# Ernest Ray Koonce v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee Under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of April 1, 2005, Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-WHQ2 > Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · November 2, 2015 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4072819 ## Case - **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) - **Decided:** November 2, 2015 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4072819 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that "[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process" ## Opinion text ACCEPTED 01-15-00228-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 11/2/2015 5:15:17 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK FILED IN No. 01-15-00440-CV 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 11/2/2015 5:15:17 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE ________________________________________________________________ Clerk IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS ________________________________________________________________ IN RE ERNEST R. KOONCE, RELATOR ________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding From the 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County Cause No. 2010-64752 __________________________________________________________________ APPELLANT/REALTOR’S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE, WELLS FARGO’S, MOTION TO STRIKE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ERNEST R. KOONCE Pro Se 15938 Fleetwood Oaks Drive Houston, Texas 77079 Tel: (832) 434-3186 Fax: (832) 328-7171 rayk469@gmail.com No. 01-15-00440-CV ________________________________________________________________ IN THE THIRD FIRST COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS ________________________________________________________________ IN RE ERNEST R. KOONCE, RELATOR ________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding from the 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas Cause No. 2010-64752 __________________________________________________________________ APPELLANT/REALTOR’S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE, WELLS FARGO’S, MOTION TO STRIKE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ERNEST R. KOONCE RELATOR, Pro Se 15938 Fleetwood Oaks Drive Houston, Texas 77079 TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS: Ernest R. Koonce, Appellant/Relator, and those similarly situated, respectfully submits this Response to Wells Fargo’s Motion to Strike Supplemental Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and would show the Court as follows: 2 IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL Relator, Ernest R. Koonce, hereby certifies that the following are the list of parties and their respective counsel, if any, to the best of his knowledge and understanding of the rules. PARTIES COUNSEL Relator ERNEST R. KOONCE Pro Se Respondent HONORABLE RK SANDILL 127thth Civil District Court of Harris County, TX 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Court Phone Number: (713) 368-6161 Chris Daniels 201 Caroline Harris County District Clerk Houston, Texas 77002 Real Party in Interest: WELLS FARGO BANK, NA Bradley Chambers Texas Bar No. 2400186 Valerie Henderson Texas Bar No. 24078655 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. 1301 McKinney Street Suite 3700 Houston, Texas 77010 (713) 650-9700 – Telephone (713) 650-9701 – Facsimile vhenderson@bakerdonelson.com 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cases Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S.W.3d 191, 208 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2007, pet. ref'd) ................................................................................................................................ 16 Black v. Shor, 443 S.W.3d 170 (Tex.App. Corpus Christi, 2013)............................. 5 CNA Ins. Co. v. Scheffey, 828 S.W.2d 785, 792 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1992, writ denied) ........................................................................................................................... 14 Delaporte v. Preston Square, Inc., 680 S.W.2d 561, 563 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.) .................................................................................................................... 14 Delaporte, 680 S.W.2d at 563 ............................................................................................. 14 Ex parte Finn, 615 S.W.2d 293, 296 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1981, no writ)......... 14 In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 213 (Tex.2009 ......................................................................................................................... 17, 21 In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 213 (Tex.2009) .............................................................................................................................. 17 In Re Lumbermens Mutual Insurance, 184 SW 3d 718, 727 (2006). ..................... 6 In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 625, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955) .... 