• Subscribe
  • Log In
  • Sign up for email updates
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

The Texas Lawbook

Free Speech, Due Process and Trial by Jury

  • Appellate
  • Bankruptcy
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Corp. Deal Tracker/M&A
  • GCs/Corp. Legal Depts.
  • Firm Management
  • White-Collar/Regulatory
  • Pro Bono/Public Service/D&I

A Rough Ruff Hearing

September 18, 2019 Allen Pusey

First there was a space problem. Then there was a parking problem, followed by a courtroom technology problem. 

Then came the real problem: nobody in the courtroom could get along. 

What should have been a short hearing in a long-running dispute over a relatively small family fortune was cut short when Probate Judge Brenda Hull Thompson of Dallas County finally gave up.

She asked each side to deliver by October 1, written documents describing their varying legal positions. “You may regard them as briefs,” Judge Thompson explained.

“Maybe it will help us focus on the issue at hand,” said Judge Thompson with the exasperation and restraint of someone who has presided over this peculiarly nasty litigation for more than eight years.

The issue at hand was pretty straight-forward: Can Chapter 112.054 of Subtitle B of the Texas Trust Code be applied in the wake of the resignation of the trustee of the Ruff Management Trust?

The trust was created in 2007 by and for Suzann Ruff, the widow of Dallas real estate investor Arthur Ruff. The issue arose because Frost Bank resigned as trustee in May, after serving in that capacity since 2010. Three of Mrs. Ruff’s children would like to assume those duties. And that’s where it gets sticky. 

The 12-year litigation history has been one of near-Biblical in-fighting between Suzann Ruff and her five children. Though the 75-year-old widow is its sole beneficiary, upon her death the children stand to inherit whatever is left. And despite the twin tugs of familial obligation and fiduciary responsibility, they’ve spent the last several years fighting, both with their mother and between themselves.

The paper trail is long and sordid. Suits and countersuits have been filed, then settled – only to be refiled. Arbitration has been demanded, then ignored. A standing $49 million judgment has proved uncollectable. The trust has filed for bankruptcy. Even the amount of money still at stake is in dispute.

For a comprehensive look at the case and a criminal court of inquiry that has been asked to investigate, see Mark Curriden’s coverage here.

Details of the sprawling litigation weren’t the point of Tuesday’s hearing, but they seemed to haunt it from the get-go. 

Originally set to take place at a probate court in a downtown Dallas office building, the site was moved to the Dallas County civil courthouse to accommodate the parties involved. But on Tuesday morning, when parking proved problematic, the hearing was moved back to the downtown office building – its start again delayed while a technician tinkered with a courtroom monitor.

When the hearing finally began, it was quickly overwhelmed by the bitterness of the dispute.

Suzann Ruff was there to testify. As she waited to take the stand, she sat alone at the edge of the courtroom, a pointed and painful distance from three of her children in attendance. When she began her testimony, her answers – offered to questions by lawyer Randal Mathis – were buried under a cascade of objections from the children’s attorney, Dan Wyde.

Wyde objected to Mathis’ questions. He objected to Suzann Ruff’s answers. He objected to Mathis’ responses. He objected to Judge Thompson’s rulings. At one point, Wyde objected to a lawyer watching from the gallery whom he had noticed giggling during one testy exchange. He asked Judge Thompson to intervene. She did so, noting the need for courtroom dignity.

On the few occasions when Mrs. Ruff managed to speak, it was a quiet “yes,” or a firm “no.” And her most telling response – describing why she agreed to change the trust from revocable to irrevocable – was raw and provocative: “The threat that I might be abandoned by my children.”

Her testimony was cut short to accommodate testimony by her daughter, Kelly Ruff Frazier, who had a schedule conflict. But Ms. Frazier’s testimony was also cut short – also by objections, this time by Mathis.

Mathis deemed her “unresponsive” to his questions. Wyde, in turn, objected to Mathis’ objections. “He’s not giving her a chance to finish her answer,” Wyde complained.

By noon Judge Thompson threw in the towel. She halted the hearing and asked for arguments in writing. 

Within minutes, lawyers and their clients were packed and gone.

Allen Pusey

Allen Pusey is a senior editor and writer at The Texas Lawbook.

View Allen’s articles

Email Allen

©2025 The Texas Lawbook.

Content of The Texas Lawbook is controlled and protected by specific licensing agreements with our subscribers and under federal copyright laws. Any distribution of this content without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.

If you see any inaccuracy in any article in The Texas Lawbook, please contact us. Our goal is content that is 100% true and accurate. Thank you.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Stories

  • McDermott Legal Department is ‘More than the Sum of its Parts’
  • Judge Ho Expresses ‘Sincere Concerns’ About ‘Disrespect’ Shown to Pres. Trump, Judge Hendrix in Concurrence Slamming Supreme Court
  • American Airlines, Supplier.io Settle Lawsuit Over Supplier Diversity Practices
  • Simpson Thacher Hires Project Finance Veteran
  • Shell US Lawyers Adam MacLuckie and Huyen Luong Have a ‘Need to be an Ally’

Footer

Who We Are

  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Submit a News Tip

Stay Connected

  • Sign up for email updates
  • Article Submission Guidelines
  • Premium Subscriber Editorial Calendar

Our Partners

  • The Dallas Morning News
The Texas Lawbook logo

1409 Botham Jean Blvd.
Unit 811
Dallas, TX 75215

214.232.6783

© Copyright 2025 The Texas Lawbook
The content on this website is protected under federal Copyright laws. Any use without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.