The Texas Court of Appeals has denied a request from The Ledbetter Family Foundation to appeal a lower court's decision regarding its jurisdiction in a family dispute. This ruling affects the Foundation and its directors, which include members of the Ledbetter family. The case highlights ongoing tensions over the management of the Foundation following the deaths of its founders.
The Ledbetter Family Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Lonnie Ledbetter and his second wife, Saundra, sought permission to appeal an interlocutory order that denied its plea to the jurisdiction. The court's decision means that the Foundation must continue to navigate the legal challenges posed by Lonnie's children, who dispute recent changes made to the Foundation's governance.
Background
The Ledbetter Family Foundation was established for charitable purposes by Lonnie Ledbetter and Saundra Ledbetter. They had two children together, Lonnie “Trace” Ledbetter III and Kendall Ledbetter Hohmann. After Saundra's death in March 2023, Lonnie remarried and made significant changes to his estate plans, including the Foundation's governance. He appointed his new wife, Tawni, as a director and made changes that disinherited his children.
Following Lonnie's death in April 2025, the Children filed a lawsuit challenging these changes. They argued that Lonnie lacked the capacity to amend the Foundation's bylaws and that Tawni unduly influenced him. The Children sought to confirm their status as directors of the Foundation, claiming that they had not been properly removed.
The procedural history of the case shows that the trial court granted the Children a temporary injunction against Tawni to prevent her from mismanaging Lonnie's assets. The Foundation intervened to clarify the injunction and restore access to its bank account, which had been frozen. The Children subsequently amended their pleadings to include the Foundation as a defendant.
The Ruling
The Texas Court of Appeals, led by Justice Dana Womack, ruled against the Foundation's request for a permissive appeal. The court found that the trial court's order denying the Foundation's plea to the jurisdiction did not meet the strict requirements necessary for a permissive appeal. The court stated, "the trial court’s order fails to satisfy Rule 168’s strict requirements," indicating that the order did not provide a substantive ruling on the controlling legal issue.
The court further explained that the Foundation's appeal was based on a question that involved unresolved factual disputes. The Foundation argued that the Children were no longer directors, but this claim was contested. The court noted, "the validity of this appointment is far from settled; indeed, it is one of the central factual disputes between the parties."
Impact
The denial of the Foundation's appeal means that the ongoing litigation between the Children and Tawni will continue in the lower court. This ruling is significant as it underscores the complexities involved in family disputes over nonprofit governance and estate management. The case may set a precedent regarding the standing of directors in nonprofit organizations and the validity of board actions taken under contested circumstances.
With the Foundation's jurisdiction plea denied, the Children can continue to pursue their claims against Tawni and the Foundation. They assert that they remain valid directors and that Tawni's actions to amend the bylaws were illegitimate. This ruling may also influence how similar disputes are handled in the future, particularly in cases involving family-run nonprofits.
What's Next
The Foundation may consider further legal options, including a potential appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. However, the immediate focus will remain on the ongoing litigation in the lower court, where the Children will continue to assert their claims against Tawni and seek to clarify their roles within the Foundation.