13 Standard Fruit & Vegetable Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 985 S.W.2d 62, 65 (Tex. 1998) 5 Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 62.105 (Vernon 1988). .............................................................. 14 Texas Code of Judicial Conduct......................................................................................... 15 Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 62, 93 S.Ct. 80, 84, 34 L.Ed.2d 267 (1972) ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Statutes Babcock v. Northwest Memorial Hosp., 767 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex.1989) ............ 13 Other Authorities IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL .............................................................. 3 Rules Canon 2(A), (B)......................................................................................................................... 15 Canon 2(B). ............................................................................................................................... 15 Canon 3(B)(8)............................................................................................................................ 16 canon four ................................................................................................................................. 15 Canon three .............................................................................................................................. 16 Canon two.................................................................................................................................. 15 Erskine v. Baker, 22 S.W.3d 537, 539 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, pet. denied) ..... 16 Rule 38.7...................................................................................................................................... 6 T.R.A.P. Rule 52 ...................................................................................................................... 19 T.R.A.P. Rule 52.3(k)(2) ......................................................................................................... 19 T.R.A.P., Rule 52.3(k)(2).......................................................................................................... 6 TEX.CODE JUD. CONDUCT, .............................................................................................. 15 TEX.R.APP. P. 38.7 ................................................................................................................... 5 4 WELLS FARGO’S MOTION HAS NO MERIT WF Issue A: Wells Fargo claims that the Court must strike the Supplemental Petition for Writ of Mandamus because this Court has failed to provide it’s permission pursuant to Black v. Shor, 443 S.W.3d 170 (Tex.App. Corpus Christi, 2013). Black, supra, does not apply. In Black, supra, the issues involved in that case were dealing specifically with a turnover order and an appeal, not a writ, or potential misconduct in the trial court below, and further, the supplemental briefs were submitted after oral argument. Black involved an appeal, not a Writ of Mandamus. Nowhere in Rule 52 does it require a Motion for Leave to be sought in order to file a Supplemental Petition for Writ of Mandamus (hereinafter referred to as “Petition”) prior to this Court making a decision. Also, page 173 does not say what the Real Party In Interest states. It is a well established rule that we may permit a party to amend or supplement a brief "whenever justice requires." TEX.R.APP. P. 38.7; see Standard Fruit & Vegetable Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 985 S.W.2d 62, 65 (Tex. 1998) (appellate court has discretion whether to allow filing of amended or supplemental brief 5 in interest of justice). See also, In Re Lumbermens Mutual Insurance, 184 SW 3d 718, 727 (2006). There is no case law or rule which Relator can locate, and Wells Fargo has cited none, that speaks directly to an Extraordinary Writ. In fact, Rule 38.7 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedures empowers the courts of appeals to allow whenever justice requires. Wells Fargo alleges that the issue presented in the supplemental Writ of Mandamus wasn’t either raised in the trial court below, or in the original Writ of Mandamus. However, that is not true at all. First, on 05/06/ 2015, Realtor filed a motion with the Court in which he asked for a ruling on his motion to allow the accelerated appeal in this case, and asked for the Court to provide an answer as to why it changed its ruling. Attached hereto as Appendix “1” is a true and correct copy of that motion. On May 11, 2015, the trial Court denied both the motion for accelerated appeal and the motion for the court to explain why well after 10 months the court changed the case from dismissed final to active. Attached hereto as Appendix “2” is a true and correct certified copy of that order. More importantly, T.R.A.P., Rule 52.3(k)(2) provides: 6 “The appendix may contain any other item pertinent to the issues or points present for review, including copies of excerpts of relevant court opinions, statutes, constitutional provisions, documents on which the suit was based, pleadings, and similar materials.” (emphasis added) Moreover, realtor did address the issues set forth in both his brief and Writ. The trial court did not respond to