The opinion
ACCEPTED
03-14-00574-CV
4116579
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
2/11/2015 4:49:16 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
NO. 03-14-00574-CV
________________________________________________________________________
FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AUSTIN, TEXAS
FOR THE 2/17/2015 8:56:00 AM
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JEFFREY D. KYLE
AT AUSTIN Clerk
_____________________________________________________________
SHARON LEE HANSON,
Appellant,
vs.
GUY ROBB COWEN,
Appellee.
_____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 33rd Judicial District Court of Burnet County, Texas
Honorable Daniel H. Mills, Presiding Judge
_____________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF APPELLEE
_____________________________________________________________
Marie Eisela Galindo
State Bar No. 00796592
639 Heights Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77007
Tel: 713.299.1510
Fax: 713.651.0776
megalindo@thegalindolawfirm.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
GUY ROBB COWEN
OBJECTION TO ORAL ARGUMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Appellant's
Brief at VI so excluded pursuant to TRAP 38.2(a)(1)(A).
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
ISSUES PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . v
OBJECTION TO ORAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . vi - 9
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
AUTHORITY PAGE(S)
Alexander v. Hagedorn, 226 S.W.2d 996, 998 (1950).................................... 16
Gold v. Gold, 145 S.W.3d 212, 213 (Tex. 2004)............................................. 16
In re E.A., 287 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tex. 2009)........................................................... 15
Nguyen v. Intertex, Inc. 93 S.W.3d 288, 293(Tex.App.-Houston[14th Dist.]
2002, no pet)...................................................................... 12
Smith v. Brown, 51 S.W.3d 376, 381 (Tex.App.-Houston[1st Dist.]
2001, pet. denied).............................................................. 13
Ryland Enter v. Weatherspoon, 355 S.W.3d 664, 665-66 (Tex. 2011).............. 13
Warren v. Walter, 414 S.W.2d 423 (Tex. 1967)................................................. 12
TEXAS CONSTITUTION, STATUTES AND RULES
TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1 ….................................................................................... 13
TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1) …........................................................................... 13
TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(B)...........................................................................13
TEX. R. CIV. P. 21 …...................................................................................... 14
TEX. R. CIV. P. 21(a) ….................................................................................. 14
TEX. R. CIV. P. 24…........................................................................................ 14
TEX. R. CIV. P. 45 …....................................................................................... 16
TEX. R. CIV. P. 71 …....................................................................................... 16
iii
TEX. R. CIV. P. 120 …..................................................................................... 15
TEX. R. CIV. P. 121 …..................................................................................... 15
TEX. R. CIV. P. 122…...................................................................................... 15
TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(5)...................................................................................13
TEX. R. CIV. P. 314 …..................................................................................... 13, 16
TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a) …...............................................................................13
TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(d) …...............................................................................16
TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(g) …...............................................................................16
iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On or about August 6, 2013, Appellee Guy Robb Cowen (hereinafter
“Cowen”) filed his Bill of Review challenging the adverse judgment on June 24,
2013. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit A and Cowen's Appendix Exhibit E.
On November 20, 2013, the Court set the Bill of Review for hearing on
January 8, 2014, after input from the parties as to scheduling. See Cowen's
Appendix Exhibit A.
Over three (3) months later, or on April 30, 2014, the trial court entered an
Order granting Plaintiff's Bill of Review. See Hanson's Exhibit C. Months after
the hearing and three (3) days after the Order is entered, on May 2, 2014, Appellant
Sharon Lee Hanson (hereinafter “Hanson”) filed an Answer to the Bill of Review.
See Cowen's Appendix Exhibit B.
Two months later, Hanson then filed a Motion for New Trial on July 18,
2014. See Hanson's Exhibit D. On August 27, 2014, the trial court denies Hanson's
Motion for New Trial. See Hanson's Exhibit E.
On September 3, 2014, Hanson filed her Notice of Appeal with this Court.
ISSUES PRESENTED
ISSUE NUMBER ONE
ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN OPENING BRIEF ARE WAIVED. THE FIRST
v
ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS WHETHER HANSON'S CLAIM THAT THE
COURT LACKED PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS TIME-BARRED AND
FRIVOLOUS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WHETHER HANSON WAIVED
THIS ARGUMENT GIVEN HER AND HER REPRESENTATION'S CONDUCT?
ISSUE NUMBER TWO
ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN OPENING BRIEF ARE WAIVED. THE
SECOND ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS WHETHER HANSON'S CLAIM
THAT THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE BILL OF
REVIEW IS TIME-BARRED AND FRIVOLOUS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
WHETHER THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT
COWEN IS ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS TO PURSUE HIS BILL OF
REVIEW AND THAT EQUITABLE RELIEF IS WARRANTED?
