Categories
Court action

July 8, 2021: Charlie Thrash’s appeal to Texas Supreme Court on over $300K sanctions, paid from his estate by attorneys for guardians

July 8, 2021: To understand the full denial of Due Process, much less following the law with which Shavano Park resident Judge Oscar Kazen has abused former fellow-resident of Shavano Park Charlie Thrash, read attorney Phil Ross’ appeal of over $300,000 of legal sanctions against himself and clients Laura Martinez-Thrash (Charlie’s common-law wife), Brittney Martinez-Thrash (Charlie’s would-be adopted daughter, and Laura’s biological daughter), and Billy Duncan (referred to in court documents as Charlie’s ‘next friend’.)

Appellants are:  Charles I. Thrash, by and through Billy Duncan, as next friend; Laura A Martinez; Brittany A Martinez; and Philip M Ross, all of whom are represented by Philip M Ross, State Bar No. 17304200

Appellees are: Tonya M Barina, Guardian of the Estate of Charles Inness Thrash, an Adult, and Mary C Werner, Guardian of the Person of Charles Innes Thrash, an Adult, as represented by:

  1. Karen Andersen, State Bar No 24088735
  2. Les Katona, Jr, State Bar No 11106680
  3. Kristopher L. Bowen, Jr.
  4. Andrea Tidwell Bowen
  5. Barrett Shipp, State Bar No 24060601

 From Charlie’s Appeal to the Texas State Supreme Court, Filed July 8, 2021 at 4:32pm, PETITION FOR REVIEW, four Issues are presented to the justices for their consideration:

  1. Issue No. 1 The Court of Appeals Opinion and Order on March 31, 2021 denying jurisdiction was in error because Charlie had, or should have had, a right to be represented by a next friend to appeal the  trial court’s May 29, 2019 Second Amended  Order Granting Motion for Sanctions when his estate was required to pay costs and attorney’s fees in excess of $300,000.00.
  2. Issue No. 2 The Court  of  Appeals  affirmed  the  trial  court’s May  29,  2019 Second  Amended  Order  Granting  Motion  for Sanctions in error because the guardians and their attorneys, not the Appellants, were responsible for $300,000 of unnecessary and unreasonable attorneys’ fees incurred at Charlie’s expense to contest his right to counsel, marriage, adoption, recusal and sanctions issues, which was a breach of the guardians and/or their attorneys’ fiduciary duty to Charlie and his estate.
  3. Issue No. 3 The Court  of  Appeals  affirmed  the trial  court’s May  29,  2019 Second  Amended  Order  Granting  Motion  for Sanctions  finding  that  Appellants  should  be  sanctioned  for filing  motions  to  recuse  Judge  Kazen  in  error  because  the administrative judge, not Judge Kazen, had jurisdiction to order sanctions in the recusal proceeding.
  4. Issue No. 4 The  Court  of  Appeals  affirmed  the  trial  court’s May 29, 2019 Second Amended Order Granting Motion for Sanctions finding that Appellants’ attorney should be required to  pay  the  guardians’ attorney’s  fees  in  error  because  the undersigned counsel’s zealous advocacy was not vexatious, the trial court’s findings were not supported by legally or factually sufficient  evidence,  and  Appellants’ attorney’s  actions  were protected by attorney immunity.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.