the motion until after the brief and Writ were filed. Furthermore, Real Party in Interest (hereinafter referred to as “Wells Fargo” or “WF”), has failed to identify any rule requiring a Motion for Leave to file a Supplemental Writ of Mandamus. Nowhere in Rule 52 does it reference any such duty to file a motion for leave. If any motion for leave was required, it’s not set forth in Rule 52 dealing specifically with Writs of Mandamus, and good cause exists to allow the supplemental Writ because it goes to the heart of the case, including a question of gross misconduct by the judge or the clerk. The case was dismissed in it’s entirety on November 17, 2011, as reflected in the court’s docket. The other case proceeded in Judge Baker’s court (3rd lawsuit), and was fully litigated. Approximately 10 months later, on or about August, 2012, Wells 7 Fargo attempted to consolidate this case (second lawsuit) with the third lawsuit in the 295th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, to which Realtor objected based on lack of jurisdiction. No order was ever signed granting that motion. Sometime thereafter, the case before this court was somehow reinstated long after the court lost its’ plenary powers, without any sort of motion, any sort of hearing, and without any explanation. WF Issue B. WF claims that the supplemental petition, A-D was not addressed by the trial court. This is a completely false claim. On May 6, 2015, Realtor filed a Notice to the Court that a Ruling on his Motion for Accelerated Appeal was overdue as it was set for submission on February 23, 2015, and Notice that Evidence was missing in cause No. 2007-30212, 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County Texas, which the court denied. See Appendix “a” and “b” respectively. Appendix “a” does address the specific issues set forth in Issues A-D. See pages 2 and 3 of said Appendix “a”. No explanation has been provided although numerous attempts have been made to obtain an explanation. Christine Reule’s declaration as well as the attached emails support the fact that attempts have 8 been made, even by third parties, to obtain an explanation for the sudden appearance of the case on the court’s active docket after the case was dismissed, and the missing court documents. It’s very suspicious that documents that prove the fraud conveniently came up missing as soon as the Notice of Accelerated Appeal was filed, and after the dispute was pointed out in the federal proceedings. WF claims that Realtor failed to show how his supplemental Writ of Mandamus is in anyway related to the granting of WF motion for new trial. If Koonce failed to make a showing, it wasn’t intentional. The fact is Judge Sandill dismissed the case in full on November 17, 2011. The docket reflected this fact for more than 10 months (the exact date of when the case was placed back on the docket is unknown). This case magically appeared as an active case on the docket more than 9 months after the court lost its plenary powers. No motion, no notice, no hearing, or explanation; it was pulled from archives and/or closed files by the trial court and placed on the active docket forcing Koonce to file a plea to the jurisdiction and declare the case was dismissed. The trial court granted Koonce’s motion on December 17, 2014. WF then filed a 9 Motion for New Trial making the same arguments it made in its response to Koonce’s plea to the jurisdiction. No new argument was made. No new evidence was presented. The court then granted that motion, and this Writ ensued as well as an interlocutory appeal. In the February 13, 2015 Reporter’s Record, starting at page 7, line 10, and continuing to page 8, line 20, the following took place: MR. KOONCE: -- you will see that they sent a paper to me on November 15th, 2006, and claimed that the current creditor/owner was Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. THE COURT: I understand that, Mr. Koonce. The issue here is, when you pled your lawsuit, you included Wells Fargo Bank Trustee as a defendant. Because if you look at Paragraph 2 -- I don't know if you have your file in front of you, but Paragraph 2 under Fact, actually labeled No. 2, under Section B, defendant citing this application includes Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee. And that's the issue here. The issue is, you did not include them in the lawsuit but you nonsuited everyone in the style, but they are not -- at the same time, you know, they are not in your A introduction but they are in your B facts. So, you know, in the state, we take -- it's a notice- pleading state. So I take notice of the pleading, I have to construe it liberally. And if you were to say, Judge, hey, we -- you know, we served them and they never answered, I would have to grant a default against them because they are included as a defendant. At the same time, because you included them as a defendant and didn't nonsuit them, they 10 live as a defendant. And now they live as a counter claimant, so -- MR. KOONCE: Your Honor, at best this is nothing but misnomer, which the courts have addressed over and over. THE COURT: I'm happy -- I am happy to grant the new trial. And you have a right -- you now have a right automatically allege the alternative, so you can mandamus me on the issue. I'm more than willing to be mandamused on this