Burton Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided February 5, 2015·No. 04-14-00569-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 04-14-00569-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 2/5/2015 7:19:52 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK

04 -14 -00569- CV

FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS 3Jn ~be C!Court <!&f §ppeals SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS jfor ~be jfourtb 71Bistritt <!&f ~exas02/5/2015 7:19:52 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE ~an §ntonio ~exas Clerk

BURTON KAHN APPELLANT

V.

HELVETIA ASSET RECOVERY INC.

APPELLEE.

On Appeal From The 37th Judicial District Court Of Bexar County, Texas Trial Court, No. 2013-CI -18355 Hon. Michael Mery, Judge Presiding

APPELLANTS BRIEF

Burton Kahn pro se 1706 Alpine Circle San Antonio, TX 78248 210-408-9199 glentrail@yahoo.com

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Appellant certifies that the following is a complete list of the parties,

attorneys and any other person who has any interest in the outcome of this lawsuit:

Attorneys for Appellants: Burton Kahn Pro-se 1706 Alpine Circle San Antonio, TX 78248 Tel (210) 408-9199 glentrail@yahoo. corn

Attorneys for Appellees:

Haynes and Boone LLP Lisa Barkley 112 E. Pecan St. Suite 1200 San Antonio, TX 78205 - 1524 Tel (210) 978-7427 Fax (210) 0427 Lisa.Barkley@ haynesboone.com

Haynes & Boone, LLP Werner A. Powers Natalie DuBose 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 7 5219 Tel (214) 651-5487 Fax (214) 200-0468 Werner.Powers@hayneshoone.com Real Party of Interest Puerto Verde Ltd. (Bahamian) For Appellee

Trial Judge: Hon. Michael E. Mery 37 th Judicial District Court Bexar County, Texas

"lii

Previous Attorney Appellant Appellant has represented himself pro se since December 14, 2013. His previous counsel was: L. Terry George died on June 29, 2014. Fort Worth, Texas

Jay R. Petterson Jay R. Petterson, Attorney at Law, PLLC 12274 12274 Bandera Road, Suite 210 Helotes, Texas 78023

Kathleen A. Cassidy Goodman Law Office of Kathleen Cassidy Goodman 12274 Bandera Road, Suite 210 Helotes, Texas 78023

Richard H. Sommer 8610 N. New Braunfels Ave., Suite 309 San Antonio, Texas 78217

Robert W. Wachsmuth Zachary J. F anucci Robert Wachsmuth & Associates 9311 San Pedro, Suite 707 San Antonio, Texas 78216

RELATED LITIGATION

The following litigation matters are related to this appeal:

I. APPEALS IN THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS:

1. Appeal No. 04-14-00258-CV

In re a Purported Lien or Claim Against Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc. The Court dismissed this appeal on August 20, 2014.

2. Appeal No. 04-14-00012-CV and Texas Supreme Court Case 14-

0821.

Burton Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc. The Court dismissed this appeal on July 16, 2014 and denied Kahn's motion for en bane consideration on September 25, 2014. Burton Kahn filed his Petition for Review to the Texas Supreme Court on December 10, 2014. Helvetia Asset Recovery. Rnc. do not respond and on January 13, 2015 the case was forwarded to the court.

Appeal No. 04-14-00319-CV

Burton Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc. The Court dismissed this appeal on July 9, 2014.

3. Appeal No. 04-14-00569-CV

Burton Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc. This appeal is subject of this brief.

II. BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, PENDING:

1. In re: Burton M. Kahn, Debtor, Case No. 14-50980, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division.

2. In re: Burton M. Kahn, Debtor, Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc. v.

Burton Al. Kahn, Adversary Proceeding Case No. 14-5052, United

UJ

llL PENDING BEXAR COUNTY DISTRICT COURT LITIGATION:

States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division.

PENDING BEXAR COUNTY LITIGATION

1. Burton Kahn v. Joabert Development Company and John Ripley, Cause No. 2013-CI-17012, 37th Judicial District, Bexar County, Texas.

2. I Burton Kahn v. Robert Ripley, et al., Cause No. 2014-CI-3453, 225th Judicial District, Bexar County, Texas. (This action was severed from Cause No. 2013-Cl-l 8355 in May 2014.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page IDENTITY OF PARTIES ........ . .. .......... . .... ....... ............. ......... ....... ,,, ... .i

RELATED LITIGATION .............................................................. .iii.

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........ . .. .............. .... ......... ......... ..... ........ vi

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................ xii.

