Legal Opinion
Stum v. Stum
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided December 23, 1992No. 2-92-159-CVPublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MEYERS, Justice.
Appellants, Gary and Cynthia Stum, were sued by appellee, Hayden Eugene Stum, for breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court entered a postanswer default judgment against appellants and struck their counterclaim. They now appeal.
We affirm.
I. FACTS
On April 27, 1991, appellee executed a durable power of attorney in his son’s name, appellant Gary Stum. The power given to appellant Gary Stum thoroughly enabled him to conduct appellee’s businesses as well as manage all of appellee’s day-to-day affairs. This included access to ap-pellee’s real and personal property. The…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Armstrong v. ManzoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1939
- TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. PowellTexas Supreme Court · 1991
- Mansfield State Bank v. CohnTexas Supreme Court · 1978
- Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Redmon v. Griffith, Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler)2006
- Humphreys v. MeadowsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1997
- Zuyus v. No'Mis Communications, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1996
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. BrightDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1995
- Heden v. HillDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1996
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.