issue, because I want to agree with you, but I don't think I can. So... (emphasis added) The trial court admitted that Koonce only included WF, Trust in the facts, not in the introduction where Defendants are named and requests for citations are made. Describing someone or a witness in a pleading does not mean you are suing them. It’s merely a statement of a fact. The trial court seems to be confused. There was no reason to change his ruling when no new arguments were made. By admitting that the Trust was described in the facts, and not the introduction, the trial court knew it was a factual statement, not intended party to the lawsuit. On page 3, lines 15 through 20, of the February 13, 2015 Reporter’s record, the trial court states: THE COURT: Okay. The concern in this case is -- and I think I cited Mr. Koonce after evaluation, is sued Wells Fargo Bank, 11 N.A. You guys answered as Wells Fargo Bank as Trustee. He nonsuited every single party that he sued. You guys answered as a party that he didn't sue. (emphasis added). Wells Fargo Bank as Trustee never filed an answer prior to the nonsuit. No appearance was made by WF prior to November 17, 2011. The fact is, the case was dismissed in full, file closed, and without any warning, any hearing, any notice, the trial court decided to pull a closed file and put the case on the active docket long after the court lost jurisdiction. Koonce has found no case in which a trial court has ever done this. It appears to be a case of first impression. Koonce’s position is that the entire case was dismissed on November 17, 2011; 4 days later, WF filed an untimely cross- complaint. It never appealed the dismissal, it fully litigated the same issues and the same case before Judge Baker, obtained a summary judgment based upon fraudulent statements (just like it previously won an appeal in this very court based upon fraudulent assignments); nor filed a motion for new trial until more than three 12 years later, three years too late. WF had 30 days from November 17, 2011 in which to file a Motion for New Trial. The trial court lost jurisdiction on December 17, 2011. More than 10 months later, the archived case was pulled and put back on the docket, breeding suspicion, disrespect and threatening the integrity of the judicial system. No judge or clerk goes through closed files and randomly picks one out to place back on the active docket, especially when the court lost its plenary power more than nine months previous. This act stinks to high heaven of corruption, likely ex parte communication, special treatment and bias by a trial judge acting without authority or any power to do so. The parties have a right to a fair trial under both the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution. See In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 625, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955) (holding that "[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process"); Babcock v. Northwest Memorial Hosp., 767 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex.1989) (holding that, "[i]n Texas, the right to a fair and impartial trial is guaranteed by the Constitution"). In 13 Texas, part of the right to a fair and impartial trial is also secured by statute. See Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 62.105 (Vernon 1988). One of the most fundamental components of a fair trial is "a neutral and detached judge." Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 62, 93 S.Ct. 80, 84, 34 L.Ed.2d 267 (1972). A judge should be fair and impartial and not act as an advocate for any party. Delaporte v. Preston Square, Inc., 680 S.W.2d 561, 563 (Tex.App.— Dallas 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). A judge should not be any party's adversary. Ex parte Finn, 615 S.W.2d 293, 296 (Tex.Civ.App.— Dallas 1981, no writ); see Delaporte, 680 S.W.2d at 563. The impartiality of the judge is not only a matter of constitutional law, but of public policy, as well: Public policy demands that a judge who tries a case act with absolute impartiality. It further demands that a judge appear to be impartial so that no doubts or suspicions exist as to the fairness or the integrity of the court. Judicial decisions rendered under circumstances that suggest bias, prejudice or favoritism undermine the integrity of the courts, breed skepticism and mistrust, and thwart the principles on which the judicial system is based. CNA Ins. Co. v. Scheffey, 828 S.W.2d 785, 792 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 1992, writ denied) (citations omitted). 14 The preamble to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct first reminds us of the role of the judiciary and provides that intrinsic to all sections of the code are the precepts that judges must respect and honor their judicial office as a public trust. TEX.CODE JUD. CONDUCT, Preamble. The individual canons are intended to state basic standards for judicial conduct and to provide guidance to judges. Id. Several of those canons are relevant to this Court’s analysis of Koonce's issues. Canon two provides that judges "should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary" and "shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment." Id. Canon 2(A), (B). It follows that the judge may not "convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge." Id. Canon 2(B). Similarly, canon four cautions a judge to conduct all extra-judicial activities to avoid casting reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge. Id. Canon 4(A). 