Opinion

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

Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Filed: Aug 27, 2015
Status: Published
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 3.1%

the absence of a legal duty to examine deed records bars constructive notice

How later courts described this case

the absence of a legal duty to examine deed records bars constructive notice
charging devisees under a will with constructive notice of all of the ownership of land by the father’s estate

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

ACCEPTED

03-15-00100-CV

6678421

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

8/27/2015 11:28:32 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

NO. 03-15-00100-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN

3rd COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS

AT AUSTIN 8/27/2015 11:28:32 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

Clerk

IN RE THE ESTATE OF EDELL WADE, DECEASED.

JAMES E. WADE,

Appellant,

JOHNNY WADE AND AMANDA WADE, INDIVIDUALLY AND

AMANDA WADE AS THE INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE

ESTATE OF EDELL WADE,

Appellees.

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

APPELLANT’S BRIEF IN REPLY

TO APPELLEES’ BRIEF

RICHIE & GUERINGER, P.C.

SHELDON E. RICHIE

State Bar No. 16877000

EMILY J. SEIKEL

State Bar No. 24072331

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1750

Austin, Texas 78701

512-236-9220 telephone

512-236-9230 facsimile

srichie@rg-austin.com Email

eseikel@rg-austin.com Email

ATTORNEYS FOR JAMES E. WADE

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................3

REPLY TO APPELLEES’ PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................4

REPLY TO APPELLEES’ ARGUMENTS ON ISSUE ONE ...........................10

A. Appellees’ Response Ignored That Bud Had No Legal Duty or Standing

Until 2010 ................................................................................................................ 11

B. The Discovery Rule Does Apply to Bud’s Claims .................................................. 12

C. Bud Did Not Have Notice of His Claims ................................................................. 14

D. The Trial Court’s Summary Judgment was Based on Limitations, and

Limitations Alone .................................................................................................... 16

REPLY TO APPELLEES’ ARGUMENTS ON ISSUE TWO ..........................17

A. Amanda Wade Testified that She Did Not Think About Fairness or Benefit

to Edell ..................................................................................................................... 18

B. The Evidence does Not Support that Edell was Represented by Counsel in

Both Transactions .................................................................................................... 19

C. The Evidence does Not Support that Edell Voluntarily, and with Full

Disclosure, Chose to Sell the Ranch and Chose to Reduce the Principal in

Connection with the Modification ........................................................................... 21

PRAYER .................................................................................................................25

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................................................26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................27

APPENDIX .............................................................................................................28

VERIFICATION....................................................................................................31

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Boucher v. Willis, 236 S.W.2d 519 ..........................................................................11

Chapal v. Vela, 461 S.W.2d 466 ..............................................................................11

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

In re Estate of Herring, 970 S.W.2d 583 .................................................................10

Jordan v. Lyles, 455 S.W.3d 785 .............................................................................24

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

Matter of Estate of Matejek, 928 S.W.2d 742 .........................................................10

Moczygemba v. Moczygemba, -- S.W.3d --, No. 04-14-00110, 2015 WL 704405 .12

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

Stephen County Museum, Inc. v. Swenson, 571 S.W.2d 257 ...................................18

Texas Bank and Trust Co. v. Moore, 595 S.W.2d 502 ............................................18

Vogt v. Warnock, 107 S.W.3d 778 .................................................................... 18, 23

REPLY TO APPELLEES’ PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Appellees’ list of “Bud’s representations vs. the evidence” in their

Preliminary Statement contains inaccuracies. In reply Appellant would show the

following.

2. Alleged misrepresentation #1: Appellees’ evidence does not

controvert Bud’s representations that “Johnny and Amanda Wade were the

clients of Michael Martin,” and that “there is no evidence that [Mrs. Wade]

had the benefit of independent advice.” First, it is an undeniable fact that Mr.

Martin clearly and repeatedly identified Johnny and Amanda as the ‘client’ in the

physical file he created at the time in 2009 and that he was paid for his work on the

Modification by Amanda Wade, not Edell Wade.1 While Michael Martin did

testify at the trial in 2014 that he believed that Edell Wade had been his client, he

also testified that he had considered the Modification a “joint project.”2 Mr.

Martin further confirmed that he could have used the unique file number that he

used for previous work he had done directly for Edell, yet he chose to list Johnny

and Amanda as clients with a separate file number for his work on the

RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 14, 15, 19, 21 [Tab J, Martin & Millican File]; and

SUPP. RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 116:17 – 118:1 [Tab K, Martin Trial Testimony].

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

Modification. 3 He acknowledged that communications on the Modification were

sent directly to Amanda and that Amanda paid for the work.4

3. Mr. Martin’s testimony that he believed he had an obligation to serve

Edell’s interests does not, however, demonstrate that she had “the benefit of

independent advice.” There is absolutely no evidence that Edell Wade was aware

at all of the principal reduction of around $40,000.00, and the Modification

document stated on its face in bold letters that its “SOLE PURPOSE” was

elimination of interest. 5 Mr. Martin’s file entry on the matter stated that the note

was to be modified for either an elimination of interest or reduction of the

principal.6 Mr. Martin could hardly have given independent advice on something

he knew nothing about, and he testified ignorance on the principal reduction. Mr.

Martin testified “I may not have remembered at that time that they even talked

about reducing the balance. And to this day I don’t know if or how much they

reduced it” and that he thought he was reducing the interest to zero. 7 He testified

that he did not scrutinize the numbers as “I really didn’t know what was going on.

It changed two or three times. I really didn’t know and hoped that with the

accountant they would work it out to where everybody was happy,” and “I didn’t

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

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

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

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

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

imagine they wanted my input.”8 Mr. Martin could not have provided any

meaningful independent counsel because he was not cognizant of the fact that a

principal reduction was even occurring as part of the Modification, much less in

what amount.

4. Nor did Edell receive independent counsel from her accountant Lori

Graham. In her testimony Ms. Graham confirmed that the post-it note that advised

her of the elimination of interest had been delivered to her by Amanda Wade with

other documents for her work in 2010 on Edell’s 2009 taxes.9 The post-it note was

written by Amanda Wade several months after the Modification and states that

payments with interest were made only through May, and that Edell “then relieved

us of our interest and changed our note to principal only.” 10 It contains no mention

of a gift or a principal reduction.11 Ms. Graham confirmed that Amanda was her

point of contact and she testified that Edell didn’t actually come in to get her

return, and that she hadn’t spoken with Edell in several years. 12 Ms. Graham

testified that she went off of the information provided to her to prepare Edell’s tax

returns and that she would have needed to know about a forgiveness of debt or gift

SUPP RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 88:12-25 [Tab K, Martin Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 8:6 – 9:20 [Tab M, Lori Graham Trial Testimony].

RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 3 [Tab N, Amanda Wade Note to Lori Graham]; and

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 132 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 3 [Tab N, Amanda Wade Note to Lori Graham]; and

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 132 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 9:12 – 20; 12:15 – 16; 12:2-3 [Tab M, Lori Graham Trial

Testimony].

or other details of a loan restructure but that she did not interview Edell Wade to

get the details.13 Ms. Graham testified that she “probably” spoke with Mr. Martin

but she did not recall the specifics. She stated “I do know that the modification

was not my recommendation.”14

5. Alleged misrepresentation #2: Appellees have not controverted Bud’s

representation that the only hard evidence of communication between Mr. Martin

and Edell is dated after the execution of the Modification.15 Johnny’s self-serving

testimony that he took his mother to Mr. Martin’s office and left the room while

they discussed it is (a) not confirmed by Mr. Martin and (b) was never mentioned

by Johnny Wade or anyone else in prior deposition testimony or other discovery

conducted during more than three years leading up to trial. And, as already

discussed, the terms “Mrs. Wade” and “client” are frequently used in Mr. Martin’s

file to reference Amanda Wade. Mr. Martin did not testify that he spoke with

Edell Wade.

6. Alleged misrepresentation #3: Appellees have not produced any

evidence that Edell wanted the Modification, in particular the $40,000.00 reduction

in principal, other than self-serving testimony from Johnny and Amanda. The

reliable evidence supports the other view: the Modification that Edell signed

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 16:21 – 19:5 [Tab M, Lori Graham Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 21:11 – 24 [Tab M, Lori Graham Trial Testimony].

RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 20 [Tab J, Martin & Millican File].

stated on its face in bold lettering that its “SOLE PURPOSE” was only for the

elimination of interest.16 The testimony of Mr. Martin and Ms. Graham – the

individuals who were not a party to the transaction and who were in a position to

ostensibly implement Edell’s wishes – confirmed that they were not aware of a

principal reduction and did not speak with Edell about a principal reduction.

7. Alleged misrepresentation #4: Appellants claim that Cavness never

rejected the material terms about which Bud complains, but this too is not

supported by the evidence. Amanda herself testified that Mr. Cavness had

questioned the price and also recommended a “regular interest rate.” 17 The

documents show that Amanda reduced the default interest rate from 18% to 12%. 18

8. Alleged misrepresentation #5: The jury was permitted to hear only a

limited testimony on the 2004 sale of the ranch to Johnny and Amanda, and

specifics about the sale were not discussed. Appellant was not able to, for

example, call an expert to appraise the fair market value of the ranch. At trial, in

response to an objection to testimony about the sale, Judge Savage directed counsel

during trial: “So we can’t go into the specific facts of the sale other than to allow

plaintiff to show part of a plan or scheme to defraud her from the beginning.” 19

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

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 57:4-7 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony]; and

CR: 407 [Tab P, Amanda Wade Deposition].

CR: 364 – 380 [Tab Q, Pat Cavness File].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 46 [Tab R, Judge Savage Statement During Trial].

9. Alleged misrepresentation #6: Bud’s testimony at trial is irrelevant to

the legal question that was improperly decided at summary judgment regarding

whether or not he had a duty of reasonable diligence to investigate the terms of the

2004 sale of the ranch (as discussed more fully herein) and whether improper fact-

findings were made at summary judgment prior to trial.

10. Moreover, Bud’s professed vague suspicion did not serve as notice to

toll the limitations period. He attempted to obtain details on the sale of the ranch

from Nancy and was unsuccessful. Nancy Burns testified that Johnny purposefully

decided to conceal the sale from the other siblings before it happened. She recalled

suggesting to him that he notify the other siblings of the sale by letter, but that

“Johnny said no, that the place would not ever sell if they ever found out.”20

Nancy testified that Johnny said he would not send a letter “because he was afraid

that somebody would object and that the place would not sell.” 21 Johnny also

testified that he did not notify other people about the sale or its terms. 22 Amanda

also testified that information on the sale was deliberately not sent to the other

siblings. 23 Bud, a third party who had no duty in terms of diligence, was decidedly

not on notice of its terms and did not find out the terms until the passing of his

mother when, in connection with the administration of her Estate, he had access to

SUPP RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 39:6 – 24 [Tab S, Nancy Burns Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 41:7 – 12 [Tab S, Nancy Burns Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 5 of 6 at 9:23 – 10:5 [Tab T, Johnny Wade Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 141 – 142 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

information previously undisclosed. As he testified, the sale “was all done in

secret.”24 The very existence of conflicting testimony on what Bud could have

known or what he should have done to find out proves the Appellant’s point as to

Issue One – summary judgment was improper because there were disputed issues

of material fact that were for a jury, not a judge, to assess.