OBJECTION TO ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellee Cowen understands that Hanson has a right to oral argument absent
certain reasons identified in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 39.1(a) – (d). Cowen
respectfully objects for each of these reasons to oral argument in this case.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Cowen and Hanson agreed in April, 2007, to jointly purchase a home and list
Hanson on the mortgage if Cowen paid significant amounts towards the purchase
and mortgage. Cowen and Hanson purchased the home and moved in together on
or about May, 2007. Hanson conceded having made this same agreement with
another man before and she kept that home. (RR at V.4 at Cowen Exhibit 3:21:7-
22:8).
Almost four (4) years later, on or about Thanksgiving Day, 2010, acrimony
vi
ensued and Hanson asked Cowen to leave. (RR at V.4 at Cowen Exhibit 3:14:3).
Litigation followed the separation. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit A providing
history to Cause No. 41,742 from Cause No. 38,316 and (RR at V.4 at Cowen
Exhibit 3).
More specifically, as related to the issues herein, on December 7, 2010,
Cowen sued Hanson in Cause No. 38,316 regarding the fraudulent representations
she made regarding the home purchase and provided the sums spent towards
purchase, renovations, upkeep and in mortgage payments: an initial downpayment
of $41,378.44; $105,246.63 for indoor/outdoor removal/renovations/upkeep;
$47,450.00 in mortgage payments; and $7,000.00 in property taxes. See Hanson's
Appendix Exhibit A.
Shortly thereafter, at a hearing held January 5, 2011 before another court,
Hanson confirmed the agreement and representation in testifying:
Robb put down the down payment. I don't recall exactly how much it was. Our
deal was he would use the down payment and I would use my credit and we would
live in the house together, make it liveable for the two of us, and then when --- if
the relationship didn't work out and we had to go separate ways we agreed we
would sell the house and split the profit. That was our deal. And we've never
got any of that in writing, but it was a handshake deal between the two of us.
That's the deal that I am more than willing to honor and I will sell that house to
anybody that has the money to pay off the note and I will split the profit with him
and walk away.
(emphasis added)(RR at V.2:18:18-19:25 and V.4 at Exhibit 3:23:2-13).
7
After discovery, negotiations and the need for a restraining order to allow
Cowen to remove his personal items from the home, the matter was set on the
dismissal docket on May 16, 2013. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit A at 1-4.
Neither Cowen nor his attorney received notice of the dismissal docket. See
Cowen's Appendix Exhibit F and Id. On June 24, 2013, neither Hanson nor
Cowen's counsel appeared and the trial court dismissed Cowen's suit against
Hanson. See Cowen's Appendix Exhibit F and Id.
Immediately upon learning of the judgment from Cowen, a Bill of Review
was filed on or about August 6, 2013. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit A. Defense
counsel was served with the revised Bill of Review. (RR at V.2:14:4-16:11 and
17:14-20:13).
On November 20, 2013, after the parties consulted, the Court set the Bill of
Review for hearing on January 8, 2014. See Cowen's Appendix Exhibit A. Hanson
and her attorney appeared at said hearing. (RR at V.2:1-29:10).
At the hearing, Hanson never moved to continue said hearing. (RR at V.2:1-
29:10). Hanson requested instead that the Bill of Review be denied. Id.
On April 30, 2014, the trial court entered an Order granting Plaintiff's Bill of
Review. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit C.
Three (3) days after the Order is entered, on May 2, 2014, Hanson filed a
8
written Answer. (emphasis added). See Cowen's Appendix Exhibit B.
Hanson then filed an untimely Motion for New Trial approximately eighty
(80) days after entry of the Order granting relief on July 18, 2014, which is 78 days
after she filed her Answer. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit D. The Motion for New
Trial is based exclusively upon the testimony of trial and now, appellate counsel,
that he never received the court's order granting Cowen's Bill of Review. See
Hanson's Appendix Exhibit D, RR at V.3:5:24-7:16 and Cowen's Appendix
Exhibits C and D. There is no independent proof in support of the Motion for New
Trial and the two (2) sworn statements appear to differ in one significant respect:
viewing of Clerk's file on April 29, 2014. Id. On August 27, 2014, the trial court,
after allowing for briefing, denied Hanson's Motion for New Trial. See Hanson's
Appendix Exhibit E.
Appellant Hanson now files an untimely and frivolous appeal, on September
3, 2014, from an adverse order entered April 30, 2014, wherein the Court found she
had appeared to respond to the Bill of Review and that the Bill of Review should
be granted. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit C and Cowen's Appendix Exhibit B.
Hanson does not appeal the denial of her untimely Motion for New Trial. See
Appellant's brief wherein issues raised are challenges to the two (2) inherent and
explicit findings in the court's Order granting Cowen's Bill of Review on April 30,
9
2014.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The instant appeal is time-barred and frivolous as to both claims for relief.
