Barrett Wakefield and Howard Wakefield III v. Sam Ayers and Claudia Ayers
This text of Barrett Wakefield and Howard Wakefield III v. Sam Ayers and Claudia Ayers (Barrett Wakefield and Howard Wakefield III v. Sam Ayers and Claudia Ayers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ACCEPTED 01-14-00648-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/5/2015 10:51:40 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK
CASE NO. 01-14-00648-CV
FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/5/2015 10:51:40 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
BARRETT WAKEFIELD, Appellant,
VS.
SAM AYERS AND CLAUDIA AYERS, Appellees.
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of of Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 1007580-102
APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO COURT’S NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS
Troy Tindal State Bar No. 24066198 17225 El Camino Real, Ste 190 Houston, Texas 77058 Tel: 832-691-1519 Fax: 832-408-7579 troy@tindallawfirm.com
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT BARRETT WAKEFIELD APPELLANT’S TO COURT’S NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS
The Court noticed its intent to dismiss this instant appeal for lack of
jurisdiction, citing the pending Waggoners’ counterclaims and other potential
impediments to the finality of the trial court’s summary judgment order against
Thinair Wireless, Inc., Howard J. Wakefield, III, Barrett Wakefield, and Randall
Wayne Habel.
On July 28, 2014, Appellant Barrett Wakefield petitioned this Court for
additional time to establish finality of the trial court’s order. In the trial court,
Barrett Wakefield moved for severance of the breach of contract claims against
him and Howard Wakefield in order to separate the breach of contract claims
supporting the summary judgment against the Wakefields from the other claims
and bankrupt co-defendants. The trial court granted Barrett Wakefield’s Motion to
Sever on December 5, 2014, creating a separate case under Cause No. 1007580-
102 the breach of contract claims asserted against Barrett Wakefield and Howard
Wakefield, III. See Exh. A.
On the basis of the above, the trial court’s summary judgment order now
constituting a final judgment in severed Cause No. 1007580-102, Appellant Barrett
Wakefield respectfully regrets that the Court retain this appeal, re-styled as needed
to reflect the underlying trial court case as severed from the original action.
2 Dated: January 5, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Troy Tindal on Jan 5, 2015 ___________________________________ Troy Tindal State Bar No. 24066198 troy@tindallawfirm.com 17225 El Camino Real, Ste 190 Houston, Texas 77058 Tel: 832-691-1519 Fax: 832-408-7579
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT BARRETT WAKEFILED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
As required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.3 and 9.5(b), (d), (e), I certify that I have served this document on all other parties to this appeal, which are listed below, on January 5, 2015 as follows:
John Grayson Cokinos, Bosien & Young 1221 Lamar St., 16th Floor Houston, Texas 77010
Howard Wakefield, III 2233 West Alabama Street Houston, TX 77098
/s/ Troy Tindal on Jan 5, 2015 ___________________________________ Troy Tindal
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Barrett Wakefield and Howard Wakefield III v. Sam Ayers and Claudia Ayers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-wakefield-and-howard-wakefield-iii-v-sam-ayers-and-claudia-ayers-texapp-2015.