From: Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 16:53:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004D_01C7D781.1BE7D640" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C7D781.1BE7D640 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=83596 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Affirmed and Majority and Concurring = Opinions=20 filed July 10, 2007.

 

 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court=20 of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-05-00677-CV

____________

 

CAROLYN ANN=20 LESIKAR MOON, Individually and as Named Trustee of the CAROLYN ANN = LESIKAR=20 MOON SPECIAL TRUST, = Appellant

 

V.

 

WOODY K.=20 LESIKAR, Individually, as Trustee of the WOODROW V. LESIKAR FAMILY = TRUST,=20 Trustee of the WOODY K. LESIKAR SPECIAL TRUST, and Independent = Executor of=20 the ESTATE Of WOODROW V. LESIKAR; WEST HOUSTON AIRPORT = CORPORATION; SHELLY=20 ANN LESIKAR, Individually and as Trustee of the S&S TRUST; = STACY JAYNE=20 LESIKAR MARTIN, Individually and as Trustee of the S&S TRUST; = and the=20 S&S TRUST , = Appellees

 

 

On Appeal from the = 149th District Court

Brazoria County, = Texas

Trial Court Cause = No. 33,207

 

 

M A J O R=20 I T Y   O P I N I O N

Appellant,=20 Carolyn Ann Lesikar Moon, Individually and as Named Trustee of the = Carolyn=20 Ann Lesikar Moon Special Trust appeals the summary judgment = granted in=20 favor of appellees, Woody K Lesikar, Individually, as Trustee of = the=20 Woodrow V. Lesikar Special Trust, and Independent Executor of the = Estate=20 of Woodrow V. Lesikar; West Houston Airport Corporation; Shelly = Ann=20 Lesikar, Individually and as Trustee of the S&S Trust; Stacy = Jayne=20 Lesikar Martin, Individually and as Trustee of the S&S Trust; = and the=20 S&S Trust (collectively AAirport=20 Defendants@). =20 We affirm. 

           = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp; =20 Background

Carolyn=20 Ann Lesikar Moon and Woody Lesikar are brother and sister.  = In=20 January 1990, their father, Woodrow V. Lesikar (AMr.=20 Lesikar@),=20 established the Woodrow V. Lesikar Family Trust (the AFamily=20 Trust@), naming=20 himself and Woody co-trustees.  Mr. Lesikar placed in the = Family=20 Trust 10,000 shares of stock in West Houston Airport Corporation=20 (AAirport=20 Stock@). =20

The Family=20 Trust provided that Mr. Lesikar would receive all net income from = the=20 trust assets during his lifetime.  Upon Mr. = Lesikar=3Ds death,=20 the trust would become irrevocable, and separate special trusts = would be=20 created for Woody, Carolyn, Margie Pugh Morgan (Mr. = Lesikar=3Ds wife),=20 and his grandchildren.  Woody=3Ds special=20 trust was to receive all the Airport Stock, the = grandchildren=3Ds trusts=20 were to receive certain real property, and Margie=3Ds trust=20 was to receive certain stock holdings, while the remainder was to = be=20 divided between Woody=3Ds special=20 trust and Carolyn=3Ds special=20 trust.  Mr. Lesikar reserved the right to revoke the trust = agreement=20 or amend the trust by written notice to the trustee.  In = keeping with=20 his right to revoke, in 1991, Mr. Lesikar revoked, in writing, = part of the=20 Family Trust, removing Margie as a beneficiary. 

In 1997,=20 Mr. Lesikar decided to transfer the 10,000 shares of Airport Stock = to a=20 trust established for Woody=3Ds children=20 (Shelly Ann Lesikar and Stacy Jayne Lesikar Martin)Cthe=20 S&S Trust.  On September 5, 1997, Mr. Lesikar wrote = Carolyn=20 explaining his decision.  Mr. Lesikar also stated in that = letter he=20 was going to revise his will to provide for Margie, he was asking = Woody to=20 have his will redrafted, with input from Carolyn and Margie, and = he might=20 make other changes. 