15 Canon three also addresses the judge's duty of impartiality and prohibits, with limited exceptions, any direct or indirect ex parte communications concerning the merits of a pending or impending judicial proceeding. Id. Canon 3(B)(8). An ex parte communication is one that involves fewer than all parties who are legally entitled to be present during the discussion of any matter with the judge. Erskine v. Baker, 22 S.W.3d 537, 539 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, pet. denied). Ex parte communications are prohibited because they are inconsistent with the right of every litigant to be heard and with the principle of maintaining an impartial judiciary. Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S.W.3d 191, 208 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2007, pet. ref'd). This proscription applies regardless of whether the communication occurs through a social media website, in the judge's chambers, or elsewhere. That is, while the internet and social media websites create new venues for communications, the court’s analysis should not change because an ex parte communication occurs online or offline. Our justice system's abhorrent reaction to ex parte communications is purposeful. Such communications undermine 16 the principle of transparency which is promoted by the option of conducting proceedings recorded in open court. The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that transparency is something "we strive to achieve in our legal system." In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 213 (Tex.2009). Ex parte communications do not promote that transparency. WF, by objecting, makes the need to seek the truth even more paramount and the trial courts conduct more suspicious. Makes you wonder what they are trying to cover up and hide. WF had every opportunity to present any argument to the trial court below, but willfully failed to do so and claims it was never before the court below contrary to Appendix “a” attached hereto. Instead, when Koonce wants to seek the truth, WF goes out of it’s way to move to strike a Writ, with absolutely no grounds to do so (there’s a huge difference between a Writ and a Brief). Judges and justices must take great care in preserving the integrity of the courts and the judicial process. If they do not, who will? 17 As noted by Roger D. Townsend, Improper Jury Argument and Professionalism: Rethinking Standard Fire v. Reese, 67 TEX. B.J. 448, 454 (2004) When [judges] abdicate [their] duty, professionalism suffers even more than when a lawyer makes an improper argument, for what is permitted is considered proper by the jury. All judges who do not stop improper arguments—and all trial lawyers who make improper arguments—have no business lamenting the public's low perception of lawyers. They need only look in the mirror. The need to discover the truth of why the court placed the case on the docket after dismissal was final is paramount. It is highly likely this so-called random act was the result of an ex parte communication by WF and its attorneys, or some other improper means. It certainly has the appearance of impropriety, bias, and judicial misconduct. The very integrity of the judicial systems is at risk. Public confidences are eroded when Judges are biased, special treatment is given to certain individuals or parties, and/or have ex parte communications. Just because Koonce is pro se, doesn’t mean the courts don’t have to follow the rules. 18 Records attached to Supplemental Writ: WF has failed to indentify which documents, if any, were not presented to the trial court for consideration, and Koonce therefore objects to this overly board statement and/or claim. Moreover, each case cited by WF deals with an appeal, and is not specific for a Writ. Nowhere in T.R.A.P. Rule 52 does it prohibit a person from including other records; in fact, T.R.A.P. Rule 52.3(k)(2) allows such records to be included. WF keeps attempting to use a brief standard for a Writ standard without citation to any authority to support its position. Koonce cannot properly respond to this allegation because not one document has been identified by WF that allegedly wasn’t before the trial court. Rather, WF makes a blanket, in broad language statement that “mandamus relief is nothing more than a conglomeration of documents that were not part of the trial court’s record in this matter, and should not be considered by the Court.” Without specific objection to a specific document, Koonce is unable to properly respond. 