Hanson is either 96 days too late in filing her Notice of Appeal or is precluded
from challenging the Order in question because she must wait for a final judgment
when a Bill of Review has been granted. In other words, Hanson is precluded from
contesting the April 30, 2014 order at this time or she has sat on her rights and did
not pursue an appeal of the unfavorable Order granting Cowen's Bill of Review
which was entered approximately eighty (80) days before she filed her Motion for
New Trial; 78 days after she filed an Answer; and 191 days after the January 8,
2014 hearing which is at the center of her appeal. It is clear that the Motion for
New Trial was an untimely and frivolous filing at the trial court level used to revert
to the instant claims that were time-barred months before or are before the court
prematurely without a final judgment. Hanson attaches the Motion for New Trial
and the Order denying said Motion in her Appendix to her brief, but its denial is
not raised as an issue before this court. The issues raised in Hanson's appeal
expressly pertain to the appearance finding by the trial court and the granting of
Cowen's Bill of Review.
In the alternative and without waiving the foregoing, Hanson and her
10
attorney's conduct confirmed appearance in the lawsuit when they appeared for a
hearing, set months in advance with their input, for the Bill of Review that was
served on her trial counsel six (6) months prior to said hearing.
Moreover, in the alternative and without waiving the foregoing arguments,
Cowen is not absolutely precluded from due process and equitable relief by way of
a Bill of Review after the court lost plenary power. His Bill of Review
demonstrates why the relief requested squarely addresses why his facts, procedural
posture, merits of his original case, record before the court and why, for his case, it
is the remedy pursued necessitating the favorable finding of the court on April 30,
2014.
Hanson is precluded from raising her claims and they must be rejected. In
the alternative and without waiving the foregoing, her claims are wholly without
merit.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
ISSUE NUMBER ONE
ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN OPENING BRIEF ARE WAIVED. THE FIRST
ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS WHETHER HANSON'S CLAIM THAT THE
COURT LACKED PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS TIME-BARRED AND
FRIVOLOUS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WHETHER HANSON WAIVED
THIS ARGUMENT GIVEN HER AND HER REPRESENTATION'S CONDUCT?
ISSUE NUMBER TWO
11
ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN OPENING BRIEF ARE WAIVED. THE
SECOND ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS WHETHER HANSON'S CLAIM
THAT THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE BILL OF
REVIEW IS TIME-BARRED AND FRIVOLOUS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
WHETHER THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT
COWEN IS ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS TO PURSUE HIS BILL OF
REVIEW AND THAT EQUITABLE RELIEF IS WARRANTED?
A. BOTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ARE TIME-BARRED AND
FRIVOLOUS
1. Claims for Relief are Time-Barred as Too Late or Premature
Hanson raises claims for relief that were squarely addressed by the trial court
after the January 8, 2014, Bill of Review Hearing and decided on April 30, 2014 by
written order. In that order, Judge Mills granted Cowen's Bill of Review. See
Hanson's Appendix Exhibit C. If a court grants the bill of review, that order is not
appealable because it is interlocutory. Warren v. Walter, 414 S.W.2d 423 (Tex.
1967). It can be appealed only with a final judgment on the merits of the
underlying case and is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Nguyen v.
Intertex, Inc. 93 S.W.3d 288, 293(Tex.App.-Houston[14th Dist.] 2002, no pet).
If the court should find that it can review a grant of a Bill of Review prior to
a final judgment, then Hanson has filed her appeal too late. Three (3) days after the
trial court entered this Order, on May 2, 2014, Hanson filed her written Answer and
Motion for Summary Judgment. See Cowen's Appendix Exhibit B and the Clerk's
12
Record in Cause Number 41,742. Hanson did not file a notice of appeal within 30
days of the challenged order. Ryland Enter v. Weatherspoon, 355 S.W.3d 664, 665-
66 (Tex. 2011). Instead, months later, she files her Motion for New Trial
contesting the entry of the April 30, 2014 Order basing it on her attorney's
conflicting sworn testimony as to whether he looked in the court file on April 29,
2014. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306(a)(5) and 329b(a) and Hanson's Appendix Exhibit
D and Cowen's Appendix Exhibits C (written oath of attorney) and D (testimony in
court under oath). Upon the denial of her untimely Motion for New Trial, Hanson
attempts to use it as a means to challenge the April 30, 2014 Order, but she is
approximately 96 days too late in filing her Notice of Appeal on September 3,
2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(B)(mandating that appellate claims be
timely made), 26.1 and 26.1(a)(1).