REPLY TO APPELLEES’ ARGUMENTS ON ISSUE ONE

11. In their summary judgment arguments to the Trial Court, Appellees

did not meet their “particularly heavy burden” to establish their affirmative defense

of limitations and to either (i) conclusively negate the applicability of the discovery

rule or, if the discovery rule does apply, (ii) conclusively establish that the

limitations was not tolled by showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact

about when Bud discovered or should have discovered through reasonable

diligence, the nature of the injury. Cobb v. TDCJ, 965 S.W.2d 59, 61

(Tex.App.―Houston 1st Dist.] 1998, no writ); Matter of Estate of Matejek, 928

S.W.2d 742 (Tex.App.―Corpus Christi, 1996) writ denied per curiam; In re

Estate of Herring, 970 S.W.2d 583, at 586 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no

pet.) (“Specifically, a defendant seeking summary judgment on the basis of

limitations must prove when the cause of action accrued and, when applicable,

must negate the discovery rule by proving as a matter of law that there no genuine

SUPP RR: Vol. 4 of 6 at 43:23 [Tab U, Bud Wade Trial Testimony].

issue of fact about when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the

nature of the injury.”). Appellees have failed to meet their burden as to both.

A. Appellees’ Response Ignored That Bud Had No Legal Duty or Standing

Until 2010

12. Bud had no duty of reasonable diligence to discover the terms of the

2004 sale of the ranch, nor did he have standing to challenge it, until after the death

of his mother, Edell Wade, in 2010 when he became a beneficiary of her Estate.

Bud was neither a party to the 2004 sale nor a third-party beneficiary. For

purposes of limitations, a person may not be charged with constructive notice of

the actual knowledge discernible from examination of public records unless that

person was “under an obligation to search the records.” Kansa Reinsurance Co. v.

Congressional Mortgage Corp., 20 F.3d 1362, 1370 (5th Cir. 1994); Boucher v.

Willis, 236 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1951) (the absence of a legal

duty to examine deed records bars constructive notice). It was not until Bud

became a beneficiary of the Estate after his mother’s passing that he was charged

with a duty to investigate the contents of the probate records, and he fulfilled that

duty. Mooney v. Harlin, 622 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1981); see also Chapal v. Vela,

461 S.W.2d 466, 470 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1970) (charging devisees

under a will with constructive notice of all of the ownership of land by the father’s

estate).

B. The Discovery Rule Does Apply to Bud’s Claims

13. The evidence of Bud’s injury is “objectively verifiable” and the nature

of his injury is “inherently undiscoverable.” Appellees’ summary judgment

arguments to the Trial Court were insufficient to show otherwise and their current

arguments also fail.

14. The recent case relied upon by Appellees is distinguishable from the

instant case; moreover, it was a fact-specific holding and does not stand for the

general proposition Appellees urge, that “there is no ‘objectively verifiable’

evidence of wrongdoing when a mother sells her ranch to her son and his wife” and

the discovery rule is therefore inapplicable. See page 32 of Appellees’ Brief;

Moczygemba v. Moczygemba, --- S.W.3d ---, No. 04-14-00110, 2015 WL 704405

(Tex.App.—San Antonio, Feb 18, 2015, n.p.h.).

15. Moczygemba addressed a dispute between a living mother (who was

the plaintiff), and her sons, to whom she had transferred real property for below

market value years prior. 2015 WL 704405. She claimed she did not realize that

she had conveyed mineral rights along with the land, despite the fact that the

inclusion of mineral rights was readily apparent on the deeds. After reciting

testimony from the mother about her intentions and the sons’ intentions, the court

found no objectively verifiable evidence of an injury based on the deeds. Id. at *6.

16. In the instant case, there is no available testimony from Edell

regarding her intentions as to the sale of the ranch in 2004. Even if she had a

reason to sell the Ranch at below-market value, there remains objectively

verifiable evidence of injury to her and to Bud individually. The terms of this

seller-financed sale, in addition to the purchase price itself, caused injury to Edell

and to Bud as a beneficiary of her Estate and the Note itself (which was not

recorded) provides objectively verifiable evidence of that. The Note required

Johnny and Amanda to pay Edell – who was 89 years old at the time – $500,000

over a period of 32 years, and at an annual interest rate of two percent (2%). 25 This

meant that Edell would have to live to be 121 years old in order to be fully paid on

the Note. 26 Thus, in lieu of the Ranch – by far the most significant asset in Edell’s

possession – and in lieu of payment for that asset (even a below-market value lump

sum), Edell and her Estate received comparatively insignificant monthly payments

of $1,848 and later just $1,200 (after the Modification in 2009).

17. The injury is also “inherently undiscoverable.” First, Bud had no duty

of reasonable diligence until his mother passed in 2010. Moreover, he nonetheless

did exercise reasonable diligence and could not discover the terms of the Note.

First, the publicly recorded documents did not reveal the purchase price nor the

RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 58-66 [Tab V, Promissory Note].

terms of the Note. 27 Second, Johnny purposefully decided to conceal the sale from

the other siblings before it happened. Nancy Burns testified that she suggested that

the other children be notified of the sale by letter, but that “Johnny said no, that the

place would not ever sell if they ever found out.”28 Nancy testified that Johnny

said he would not send a letter “because he was afraid that somebody would object

and that the place would not sell.”29 Johnny also testified that he did not notify

other people about the sale or its terms. 30 Amanda also testified that information

on the sale was deliberately not sent to the other siblings. 31

18. The discovery rule is applicable.

C. Bud Did Not Have Notice of His Claims

19. The Appellees did not carry their high burden at summary judgment

to conclusively demonstrate that Bud had notice of his claims, and the absence of

any disputed issues of material fact on the issue of notice. Bud’s attempt to obtain

details from Nancy and inability to do so, coupled with Johnny’s intentional

decision not to disclose the terms of the sale, evidences his lack of notice. He

could not have gleaned the details of the Note from the public records because they

were not there.

Appellees incorrectly state that the purchase price of $500,000 was of public record as of

March 2004. The Deed of Trust does not state “purchase price,” rather identifies the

amount of principal that was financed. Tab W, CR 86.

SUPP RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 39:6 – 24 [Tab S, Nancy Burns Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 41:7 – 12 [Tab S, Nancy Burns Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 5 of 6 at 9:23 – 10:5 [Tab T, Johnny Wade Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 141 – 142 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

20. In their current brief, Appellees refer to an interrogatory response

where Bud stated his belief that Johnny and Amanda pressured Edell into selling

the ranch and that they took advantage of her. See page 35 of Appellees’ Brief.

His response does not say he thought that “at the time” of the sale, and is not

evidence of notice.

21. Bud’s testimony at trial is, needless to say, not informative to whether

the Appellees carried their burden as movant in a summary judgment proceeding

conducted prior to trial. Nonetheless, the testimony cited to by Appellees also does

not serve to conclusively establish that he had notice and that the limitations period

cannot be tolled. The recorded documents did not reveal critical information on

the terms of the deal. Johnny and Amanda explicitly testified that they deliberately

did not reveal information to their siblings. 32 Bud testified it was all done in

secret.33 There is no denying that there were material issues of disputed fact on the

issue of notice and reasonable diligence, and disposition by summary judgment

was premature and improper. The Trial Court, as explained in Appellants’ Brief,

made improper findings of fact. 34

SUPP RR: Vol. 5 of 6 at 9:23 – 10:5 [Tab T, Johnny Wade Trial Testimony]; and

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 141 – 142 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 4 of 6 at 43:23 [Tab U, Bud Wade Trial Testimony].

RR: Vol. 2 of 4 at 66, 75 [Tab X, Summary Judgment Hearing Transcript].

D. The Trial Court’s Summary Judgment was Based on Limitations, and

Limitations Alone

22. Appellees’ attempt to argue that the Trial Court granted summary

judgment on grounds in addition to limitations is wrong at best, and disingenuous

at worst. The transcript of the summary judgment hearing and Court’s ruling is in

the appellate record. It is more than clear that the Court’s basis for the ruling was

limitations. At the hearing, Judge Savage asked, noting the period during which

Edell Wade was living after the 2004 sale:

“Why didn’t the son call mom and say, Mom what’s

going on? . . . he was aware of the fact that there was a

sale but didn’t inquire of his mother or anyone else what

the terms of the sale were. If he was so concerned about

all of this, why didn’t he inquire using the - - I’m not

talking about going down and digging through public

records. I’m talking about picking up the phone or

dropping by and saying, what’s going on?” 35

“All right. After hearing the evidence -- and let me just

say this. I know that families, kids and families, may take

advantage of a parent to the detriment of the other kids. I

also know that sons don't want to rock the boat if mama

is happy and bring her into the picture of a possible

conflict between the kids. They want their mom to have a

happy home, happy life. And I don't think that possibly

mom got the best deal, but at the same time mom got

other benefits as a result of this deal. And that is to have

someone at the ranch caring for her. I can understand

why he insisted upon buying the ranch if he was going to

live there and take care of mom. Then that would be in

RR: Vol. 2 of 4 at 66 [Tab X, Summary Judgment Hearing Transcript].

effect, in my mind, a part of the consideration of the sale

of the ranch, was that promise from her son.” 36

23. As pointed out in Appellants’ Brief, this statement is replete with

language that implicates impression, inference, and fact-finding that properly

should be the provenance of the jury. This statement also unequivocally

demonstrates that the basis for the ruling was limitations.

REPLY TO APPELLEES’ ARGUMENTS ON ISSUE TWO

24. The Court instructed the jury that Johnny and Amanda were

fiduciaries to Edell and, as such, they bore the burden to prove that they complied

with their fiduciary duty in connection with the Modification. The instruction to

the jury was that Johnny and Amanda had to prove each and every item of a list of

required conduct. The only way to show compliance with their fiduciary

obligations was to prove by a preponderance of the evidence each of the following:

(a) The transaction in question was fair and equitable to Edell Wade; and

(b) [Johnny and Amanda] made reasonable use of the confidence that Edell

Wade placed in [them]; and

most scrupulous honesty toward Edell Wade; and

(d) [Johnny and Amanda] placed the interests of Edell Wade before [their]

own, did not use the advantage of [their] position to gain any benefit for

[themselves] at the expense of Edell Wade, and did not place

[themselves] in any position where [their] self-interest might conflict

with [their] obligations as a fiduciary. 37

RR: Vol. 2 of 4 at 75 [Tab X, Summary Judgment Hearing Transcript].

CR: 1541, 1543 [Tab Y, Charge to the Court].

[emphasis added.]

25. Texas law applies a presumption of unfairness to transactions between

a fiduciary and a party to whom the fiduciary owes her duties. Texas Bank and

Trust Co. v. Moore, 595 S.W.2d 502 (Tex. 1980). “Critical” to determining

whether there was a breach of fiduciary duty is the ‘determination of whether there

was under the circumstances a good faith effort on the party of [the party claiming

validity] to fully inform [Edell] of the nature and effect of the transactions.” Vogt

v. Warnock, 107 S.W.3d at 778. Both Johnny and Amanda had a duty to ensure

that Edell’s decisions in connection with the Modification were the result of

“voluntary and intelligent consideration.” Stephen County Museum, Inc. v.

