in the Guardianship of Ruby Peterson, 01-15-00567-CV

Background

Ruby S. Peterson is the proposed ward in a guardianship proceeding; she executed a 1993 durable power of attorney naming Carol Ann Manley and David Troy Peterson as her agents for financial and healthcare decisions.
Plaintiffs (Mackey "Mack" Glen Peterson, Don Leslie Peterson, and Lonny Peterson) filed suit and allege that on November 15, 2013 Ruby revoked the 1993 POA and executed new POAs naming Mack and Don as agents; they assert Silverado Senior Living restricted Ruby’s movement and forced medications.
Defendants (Carol, David, and Silverado) and Ruby’s court-appointed guardian/ad litem contest Plaintiffs’ standing, arguing Ruby lacked capacity by November 2013, the November documents were products of undue influence, and the 1993 POA remained effective.
Medical evidence in the record is mixed but includes multiple treating physicians who diagnosed dementia in 2013; one examiner (Dr. Merkl) found severe cognitive impairment and susceptibility to manipulation, though other opinions vary in degree of impairment and capacity to execute documents.
Procedural posture in the excerpt: multiple pleadings and motions — including a motion to dismiss by guardian/ad litem for lack of standing/subject-matter jurisdiction and a Rule 91a dismissal challenge — are filed and opposed; the provided excerpt does not contain the court’s final disposition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to sue as next friends / subject-matter jurisdiction	Plaintiffs assert they are next friends/agents for Ruby (post‑Nov 15, 2013 revocation) and allege personal and Ruby harms, so they have standing.	Guardian/attorney ad litem and Defendants argue Plaintiffs lack authority because Ruby lacked capacity Nov 15, 2013; November documents are invalid and Plaintiffs lack standing, depriving the court of jurisdiction.	Disposition not included in excerpt.
Validity of Nov 15, 2013 revocation and new POAs	Plaintiffs contend the revocation and new POAs were valid (and recorded), revoking Carol/David’s authority.	Defendants contend the Nov 15 documents were procured by undue influence and are invalid because Ruby lacked capacity; the 1993 POA remains controlling.	Disposition not included in excerpt.
False imprisonment / violation of resident rights (facility restrictions)	Plaintiffs claim Silverado unlawfully restrained Ruby (denied free egress/visitation) and violated elder/nursing‑home rights after Nov 15, 2013.	Defendants contend admissions of the 1993 POA and agent decisions (and medical recommendations) authorized placement and care; reliance on POA was lawful.	Disposition not included in excerpt.
Assault/battery re: medication administration	Plaintiffs allege forced administration of psychotropic drugs constitutes assault/battery.	Defendants assert the 1993 medical POA authorized agents to consent to medically necessary treatment; consent is a defense and no serious bodily injury occurred.	Disposition not included in excerpt.

Key Cases Cited

Mendoza v. Fidelity Guaranty Ins. Underwriters, 606 S.W.2d 692 (Tex. 1980) (judicial admissions are conclusive and relieve the opposing party of proof of the admitted fact)
Gevinson v. Manhattan Construction Co., 449 S.W.2d 458 (Tex. 1969) (discussing effect of judicial admissions)
Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing as element of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (trial court may consider evidence when determining jurisdictional facts)
M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. v. Novak, 52 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. 2001) (petitioner must show standing facts existed when suit was filed)
Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (review standard for subject-matter jurisdiction is de novo)
Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (standing is a constitutional prerequisite to suit)
In re N.L.D., 344 S.W.3d 33 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.) (dismissal required if party cannot establish standing)