On March=20 16, 1998, Mr. Lesikar signed a new trust agreement that = Amodifies,=20 amends and supersedes the Trust Agreement and any modifications = and=20 amendments previous to the date of the signing hereof.@  The=20 Amended Family Trust was effective as of December 31, 1997.  = The=20 Amended Family Trust placed Margie back in as a beneficiary.  = Upon=20 Mr. Lesikar=3Ds death,=20 $250,000 would be placed into a trust, with the income payable to = Margie=20 for her lifetime.  Mr. Lesikar=3Ds=20 grandchildren would each receive $10,000; Shriner = Children=3Ds Hospital=20 would receive $50,000; and the remainder would be divided equally = between=20 Woody and Carolyn and distributed to their respective special=20 trusts.  The Amended Family Trust did not mention the = distribution of=20 the Airport Stock to Woody as the original trust had.

Mr.=20 Lesikar sold the Airport Stock to Woody for $2,000 for the benefit = of the=20 S&S Trust.  On his 1997 federal income tax return, Mr. = Lesikar=20 claimed a $191,228 loss from the sale, which he used to offset a=20 $1,674,203 gain from the sale of other stock.  Although the = tax=20 return, which is dated February 24, 1998, states the sale of the = stock=20 took place on December 30, 1997, Mr. Lesikar did not receive the = $2,000=20 until December 1998.  The assignment of the Airport Stock to = the=20 S&S Trust is dated December 30, 1998. 

On January=20 28, 2001, Mr. Lesikar died thereby making the Amended Family Trust = irrevocable.  On August 19, 2003, Carolyn filed a petition = for=20 construction of trust, declaratory judgment, accounting, = appointment of a=20 receiver, and injunctive relief against the Airport = Defendants. =20 Complaining of the sale of the Airport Stock to Woody for $2,000 = as an=20 inadequate price, Carolyn brought claims for negligence, breach of = fiduciary duty, conversion, and civil conspiracy against Woody, = and civil=20 conspiracy against the S&S Trust.

Carolyn,=20 Woody, and the Airport Defendants moved for summary judgment on = the issue=20 of the sale of the Airport Stock to Woody.  The trial court = denied=20 Carolyn=3Ds motion=20 for summary judgment, and granted Woody=3Ds and the=20 Airport Defendants=3D = motions=20 for summary judgment.  The trial court ordered the portion of = the=20 case relating to the sale of the Airport Stock severed from the = remainder=20 of the case.  Carolyn appeals the denial of her motion for = summary=20 judgment and the granting of the appellees=3D = motions=20 for summary judgment.

           = ;            =             &= nbsp;      =20 Standard of=20 Review

To prevail=20 on a motion for summary judgment under 166a(c), the movant must = establish=20 that no material fact issue exists and that it is entitled to = judgment as=20 a matter of law.  Browning v. Prostok, 165 S.W.3d 336, = 344=20 (Tex. 2005).  In conducting our review of the summary = judgment, we=20 take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant, and make all = reasonable inferences in the nonmovant=3Ds=20 favor.  Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 = S.W.3d=20 842, 846 (Tex. 2005).  A defendant is entitled to summary = judgment on=20 an affirmative defense if the defendant presents evidence that = establishes=20 each element of the affirmative defense as a matter of law. =20 Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 121 = (Tex.1996). =20 When a trial court=3Ds order=20 granting summary judgment does not specify the grounds upon which = it=20 relied, we must affirm the summary judgment if any of the summary = judgment=20 grounds presented are meritorious.  FM Props. Operating = Co. v.=20 City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868, 872B73 (Tex.=20 2000). 

           = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;     =20 Standing

In her=20 tenth issue, Carolyn claims the trial court erred in granting = summary=20 judgment in favor of appellees on the ground that she lacked = standing to=20 complain about the sale of the Airport Stock because she had no = interest=20 in it at the time of the sale.  Carolyn asserts, as a matter = of law,=20 the 1997 Amended Family Trust was in effect at the time of the = sale of=20 Airport Stock.  Carolyn contends because the 1997 Amended = Family=20 Trust makes no mention of the Airport Stock, it is part of the = residuary=20 to be divided between her and Woody.  Clearly, if the 1990 = Family=20 Trust was in effect at the time of the sale, Carolyn had no = interest in=20 the Airport Stock because the Trust specifically provided=20 Woody=3Ds special=20 trust was to receive the stock.  However, even if the 1997 = Amended=20 Family Trust was in effect at the time of the sale, for the = reasons stated=20 below, we conclude Carolyn has no standing to challenge the sale = of the=20 Airport Stock.

Carolyn=20 argues, as a beneficiary of the Amended Family Trust, she has = standing to=20 bring this cause of action.  AAny=20 interested person may bring an action under Section 115.001 = of this=20 Act.@ =20 Tex. Prop. Code = Ann.=20 ' = 115.011(a) (Vernon 2007) (emphasis added).  An Ainterested=20 person@ = is=20 defined as Aa trustee,=20 beneficiary, or any other person having an interest = in or a=20 claim against the trust or any person who is affected by the=20 administration of the trust.@ =20 Tex. Prop. Code = Ann.=20 ' = 111.004(7) (Vernon 2007) (emphasis added).  A Abeneficiary@ = is=20 Aa person=20 for whose benefit property is held in trust, regardless of the = nature of=20 the interest.@ =20 Id. ' = 111.004(2).  An Ainterest@ = is=20 Aany=20 interest, whether legal or equitable or both, present or future, = vested or=20 contingent, defeasible or indefeasible.@ =20 Id. ' = 111.004(6) (emphasis added). 

Carolyn,=20 as a contingent beneficiary, would appear to meet the definition = of an=20 interested person with standing to bring suit against a trustee = for breach=20 of fiduciary duty. However, Mr. Lesikar, as settlor, was empowered = to=20 revoke or amend the 1997 Amended Family Trust.  Until the = death of=20 Mr. Lesikar, he was also the sole beneficiary of the 1997 Amended = Family=20 Trust.  The question presented is whether a contingent = beneficiary=20 can complain of a transaction by the settlor of a revocable trust, = prior=20 to the vesting of her interest upon the death of the = settlor.  By the=20 cases the parties have cited and our own research, it does not = appear that=20 Texas has addressed this issue, but other jurisdictions = have. =20

In=20 Hoescher v. Sandage, Thelma Warren created the Thelma L. = Warren=20 Revocable Trust, which owned 67 percent of the family home and = farm, while=20 her children owned 33 percent.  462 N.W.2d 289, 291 (Iowa Ct. = App.=20 1990).  Thelma and a friend were named co-trustees. =20 Id.  Thelma and the children mortgaged the home farm = to secure=20 an operating loan.  Id.  In a foreclosure action = against=20 the trustees and the children, the bank acquired all of the home = farm=20 except the homestead, and Thelma voluntarily revoked the Thelma=20 Trust.  Id.  The plaintiffs, who were two of = children and=20 their spouses, sued Thelma=3Ds=20 co-trustee for fraud.  Id.  The court noted that=20 Thelma=3Ds children=20 possessed an interest in the trust property which would vest only = upon the=20 discretion of Thelma.  Id. at 294.  Under the = terms of=20 the Thelma Trust, as co-trustee and settlor of the Thelma = Trust,=20 Thelma retained discretion to use her 67 percent of the = home farm=20 Aas she=20 pleased regardless of its inclusion in the Thelma = Trust.@ =20 Id.  The court, thus, held the plaintiffs lacked = standing to=20 attack the co-trustee about his actions in connection with = mortgaging the=20 trust property.  Id. 