Swenson, 571 S.W.2d 257, at 261 (Tex. 1974).

A. Amanda Wade Testified that She Did Not Think About Fairness or

Benefit to Edell

26. Amanda Wade testified that she did not think about the Modification

in terms of fairness.38 She did so despite her awareness that she held a power of

attorney and that she and Edell had a relationship of trust and confidence.39 She

testified that the Modification “obviously benefited me.” 40 She testified that she

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 130:8-9, 139 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 59, 129 – 130, 124 - 125 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial

Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 130:15 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

didn’t consider whether the Modification would be financially beneficial to Edell.41

She acknowledged that Edell received less money as a result of the Modification

and that it benefited herself and Johnny. 42 The payments dropped from $1,848 to

$1,200.43

B. The Evidence does Not Support that Edell was Represented by Counsel

in Both Transactions

27. It is undisputed that Amanda fired Edell’s long-time attorney Pat

Cavness – an attorney whom Edell was paying 44 – in the middle of negotiations

over the sale of the ranch in 2004. Amanda testified that “I did decide not to use

Pat anymore.” 45 She testified she recalled “he questioned the price.” 46 She

testified “I contacted Armbrust & Brown.” 47 Amanda testified further that she

never took Edell to the Armbrust & Brown offices in Austin and that no lawyer

from the firm came out to meet with Edell either.48 She testified that she paid the

legal fees for the Armbrust & Brown deal, and the communications from the firm

were directed to her, not to Edell. 49

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 135[Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 131, 138 - 139[Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 127, 138 – 139 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

CR: 383 [Tab Q, Pat Cavness File].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 55:24 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 57:6-7 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 58:8 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 58:9-23 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 59 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

28. It is telling that Amanda fired Mr. Cavness, who had questions and

suggestions of his own in furtherance of Edell’s interests regarding the sale of the

ranch, and who also wrote a non-representation letter to advise Johnny and

Amanda that he represented Edell’s interests, not theirs. 50 It is also telling that, in

the next transaction spearheaded by Johnny and Amanda – the Modification – they

used an attorney who was happy to plug in the information that they fed him, and

who, despite having a unique file number for Edell he had used in previous legal

work for her, instead used a file number associated with Johnny and Amanda and

named them as the client. 51 Mr. Martin wrote to Johnny and Amanda that “we

have inserted the balance of $227,528.00, reduced the interest rate to zero, and

made the monthly payment $1,200 per Amanda’s phone call of the 28th.” 52

29. Mr. Martin clearly and repeatedly identified Johnny and Amanda as

the ‘client’ in the physical file he created at the time in 2009 and that he was paid

for his work on the Modification by Amanda Wade, not Edell Wade. 53 Michael

Martin testified he had considered the Modification a “joint project.” 54 He

acknowledged that communications on the Modification were sent directly to

CR: 363 [Tab Q, Pat Cavness File].

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

RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 24 [Tab J, Martin & Millican File].

RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 14, 15, 19, 21 [Tab J, Martin & Millican File]; and

SUPP. RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 116:17 – 118:1 [Tab K, Martin Trial Testimony].

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

Amanda and that Amanda paid for the work.55 Mr. Martin could not have

provided Edell with independent counsel because he knew nothing about the

principal reduction: “I may not have remembered at that time that they even talked

about reducing the balance. And to this day I don’t know if or how much they

reduced it” and that he thought he was reducing the interest to zero. 56 “I really

didn’t know what was going on. It changed two or three times. I really didn’t

know and hoped that with the accountant they would work it out to where

everybody was happy,” and “I didn’t imagine they wanted my input.” 57 Mr.

Martin could not have provided any meaningful independent counsel because he

was not cognizant of the fact that a principal reduction was even occurring as part

of the Modification, much less in what amount.

C. The Evidence does Not Support that Edell Voluntarily, and with Full

Disclosure, Chose to Sell the Ranch and Chose to Reduce the Principal

in Connection with the Modification

30. Appellees have not produced any evidence that Edell wanted the

Modification, in particular the reduction in principal, other than self-serving

testimony from Johnny and Amanda. There is absolutely no evidence that Edell

Wade was aware at all of the principal reduction of around $40,000. The reliable

evidence supports the other view: the Modification that Edell signed stated on its

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

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

SUPP RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 88:12-25 [Tab K, Martin Trial Testimony].

face in bold lettering that its “SOLE PURPOSE” was elimination of interest.58

Mr. Martin’s file entry on the matter stated that the note was to be modified for

either an elimination of interest or reduction of the principal. 59

31. Johnny’s self-serving testimony that he took his mother to Mr.

Martin’s office and left the room while they discussed it is (a) not confirmed by

Mr. Martin and (b) was never mentioned by Johnny or anyone else in prior

deposition testimony or other discovery conducted during the more than three

years leading up to trial.

32. Everyone involved in the Modification around the time it was

executed has testified ignorance as to the principal balance at the time. Johnny did

not know what the unpaid balance was at the time. 60 Amanda Wade testified that

she did not know where the modified principal amount came from or how it was

arrived at. 61 The testimony of Mr. Martin and Ms. Graham (Edell’s longtime

accountant) – the individuals who were in a position to ostensibly implement

Edell’s wishes – confirmed that neither of them were aware of a principal

reduction and they did not speak with Edell about a principal reduction.62 There is

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

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

SUPP RR: Vol. 5 of 6 at 16:14 – 16 [Tab T, Johnny Wade Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 130:3-4, 134 – 135 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial

Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 88:12-25, 121:13 – 122:8 [Tab K, Martin Trial Testimony];

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 8:6 – 9:20, 12:15 – 16, 12:2-3, 16:21 – 19:5 [Tab M, Lori

Graham Trial Testimony]; and

no viable way to look at the evidence and find that Edell Wade was provided with

full disclosure on the terms of the Modification when the principal reduction is not

stated on the document and the people involved did not even know what the actual

balance on the Note was, much less how much was reduced.

33. The Appellees assert that Edell was just like the decedent in Vogt v.

Warnock, who “had made the gifts (i) voluntarily, (ii) while competent and (iii)

after talking to an attorney.” See page 44 of Appellees’ Brief. In the instant case

there exists substantiated evidence only for competency, but as previously

outlined, not for the premise that the transactions were made by Edell voluntarily

and after talking to an attorney. While no one has disputed that Edell was of sound

mind, that does not mean she was not unduly influenced to enter into the

Modification, nor does it mean that Johnny and Amanda fulfilled their fiduciary

obligations of ensuring fairness and full disclosure in connection thereto.

34. Edell was increasingly isolated from the world after Johnny and

Amanda moved onto the ranch. Amanda testified that the gate to the ranch was

locked after 2005 and that no key was given to Bud or to his wife Gwen. 63 She

also testified that she had told the family that Edell could no longer host her

birthday parties at the ranch, despite the fact that family gatherings had

traditionally taken place at the ranch and despite the life estate they had ostensibly

RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 3 [Tab N, Amanda Wade Note to Lori Graham].

SUPP. RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 116 - 121 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

granted to Edell. 64 There was no evidence that Edell consulted with Lori Graham,

Michael Martin, or anyone else regarding the details of the Modification. As in

Jordan v. Lyles, “the record contains no evidence that [] anyone [] specifically

discussed” the transaction “and informed [her] of all material facts relating”

thereto. 455 S.W.3d 785, 795 (Tex.App.—Tyler 2015 n.p.h.).

35. Amanda herself testified that the Modification did not benefit Edell

financially, that it benefited herself and Johnny, and that she never thought about

its fairness. 65 Such testimony confirms that she did not fulfill her obligation to

ensure that the Modification was “fair and equitable” to Edell.

36. The evidence simply does not establish that Johnny and Amanda

complied with their obligations to (a) ensure the Modification was fair and

equitable to Edell, (b) make reasonable use of the confidence Edell placed in them,

Edell, and (d) place Edell’s interests above their own, not use their position to their

advantage or to gain any benefit at Edell’s expense, and not place themselves in a

position where their self-interest might conflict with their obligations as

SUPP. RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 121 – 123 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial Testimony].

SUPP RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 129 – 131, 135, 138 - 139 [Tab O, Amanda Wade Trial

Testimony].

fiduciaries. 66 They failed to produce evidence showing they fulfilled their duties;

and in fact the record establishes that they did not.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, James E. Wade prays that this

Court overturn the Summary Judgment Order and the Final Judgment in this case

and remand the case for a new trial. Appellant further prays for such other relief,

whether at law or in equity to which this Court deems he is justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

RICHIE & GUERINGER, P.C.

BY: /s/ Sheldon E. Richie

SHELDON E. RICHIE

State Bar of Texas No. 16877000

Email: srichie@rg-austin.com

EMILY J. SEIKEL

State Bar of Texas No. 24072331

Email: eseikel@rg-austin.com

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1750

Austin, Texas 78701

512-236-9220 telephone

512-236-9230 facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

JAMES E. WADE

CR: 1539-1558 [Tab Y, Charge of the Court and Verdict].

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4, the undersigned

certifies Appellant’s Reply Brief complies with 9.4.

1. Exclusive of the exempted portions in Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure 9.4(i)(1), Appellant’s Reply Brief contains 5,795 words.

2. Appellant’s Reply Brief has been prepared in proportionally spaced

typeface using Microsoft Word Version 2007 in Times New Roman

14 point.

3. The undersigned has provided an electronic version of Appellant’s

Reply Brief.

4. The undersigned understands a material misrepresentation in

completing this certificate, or circumvention of Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure 9.4, may result in the Court’s striking

Appellant’s Reply Brief.

/s/ Emily J. Seikel

Sheldon E. Richie/Emily J. Seikel

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 26th day of August, 2015, a true and

correct copy of the foregoing was served as follows:

Counsel for Appellees

For Johnny Wade and Amanda Wade Individually

Kathryn E. Allen

Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody

401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2200

Austin, Texas 78701

512-480-5651 Telephone

512-480-5851 Facsimile

kallen@gdhm.com Email

For Amanda Wade as Independent Executor

Claude E. Ducloux

Hill, Ducloux, Carnes & De La Garza

400 West 15th Street, Suite 808

Austin, Texas 78701

512-474-7054 Telephone

512-474-5605 Facsimile

cducloux@hdcdlaw.com Email

/s/ Emily J. Seikel

Sheldon E. Richie/Emily J. Seikel

NO. 03-15-00100-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AUSTIN

IN RE THE ESTATE OF EDELL WADE, DECEASED.

JAMES E. WADE,

Appellant.

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS 67

OF RECORD EXHIBITS ACCOMPANYING

APPELLANT’S BRIEF IN REPLY TO APPELLEES’ BRIEF

NO. TITLE OF DOCUMENT

Tab J. Martin & Millican File 68

Tab K. Michael Martin Trial Testimony 69

Tab L. Modification Agreement 70

Tab M. Lori Graham Trial Testimony 71

Tab N. Amanda Wade Note to Lori Graham72

Tab O. Amanda Wade Trial Testimony 73

Tab P. Amanda Wade Deposition Testimony (Excerpts) 74

Tab Q. Pat Cavness File75

Tab R. Statement by Judge Savage During Trial 76

Tab S. Nancy Burns Trial Testimony 77

Tab T. Johnny Wade Trial Testimony 78

Tab U. Bud Wade Trial Testimony 79

Tab V. Promissory Note 80

Tab W. Deed of Trust81

The Appendix to Appellant’s Brief is hereby incorporated herein by reference and, for

ease of reading, the instant Appendix begins with the next available Tab designation.

RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 14-86

SUPP. RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 78-131

RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 39-46

SUPP. RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 7-21

RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 3

SUPP. RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 22-230

CR: 407

CR: 347-387

SUPP. RR: Vol. 3 of 6 at 45

SUPP. RR: Vol. 2 of 6 at 7-77

SUPP. RR: Vol. 5 of 6 at 7-74.

SUPP. RR: Vol. 4 of 6 at 30-65.

RR: Vol. 3 of 4 at 58-66

CR: 86-100

NO. TITLE OF DOCUMENT

Tab X. Statements by Judge Savage During Summary Judgment Hearing 82

Tab Y. Charge of the Court and Verdict 83

RR: Vol. 2 of 4

CR: 1539-1558

NO. 03-15-00100-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AUSTIN

IN RE THE ESTATE OF EDELL WADE, DECEASED.

JAMES E. WADE,

Appellant.

VERIFICATION

Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared Emily J.

Seikel, the affiant, a person whose identity is known to me. After I administered

an oath to affiant, affiant testified:

1. "My name is Emily J. Seikel. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and

capable of making this affidavit. I am an attorney for Appellant James E.

Wade. The facts in this affidavit are within my personal knowledge and are

true and correct.

2. "I certify and verify that I have reviewed the Appellant's Reply Brief and

concluded that every factual statement in the Reply Brief is supported by

competent evidence included in the appendix or record, and that the items

contained in the Appendix are accurate copies of documents from the Clerk

and Reporter's Records that are material to the Appellant's Brief.

~/) ~)~.

Emily J. SeikelJ

STATE OF TEXAS §

TRAVIS COUNTY §

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on this the 26th day of August

2015, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office .

. .~~"j!i:~1:f,~~;··.. M L STEVENSON Notary Public In and For State of Texas

{:!

'ui.'

\~ i

NOTARY PUBLIC

state of Texas

•.,,

\ 1 ;;;.....~+Y

"• •••iaf...." Comm. Exp. 06-20-2016

03-15-00100-CV

1 REPORTER'S RECORD

2 VOLUME 3 OF 4 VOLUMES

FILED IN

3rd COURT OF APPEALS

3 CAUSE NO: P9127/COURT OF APPEALS NO: 03-15-00100-CV

AUSTIN, TEXAS

3/18/2015 10:35:27 AM

4 IN THE MATTER OF IN THE COUNTY COURT

JEFFREY D. KYLE

Clerk

5 THE ESTATE OF AT LAW

6 EDELL WADE BURNET COUNTY, TEXAS

11 EXHIBITS

16 On the 11th day of April, 2014, the foregoing

17 proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and

18 numbered cause before the HONORABLE RANDY SAVAGE, Judge

19 presiding at Burnet, Burnet County, Texas.

20 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype

21 machine.

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 1 of 86

1 EXHIBIT INDEX

2 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits:

3 NUMBER DESCRIPTION OFFERED RECEIVED VOL

4 7 Payments made (trial not transcribed)

5 9 Power of Attorney (trial not transcribed)

6 11 Modification Agreement (trial not transcribed)

7 38 File from Michael Martin(trial not transcribed)

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 2 of 86

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 14 of 86

WORK ORDER

ATTORNEY: ~M DATE: 4- I'I.- D'

Client: :;;:t=:(,. u"" '1---~..t.r..&?.c.._-=«._,.('-",_"!!J!fE-,___ __

0 Address: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .....•. _ __ --- -- - -

Phone Numbers: Home _ _ _ _ _ _ BuslnoH: - - - - - - Other: _ __

File Name:

Fee Arrangement: - - - -

Date:

'-1-lt.-~_y_

_,·, ---;;; - ,--{ -

- . 7, •f '

. '- .,(.• ~:--!. \ i/ >f. (

.... t ''

L .' .. ·

- ; .(

·l{ I

~ "'

l ?

-· -

---------- ·-- -..--------------- - - -- ·

- - - - - - -·- - - - ------ ---- . ---- - ________ _____.. _.. ... ....... -· ----- ., __ _

- - --- ----·---

----------------------..-·-- -- --- ..

- ·- - - -· --- ---------------

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 15 of 86

0 0 0

...

MARTIN, MILLICAN, HENDERSON & SHRUM

AITORNEYS AT LAW

512 EAST FOURTH STREET

LAMPASAS, TEXAS 76550

512/556-6228

Re: 16,163/MMM/Wade Date: January 31, 2012

Enclosed is original Record of Examination on Written Questions on the Wade matter.

MR EVAN STUBBS

ATTORNEY AT LAW

202 NORTH PORTER

LAMPASAS TX 765650

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 16 of 86

1 1 * Conunica.tion Result Report ( Ja.n.25. 2012 1:59PM l 111 * *

~~ M.a.r t 1 t• & Mi I l i ~.,,.

Da.:e/Time: Ja.n. 25. 2~12 1:59PM

F. I e Pase

No. Mode Dest i na.t ion pg (s) Resul: Not Sent

9615 Memory TX 5568975 P. 4 OK

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reaaon for error

~: jl ~:":"~!.~r 1 ine f&i' t ~~

Bua!f

No •acai"' ' ' • connec~ion

li.5) E•c:eeded ma-.. E-m•ll ailte

-:=...---~=-~~="?:r=:-:::t:~

::-..::.~==:.::-.:::--=::.-:.., ........... .......

_____ .. _,. _ _..."1_"'1_.

-...~ ........ - . . . . . . . . . JoMe ....

_ _...a...,_....

-· 0

Z:IIIZ'IIZ_,.

._,.

---

:al.lld'IIII-:J

..=----.......

,...

.U'WI

:puN

IIZZIHBI!:III ::1ND1W

_.__.'IN:IrTWI_

DllftLIU.__.,

·a HDII'1D.I .I.IIVll z:1o

MV'I~V IIAliNWO.U.V

IIWIWI'W 'EMI:JD'I 'I'«JJIJ

-- :w:u.v

MVl~"'~"'

-1\lai«I\J-- -

XY:I

. ..

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 17 of 86

Stuhh" 202 N. PORI ERST• • LAMPASAS, T EXAS 76550

.1\\ ( )ill~._~ c· PHONE: (512) !55&8970 • FAX: (512) 55&897!5

0 I' I I . < . www.stubbslawofllce.com

January 17. 2012

Mike Martin

Attorney at Law

512 E. Fourth Street

Lampasas, Texas 76550

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

70101870000175742990

Re: Estate of Edell Wade, Deceased; Cause No. P9127. in the CO\mty Court at

Law ofBmnct County, Texas

Dear Mike:

Enclosed you a Notice of Intention to Take Written Deposition directed to you.

Please forward the answers back to my office after answering before a Notary Public.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

0 ES/jjb

Encl: 1. Notice oflntention to Take Written Deposition ofMichae1 Martin

Cc: Amanda Wade

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 18 of 86

MARTIN & MILLICAJ

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

512 E FOURTH STREET

0 LAMPASAS, TEXAS 76550

(!512) 556-6228

(512) 556-8621

PAGENO 1

June 15, 2009

Account No. 16163-00

MR. & MS. JOHNNY WADE

REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED

RE: MODIFICATION OF NOTE

HOURS

04/16/2009 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH CLIENT 0.40 68.00

04/30/2009 TELEPHONE CALL TO LORI GRAHAM 0.03 5 .10

TELEPHONE CALL FROM CLIENT o.oe 10.20

05/06/2009 TELEPHONE CALL TO LORI GRAHAM 0.03 5 .10

0511312009 TELEPHONE CALL TO LORI GRAHAM 0.06 10.20

05/14/2009 TELEPHONE CALL FROM AMANDA WADE 0.03 5.10

05/26/2009 TELEPHONE CALL FROM AMANDA WADE 0.08 1020

PREPARED MODIFICATION AGREEMENT 125.00

06/15/2009 PREPARED LEn"ER TO CLIENT; COPY TO HOLDER 0.12 20.40

FOR CURRENT SERVICES RENDERED

0.79

- -

259.30

06/0212009 PAID TO BURNET CO. CLERK CK #18984 40.00

TOTAL EXPENSES 40.00

TOTAL CURRENT WORK 299.30

BALANCE DUE $299.30

Please Remit $299.30

THANK YOU

TAB J REDACTED

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 19 of 86

0 0 0

)

MARTIN & MILLICAN

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

512 EAST FOURTH STREET

LAMPASAS, TEXAS 76550

5121556-6228

Re: 16, 163/MMM/Wade Date: June 15, 2009

Enclosed is original recorded Modification Agreement for your files. A copy has been sent to Johnny and

Amanda Wade.

...

MS EDELL WADE

REDACTED

TAB J REDACTED

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 20 of 86

0 0 0

MARTIN & MILLICAN

ATIORNEYS AT LAW

512 EAST FOURTH STREET

LAMPASAS, TEXAS 76550

512/556-6228

Re: 16,163/MMMJWade Date: June 15, 2009

Enclosed are copy of recorded Modification Agreement the original of which has been sent to Edell Wade

and your file regarding this matter which you left with us. Also enclosed is a bill for services. Thank you.

,...

MR AND MRS JOHNNY WADE

REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED

&..

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86 REDACTED

Page 21 of 86

BURNET COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE

0 220 SOUTH PIERCE STREET

BURNET, TX 78611

512-756-5406

ISSUED TO: MARTIN & MILLICAN

RECEIPT#: 109611 DATE: 06/0912009 10:01:48 AM

DEPARTMENT:OPR WORK STATION: KGRIMES

DOCUMENT # PGS FEE

2009051.93 7

MOD 40.00

rm:mrrm

Total Amount Due 40.00

CHECK 1.8984 40.00

====-=====-=======--=====-==-~=---==-==

Total Amount Paid 40.00

THANK YOU

JANET PARKER

COUNTY CLERK

Deputy: KGRIMES

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 22 of 86

0 0 0

MARTIN & MILLICAN

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

512 E. FOURTH ST.

LAMPASAS, TEXAS 76550

5121556-6228

Re: FN: 16,163- MODIFICATION AGREEMENT/EDELL WADE/JOHNNY & AMANDA WADE June 2, 2009

Please record the above document and return to this office. We are enclosing our check #18984

in the amount of $40.00.

,..

Ms. Janet F. Parker

. . Burnet Co. Clerk

220 S. Pierce St.

Burnet, Tx 78611

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 23 of 86

0 MARTIN & MILLICAN

ATlORNEYS AT lAW

012 eAIS'I FOUimi8TREET

~ _TeXA&7MI50

. "'. . . .