STATEMENT REGARDNG ORAL ARGUMENTT .................. xiii

STATEMENT REGARDNG JURISDICTION ........................... xiii

RECORD REFERENCES ............ . .......... . .. .. .. ........ ..... ... ...... ......... xiv

ISSUES PRESENTED ............................... . . . .. ......... . ... xv

STATEMENTOF FACTS ....................................................................................... 1

BACKGROUND ................................................................... 1

CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP ........................................................ 3

PLAINTIFF'S 'EXHIBIT 9 WIRING INSTRUCTIONS ................... 5

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 39 NORGANIZATIONAL KIT ................... 7

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................. 9

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ............................................................... 9

ISSUE 1 THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING

APPELLATE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 5 COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND SANCTION ORDER DETERMINING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SHARES OF iv

I-IBL VE TIA. ..................................................................................................... 9

A. STATUTE REPRESENTATIVE PARTY ................ . .. . .. ............ 10

B. SUBJECT MATTER illRISDICTION .............................. . ... .. .13

C. FULLY LITIGATED .......................................................... 14

CONCLUSION OF ISSUE 1 .................................................... 15

ISSUE 2 TI-IE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING APPELLANT'S JNOV BECAUSE TI-IE JURY'S ANSWERS WERE NOT BASED ON TI-IE EVIDENCE PRESENTED ................................................ 15

QUESTION 2 ...................................................................... 16

MISAPPROPIATION OFASSETS ......... . ... .. ... . .. ........................ 16

LOST PROFITS ............ . ... ........................ . .. ........................ 19

QUESTION 5 ......... . ... .. ...................... . .. . .. .................... . ... ... 21

QUESTION 7 ......... . ... .. ...................... . .. . .. .................... . ... ... 21

QUESTION 9 ...................................................................... 22

QUESTION 11 .......... . .. . .. ....................... . ... .. ........................ 22

QUESTION 14 .......... . .. .......................... . ... .......................... 23

CONCLUSION OF ISSUE2 ................................................ / ..... 23 \

ISSUE 3 TI-IE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY NOT ALLOWING ANY APPELLANT'S WITNESSES TO GIVE TESTIMONY DUE TO LACK OF DETAIL IN DISCLOSURE FILED 6 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL. .. . .......... . ...... 24

CONCLUSION OF ISSUE3 ....................................................... 26 \ ISSUE 4 TI-IE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANTS' FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S

iv

vu

FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RELIEF, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, VERIFIED DENIALS, TIIlRD PARTY CLAIMS, AND MOTION TO SHOW AUTI-IORITY........... . ........ . ............. . .. ...... . .. ............. . ................ . .. ..... 26

CONCLUSION OF ISSUE 4 ....................................................... 28

ISSUE 5 THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING APPELLEE' S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION IN LIMINE AND SUSTAINING ALL APPELLEE' S ARE OBJECTIONS ..... ..................... ........... . .. ....... ..................... . ......... 28

CONCLUSION ............ ..................... ......................... ............. . ... 29

PRAYER' ................................................ . .. .......... ........... . .. ....... . ............ 29

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Burton Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Burton Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc. (Burton Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Baxter v. Palmigiano
425 U.S. 308 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 1979)
State v. Shumake
199 S.W.3d 279 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
Low v. Henry
221 S.W.3d 609 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Central Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Islas
228 S.W.3d 649 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Tanner v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
289 S.W.3d 828 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
The City of Houston v. Steve Williams
353 S.W.3d 128 (Texas Supreme Court, 2011)
Oscar Luis Lopez v. LA MADELEINE OF TEXAS
200 S.W.3d 854 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez
237 S.W.3d 680 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Brown v. Bank of Galveston, National Ass'n
963 S.W.2d 511 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)
John Masek Corp. v. Davis
848 S.W.2d 170 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller
806 S.W.2d 223 (Texas Supreme Court, 1991)
Szczepanik v. First Southern Trust Co.
883 S.W.2d 648 (Texas Supreme Court, 1994)
Bragg v. Edwards Aquifer Authority
71 S.W.3d 729 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
Holt Atherton Industries, Inc. v. Heine
835 S.W.2d 80 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
Avila v. St. Luke's Lutheran Hospital
948 S.W.2d 841 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Goldstein v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
109 S.W.3d 810 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Helena Chemical Co. v. Wilkins
47 S.W.3d 486 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Petta
44 S.W.3d 575 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)