In In=20 re Malasky, the Malaskys (Harry and Marion) created a joint = revocable=20 living trust of which they were the trustees.  736 N.Y.S.2d = 151, 152=20 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002).  When Harry died, another individual = replaced=20 him as co-trustee.  Id.  Harry=3Ds children=20 from his first marriage objected to the trust accountings. =20 Id.  Under the trust document, the Malasky=3Ds were the=20 only persons who had an interest in the income and principal of = the trust=20 during their respective joint lives and the children had no = pecuniary=20 interest in the trust during this period of time.  Id. = at=20 152B53. =20 There was no construction of the trust giving the children any = interest=20 until Harry=3Ds=20 death.  Id. at 153.  During the lifetime of the=20 settlors, they acted as trustees, received income from the = trust,=20 and explicitly retained the power to revoke or amend the trust at = any=20 time.  Id.  Therefore, the children had no = pecuniary=20 interest in the revocable trust until Harry=3Ds death=20 and had no right to an accounting for the period from the date the = trust=20 was created until the date of Harry=3Ds=20 death.  Id. 

The court,=20 in Siegel v. Novak, found the beneficiaries of a revocable = trust=20 could challenge the disbursements made by the trustee where = someone other=20 than the settlor made distributions from the trust.  920 So. = 2d 89=20 (Fla. App. 2006).  Rautbord executed an Amended and Restated=20 (Revocable) Agreement of Trust, with JP Morgan Chase Bank as=20 trustee.  Id. at 91.  Under the trust, all = property would=20 be divided among Rautbord=3Ds=20 children.  Id.  After creating the trust, = Rautbord=20 executed a durable power of attorney making her daughter, Novak, = her=20 attorney-in-fact.  Id. at 92.  While Rautbord was = alive,=20 Novak made large withdrawals from the trust through the power of = attorney;=20 JP Morgan Chase Bank, as trustee, approved the withdrawals. =20 Id.  Applying New York law, the Florida court of = appeals, held=20 Rautbord=3Ds sons had=20 standing to challenge the withdrawals prior to = Rautbord=3Ds death=20 because the settlor and the trustee were not the same = person. =20 Id. at 95.  Where a person or entity different from = the=20 settlor removes property or money from a revocable trust, those=20 withdrawals could conceivably be made without the = settlor=3Ds=20 knowledge or consent.  Id.  After the death of = the=20 settlor, the beneficiaries of a revocable trust have standing to = challenge=20 pre-death withdrawals from the trust which are outside the = purposes=20 authorized by the trust and which were not approved or ratified by = the=20 settlor personally or through a method contemplated by the trust=20 instrument.  Id. 

We find=20 the reasoning in Hoescher and Malasky persuasive, = and the=20 reasoning in Siegel instructive.  Mr. Lesikar, who was = both=20 settlor and trustee, had the power to revoke or amend the 1997 = Amended=20 Family Trust.  We similarly conclude the vesting of the = contingent=20 benficiaries=3D = interests=20 was subject to Mr. Lesikar=3Ds=20 discretion before his death. 

Carolyn=20 complains the conveyance of the Airport Stock was not in writing, = in=20 accordance with Section 112.105(c) of the Texas Property Code, = which=20 provides A[i]f a=20 trust was created by a written instrument, a revocation, = modification, or=20 amendment of the trust must be in writing.  Tex. Prop. Code Ann. = ' = 112.051(c) (Vernon 2007); see also Runyan v. Mullins, 864 = S.W.2d=20 785, 788 (Tex. App.CFort Worth=20 1993, writ denied) (quoting Restatement (Second) of = Trusts=20 ' = 331 cmt.=20 d (1959)) (A>[I]f the=20 Settlor reserves a power to modify the trust only in a particular = manner=20 or under particular circumstances, he can modify the trust only in = that=20 manner or under those circumstances.=3D@). =20

