Sandra Saks, Lee Nick McFadin, III, and Margaret Landen Saks v. Broadway Coffeehouse LLC and Marcus Rogers, as Trustee for the Saks Children Trust A/K/A ATFL&L, a Texas Trust, 04-14-00734-CV

This is the second appeal involving the Property at 5321 Broadway and the Partnership that holds equitable title to it.
The probate court resolved an arbitration award under a mediated settlement that transferred Partnership interests to the Saks Children Trust and ordered conveyance documents.
The prior opinion affirmed the probate court’s judgment confirming the Trust’s ownership of the Partnership.
Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC sought declaratory relief, partition, winding up, and to void certain deeds and assignments.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment and then a final judgment awarding Broadway Coffeehouse relief and attorney’s fees.
This court affirmed the trial court’s determinations that Broadway Coffeehouse owns 25% of the Partnership, the Trust 75%, and that the challenged instruments were void, with the Partnership wound up and the Property ordered sold.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the partial summary judgment on ownership and partition was proper.	Saks argued genuine issues of material fact on partition in kind and capital withdrawal.	Broadway contends record supports 25/75 ownership and that partition in kind was inappropriate.	Yes; the summary judgment was proper, determining ownership and order of sale.
Whether attorney’s fees were properly awarded and segregated.	Saks contends fees were improper due to lack of declaratory relief and improper segregation.	Broadway asserts declaratory relief was sought and fees were properly segregated or justified.	Fees were properly awarded and segregation was warranted.
Whether the amount of the supersedeas bond was properly set.	Saks challenge to bond amount; contested with court orders on appeal.	Bond amount had already been addressed by this court’s prior orders.	The issue is overruled as already resolved by prior appellate orders.

Frost Nat’l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 484 (Tex. 2010) (summary judgment standard; review de novo with favorable inferences for nonmovant)
Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (evidence and inferences in summary judgment review)
Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (segregation of attorney’s fees when discrete services advance multiple claims)
In re Estate of Blankenship, 392 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (issues not raised in response cannot be considered on appeal)
City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979) (review of issues not preserved or presented in pleadings)
Jarvis v. Rocanville Corp., 298 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (summary-judgment grounds must be challenged to avoid affirmance)
Krueger v. Atascosa County, 155 S.W.3d 614 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (appellate review of summary judgments; unchallenged grounds uphold)