MICHAELM. MARTIN 1ELS12~28

PATMiwcAN FAXS12-e5&8821

""!"'~!"--··

May26,2009

Mr. Johnny Wade

REDACTED

Re: Modification Agreement

Ale No. 16,163

Dear Johnny:

Enclosed yQU wm find the .Modlfk:ation Agreement on the nota to·your mother in which we

have Inserted the balance of$227 ,528.00, reduced the intereet rate to zero, and made the

monthly payment $1,200 per Amanda'a phone call of the 26". If this ia satiafactory, each

of you should sign as yoUr names are typed_, have notarized. and return-for recording with

the Burnet County Clerk. If you would like us to notarize, each/all ~fyou can come by with

the Modification and sign hera. Also enclosed ia an amortization achedult!J on the mocftfled

note. If you have any additional changes, please let me know. Thank you.

0 Sincerely yours,

Michael M. Martin

MMM:bp

Enclosures

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86 REDACTED

Page 24 of 86

•NO':'E FROM

JOHNNY WADE AND A~NDA WADE

0 •

T0 . EDELL WADE

PREPARED B'i:

~~RTIN & MILLICAN

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

512 EAST FOURTH ST.

LAMPASAS, TX 76550

Amount Loan Loan Firat Pmt

Borrowed Date Rate% Date nt Polnta

227,5211 ool 5113120091 o.ooool 81112ooel 1.20o.ool ,. '·· I

Interest Prine pal Principal Interest

It Date This Period This Period New Balance To Date

1 6/ 1/09 o.oo 1,200.00 226,328.00 0.00

2 7/ 1/09 0.00 1,200.00 225,128.00 0.00

3 8/ 1/09 0.00 1,200.00 223,928.00 0.00

4 9/ 1/09 o.oo 1,200.00 222,728.00 0.00

5 10/ 1/09 o.oc 1,200.00 221,528.00 0.00

6 11/ 1/09 0.00 1,200.00 220,328.00 0.00

7 12/ 1/09 0.00 1,200.00 219,128.00 0.00

Subtotal.: 0.00 8,400.00 219,128.00 0.00

e 1/ 1/10 0.00 1,200.00 217,928.00 o.oo

9 21 1/lO o.oo 1,200.00 216,728.00 0.00

10 3/ 1/::.0 o.oc 1,200.00 215,528.00 0.00

11 4/ 1/10 0.00 1,200 . 00 214,328.00 0 . 00

12 5/ 1/10 0.00 1,200.00 213,128.00 0.00

13 6/ 1/10 0.00 1,200.00 211,928.00 0.00

14 7/ 1/10 0.00 1,200.00 210,728.00 0.00

15 8/ 1/10 o.oc 1,200.00 209,528.00 0.00

16 9/ 1/10 o.oc 1,200.00 208,328.00 0.00

17 10/ 1/10 0.00 1,200.00 207,128.00 o.oc

18 11/ 1/10 0.00 1,200.00 205,928.00 o.oc

19 12/ 1/10 o.oo 1,200.00 204,728.00 o.oc

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: o.oo 14,400.00 204,728.00 0.00

20 1/ 1/11 0.00 1,200.00 203,528.00 0.00

21 2/ 1/11 0.00 1,200.00 202,328 . 00 0.00

22 3/ 1/11 0.00 1,200.00 201,128.00 0.00

23 4/ 1/11 o.oo 1,200.00 199,928.00 0.00

24 5/ ) /11 0.00 1,200.00 198,728.00 0.00

25 6/ 1/11 0.00 1,200 . 00 197,528.00 o.oo

26 7/ 1/11 0.00 1,200.00 196,328.00 0.00

27 8/ 1/11 0.00 1,200.00 195,128.00 0.00

28 9/ 1/11 o.oo 1,200 . 00 193,928.00 0.00

29 10/ 1/11 0.00 1,200 . 00 192,728.00 o.oo

30 11/ 1/11 o.oo 1,200.00 191,528.00 0.00

31 12/ 1/11 0.00 1,200.00 190,328.00 0.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SubLoLa1: 0.00 14,400.00 190,328.00 0.00

32 1/ 1/12 0.00 1,200.00 189,128.00 0.00

33 2./ 1/12 0 . 00 1,;wo . oo 187,928.00 0.00

34 3/ 1/12 0.00 1,200.00 186,728.00 0.00

35 4/ 1/12 0.00 1,200.00 185,528.00 0.00

36 5/ 1/12 0.00 1,200.00 184,328.00 0.00

37 6/ 1/12 0.00 1,200.00 183,128.00 0.00

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 25 of 86

Intel. ~r:: Principal Princi~. Interest

u Date This Period This Period New Balance To Date

38 7/ 1/12 o.oo 1,200.00 :!.81,928.00 o.oo

0 39

4.1

10/

11/

1/12

0.00

1,200.00

180,728.00

179,528.00

178,328.00

177,128.00

0.00

43 12/ 1/12 0.00 1,200.00 175,928.00 0.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: o.oo 14,400.00 175,928.00 0.00

44 1/ 1/13 0.00 1,200.00 1.74,7::!8.00 0.00

45 2/ 1/13 0.00 1,200.00 173,528.00 0.00

46 3/ 1/13 0.00 1,200.00 172,328.00 0.00

47 4/ 1/13 o.oo 1,200.00 171,128.00 0.00

'18 5/ 1/13 o.oo 1,200.00 169,928.00 0.00

49 6/ 1/13 0.00 1,200.00 168,728.00 o.oo

50 7/ 1/13 0.00 1,200.00 167,528.00 0.00

51 6/ 1/13 0.00 1,200.00 166,328.00 0.00

52 9/ 1/13 0.00 1,200.00 165,128.00 0.00

53 10/ 1/13 0.00 1,200.00 163,928.00 0.00

54 11/ 1/13 0.00 ],200.00 162,728.00 0.00

55 12/ 1/13 0.00 1,200.00 161,528.00 0.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: 0.00 14,400.00 161,528.00 o.oo

56 1/ 1/14 0.00 1,200.00 160,328.00 0.00

57 21 1/14 0.00 1,200.00 159,128.00 0.00

58 3/ 1/14 0.00 1,200.00 157,928.00 o.oo

59 4/ 1/14 o.oo 1,200.00 156,728.00 o.oo

60 5/ 1/14 0.00 1,200.00 155,528.00 0.00

61 6/ 1/14 0.00 1,200.00 154,328.00 0.00

62 7/ 1/14 0.00 1,200.00 153,128.00 0.00

63 8/ 1/14 0.00 1,200.00 151,928.00 0.00

64 9/ 1/14 0.00 1,200.00 150,728.00 0.00

65 10/ 1/H 0.00 1,200.00 149,528.00 0.00

66 11/ 1/14 0.00 1,200.00 148,328.00 0.00

67 12/ 1/14 0.00 1,200.00 147,128.00 0.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: 0.00 14,400.00 147,128.00 o.oo

68 1/ 1/15 c.oo 1,200.00 145,928.00 0.00

0 69

21 1/15

3/ 1/15

4/ 1/1!)

5/ 1/15

0.00

c.oo

1,200.00

144,728.00

143,528.00

142,328.00

141,128.00

0.00

o.oo

73 6/ 1/15 c.oo 1,200.00 139, 928.00 0.00

74 7/ 1/15 o.oo 1,200.00 138,728.00 0.00

75 8/ 1/15 o.oo 1,200.00 137,528.00 0.00

76 9/ 1/15 0.00 1,200.00 136,328.00 o.oo

77 lC/ 1/15 0.00 1,200.00 135,128.00 0.00

78 11/ 1/15 0.00 1,200.00 133,928.00 o.oo

79 12/ 1/15 0.00 1,200.00 132,728.00 0.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SubtotAl: o.nn 14,400.00 132,728.00 0.00

80 1/ 1n6 0.00 1,200.00 131,528.00 0.00

81 21 1/16 o.oo 1,200.00 130,328.00 0.00

92 3/ 1/16 0.00 1,200.00 129,128.00 0.00

83 4/ 1/16 0.00 1,200.00 127,928.00 o.oo

84 5/ 1/16 0.00 1,200.00 126,728.00 0.00

85 6/ 1/16 0.00 1,200.00 125,528.00 0.00

96 7/ 1/16 0.00 1,200.00 124,328.00 0.00

97 8/ 1/16 0.00 1,200.00 123,128.00 0.00

89 9/ 1/16 0.00 1,200.00 121,928.00 0.00

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 26 of 86

Intel. Jt E>rincipal Princi1--- Interest

.llfl Date This Period This Period New Balance To Date

89 10/ l/16 0.00 1,200.00 120,728.00 o.oo

0 90

Subtotal:

11/ 1/16

12/ 1/16

0.00

14,400.00

1,200.00

118,328.00

119,528.00

118,328.00

o.oo

0.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

92 1/ 1/17 0.00 1,200.00 117,128.00 0.00

93 2/ 1/17 0.00 1,200.00 115,928.00 0.00

94 3/ 1/17 0.00 1,200.00 114,728.00 0.00

95 4/ 1/17 0.00 1,200.00 113,528.00 0.00

96 5/ 1/17 0.00 1,200.00 112,328.00 0.00

97 6/ 1/17 0.00 1,200.00 111,128.00 0.00

98 7/ 1/17 0.00 1,200.00 109,928.00 0.00

99 8/ 1/17 0.00 1,200.00 108,728.00 0.00

100 9/ 1/17 o.oo 1,200.00 107,528.00 0.00

101 10/ 1/17 0.00 1,200.00 106,328.00 0.00

102 11/ 1/17 0.00 1,200.00 105,128.00 0.00

103 12/ 1/17 0.00 1,200.00 103,928.00 o.oo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: 0.00 14,400.00 103,928.00 o.oo

104 1/ 1/18 0.00 1,200.00 102,728.00 0.00

10!:1 21 1/18 o.oo 1,200.00 101,528.00 0.00

106 3/ 1/18 o.oo 1,200.00 100,328.00 0.00

107 4/ 1/18 0.00 1,200.00 99,128.00 0.00

108 5/ 1/18 0.00 1,200.00 97,928.00 0.00

109 6/ 1/18 0.00 1,200.00 96,728.00 0.00

110 7/ 1/18 o.oo 1,200.00 95,528.00 o.oo

111 8/ 1/18 o.oo 1,200.00 94,328.00 o.co

112 9/ 1/18 0.00 1,200.00 93,128.00 0.00

113 10/ 1/18 0.00 1,200.00 91,928.00 0.00

114 11/ 1/18 0.00 1,200.00 90,728.00 0.00

115 12/ 1/18 0.00 1,200.00 89,528.00 0.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: 0.00 14,400.00 89,528.00 0.00

116 1/ 1/19 0.00 1,200.00 88,328.00 o.co

117 2/ 1/l!) 0.00 1,200.00 87,128.00 0.00

118 3/ 1/19 o.co 1,200.00 85,928.00 0.00

119 4/ 1/19 0.00 1,200.00 84,728.00 0.00

0 120

121

], ?.2

123

1/19

o.co

0.00

1,200.00

1,:?.00.00

1,200.00

83,528.00

82,328.00

81,128.00

79,928.00

0.00

124 9/ 1/19 o.co 1,200.00 78,728.00 0.00

125 10/ 1/19 0.00 1,200.00 77,528.00 0.00

126 11/ 1/19 o.co 1,200.00 76,328.00 0.00

127 12/ 1/19 0.00 1,200.00 75,128.00 o.oo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: 0.00 14,400.00 75,128.00 o.oo

128 1/ 1/20 0.00 1,200.00 73,928.00 0.00

129 2/ 1/20 o.oo 1,200.00 72,728.00 0.00

130 3/ 1/20 0.00 1,200.00 71,528.00 0.00

131 4/ 1/20 0.00 1,200.00 70,328.00 0.00

132 5/ 1/20 0.00 1,200.00 69,128.00 0.00

133 6/ 1/20 0.00 1,200.00 67,928.00 0.00

134 7/ 1/20 o.oo 1,200.00 66,728.00 0.00

135 8/ 1/20 0.00 1,200.00 65,528.00 0.00

136 9/ 1/20 0.00 1,200.00 6(,328.00 0.00

137 10/ 1/20 0.00 1,200.00 63,128.00 0.00

138 11/ 1/20 0.00 1,200.00 61,928.00 0.00

139 12/ l/20 0.00 1,200.00 60,728.00 o.oo

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 27 of 86

Inte. t: Principal PrinciJ,. Interest

u Date This Period This Period New Balance To Date

. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 Subtotal:

1/21

0.00 14,400.00

0.00

60,728.00

1,200.00

59,528.00

58,328.00

0.00

H2 3/ 1/21 o.oo 1,200.00 57,128.00 0.00

143 4/ 1/21 0.00 1,200.00 55,928.00 0.00

H4 5/ 1/21 0.00 1,200.00 54,728.00 0.00

H5 6/ 1/21 0.00 1,200.00 53,528.00 0.00

H6 7/ 1/21 0.00 1,200.00 52,328.00 o.oo

147 8/ 1/21 o.oo 1,200.00 51,128.00 0.00

148 9/ 1/21 0.00 1,200.00 49,928.00 o.oo

149 10/ 1/21 0.00 1,2CO.OO 48,728.00 0.00

150 11/ 1/21 0.00 1,200.00 47,528.00 0.00

15: 12/ 1/21 0.00 1,200.00 46,328.00 0.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: 0.00 14,400.00 46,328.00 0.00

152 1/ 1/22 0.00 1,200.00 45,128.00 0.00

153 21 1/22 0.00 1,200.00 43,928.00 0.00

154 3/ 1/22 0.00 1,200.00 42,728.00 0.00

155 4/ 1/22 0.00 1,200.00 41,528.00 0.00

156 5/ 1/22 0.00 1,200.00 40,328.00 o.oo

157 6/ 1/22 0.00 1,200.00 39,129.00 0.00

158 7/ 1/22 0.00 1,200.00 37,928.00 0.00

159 8/ 1/22 0.00 1,200.00 36,728.00 0.00

160 9/ 1/22 o.oo 1,200.00 35,528.00 0.00

161 10/ 1/22 0.00 ::..,200.00 34,329.00 0.00

162 11/ 1/22 0.00 :,200.00 33,129.00 0.00

163 12/ 1/22 0.00 1,200.00 31,928.00 0.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal.: 0.00 14,400.00 31,928.00 0.00

164 1/ 1/23 o.oo 1,200.00 30,729.00 0.00

165 2/ 1/23 0.00 1,200.00 29,528.00 0.00

166 3/ 1/23 0.00 1,200.00 28,328.00 o.oo

167 4/ 1/23 o.oo 1,200.00 27,128.00 0.00

168 5/ l/23 o.oo 1,200.00 25,929.00 0.00

169 6/ 1/23 0.00 1,200.00 24,728.00 o.oo

170 7/ 1/23 0.00 1,200.00 23,528.00 0.00

0 171

172

173

174

10/

11/

1/23

11'3

0.00

1,200.00

22,328.00

21,128.00

19,928.00

18,728.00

0.00

o.oo

0.00

1'7!) 12/ 1/23 0.00 1,200.00 17,528.00 o.oo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: 0.00 14,400.00 17,528.00 c.oo

176 1/ 1/24 0.00 1,200.00 16,328.00 0.00

177 ')/ 1/24 0.00 1,200.00 15,128.00 0.00

l. "/8 3/ 1/24 0.00 1,200.00 13,928.00 0.00

179 IJ/ 1/24 o.oo 1,200.00 12,728.00 0.00

160 5/ 1/24 0.00 1,200.00 11,528.00 o.oo

161 6/ 1/24 0.00 1,200.00 10,329.00 0.00

182 7/ 1/24 0.00 1,200.00 9,128.00 o.oo

183 8/ 1/24 0.00 1,200.00 7,928.00 o.oo

18< S/ 1/24 0.00 1,200.00 6,728.00 0.00

185 1C/ 1/24 0.00 1,200.00 5,528.00 0.00

186 11/ 1/24 0.00 1,200.00 4,328.00 0.00

187 12/ 1/24 0.00 1,200.00 3,128.00 0.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: 0.00 14,400.00 3,128.00 0.00

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 28 of 86

Inte:L -t Principal PrinciJ..-- Interest

H Date This Period This Period New Balance To Date

,i .

188 1/ 1/25 0.00 1,200.00 1,928.00 0.00

189 2/ 1/25 0.00 1,200.00 728.00 0.00

190 31 1/25 0.00 728.00 0.00 0.00

Subtotal: 0.00 3,128.00 o.oo 0.00

Final payment amount: 728.00

Tota.!. payments: 227,528.00 Principal: 227,528.00 Interest: 0.00

SetLings: 360 Arr PrePd 1950 12 perYr

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 29 of 86

0 0 0

MARTIN & MILLICAN

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

512 EAST FOURTH STREET

LAMPASAS, TEXAS 76550

512/556-6228

Re: 16, 163/MMM/Wade Date: May 13, 2009

Enclosed is draft of proposed Modification Agreement. Please look this over carefully and let me know if

changes are needed. If it is correct as it stands you may bring it by the office to sign and have notarized.

,...

MR AND MRS JOHNNY WADE

REDACTED

TAB J REDACTED

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 30 of 86

N0'11E: rROM

,JOHNNY "ADE ~D AMANDA WADE

TO E:DE:LL WA:lE

(

0 PR1'.PARED BY:

MAR?IN & MILLICAN

ATTOR:-.IEYS AT lAW

0.12 k:AS'f FO"JR'IH ST. --.. I

l.Af\IPASAS, TX "165':>0

., Amount

Bonowed

soo.oooool

lHI

LOan

Date

21tl20081

Loan

o.o:zaof

Interest

This Period

Flliii Pint

Dale

:vtl2008!

iDf

Pcia

Pr1.ncipa1

This Period

:rnl

:=;Pmi

'lerwn•l =

Pr1nc pal

New Bal.ance

t!J

.,.._.

1.1141. 1~

nterest

To Date

Palnt8 APR%

1 J/ 1/06 8.33 1,839.77 498,160.23 8.33

2 41 1106 8.30. 1,839.80 496,320.43 16.63

j ':>I .l/06 8.27 1,839.83 494,480.60 24.90

4 6i l/06 8.24 1,839.86 492,640.74 33.14

5 ., '

• I 1/06 8.21 1,839.89 490,800.85 41.35

6 81 1/06 9.18 1,839.92 .,85,960.93 49.53

7 91 1106 !!.15 1,839.95 487,120.98 57.68

8 : OI 1/06 6 .12 1,839.98 485,281.00 65.80

9 :11 1/06 8.09 1,840.01 483,440.99 "73.89

10 "?/ l/C6 8.06 1,840.04 481,600.95 81.95

Subt otal: 81.9S 18,399.05 481,600.95 61.9!)

ll l/ 1107 IL03 1,840.07 479,760.88 89. qa

12 2/ 110 "1 t!.OO 1,840.10 477,920.78 97.98

1.3 3 / lt0 7 i . 97 1,840.13 476,080.65 10':> . 95

14 .j/ 1/07 7.93 1,840.17 474,240.48 1:3.88

15 5/ 1/07 7.90 1,840.20 472,400.28 121.78

16 6/ 1/07 7.87 1,840.23 470,560.05 129.65

17 7/ 1/07 7.84 1,840.26 468,719.79 137.49

18 8/ 1/07 7.81 1,840.29 466,879.50 145.30

19 9/ 1/07 7.78 1,840.32 465,039.18 153.08

20 :ot 1/07 7.75 1,840.35 463,198.83 160.83

:.n

~ 1/ li07 7.72 1,840.38 461,358.45 168.55

22 :21 l/0"1 7.69 1,840.41 459,518.04 1"76.24

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Su:::-t:otal: 94.29 22,082.91 45!:t,!J18.04 116.24

2 ., l/ 1/08 7.66 1,840.44 . 457, 677. 60 183.90

24 2/ l/08 7.63 1,840.47 455,837.13 191.53

25 3/ 1/08 .,7.60 1,840.50 453,996.63 199.13

4/ 1/0il .57 1,840.53 206.70

7.6

~7 5/ l/08 ., .54 1,840.56

452,156.10

450,315.54 2:4.24

28 6/ l/08 "! .51 1,840.59 448, •174. 95 221.75

29 7/ 1/08 "7.47 1,840.63 446,634.32 229.22

~() P.l 1/08 ., .44 1,840.66 444,793.66 236.66

'ill 1108

~I)/

:11 1/08

l/08

7.41

i • jf:l

.,, .35

1,840.69

1,840.72

1,840.75

·441. 952. 9":'

441,112.25

439,2"11.50

?44.07

2!>1.45

<1~8.80

·1·1 i.21 1/08 ·1. 32 1,840.78 437,430.72 266.12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S'.&01:.otal; B9.e8 22,087.32 437,430.72 266.12

35 1/ 1/09 7.29 1,840.81 435,589.91 273.41

36 21 lt09 "'.26 1,840.84 433,749.07 280.67

37 3/ 1/09 7.23 1,840.87 431,908.20 287.90

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 31 of 86

4/ 1/09

Date

lnter<a--

Thj..s Period

7.20

Principal

This Period

1,840.90

Princi·pa~

New Bal.ance

430,067.30

Interest

To Date

295.10

0 -~..9

£/ 1/09

7/ 1/09

l/Q9

l/C9

"i, 17

7.14

7.1:

7,08

1.840193

1,84()196

1,840199

1,941102

428,226.•-37

426,385.41

424,544.42

422,703.40

302.27

3o9.c

316.52

323.60

43 <::I 1/09 7105 1,841105 420,862.35 330.65

44 10/ l/C9 110:. 1,941.09 419,021.26 337.66

45 ::.1/ 1/C9 6.98 1,841.12 417,180.14 344.64

46 :..21 1/C!l 6195 1,941.15 415,338.9.9 351.59

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subt:o:al: 35.47 22,091.73 415,338.99 351.59

