John motion in Texas

2021While the precise legal issue the trial court determined at this stage, per John’s motion, is the viability of the de facto trustee “capacity” in which the Foundation has sued John, the trial court has yet to make the more salient determination of whether John owed the beneficiaries a fiduciary duty—either as a “de facto trustee” or under equitable principles—which is a question of law for the court that turns on the specific facts yet to be developed rather than on the legal capacity in which John was sued, considering that “fiduciary duties are equitable in nature and generally not subject t

2021While the precise legal issue the trial court determined at this stage, per John’s motion, is the viability of the de facto trustee “capacity” in which the Foundation has sued John, the trial court has yet to make the more salient determination of whether John owed the beneficiaries a fiduciary duty—either as a “de facto trustee” or under equitable principles—which is a question of law for the court that turns on the specific facts yet to be developed rather than on the legal capacity in which John was sued, considering that “fiduciary duties are equitable in nature and generally not subject t

2021While the precise legal issue the trial court determined at this stage, per John’s motion, is the viability of the de facto trustee “capacity” in which the Foundation has sued John, the trial court has yet to make the more salient determination of whether John owed the beneficiaries a fiduciary duty—either as a “de facto trustee” or under equitable principles—which is a question of law for the court that turns on the specific facts yet to be developed rather than on the legal capacity in which John was sued, considering that “fiduciary duties are equitable in nature and generally not subject t

2019See Bledsoe Dodge, L.L.C., 279 S.W.3d at 841 .

2019See Batra, 110 S.W.3d at 128 ; Cooper, 65 S.W.3d at 207 .

2019See Batra, 110 S.W.3d at 128 ; Cooper, 65 S.W.3d at 207 .

2015See id Further, John's reliance on Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2005) is misplaced. 7 In addition to the fact that Hallman did not involve a probate case or a claim for attorney's fees under section 149C, the trial court in that case retained jurisdiction over the matter giving rise to the attorney's fees claim.

2013One line of cases provides that a “deed for property from one spouse as grantor to the other spouse as grantee creates a presumption the grantee spouse received the property as separate property by gift.” Magness v. Magness, 241 S.W.3d 910, 912 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (citing Raymond v. Raymond, 190 S.W.3d 77, 81 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Roberts v. Roberts, 999 S.W.2d 424, 432 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, no pet.)).

2013One line of cases provides that a “deed for property from one spouse as grantor to the other spouse as grantee creates a presumption the grantee spouse received the property as separate property by gift.” Magness v. Magness, 241 S.W.3d 910, 912 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (citing Raymond v. Raymond, 190 S.W.3d 77, 81 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Roberts v. Roberts, 999 S.W.2d 424, 432 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, no pet.)).

2013One line of cases provides that a “deed for property from one spouse as grantor to the other spouse as grantee creates a presumption the grantee spouse received the property as separate property by gift.” Magness v. Magness, 241 S.W.3d 910, 912 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (citing Raymond v. Raymond, 190 S.W.3d 77, 81 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Roberts v. Roberts, 999 S.W.2d 424, 432 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, no pet.)).

2013See id. at 317 (“[A] trial court’s ruling on an objection to summary judgment evidence is not implicit in its ruling on the motion for summary judgment; a ruling on the objection is simply not ‘capable of being understood’ from the ruling on the motion for summary judgment.”).

2012See id.

2010McLendon v. McLendon , 847 S.W.2d 601, 610 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1992, writ denied). (4) The trial court properly declined to construe the divorce decree in a manner inconsistent with the Rule 11 Agreement and did not err in denying John's motion to terminate his obligation to pay Diane alimony of $600 per month until December 1, 2016.

2010Clanin v. Clanin, 918 S.W.2d 673, 678 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no writ). 6 court properly declined to construe the divorce decree in a manner inconsistent with the Rule 11 Agreement and did not err in denying John’s motion to terminate his obligation to pay Diane alimony of $600 per month until December 1, 2016.

2008See Bergin v. Bergin, 159 Tex. 83, 88 , 315 S.W.2d 943, 946 (1958).

2008See Bergin v. Bergin, 159 Tex. 83, 88 , 315 S.W.2d 943, 946 (1958).

2006See Contemporary Health Mgmt. , 832 S.W.2d at 747 ; Michna , 534 S.W.2d at 730 .

2001See Till v. Thomas, 10 S.W.3d 730, 733-34 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (holding appellate courts cannot consider documents attached to briefs that do not appear in the appellate record).

1995See Tort Claims Act, § 101.001(2) (West Supp. 1995) ("governmental unit" includes state, its agencies, and political subdivision of state); Brazoria County v. Radtke , 566 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Civ.