19 WF Issue C: WF claims that the matter had been fully briefed in the original Writ, without referencing any particular pages, or headings. The fact is, the original Writ did not discuss the actual manual which had just been obtained. It makes one reference to the document at page 15 in the Statement of Facts. There’s also no heading regarding this specific issue, and a miscarriage of justice will occur if the Court doesn’t allow it. The supplementation was necessary. If somewhere in the actual rules it requires Koonce to file a motion for leave, which Koonce has not located with regards to extraordinary Writs, Koonce therefore asks this Court for leave to file the supplemental Writ of Mandamus which is necessary for this appeal. If we are to seek truth and justice, we must have all hidden facts revealed. Judge Sandill and the clerk’s placing this case back on the docket more than 9 months after the court lost jurisdiction is suspect of corruption. Does the Court of Appeals and its clerk randomly pick out cases that have been dismissed and place them back on the active docket, without a motion? Relator thinks not. 20 We need to ensure that justice has not been tainted by a trial judge or a clerk who may have acted in properly. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Our justice system's abhorrent reaction to ex parte communications is purposeful. Such communications undermine the principle of transparency which is promoted by the option of conducting proceedings recorded in open court. The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that transparency is something "we strive to achieve in our legal system." In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 213 (Tex.2009). Ex parte communications do not promote that transparency. WF, and its attorneys, have repeatedly made misrepresentations to this Court. In the prior appeal, this Court relied upon 2 assignments which were both dated 7 days prior to filing of their summary judgment motion of March 23, 2009, in affirming the trial court’s decision. Before this Court now are two new assignments presented in Federal Court which are dated February 17, 2005. These two different assignments support that a 21 fraud was committed upon this Court by WF, and is further supported by WF Foreclosure manual. Wells Fargo also claimed that it accelerated its note and deed of Trust in the first appeal to this court, Appellate No. 01-10-00194-CV. It later claimed in the third lawsuit that it did not accelerate the note, contrary to an earlier position and prohibited through Judicial Estoppel. Now, WF asserts res judicata for a Summary Judgment order it obtained through means of fraud on the statute of limitations. WF talks out both sides of its mouth, and the courts have demonstrated extreme, prejudicial bias by allowing it to happen. Any pro se litigant presenting such false documents, making clear contradictory statements would have their pleading struck without a second thought by the courts. Why is WF getting special treatment? WF and its attorneys should be sanctioned for presenting false and fabricated assignments, which is consistent with its policies and procedures as set forth in its Foreclosure Manual, false claims, intentionally misciting case law with the intent to deceive and misrepresent the law, as well as securing a summary judgment claiming that it did not accelerate the note and deed of trust despite the fact that it told this Court it had in fact 22 accelerated, and this Court relying upon that statement in affirming the trial court’s granting of a motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, Wells Fargo claims in a notice of acceleration that Wells Fargo Bank, NA is the owner and holder of the note and deed of trust, and in this lawsuit claims it is Wells Fargo Bank, NA as trustee who’s the owner and holder of the note and deed of trust. Wells Fargo has intentionally deceived Koonce as to who is the proper party in order to avoid the dismissal of their lawsuit. WF went into federal court in January 2015, claiming that it sued Koonce in the wrong court and therefore the statute of limitation is extended and their complaint is timely filed. This is exactly the type of conduct that warrants WF’s pleadings to be struck because it thwarts the very foundation of justice and our judicial system. Wells Fargo should have its pleadings stuck, and this Court should reverse the trial court’s order granting a new trial, with the inclusion that the case was dismissed in its entirety on November 17, 2015. 23 PRAYER For the above reasons, Realtor requests that this Court deny WF’s Motion to Strike as being meritless, grant Realtor’s request for sanctions against WF, including striking of its pleadings, and for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. Dated: November 02, 2015 Word Count per computer: 3,891 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ernest Ray Koonce Ernest Ray Koonce 24 CERTIFICATION By my signature above, I, Ernest Ray Koonce, the Realtor in the above styled case, do hereby certified that I have reviewed the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, the Supplementation and this Response to Wells Fargo’s Motion to Strike, and conclude that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence including in the appendix’s or record. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Rule 21(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been sent to the following via efiling on this 2nd day of November 2015; Bradley Chambers Texas Bar No. 2400186 Valerie Henderson Texas Bar No. 24078655 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. 1301 McKinney Street Suite 3700 Houston, Texas 77010 (713) 650-9700 – Telephone (713) 650-9701 – Facsimile vhenderson@bakerdonelson.com /s/ Ernest Ray Koonce Ernest Ray Koonce 25 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4072819. Public record. Not legal advice.