEL FOR REAL PARTY IN INTEREST VERNON LEUSCHNER, AS DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR KATHERINE LEUSCHNER NO. 15-25-00152-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS

IN RE FRANCES SPANOS SHELTON, Relator.

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST VERNON LEUSCHNER’S, AS DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR KATHERINE LEUSCHNER, MOTION TO STAY THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: Comes now, Vernon Leuschner, as durable power of attorney for Katherine Leuschner (“Leuschner” or “Real Party In Interest”), and files this Motion to Stay the Petition for Writ of Mandamus (“Petition”) filed by Relator Frances Spanos Shelton (“Fran” or “Relator”), and in furtherance thereof would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: I. ARGUMENT Relator originally sought mandamus relief in the 10th Court of Appeals in what clearly appeared to be a case of forum shopping, since it was filed there after the Texas Supreme Court had transferred Relator’s interlocutory appeal to this Court.1 Relator has now filed the Petition in this Court raising the same issues as her interlocutory appeal. To avoid unnecessary legal costs and duplication of effort, the Court should stay the Petition, pending the Court’s ruling on the interlocutory appeal. In any event—it is likely that mandamus relief is inappropriate here, for fairly obvious reasons.

First, Relator’s interlocutory appeal was an adequate remedy at law, therefore rendering mandamus relief inappropriate. A quick comparison of Relator’s Appellant’s brief and this Petition confirms that the issues raised in the Petition are substantially identical. Relator even admits that the interlocutory appeal provides her with an adequate remedy to reverse the District Court’s order appointing a receiver.2 Petition at 38–39 (admitting that “the Court can reverse the Order Appointing Receiver [through the interlocutory appeal] for want of evidentiary support…”).

Further—Relator seeks to complain (improperly) about matters the District Court has not yet ruled upon. To the extent that Relator argues her Petition is needed to “declare the orders void, and end the [District Court’s] use of the county court at

1 After filing the original petition for writ of mandamus, Relator immediately sought to transfer her interlocutory appeal back to the 10th Court of Appeals, strongly suggesting the original petition for writ of mandamus was simply a pretext for getting her appeal out of this Court and back before the 10th Court of Appeals.

Assuming the District Court abused its discretion, which it did not. law’s void orders in the future administration of the Trust”: (1) the District Court has not yet ruled on Relator’s motion to declare the County Court at law’s orders void; (2) Relator has not sought mandamus relief ordering the District Court to rule on Relator’s pending motion; and (3) mandamus relief is improper to provide guidance on incidental issues that can be heard through an appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). As the Texas Supreme Court has held: Mandamus review of incidental, interlocutory rulings by the trial courts unduly interferes with trial court proceedings, distracts appellate court attention to issues that are unimportant both to the ultimate disposition of the case at hand and to the uniform development of the law, and adds unproductively to the expense and delay of civil litigation. Id. Nor would mandamus relief provide “needed and helpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive in appeals from final judgments.” In re Bertucci, 590 S.W.3d 113, 116 (Tex. App.—Austin 2019, no pet.) (mandamus review of a motion to exclude a court-appointed auditor’s report “would not avoid an enormous waste of judicial and public resources,” would not provide “needed and helpful direction to the law that would otherwise be elusive in appeals from final judgments,” and “was not essential to preserve executor’s rights from impairment or loss”).

As such, Leuschner hereby moves the Court to stay Relator’s Petition to avoid further unnecessary legal costs and unnecessary effort from this Court.3 In the alternative, Leuschner requests that the Court advise if and to the extent Leuschner should file a response to the Petition.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Real Party In Interest Vernon Leuschner, as durable power of attorney for Katherine Leuschner, respectfully requests that the Court stay the Petition and that the Court grant any such other and further relief, in law or in equity, to which Leuschner may be justly entitled.

/s/ Mark E. Firmin Andy McSwain State Bar No. 13861100 Mark E. Firmin State Bar No. 24099614 Sameer Hashmi State Bar No. 24101877 BEARD KULTGEN BROPHY BOSTWICK & DICKSON, PLLC South Fourth Street Waco, Texas 76701 Tel (254) 776-5500 Relator cites CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex. 1996) for the proposition that the Court should entertain both the Petition and the interlocutory appeal. However, Link is irrelevant to this Petition. In Link, the Court held that mandamus relief for the denial of a special appearance is ordinarily improper because the defendant has an adequate remedy by appeal. Id. However, because Link was a mass tort asbestos case, there would be tremendous pressure for the defendant to settle before an appeal could be heard. Id. So the Court held that in this rare circumstance, mandamus relief was proper. Link is simply irrelevant to this Petition.

Fax (254) 776-3591 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] COUNSEL FOR REAL PARTY IN INTEREST VERNON LEUSCHNER, AS DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR KATHERINE LEUSCHNER

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I, Andy McSwain, conferenced with counsel for Relator Frances Spanos Shelton on October 8, 2025, concerning this motion to stay and counsel for Relator is opposed to this motion.

/s/ Andy McSwain Andy McSwain

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent to the person(s) named below, in accordance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure on October 8, 2025.

Kirk L. Pittard Jim Dunnam [email protected] [email protected] Rick Thompson Andrea Mehta [email protected] [email protected] DURHAM, PITTARD & Mason Vance Dunnam SPALDING, LLP [email protected] P.O. Box 224626 DUNNAM & DUNNAM LLP Dallas, Texas 75222 4125 West Waco Drive Waco, Texas 76710 Craig D. Cherry [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR REAL Ryan C. Johnson PARTIES IN INTEREST ROBERT [email protected] SPANOS, CHRISOPHER SPANOS, Scott H. James AND NICOLE LAWRIE [email protected] M. Katie Quillen The Honorable Judge Ryan Luna [email protected] 414th Judicial District Court CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND [email protected] JAMES, PLLC 501 Washington Avenue, Suite 307 7901 Fish Pond Road, 2nd Floor Waco, Texas 76701 Waco, Texas 76710 RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR RELATOR FRANCES SPANOS SHELTON Aubrey R. Williams Law Office of Aubrey R. Williams P.O. Box 20156 Waco, Texas 76702 [email protected] APPOINTED RECEIVER

/s/ Mark E. Firmin Mark E. Firmin Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.

The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Sarah Rowell on behalf of Mark Firmin Bar No. 24099614 [email protected] Envelope ID: 106621474 Filing Code Description: Motion Filing Description: Real Party In Interest Vernon Leuschner's, as Durable Power of Attorney for Katherine Leuschner, Motion to Stay the Petition for Writ of Mandamus Status as of 10/8/2025 5:01 PM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Kirk Pittard [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Andrea Mehta 24078992 [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Angus McSwain 13861100 [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Aubrey Williams 21512500 [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT James Dunnam 6258010 [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Craig Cherry 24012419 [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Ryan Johnson 24048574 [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Scott James 24037848 [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Mark Firmin 24099614 [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Mason Dunnam 24108079 [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Hon. Judge Ryan Luna [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Rick Thompson [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Kelly Blackburn [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Michala Quillen 24133047 [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Ashley Snyder [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Kiley Coats [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Sameer AHashmi [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT Sarah Rowell [email protected] 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT