The Texas Court of Appeals recently upheld a trial court's decision regarding attorney's fees in a complex guardianship case involving Richard Stephen Calkins and G. Wesley Urquhart. The ruling, issued on October 30, 2026, addresses the ongoing legal disputes stemming from a guardianship application filed in 2008 and the subsequent lawsuits that followed. This decision impacts the parties involved, particularly Calkins and Urquhart, and clarifies the legal standing and authority of attorneys in such cases.

The case, known as Richard Stephen Calkins, Individually and as Agent-In-Fact, for Mary Olive Calkins and Michael Easton A/K/A Michael Joseph Bitgood v. G. Wesley Urquhart; Mary Elizabeth Urquhart and G. Wesley Urquhart, P.C., was filed under docket number 01-24-00779-CV. The court's ruling confirmed the trial court's judgment awarding incurred and conditional appellate attorney's fees after a previous remand from the court.

Background

The dispute began in 2008 when Carolyn Calkins James filed for guardianship of her mother, alleging that her brother, Richard Stephen Calkins, was misusing the power of attorney granted to him. This led to a series of legal battles, including claims of fraud and conspiracy against various parties, including Calkins and his associate Michael Easton.

In April 2011, Calkins and Easton filed a lawsuit against the probate court judge, his court administrator, and James, alleging conspiracy and other claims. Over the years, the case evolved, with various parties filing motions and appeals. The Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) played a significant role in the proceedings, as it allows for the dismissal of lawsuits that infringe on free speech rights.

After a series of appeals and remands, the trial court ultimately awarded attorney's fees to Urquhart and his law firm, G. Wesley Urquhart, P.C., based on the TCPA. Calkins and Easton appealed this decision, leading to the most recent ruling from the Texas Court of Appeals.

The Ruling

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the attorney's fees. The court noted that the appellants' arguments were insufficient to demonstrate that the trial court had erred in its decision. Specifically, the court stated, "We conclude that the appellees have standing and this appeal is not moot." This ruling clarified that the case remained relevant and that the appellees had the legal authority to continue pursuing their claims.

The court also addressed the appellants' claims regarding the denial of a jury trial, stating that the trial court's decision was justified. The court emphasized that the trial court had no authority to take actions inconsistent with the appellate court's mandate, reinforcing the importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal proceedings.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for the parties involved, particularly Calkins and Urquhart. By affirming the trial court's decision on attorney's fees, the court reinforced the legal principles surrounding the TCPA and the authority of attorneys in guardianship cases. The ruling also serves as a reminder of the importance of proper legal representation and the potential consequences of failing to adhere to procedural requirements.

Furthermore, the decision may set a precedent for similar cases involving guardianship disputes and the application of the TCPA. It underscores the necessity for parties to ensure that their legal representation is properly authorized and that they follow the appropriate legal procedures throughout the litigation process.

What's Next

While the appellants may seek further legal recourse, the court's ruling effectively upholds the trial court's decision regarding attorney's fees. It remains to be seen whether the appellants will pursue an appeal to a higher court or if any related cases will arise from this ongoing legal saga.