2. Claims for Relief are Frivolous
Hanson's appeal is frivolous. Cowen understands that the court reviews the
record from Hanson's viewpoint and decides whether she had reasonable grounds
to believe the judgment could be reversed. Smith v. Brown, 51 S.W.3d 376, 381
(Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). First and foremost, it is
unreasonable to pursue this appeal when she can settle the suit after testifying
under oath that they made “the deal” to sell the house and split the profits in the
event the relationship soured. (RR at V.2:18:18-19:25 and V.4 at Exhibit 3:23:2-
13
13) and TEX. R. CIV. P. 314. Moreover, it is unreasonable for Hanson to argue she
never appeared in this suit and the court erred on April 30, 2014, in rendering that
finding and then filing a written Answer a few days later to only argue herein four
(4) months later that the trial court was wrong in exercising personal jurisdiction.
Additionally, it is unreasonable for Hanson to claim there was no notice of the new
suit, when the new suit was in hand for at least six (6) months prior to the
underlying January 8, 2014 hearing and then challenging the court's authority to
rule nine (9) months later on that suit in an untimely appeal filed on September 3,
2014, over one (1) year after her attorney had the Bill of Review in hand.
Furthermore, there is nothing reasonable about arguing in her appellate brief that
the court abused its discretion in ruling on April 30, 2014, when it should have
continued the proceeding, wherein she never requested a continuance. All told,
Hanson's two (2) claims for relief should be rejected as time-barred for being
premature or too late and frivolous.
B. IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT WAIVING THE
FOREGOING, APPEARANCE ENTERED BY HANSON WAIVES FIRST
CLAIM
In the alternative and without waiving the foregoing, the first issue for
review is whether Hanson and her attorney waived citation and entered an
appearance by their actions. The Clerk had a duty to assign the Bill of Review a
file number. TEX. R. CIV. P. 24. Cowen had a duty to serve Hanson or her
14
authorized representative. TEX. R. CIV. P. 21 and 21(a). According to Rule 21(a),
service can be presumed on the attorney of record. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit
A and In re E.A., 287 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tex. 2009). A Defendant's appearance before a
court generally indicates a submission to the court's jurisdiction. TEX. R. CIV. P.
120. In the instant case, Hanson averred in court that she would have filed an
answer or entered an appearance denying the applicability of a Bill of Review if
she had been served with right Bill of Review in this cause number, but that
position is disingenuous given that any written appearance, under the wrong cause
number, was not made until January 3, 2014. See CR 38,316 and (RR at V.2:26:22-
28:1). Moreover, Hanson filed an Answer in response to the Bill of Review,
conceding jurisdiction and waiving service. See Cowen's Appendix Exhibit B and
TEX. R. CIV. P. 121. Furthermore, even if Hanson had succeeded on January 8,
2014 in asserting that her and her attorney's appearance did not constitute service,
she had “twenty (20) days after the Monday next” from January 8, 2014, to
respond to the suit. TEX. R. CIV. P. 122. Approximately 115 days after the hearing,
Hanson filed her Answer and a Motion for Summary Judgment. Consequently,
Hanson wrongly avers that only a scintilla of evidence supported personal
jurisdiction where there was significant law and facts supporting the trial court's
decision entered on April 30, 2014.
15
C. IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT WAIVING THE
FOREGOING, TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE DISCRETION IN
GRANTING COWEN'S BILL OF REVIEW
In the alternative and without waiving the foregoing, the next issue for
consideration is whether the trial judge abused his discretion when he granted
Cowen's Bill of Review. A trial judge's authority is broad. A bill of review is
designed to prevent manifest injustice. Alexander v. Hagedorn, 226 S.W.2d 996,
998 (1950). “All pleadings shall be construed as to do substantial justice.” TEX.
R. CIV. P. 45. A court has broad authority to construe the pleading different from
what it is entitled, “if justice so requires,” and in this case, the Court elected not to
construe Cowen's Bill of Review as a Motion for New Trial as Hanson suggests.
See TEX. R. CIV. P. 71. A trial court has discretion to grant a Bill of Review for
“sufficient cause.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(d) and (g) and see TEX. R. CIV. P. 314.
Cowen was not required to pursue a restricted appeal as a prerequisite to his
Bill of Review. Gold v. Gold, 145 S.W.3d 212, 213 (Tex. 2004). A party may
pursue a restricted appeal if the party believes it can satisfy the elements, but
frequently the bill of review proffers some advantages. It allows the trial court an
opportunity to correct the judgment without having to engage in an appeal. Id. at
214. In a bill of review, a court may consider all the facts but not in a restricted
appeal. Id. Discovery is available in a bill of review, but not in a restricted appeal.
Id. A bill of review allows a party to more easily obtain injunctive relief, if
16
necessary. In conclusion, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion.