4.7 1/ 1/10 6~92 1,841.19 413,497.81 338.5~

48 '2.1 1/10 6189 1,941~21 411,656.60 365.-'0

49 31 1/10 6186 1,841.24 409,815.36 372.26

!:0 4./ 1110 6~83 1,841.27 407,974.09 379.09

Y:1 'fil 1/10 6.80 1,941.30 406,132.79 385.89

52 E/ l/10 617"'1 1,841.33 404,291.46 397.. 66

53 7/ 1/10 6.74 1, 841136 402,450.10 3!j9.40

54 8/ 1110 6. 71 1,841.39 400,608.71 406.11

!;5 S/ 1/10 6.68 1,941.42 398,767.29 412.79

56 1C/ 1/10 6.65 1,841.4!> 396,925.84 419.44

~~ 11/ 1/10 6.62 1,841.48 395,084.36 426.06

!:8 12/ 1/10 6158 1,841.52 393,242.84 4 32.64

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtot:al: 91.05 22,096.15 393,242.84 432.64

!:9 1/ 1/11 ti.55 1, 841.55 391,401.29 439.19

f(l 21 1/11 6152 1,841.59 389,559 •.71 445.71

1:-! .j/ 1/ll 6.49 :,841.61 387,718.10 452.20

62 II/ 1/ll 6. 46 1,841164 385,876.46 ol:::>l:l.6b

63 51 1/11 6.43 1,841167 384,034.79 4 65109

64 6/ 1/11 6. 40 :.,841.70 382,193.09 471.49

65 7/ 1/11 6.37 1,841173 380,351.36 47'7.86

1>6 R/ 1/ll 6134 1,841.76 378,509.60 484.20

t· r ~I 1/ll 6.31 1,841179 376,667.81 490 I '51

68 10/ 1/11 6~28 :i.,841~82 3"'14,825.99 4!:J6~79

6;) 11/ 1/11 6.25 :.,841185 372,984.14 503.04

"70 1:t:/ 1/11 6.22 ::.,841.89 371,142.26 509.26

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 Suht o ~ a 1 :

'11

·;:! ~I

76162

l / 1/12

1/12

22,100.58

6119

6.16

:I 841 I 91

:, 841.94

371,142~26

509.26

369,.300.3.5

367,458.41

515.45

521.61

'i3

"/!'I ..

3./ 1/12

4/ 1/12

_,, 1/12

6.12

6.09

6.06

::.,841.98

:,842101

:,842104

365,616.43

363,'174.42

361,532.38

527.73

533.82

539.88

,...,

/b 6/

7/ 1/12

l/1;! .;. 03

6.00

:,842107

:,842.10

360,090.31

358,248.21

54!>.91

!:>~ : ~!H

78 e1 1/12 !:.197 :.,842~13 356,406.08 557. 8R

·;g 9/ 1/12 5194 ::.,842~16 354,563.92 563.82

EO 10/ 1/12 5. 91 :,842~19 352,721.73 569.73

F.~ 11/ l/12 5.88 :,842~22 350,879.51 575.61

E2 1~1 1/12 5.85 :,842125 349,037.26 5A1.46

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5'-JbtO!:.:ll! 72.20 22,105.00 349,037126 581.1)6

c3 1/ 1/13 5182 ,842129 347, 194.98 597.28

E4 21 1/13 5179 ,842131 345,352.67 f>93107

F.~- 3./ 1/13 ~} • ., 6 ,842.34 343,510.33 598.83

Eb 4/ 1/l:J ':>. 13 ,842137 341,66'1.96 6:l4.5E

E"l 5/ 1/13 5169 ,842.41 33~,525.55 610.25

68 6/ 1/13 5166 ,842~44 337,983111 615.91

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 32 of 86

·-·---- - ··· ·--··-··

InterL __ Principal Principo- Interest.

tl Date I'his Period This Period New Bal.ance To Date

89 7/ 1/13 5.63 1,Q.42.47 336,140.64 621.54

0 90

8/ 1/13

9/ 1/13

0/ 1/13

l l 1/lJ

5.60

5.57

5.54

~. . 51

1,842.50

1,842.53

1,842.56

1,842.59

334,298.14

332,455.61

330,613.05

328,770.46

627.14

632.71

638.25

643.76

9" 21 1/13 ~-49 1,842.62 326,927.84 649.24

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S:J.b::.ota.:.: 67.78 22,109.42 326,927.84 649.24

95 1/ 1/14 5.45 1,842.65 325,085.19 654.69

9E 21 1/14 5.42 1,842.68 323,242.51 6GO.ll

97 3/ 1/14 5.39 1,842.71 32:.,399.80 665.50

96 41 l/14 5.36 1,842.74 319,557.06 670.86

99 51 1./H 5.33 1,842.77 317, 71."4 .29 676.19

l.OO 6/ :/14 5.30 1,842.80 315,871.49 681.49

101 11 :.114 5.26 1,842.84 314,028.65 686.75

102 8/ :/14 5.23 1,842.87 312,185.78 691.98

103 9/ :/14 5.20 1,842.90 310,342.88 697.18

104 10/ : /14 !l.17 1,842.93 308,499.95 702.35

105 111 :./14 !).14 1,842.96 306,656.99 707.49

106 12/ :/111 5.11 1,842.99 304,814.00 712.60

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: 63.36 22,113.84 300,814.00 7:2.60

107 1/ l/15 5.08 1,843.02 302,970.98 717.68

lO!l 2/ l/15 5 . 05 1,843.05 301,12'7.93 722.73

.1C9 31 :t15 •;.o2 1,843.08 299,284.85 727.75

110 Ill l/1!:> 4.99 1,843.11 297,441.74 732.74

111 5/ !/15 4.96 1,843.14 295,598.60 73'7.70

112 6/ l/15 .; .93 1,843.17 293,755.43 742.63

113 7/ 1/15 4. 90 1,943.20 :<91,912.23 7iJ7.53

114 81 1/15 4.a7 1,843.23 290,069.00 752.40

115 91 1/15 4.83 1,843.27 :088,225.73 757.23

116 10/ 1/15 4.90 1,843.30 :;:86,382.43 762.03

117 HI 1/15 4.77 1,843.33 284,539.10 766.80

!1& 12/ 111~ 4.74 1,843.36 :282, 69_5-. 74 77:.54

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subto-::..:11: 58.94 22,118.26 282,695.74 771.~4

!19 !I 1116 4. 71 1,843.39 280,852.35 776.25

0 120

1;; 1

122

14?3

21 1116

31 1116

41 1/16

'll 1/lE

4. 68

4.65

4.6?.

4.~9

1,843.42

1,843.45

1,843.48

1,843.51

279,008.93

277,165.48

275,322.00

27 .' 3,478.49

780.93

785.58

790.20

794.79

l:Z~ 6.f 1116 •1.56 1,843.54 2"11, 634.95 799.:35

125 7t 1/1€ 4.53 1,843.57 269,791.38 803.88

1.i6 61 1/16 lj.50 1,843.60 267,947.78 808.38

12':' 9/ 1/1€ ·1. 47 1,843.63 266,104.15 812.85

1<:8 lOi 1/16 -1.44 1,843.66 264,260.49 817.29

I~ rf 11/ 1/H 4.40 1,843.70 262, 4J.6. 79 821.69

uo 12/ 1/16 4.37 1,843.73 260,573.06 826.06

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: 54.52 22,122.68 826.06 260.~73.06

131 l i 1/1'7 ·4. 34 1,8~3.76 258,729.30 830.<10

u.o: 21 1117 4.31 1,9.(.3.79 256,885.51 834.71

U3 3/ l/17 4.28 1,8.(.3.82 255,041.69 838.99

134 4/ 1/17 4.25 1,8.(.3.85 253,197.84 843.24

1\!'> 5/ 1/17 4. 22 1,843.88 251,353.96 647, "4 6

136 Ei 1/17 .:.19 1,843.91 249,510.05 851.65

137 7/ 1/~7 4.16 1, 84 3. 94 247,666.11 855.81

136 9/ 1/17 4.13 1,643.97 245,822.14 859.94

139 9/ 1/17 1.10 1,844.00 243,978.14 664.04

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 33 of 86

Ir.ter~ - Principal Pri.nci.p.. _ Interest

u Cate This Period This Period New Balance To Date

1.4C 10/ 1/17 ·L07 1,84<.03 242,134.1". 868. 1l

0 141

142

S..1btotal:

11/ l/17

12/ 1/17

50.0~

4.04

4.00

1,84,.06

1, 844 .10

22, 127. 11

240,290.0~

238,445.95

------------------~-------------------------------------------------------------

238,44~.95

872.1!:

876.15

14~ 11 l/18 .'3.97 1,844.13 236, 6.,1. 82 880.12

144 21 1118 3.94 1,844.16 234,757.66 884.06

145 31 1118 3.91 1,844.19 232,913.47 887.97

14f:> 41 1/llt 3.8e 1,844.22 231,069.25 891.8!:

141 5/ 1il8 3.85 1,BG4.25 229,225.00 895.70

148 61 1/18 3.82 1,844.28 22"1,380.72 89~. 52

149 11 1/18 3.79 1,844.31 225,536. u 903.31

15C 8/ 1/18 3. 76 1,844.34 223,692.07 907.07

1!)1 9/ 1/18 3.73 1,844.37 221,847.70 910.80

152 10/ 1/18 3.70 1,844.40 220,003.30 914.50

153 111 1118 3.67 1,844.43 218,158.87 918.1 i

154 12/ 1/:8 J.E4 1,844.46 216,314.41 921.81

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: 45.6& 22,131.!34 2:6,314.41 921.81

155 11 1119 J.El 1,844.49 214,469.92 925.42

156 21 1119 3.51 1,844.53 212,625.39 928.99

15·; 3/ 11B 3.54 1,844.56 210,780.83 932.53

158 41 1113 .L51 1,844.59 208,936.24 936.04

15c;t 51 1113 J.4& 1,844.62 207,091.62 939.52

16C 6/ 1/19 .l. 45 1,844.65 205,246.97 942.97

1 61 71 1/19 3.42 1,844.68 203,402.29 946.39

16~ '3/ l/19 ' · ~q 1.,844.71 201,557.58 949.78

l& ",; 9/ 1/19 .l. 36 1,844.74 199,712.84 953.14

164 1:.11 1/13 L33 1,844.77 197,868.07 956.47

l6S. 11/ 1119 3 . 30 1,84<4.80 196,023.27 959.77

166 121 1/19 3.27 1,844.83 194,178.44 963.C4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Su.Cto-r.al: 41.23 22,135.97 194,179.44 963.04

167 1/ 1/2::> 3.24 1,844.86 192,333.58 966.28

166 21 1/2::> :3.21 1,844.89 190,488.69 969.4 9

169 3/ l/2:> .3.17 1,844.93 188,643.76 972.66

17C 4/ 1/2':) ~.H 1,844.96 186,798.80 975.80

0 17l

... .

