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
220 South Fourth Street
Waco, Texas 76701
Tel (254) 776-5500
Fax (254) 776-3591
mcswain@thetexasfirm.com
firmin@thetexasfirm.com
hashmi@thetexasfirm.com
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

1
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.
2
Assuming the District Court abused its discretion, which it did not.

2
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”).

3
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
220 South Fourth Street
Waco, Texas 76701
Tel (254) 776-5500

3
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.

4
Fax (254) 776-3591
mcswain@thetexasfirm.com
firmin@thetexasfirm.com
hashmi@thetexasfirm.com

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

5
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
kpittard@dpslawgroup.com jimdunnam@dunnamlaw.com
Rick Thompson Andrea Mehta
rthompson@dpslawgroup.com andreamehta@dunnamlaw.com
DURHAM, PITTARD & Mason Vance Dunnam
SPALDING, LLP masondunnam@dunnamlaw.com
P.O. Box 224626 DUNNAM & DUNNAM LLP
Dallas, Texas 75222 4125 West Waco Drive
Waco, Texas 76710
Craig D. Cherry
ccherry@cjsjlaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR REAL
Ryan C. Johnson PARTIES IN INTEREST ROBERT
rjohnson@cjsjlaw.com SPANOS, CHRISOPHER SPANOS,
Scott H. James AND NICOLE LAWRIE
sjames@cjsjlaw.com
M. Katie Quillen The Honorable Judge Ryan Luna
kquillen@cjsjlaw.com 414th Judicial District Court
CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND 414th@mclennan.gov
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
aubreyw9000@yahoo.com

APPOINTED RECEIVER

/s/ Mark E. Firmin
Mark E. Firmin

6
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
Rowell@thetexasfirm.com
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 kpittard@dpslawgroup.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Andrea Mehta 24078992 andreamehta@dunnamlaw.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Angus McSwain 13861100 mcswain@thetexasfirm.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Aubrey Williams 21512500 aubreyw9000@yahoo.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

James Dunnam 6258010 jimdunnam@dunnamlaw.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Craig Cherry 24012419 ccherry@cjsjlaw.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Ryan Johnson 24048574 rjohnson@cjsjlaw.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Scott James 24037848 sjames@cjsjlaw.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Mark Firmin 24099614 firmin@thetexasfirm.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Mason Dunnam 24108079 masondunnam@dunnamlaw.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Hon. Judge Ryan Luna 414th@mclennan.gov 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Rick Thompson rthompson@dpslawgroup.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Kelly Blackburn efile@dpslawgroup.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Michala Quillen 24133047 kquillen@cjsjlaw.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Ashley Snyder Snyder@thetexasfirm.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Kiley Coats coats@thetexasfirm.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Sameer AHashmi hashmi@thetexasfirm.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT

Sarah Rowell Rowell@thetexasfirm.com 10/8/2025 4:53:11 PM SENT