PRAYER
For these reasons, GUY ROBB COWEN, Appellee, requests that this court
affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand it to the trial court for further
relief. Appellee also requests that he be awarded appellate attorney's fees against
Appellant as she brought a frivolous appeal and to provide him any and all other
relief to which he may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
By:_/s/ Marie E. Galindo__________
MARIE EISELA GALINDO
Attorney at Law
639 Heights Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77007
Telephone No. 713.299.1510
Facsimile No. 713.651.0776
State Bar No. 00796592
megalindo@thegalindolawfirm.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE,
GUY ROBB COWEN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this day, February 10, 2015, the undersigned counsel provided a copy of
the document referenced-above and related Appendix to Appellant to Attorney
Mr. Richard Mock, Appellant's counsel, via electronic filing and email at
17
richard@mockandbrown.com, mailing address 400 S. Main St. Burnet, TX 78611.
__/s/ Marie E. Galindo_______________
MARIE EISELA GALINDO
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4, I hereby certify that this brief contains 2632
words (excluding the caption, table of contents, table of authorities, signature,
proof of service, certification, and certificate of compliance). This is a computer-
generated document created in Microsoft Word, using 14-point typeface for all
text, except for footnotes which are in 12-point typeface. In making this certificate
of compliance, I am relying on the word count provided by the software used to
prepare the document.
__/s/ Marie E. Galindo_______________
MARIE EISELA GALINDO
18
APPELLEE'S APPENDIX
APPELLEE'S APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A – Notice of Setting for Bill of Review Hearing
B – Hanson Answer
C – Affidavit Attached to Hanson's Motion for New Trial
D – Testimony of Attorney Richard Mock under Oath – V.3:5:23-7:16
E – Docket Sheet for Dismissal Docket with Order Noting Neither Side Appeared
F – Notice of Dismissal Docket
C A U SE N o 4 1, 7 4 2 .
GUY R O BB C O W E N I N T H E D I ST R I C T C O U R T
§
Pl a i n t i f f ,
0
.
VS 33
Fd
C I A L D I ST R I C T
§ J U D I
.
•
.
SH A R O N L E E H A N S O N
Defen d a n t § B U R N E T C O U N T Y , T E X A S
< UU O F SE T T I N G F O R p l A I N T I F F - O F R EV l m
æ TH u al : * 1I F I C A T E m C ON
B ef o r e th e C o u r t i s a N o t ic e o f S et tin g to h e ar P la in t if f s B i l l o f R e v ie w b a se d o n o n e o f
s e v er a l d at e s p r o v i d e d b y th e C o u r t A d m i n i st r a t o r f o r t h e p ar ti es t o c o n s i d er , T he p ar tie s h av e
agreed th at th ey a re av a i lab le o n Jan u ary 8 , 2 0 14 , a t 1 : 3 0
p
. m . To b e h ear d re g ar d in g P la in t if f s
B il l o f R ev i ew . T he p a r tie s r e sp e c t f u l ly a sk fo r an h o u r
fo r sa id h ear in g .
A f te r d u e c o n s i d e r a t iI o n , t he C 0 u r t f iI n d s t h e N o t i c e o f S e t t i n g i s l e g a l l y s u f H c i e n t
c o .
th e C o u r t sh a l l c o n s i d e r P l a i n t i f f s B i l l o f R e v i e w .
SI G N E D O N T H E AY OF .
.
ødA* vl m , 2 0 1 3 .
P RE DI NG JU DC E
Respect f u’ " Su b m itte d ,
By : _
/ 5/ M ar ie E . Ga lin d o H
At at
63 9 H e i g h t s
H o u st o n , Tex as 7 700 7
Te lep h one N os ,
(4 32 ) 3 6 6 , . 83 00/
( 7 13 ) 2 99 , . 15 10
CO N FO RM IN G CO PY
D ’
NO c f M e
in th e i o L
e rk
Bu r n e t C o u n t y D i s t r i c t O
O RI GIN A L
CO PY N OT c o M PA RED T O
cwa1keDi st r i ct aek .
Fa c s i m ile N o .
(7 13) 65 1 0776
. ,
St a t e B ar N o . 00796 592
JA CK Q T ID W E L L
.
A tt o r n e y a t L a w
3800 E 42 n d S t Fe e t , St e 608
. .
CH A SE PL A Z A B U I L D I N G
O de s s a Te x a s 7 9 7 6 2
,
T e l e p h o n e N o (4 32 ) 5 52 0 4 4 1 .
-
Fa c si m ile N o .
(4 3 2 ) 3 6 7 88 53-
St a t e B ar N o . 2 00 2 00 0 0
AT T O RN EY S F O R C O W EN
CE R T I F I C A T E O F SE R V I C E
On th i s d a y ,
N o v e m be r 13 , 2 0 13 , 20 13 , t h e u n d er si g n ed c o u n se l p r o v id ed a c o p y o f th e
dQ ˙ um n t re f ren ed -
a bo v e to M r . Ric h a r d M ock v i
0
C E R T I F æ 1. \ 1 u o F C O Ie I a al : B # t k u
’
On O c to b er 17 . 2 0 13 J a c k
. Q . T id w e l l, s o f f i c e s p o k e w i t h R i c h a r d M o c k s a s s i s t a n t
re ar d in g d a te o p ti o n s f o r sett i n g th e B i ll o f R ev iew an d th e p arties a g re e d to a settin g o n
a
Ja n u a r y 8 , 2 0 14 a t 1 :3 0 p . m .
m ˆ E E GA L IND O
.