1-~

173

174

'51 l/7.::>

&I 1/:ZJ

1.1 1/2')

8/ l/20

"1.1]

.LC8

3.05

3.02

1,844.99

1,845.02

1,845.05

1,845.08

184,953.81

183,108.79

18:,263.74

179,418.66

976.91

981.99

985.C4

988.06

175 9/ l/20 2.99 1,845.11 177,573.55 991.05

1/6 10/ 1/2::> ;!.96 1,845.14 175,729.41 994.01

177 111 1/20 2.93 1,845.17 173,893.24 9~6.9<4

178 12/ 1/20 2.90 1,845.20 172,039.04 999.84

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: 36.80 22,140.40 172,038.04 999.84

179 11 1/?.1 ~·. 117 1,845.23 170,192.81 1,002.71

11;((• 21 1/21 2.E< 1,84!1.26 168,347.55 1,005.55

191 31 1/21 :,. .. 6! 1,64~.29 166,502.26 1,008.~6

1.8.:: •II 1/21 .: • "78 1,845.32 164,656.94 1,011.14

183 5/ :i./21 2 . 71. 1,845.36 162,311.58 1,013.1:?8

184 6/ 1/21 2 .. .,1 1,645.39 160,966.19 1,016.~9

185 7 1 1/21 2. 68 1,645.42 159,120.77 1,019 • .:1

166 8/ 1/21 :;:.65 1,845.45 157,275.32 1,021.92

187 91 1121 2.62 1,E45.48 155,429.84 1,024.54

185 101 1/21 2.59 1,645.51 153,584.33 1,027.13

189 11/ 1/21 2.56 1,845.54 151,738.79 1,029.69

190 121 1121 2.53 1,845.57 149,893.22 1,032.22

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 34 of 86

.lnte:z: _ . ~ Pri.ncipa1 Princi.p..... Interest

Ill Da't:e This Period Thia Per.!.od New Balance To Date

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 5ubtot:al:

19:

192

32.38

1/ 1/22

1/22

.&.I

22,144.82 l49, 893.22

2.50

2.47

1,032.22

:;.,845.60

:,845 . 63

148,047.62

146,201.99

1,03"1.72

1,037.19

193 3/ 1/22 2.44 :,845.66 144,356.33 1,039.63

194 .J/ 1/22 2.41 :,845.69 142,510.64 1,042.04

195 5/ 1/22 2."38 : ,845.72 141), 664.92 1,044.42

196 6/ 1/22 2 . 3,4 :,845.76 138,819.16 1,046.76

197 i l 1/22 2.31 :,845.79 136,973.37 1,049.07

19a E/ 1/22 2.28 :,845.82 135,127.55 1,051.35

199 9/ 1/22 2.25 1 ,845 . 85 133,281.70 1,053.60

200 10/ 1/22 2.22 :,845.88 131,435.82 1,055.82

z··,· 11/ 1/22 2.19 :,845 . 91 123,589 . 91 1,058.01

202 1:</ l/22 2.16 : ,845.94 127,743 . 97 1, 060.17

-··· ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: 27.95 22,149.25 127,?43.97 1,060.17

2(o3 1/ 1/23 2. 1 3 : ,84~.97 125,898.00 1,062.30

204 21 l/23 :l. 10 :,846 . 00 124,052.00 1,064 . 40

205 3/ l/23 2.07 "- ,846.03 122,205.97 1,066.47

2Ct6 4/ l/23 2.04 :,946 . 06 120,359.91 1,069.51

207 ~·/ l/23 2.01 :. ,946.09 119,513.82 1,070.52

206 61 1/23 l . 98 :,846.12 116,667.70 1,072.50

209 !/ 1/23 "!.. 94 ·_,846.16 1 14,1!21.54 1, ()7 4. 4 4

:l10 t:/ 1/2:J l. 91 :,846.19 112,975.35 1,076.35

::!1: 9/ 1/23 1. 88 1,946.22 111,129.13 1,078.23

212 10/ 1/23 :.as :,846 . 25 109,292.98 1,030.08

213 11/ 1/23 1 . 82 :,846 . 29 107,436.60 1,091.90

214 12/ 1/23 1.79 :,846 . 31 105,590.29 1,033.69

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.5..lbtota1: 23.!>2 22,1!>3.68 :o!>,!>90.29 l,083.b9

.21:

216 -1/. 1/2.;

""' l/24

l . 76

l . 73

:.,946.34

: ,946 . 37

103,743.95

101,897.50

l,oas.45

1, 097.18

21"1' 3/ l /24 1. 70 1,846 . 40 100,051.18 1,068.88

21!1 4/ 1/ 2 4 :.67 :,846.43 98,204.75 1,090.55

219 !>I 1/:.t.: l . 64 :,846 . 46 96,358 , 29 1,092.19

....... -_

2~C

"') ,

6/ 1/2<:

7/ 1/2-i

::..61

1.58

:,946.49

:,846.52

94,.!:11.80

92,665.28

1,093.80

1,095.38

0 22.2

2 ::: 3

224

:.2.;;5

e/ 1/24

9/ 1/2.;

10/ 1/24

11/ 1/4!-'

l. 54

1. 51

1.48

l. 4!>

: ,846.56

1,846.59

: ,846 . 62

l,84ti.65

90,618.72

88,972.13

87,125.51

8:>,278.86

1,096.92

1,098.43

1, 09~. 91

1,1:>1.36

2~6 1~/ 1 / 24 l. 42 :,946.68 83,432.18 1,1:>2.78

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtotal: 19.09 22,158.11 83,.;32.18 1,102.7:3

=~2-, 1/ 1./7.5 1.~9 :,846.71 81,585.47 1,1:>4.17

2:0:8 ".e. I 1/2!> 1. 36 l ,846.74 79,738.73 1,1.)!'>.'>3

229 3/ 1/25 1.33 1,946.77 77,891.96 1,1:>6.86

2~0 4/ 1/25 1. 30 :,846.80 76,045.16 1,108.16

2.3: 51 1/25 1.27 :,946.83 74,198.33 1,1:>9.43

232 6/ 1/25 1. 24 :,846 . 86 72,351.47 1,110.67

233 -,/ 1/2!'> 1.21 :,946.89 70,504.58 1,111.88

2 .H E/ 1/:<5 l •. lB :.,846.92 68,657.66 1,113.06

235 91 1/25 1.14 :,IJ46.9& 66,810. "/0 1,114.:.!0

236 1 C/ l/25 1.11 :,946.99 6-1,963.71 1,115.31

237 11/ 1/25 ]. 08 :,847.02 63,116.69 1,116.39

238 1~ I 1/25 1.05 :,947.05 61,269.64 1,117.44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5ubt<:>t: a.l: 14 . 66 22,16:! . 54 61,:!69.64 ],117.44

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 35 of 86

:nte:.-~t Principal Principa.1.. Interest

Date This Period This Period New Balance To Date

• 239 1/ 1/2€ ~. 0-' 1,847.08 59,422.56 1,118.46

0 240

241

242

243

2.1 1/:.i!E

l/26

1126

1/26

·: . i:O~

('.96

0.93

0.90

1,847.11

1,847.14

1,847.17

1,. 847.20

!17,575.45

55,728.31

53,881.14

52,033.94

1,119.45

1,120.41

1,121.34

1,122.24

244 6/ l/26 C.87 1,847.23 50,186.71 1,123.11.

245 1/ l/26 0."84 1,847.26 48,.339.45 1,123.95

246 6/ l/2f G.Sl 1,847.29 46,492.16 1,124.76

2.4 7 9J l/26 (';. 77 1,847.33 44,644.83 1,125.53

248 10/ l/26 C.74 1,847.36 42,797.47 1,126.27

249 11/ l/26 ('.71 1,847.39 40,950.08 1,126.98

250 121 1nt: C.Gil 1,847.42 39,102.66 1,127.66

Subtotal: 10.22 22,166.98 39,102.66 1,127.66

25~ 1/ l/27 0.65 1,847.45 37,255.21 1,128.31

252 21 1/27 (•. 62 1,847.48 35,407.73 1,128.93

253 3/ l/27 0.59 1,847.51 33,560.22 1,129.52

254 4/ :/27 n.so 1,847.54 31,712.68 1,1.30.08

;.;s!:> ':>/ l/'2"i 0.:03 1,847.57 29,865.11 l,J.l0.61

256 6/ 1/27 C'.5.:l 1,847.60 28,017.51 1,1.31.11

257 7/ 1;2 : 0.•17 1,847.63 26,169·. 88 1,1.31.58

258 8/ l/27 .~ . 44 1,8!17.66 24,322.22 1,132.02

259 9/ 1/27 o:·. 41 1,847.69 22,474.53 1,132.43

260 lCJ/ l/27 o.:n 1,847.73 20,626.90 1,132.80

26: 11/ 1/2 7 0.34 1,847.76 18,779.04 1,133.14

262 12/ 1/27 0.31 1,847.79 16,931.25 1,133.45

~ub•. ot-a1: 5. 79 22,171.41 16.931.25 1,133.45

2 63 1/ 1/2F. •·1. 2S 1,847.82 15,083.43 1,133.73

264 21 1/28 .:•.25 1,847 . 85 13,235.58 1,133.98

265 31 1/211 0 .22 1,847.88 11,387.70 1,134.20

.266 •1/ 112e 0.19 1,847.91 9, 539.79 1,13<.3~

267 5/ 1/2€ (). 16 1,847.94 7,691.85 1,134.55

26B 6/ 1/2E 0.:3 1,847.97 5,843.88 1,134. Ga

2tj~ ,, 112e

-' •' . 1 ::> 1,848.00 3,995.88 1,1:;4.78

2-:'0 8/ l/2E ~.. . 07 1,848.03 2,147.85 1,1"34.85

271 9/ l/28 0.04 1,848.06 299.79 1,134.89

272 10/ 112e 0.0::> 299.79 o.oo 1,134.83

0 ~ub<:.otal:

Final payment amount:

l. 44 :6,931.25

299.79

0.00 1,134.89

Total paymont.::: !>01,13·1.89 Principal: 500,000.00 Interest: 1,:34.!39

Sett.lngs: 360 A:rr Prel?o·J 1950 :2 perYr

TAB J

RR VOL 3 OF 4 AT 14-86

Page 36 of 86

I ~ei

~i~

•

.. --·-.

. -·+·· · ··--±---·-+ ·-···-

----r·-·----- - - -

+--- ..,. ----

' ;- :l ~_,_-~~~LL: f jI

.. - l! . . : --~.. - f ... ...

0 1 - t ......... 1

---+·--·--

I L.L. I ,, . ___,____l--+--.J,.___--+-~

!I i

I . :.·,. ,.~

!. ' ""'

I I

J l. ;, t~-

-,L~:-~- -;~-----~----· -- -

l~ . t. \ ~'

~ ~~ ~ .,.. _)_ ____t - -· ·- ·- --

~ ~ . ~

00· - ~ ··- ~- ~

" '' ... . !

"'r

~t ·-

i< "'-

·o- - r- i

..! i

=~.:y

• < -----·-- ------+----,... -----r------------,-------------- -------

I.!~-~----

I: ~ ~ -"·--.,. ••" r

. I ., 7

-------..,....- - - -

::! :.: ~ ~ ---·,.-·-;:-·-~·-----..,,..--=!'.---=:r:=---=.:-.- : ~: -:--:..3.:_;-~

~ ~ ..

0 ....

. !!.

, 1 I

-- - - -·--- - - - - - - ---------'---+---+---:-------- a:

.i 8~

;5 p

-0

'/ ~

-:----r---r---:----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : -

II -: :

I ·----~-----!---1

j . • . • - . f

:. ; •~ ! . ' . .. ~~ -· - . •· -· . --·---·-· -----·- - ··-· ...

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.