In=20 Starcrest Trust v. Berry, the trial court found the=20 settlor=3Ds=20 execution of a deed of trust pledging certain trust property to = secure a=20 loan, manifested the settlor=3Ds=20 intention to revoke the trust.  926 S.W.2d 343, 352 (Tex.=20 App.CAustin=20 1996, no writ).  The court of appeals rejected the=20 plaintiffs=3D = argument=20 that there was no evidence to support the trial court=3Ds finding=20 because there was no evidence of a formal written revocation of = the trust=20 under section 112.051(c) of the Texas Property Code, which = requires that=20 changes to a written trust agreement also be in writing.  = Id.=20 at 353.  Instead, the court of appeals stated the intent to = revoke=20 must be shown in the instrument used to revoke, although it need = not=20 expressly refer to the power to revoke, and that revocation = occurred by=20 the settlor=3Ds=20 conveyance of the trust property to a third person.  = Id.=20 (quoting Bogert, The Law = of Trusts=20 and Trustees ' = 1001). 

Carolyn=20 argues Starcrest Trust is distinguishable because the = entire corpus=20 of the trust in that case was conveyed out of the trust.  We = do not=20 read Starcrest Trust as limited to factual scenarios in = which the=20 entire trust corpus has been conveyed to a third party.  = Instead, we=20 believe the reasoning of the Starcrest Trust applies = equally to=20 cases, such as the one here, where the settlor has conveyed only = part of=20 the trust corpus to a third party.[1] =20 We conclude Mr. Lesikar showed his intent to revoke the Family = Trust with=20 respect to the Airport Stock by his conveyance of that stock to = the=20 S&S Trust. 

Carolyn=20 further complains Mr. Lesikar did not provide written notification = of=20 revocation to himself or Woody, as trustees, as required by the = 1997=20 Amended Family Trust: 

10.1 =20 While the Settlor is living, he may revoke this Trust Agreement by = written=20 notice to the Trustee.  The Settlor may amend this Trust = Agreement by=20 written notice to the Trustee (unless waived); provided, however, = the=20 Trust Agreement may not be amended to change the obligations, = duties, or=20 rights of the Trustee without the written consent of the = Trustee. =20

When the=20 trustee is also the settlor of the revocable trust, the settlor is = not=20 required to serve written notice on himself.  See, e.g., = Argo v.=20 Moncus, 721 So. 2d 218, 222 (Ala. Ct. App. 1998) (holding=20 settlor/trustee was not required to give written notice to herself = that=20 she was deeding her home to another); Paul, 123 P.3d at=20 809B10=20 (refusing to impose a technical requirement that the = settlor/grantor=20 deliver written notice to himself).  AIt would=20 be absurd to require the settlor to call himself up on the = telephone as=20 trustee and tell himself that he is revoking the trust.  It = would be=20 equally absurd to have the settlor send himself a letter as = trustee to=20 inform himself as trustee that the trust is = terminated.@ =20 Barnett v. McNulty, 516 P.2d 583, 586 (Ariz. Ct. App. = 1973). =20 Similarly, we see no reason to impose this technical requirement = when Mr.=20 Lesikar was both settlor and trustee and he effectuated the sale = of the=20 Airport Stock in his capacity as trustee of the 1997 Amended = Family=20 Trust. 

We=20 conclude that because Mr. Lesikar was the settlor of the trust = with the=20 power to revoke the trust, the sole beneficiary of the trust while = alive,=20 and co-trustee of the trust, Carolyn has no standing to complain = of Mr.=20 Lesikar=3Ds=20 disposition of Family Trust assets, including the Airport = Stock.  The=20 court did not err in granting Woody=3Ds and the=20 Airport Defendant=3Ds motion=20 for summary judgment and denying Carolyn=3Ds motion=20 for summary judgment.  Carolyn=3Ds tenth=20 issue is overruled.[2] =20

Accordingly,=20 the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/     =20 J. Harvey Hudson

Justice

 

 

 

 

Judgment=20 rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed July 10,=20 2007.