2
No . 41 , 7 4 2
GUY R OB B C OWE N x I N T HE DI ST R I CT C OU R T
VS x B U RN E T COUN T Y T E X A S
,
S HA RO N L EE HA N S ON x 33
RD
J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T
’
DE - A LLT s O R I G I N M A N S W E R
T O T HE H ON O R A B L E J U DG E OF S I D C OU R T :
C OM E S N OW , S H A R O N L E E H A N S O N , D e f e n d a n t , +n r e s p o n s e
’
t o Pl a i n t i f f s B 土 工 工 o £ R e v : e w f : - Le d h e r e i n d o e s h e r e b y f : 1 e
h e r O r i g i n a n s we r h e r e o f a n d a s g r o u n d s t h e r e o f w o u l d
- -
s h o w t h e C o u r t a s f o l l o w s :
De f e n d a n t d e n i e s e a c h a n d e v e r y , a 1 1 a n d s i n
g
u . La r , t h e
’
a l l e g a t i o n s Pe
c o n t a i n e d + n P 1 a : n t : f f s
Or g i n a l t : t : o n a n d
d e m a n d s s t r i c t p r o o f t h e r e o f b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e
e v i d e n c e .
De f e n d a n t d e n e s t h a t P 1 a i n t : f f : s e n t : t 1 e d t o a B i l l
o f R e v i e w + n t h i s m a t t e r . Nl o r e p a r t : c u l a r l y , P 1 a : n t : f f
’
d e n i e s t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f f i . Li n g P 1 a i n t : f f s M o t : o n f o r
Bi l l o f R e v : e w , t h a t n o o t h e r l e
g
a l r e m e d
y
w a s a v a i l a b l e t o
p La- i n t i f f t o t r y t o s e t a s : d e t h e O r d e r o f D : s m : s s a : L d a t e d
J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 1 3 . I n s t e a d , D e f e n d a n t w o u l d s h o w t h e C o u r t
t h a t P l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o e x e r c i s e d u e d i l i g e n c e t o f i . Le a
Mo t i o n f o r N e w T r : a l u n d e r t h e e x t e n s i o n s c o n t e m p l a t e d b y
Ru l e 3 0 6 (a ) . I n t h : s c a s e t h e e x t e n s : o n s p r o v i d e d u n d e r
v e d N o t : c e o f t h e
s u c h r u l e s , i f P l a i n t i f f h a d n o t r e c e i
D: s m i s s a 1 J u d g m e n t w : t h : n 2 0 d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e o £ s a : d
J u d gm e n t , h a d n o t
y
e t e x
p
: r e d w h e n P 1 a i n t : f £ £ i l e d h e r
Mo t i o n f o r B : 1 1 o f R e v : e w . Be c a u s e o f P 1 a : n t f f f a i - Li n g t o
e x e r c i s e h e r r : g h t s u n d e r t h e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e p e r i o d o f
CO NFO RM i NG CO PY
" ’ cu
I J% x w
Bu r n e t C o u n t y D i s t r i c t c le r k
CO PY NOT CO M PA RED TO O R IG I N A L
C W a 1 k e Di s M c t C le r k
’
Ru B中 0 6 ( ) , P 1 a : .
Nt l f f s M o t i o n f o r B . 1 1 o f R e v i e w s h o u l d
b ‹/ Bn / e c \ ,
W 1F, E F OR E , P E M0 S E S C ON S I DE R E D , D e f e n d a n t , S H A R O N L E E
r
BAAN SQN A t h a t P 1 a / n t : f f e M o t : n f o r B i l l o f Re v i e w b e
p r a y _
- o
d n/ d .
Re s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,
L AW OF F I CE S OF MOC K & B R O WN
At t o r n e y s a t L a w
400 So u t h M a i n
Bu r n e t , T e x a s 7 8 6 1 1
Ph o n e ( 5 1 2 ) 7 5 6
-
2931
Fa x ( 5 1 2 ) 7 5 6
-
2933
R I C HA R
St a t e B a r N o . 14242500
CE RT I F I CA T E OF S E RV I C E
t r u e a n d c o r r e c t c o p y o f t h e
. h e r e b y c e r t : f y t h a t a
A f a x e d
gi w a s
•
d Or n s w e r
’
•
Ln De f a n t n a
v e a n d f o r e g o - -
ab
-
g . E r 1 . s
6 3 9 H e i h t s
t o Ms , Ma r i e E . Ga l iLn d o , A t t o r n e y
a t L a w , g
n d
Bl v d . Ho u s t o n , T e x a s 7 7 0 0 7 a n d 3 8 0 0 E . 42 S t r e e t , S u i t e
r
J a c k Q T i d w e L1 P L L C
608 , 9 7 a n d t o M r . , ,
-
O d e s s a T e x a s 7 6 2 .
,
n d
At t o r n e y a t L a w , 3 8 0 0 E . 42 S t r e e t , S u i t e 6 D 8 , O d e s s a ,
T x a s 7 9 7 62 , o n t h i s t h e / d a y o f M a y , 2 0 1 4 .
R I C HA R D D . MO C
\\ H
EXHI B I T A
T HE STA T E OF T EXA S
CO U N T Y OF B URN E T
s o n a 1 t
B E F OR E ME , t h e u n d e r s :t
g
n e d a u t h o r i t y , p e r y
m e f i r s t d u l y s wo r n
a p p e a r e d R I C HA R D D . MOC K w h o b e i n g b y
u p o n h : s o a t h d o e s s t a t e a s £ o 1 1 o w s :
d
"
r e c e i v e n o t c e t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a d g r a n t o
I d d n o t
’ o n A p r i l 2 9 2 0 1 4 , u n t t Ju l y
P1 a i n t : £ f s B1 1 o £ R e v i e w ,
’
B : 1 1 o f
O r d e r G r a n t : n g P 1 a i n t / f f s
17 , 2014 w h e n a c o p y o f
’
’ D e f c: n d a n t 9
o n s e t o
Re v : e w w a s a t t a c h e d t o P 1 a : n t i f £ s R e s p
h t o t h e D : s t r 1 c
Mo t : o n f o r S u mm a r y J u d g m e n t . I a d g o n e
r t o
: ’ k t h e f i e j u s t a f e w d a y s p r 1 o
c o c h e c - -
t e r k s O f f : c e t
h a d b e e n
a n O r d e r
t o s e e :L £
pr i 1 29 , 2 0 1 4 a n d c h e c k e d
’
:L 1 c a t t h a t
O r d e r i n t h e C o u r t s f
Th e r e w a s n o
g r a n t e d .
: A n s w e r t o t h e 1 a w s u l . t a n d
a n d f i Le d a n
t i m e . I p r e p a r e d
4 a n d o b t a l . N (: d a
o n M a y 2 2 0 1
S u r nm a r y J u d g m e n t ,
Mo t : o n f o r
2 3
J u d g m e n t f o r J u l y ,
M o t i o n f o r S u mm a r y
s e t t / n g f o r s a : d
s a i d A n s w e r
A t t i m e w a s I e v e n u
p
o n f i l ng o £
2014 .
n o ,
a n O r d e r
not £i ed t h a t
f o r S u mm a r y J u d g m e n t ,
a n d M o t i o n "
p La : n t : f f
’
s B : 1 - o £ Re v i e w h a d b e e n gr ant ec .
Gr a n t : n g -
f u r t h e r s a y e t h n o t .
A f f / a n t
S I GN E D J u - -
y I t ,
2 0 1 4 .
t h e s a : d R I C HA R D
T0 B E F OR E ME b y
AND S WO R N
s u B SCRI B E D w i t n e s s m y h a n d
c e r t : f y w h : c h
18
-
0 1 4 t o
2 ,
D . MO C K o n J u - L
y ,
a n d
1 s t u £ £ a n d t h e n I g u e s s I s gned a n o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e b 1 l t o £
2 r e v i ew 七h a t Ms . Ga l i n d o f : ]. E d : +s t h a t c o r r e c t ?
’
3 MS . GA L I N D O : T h a t s c o r r e c t .
’
ki n g t h a t
An d y o u
a c
T HE C OU R T : Ok a y . n ow r e a t t
4
5 o r d e r , M r . Mo c k ?
n e w 七r + a + o n I 七 ,
a mo t i o n f o r
MR MO C K : I f i l e d
6 .
7 Ju d ge .
A 11 r : g h t . Wh a t d o y o u
8 T HE C OU R T : Ok a y .
w a n t
- -
ha t
y o u
w
t h a t o r
o u w a n t t o c e 1 me a b o u t
9 w a n t y
- - -
-
o n M r Mo c k ?
p u t
.
w a n t c o ,
10 e v i d e n c e y o u
’
n e e d t o
Y e s i r I 1 L - -
I j u s t
MO C K
.
: s .
11 MR . ,
12 c e s c i £ y .
r i g h 七
COUR T A 1 1 .
T HE :
13
s w o r n )
14 ( A 七t o r n e y
r H o n o r .
MO C K : I d o Y o u
MR . ,
15
r i g h t Go a h e a d .