Panel=20 consists of Justices Anderson, Hudson, and Guzman.  (Guzman, = J.=20 Concurring.)


[1]  Other jurisdictions hold the = transfer of=20 trust property out of the trust is a revocation to the extent of = that=20 property.  See, e.g., In re Estate of Coleman, 28 Cal. = Rptr.=20 3d 282, 287 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (AIf the trust reserves the power in the = settlor to=20 withdraw trust property from the trust, as here, the withdrawal = terminates=20 the trust as to the property withdrawn.@); Siegel, 920 So. 2d at 95 = (A[A] settlor/trustee=3Ds withdrawal of funds from a revocable = trust is=20 tantamount to a revocation or termination of the trust with = respect to the=20 funds withdrawn.@); Paul v. Arvidson, 123 P.3d = 808, 811=20 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005) (A[Settlor/trustee=3Ds] acts of creating a conflicting trust = that was=20 meant to include all of his property and then specifically = conveying the=20 subject property to that Trust by General Warranty Deed is clear = evidence=20 of his intent to revoke Trust No. 1 as to that = property.@). 

 

Additionally, a number of commentators = have=20 reached the same conclusion.  See, e.g., George = Gleason=20 Bogert, The Law of = Trusts and=20 Trustees ' 1001, p.336 (Rev. 2d ed. 2005) = (ARevocation may be held to have occurred = by means=20 of a conveyance by the settlor to a third person that covers the = trust=20 property.@); Austin Wakeman Scott,The Law of Trusts = ' 330.11, p.371 (1989) (AWhere [the settlor] simply reserves a = power in=20 general terms to revoke the trust, he ordinarily has power to = revoke it in=20 part by withdrawing some of the property from the = trust.@); Restatement (Third) of = Trusts=20 ' 63ctm. e (1991) (AA power simply to revoke the trust, = however, is=20 interpreted as including also the power to revoke the trust in = part, thus=20 allowing withdrawal of some rather than all of the property from = the=20 trust, if that is all the settlor wishes to do.@); 76 Am.=20 Jur. 2d Trusts ' 76 (AThe revocation of a trust may be held to = have=20 occurred by means of a conveyance by the settlor to a third person = that=20 covers the trust property.@). 

[2]  Because of our disposition, we = need not=20 address the other issues raised on appeal. =20

------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C7D781.1BE7D640 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/opinions/images/icoEMail.gif R0lGODlhFAAPAKIAAAAAgIAAAP///8DAwICAgAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAFAAPAAADNCi63P4wykaq vba4Mrr/ndaITxAM5JI2JrotQCwr7jjVDCnPAq7eKwEHRAwWjshkcsJsShIAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C7D781.1BE7D640 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/includes/oca.css .TitleBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlueCenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TitleMaroon { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: maroon; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .NavWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.NavWhite:hover { TEXT-DECORATION: underline } .BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } A.BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.BreadCrumbs:hover { COLOR: blue } .TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextJustify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextNormal:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow } .TextSmallBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextSmallJust { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextSmall { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmallJust { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmall:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } A.TextSmallJust:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmallWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = white; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextWhite { =09 } A.TextWhite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .LinksSite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.LinksSite { =09 } A.LinksSite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextNotify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow } .SiteMaster { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster { LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase:hover { COLOR: blue } .ErrorNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .ErrorSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .SystemMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = navy } .SystemErrorMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: red } .buttonUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #fff5d7; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #576a9d; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .buttonTanUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #576a9d; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff5d7; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextLargeBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .DocketHeaderTitle { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, ' Helvetica', sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextLargeBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TextLargeBlackcenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .TextRed { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .TextHidenGray { FONT-SIZE: 0pt; COLOR: #ebebe1; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .Time { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: 4em; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C7D781.1BE7D640--