T HE COUR T : A 1 1 .
16
n a m e i s
Le a s e t h e C o u r t , m y
MO C K : I £ : c p
MR
.
.
17
f r o m h e r e o r u p
w a n t m e t o t e s 七i f y
R: c h a r d 1ao c k . Do y o u
18
19 t h e r e ?
’
i n e J u s t s p e a k u p
R E P OR T E R : Y o u r e £ .
T HE C OUR T
20
21 p l e a s e .
s p e a k l o u d
Y e a h j u s t a s l o n g a s y o u
T HE C OUR T : ,
22
e n o u g h t h e c a n h e a r y o u .
23
My n ame j s R i c h a r d Mo c k . I
MR . MOCK : Ok a y .
-
24
t h : s m a t t e r Wh e n I r e c e i v e d a
H a n s o n + n .
25 r e p r e s e n t Sh a r o n
J ENN I F E R M . F E ST , C S R
’
i £o r b : 1 1 o £ r e v i e w t h e c a u s e n umb e r
1 c o p y o £ p ] . A : n t i £ £ s m o t - o n
I w a s n o t aw a r e u n t i l I
b jL] 1 o £ r e v j ew w a s 3 8 3 16 .
2 o n t h a t .
_
b 土工工 o f r e v i ew o n
t h e h e a r : n g f o r t h a t
u p + n c o u r t o n
3 s h ow e d
m a r k e d t h r o u g h
h e c l e r k h a d
+ n f a c t , t
Bt h 1 4 t h a t
4 J a n u a r y , 2 0 ,
c a u s e n u mb e r o f
: t a n e w
N u mb e r 3 8 3 1 6 a n d h a d g : v e n
5 Ca u s e
o f r e v i e w b e
七h a t t h e b i l l
I had £ : 1e d a r e q u e s t
6 4 17 42 .
t h a t + n C a u s e
a n d I f : 1 e d
l a c k o £ j u r : s d : c t : o n
7 di - s m i s s e d f o r
i n
a p p e a r a n c e
I m a d e a n
h h a d
At n o 七 主m e , t h o u g ,
8 Nu mb e r 3 8 3 1 6 .
e d w i t h
e e n s e r v
c l i e n t b
r h a d m
N u mb e r 4 1 7 4 2 ,
n o y
9 Ca u s e
t h a t m y
a s a r u e d
i £ f h g
i n 4 1 7 4 2 . T he p ]: a : n t
10 c t a t +o n
f o r l a c k o f
c o d : s m : s s
a r g u e my mo t i o n
c o
11 a p p e a r a n c e
e t h e Co u r t
N u mb e r 3 8 3 1 6 w a s
- -
gav
n + n C a u s e
12 j u r i s d i c t i o
o
4 1 7 4 2 A t n
N u mb e r
.
e u n d e r C a u s e
a s a n a p p e a r a n c
13 5ur i s dccon + n C a u s e
m a k e a n a p p e a r a n c e
a p p e a r o r
I i n t e n d c o
t i me d d
14
J a n u a r y Bt h .
4 1 7 4 2 o n
- -
Nu mb e r
z y a u "
o f a n A p r 1 Jt 1
t h e n o t i c e
Th e f i r s t I g o t
16 ’ a x e d m e
n e f
七 o r
i n t : f f s a c y
4 1 7 4 2 w a s w h e n p 1 a
i n
o r d e r e n t e r e d
17 o n s e
r e s p
o f t h e r
c o p
o f
- -
I me a n ,
a y
me a c o p y
a n d e ma i 1 e d
18 M a y
f l e d o n
m e n t I h a d
f o r s u mm a r y j u d g
- -
c o a mo c + o n
c o my
" e " "
:: \
s e e + f ’ "
-
+e t me
m e
-
f a x e d t o
d t h a t w a s
. .
A n
7 t h b u t
i t w a s , 1 ,
b e 1 : e v e
m e o n J u ] -
y ,
I
em a : 1 e d 七0
d a t e
- -
a n d
21 c
1 4
1 7 t h 0 A
2 .
d a y
- -
J u l y ,
t h a t e x a c t
d o u b l e c h e c k
+e t me
22
h a d f i l e d
0 1 4 I
o n J u l y 1 8 t h ,
2
n e x t d a y
t h e v e r y
t h at t i me
23
- -
t h e h e a r i n g d a t e
: c u t e d a
s u b s t
a n e w t r i a l ,
f o r
24 七h : s m o t o n
-
-
b e e n s e t f o r M a y
t h a t h a d
m e n t
f o r s u nuna r y j u d g
o n my mo t i o n
25
J ENN I F ER M
T C S R
. F E S ,
7
1 £o r t o d a y a n d s u b s c : t u c e d c h i Ls , m y m o t i o n £ o r n e w c r / a 1 , a e
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.