Charles N. Draper v. Greg Guernsey, in His Official Capacity as Director of Planning and Development Watershed Protection Review Department And City of Austin

Opinion

November 15, 2016

CHARLES N. DRAPER,

Appellant, Pro Se § CAUSE NO. 03-16-00745-CV § V. § IN THE THIRD COURT

§ OF APPEALS GREG GUERNSEY, § IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF § at Austin, Texas PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT § WATERSHED PROTECTION § REVIEW DEPARTMENT, § AND CITY OF AUSTIN § § Appellee. § §

TRIAL COURT PAST-DUE NOTICE FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCULSION OF LAW, and NOTICE OF APPELLANT'S BRIEF

Appellant, Pro Se: Appellee:

Charles N. Draper Greg Guernsey, in his Capacity 160 Maeves Way Director ofPlanning and Austin, Texas 78737 Development, Watershed Phone: (512) 699-2199 Protection Review Department, Email: cd@teiasland.com and City ofAustin

Andralee Cain Lloyd, Law Department, Assistant City Attorney City Hall, 301 West 2n3 Street PO Box 1088, Austin TX 78767-1088 Phone: (512) 974-2918 RECEIVED Fax: (512) 974-1311 NOV 1 5 2016 PAST-DUE NOTICE FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCULSION OF LAW

On November 15th, 2016, appellant notified the District Court of their failure to

timely comply with CPRC Rules §297, Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law.

Justice Karin Crump's letter dated October 18th, 2016 response was; "Finding of

Facts Conclusion of Law are neither required nor appropriate following summary judgment

ruling; therefore, the Court respectfully denies Plaintiffs Requestfor Finding ofFact and

Conclusion ofLaw".

Under TRCP § 299, Refusal of the Court to make a finding of fact requested shall

be reviewable on appeal. "Harm to the complaining party is presumed unless the contrary

appears in the face of the record when the party makes a proper and timely request for

findings, and the trial court fails to comply. Error is harmful if it prevents an appellant from

properly presenting a case to the appellant court." Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W. 2d 29, 30

(Tex. 1996)

Past-Due Notice ofFindings ofFacts and Conclusions ofLaw were filed November

15th, 2016 and recorded with Travis County District Court. A certified copy was sent to

Defendants.

JUSTICE CRUMP'S LETTER

On October 28th, 2016, Honorable Judge Karin Crump in the 419th District Court issued a letter, denying appellant's request for finding of facts and conclusions of law.

Justice Crump erred and should not have denied appellant's motion as a rule of law. The

result ofJustice Crump refusal; the Courts forfeits their plenary powers, under TRCP § 329b.

Any order that interferes with or impairs the effectiveness of the relief sought may

be granted an appeal, TRAP Rule §24.4.. NOTICE: APPEALLENT BRIEF

Under TRAP §25.1 §26.1 §32.1, Appellant will submit Appellant's Briefs within

90 days from Notice ofAppeal and Requestfor Findings ofFact and Conclusions ofLaw;

pending any additional Court' findings of facts or conclusions of law.

CONCLUSION

Charles Draper, appellant, asks the Appellate Court to amend the orders to include

permission to appeal the orders. Copies of the orders, and letters are attached as Exhibits.

Notice ofAppeal and Request-for Findings ofFact and Conclusions ofLaw were filed

on October 24th, 2016. Under CPRC Rules §297, The Court has 40 days from the original

request to respond to Plaintiffs Notice of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

PRAYER

For these reasons, Appellant, Charles Draper asks the Court to sign an order granting

Charles Draper permission to appeal orders, and letters issued October 18th, 2016 and

October 28th, 2016 by Justice Karin Crump and review all pending maters.

Respectfully submitted,

Charles N. Draper /~*UA~1x«n XT T\MAMAM '

Appellant 160Maeves Way Austin, Texas 78737 Phone: 512.699.2199 Email: cd@,tejasland.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 15th, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing; Appellant's Past-DueNoticefor FindingofFacts and Conclusions ofLaw, and Appellant's Brief'was sent by certified mail, return receipt request to Andralee Cain Lloyd, Austin Law Department, City Hall, 301 West 2nd Street. P.O. Box 1088, Austin, Texas 78767-1088 - Appellee: ^T>^-—•+•'&•> Andralee Cain Lloyd, Assistant City Attorney, Law Department, City of Austin City Hall, 301 West 2rd Street P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767-1088 (512)974-2918 .89 JO

o

k:-^™., Hiy.'^ial'^Ki*" r±m ^<°<_ f°3S ineTghi:w (Expected' (Thursday Certified (GSUSPS (7016197 Return Receipt (68USPS «™_... Receipt #) gjj 16193613924) M Total $6.89

Credit Card Rei d $6.89 (Card Name:) SA) (Account it'ii XXXXXXXXXX4200) (Approval 1^31614)

In a hurry? Se.1 service kiosks offer quick and easy| eck-out. Any Retai1 Associate can §1 w you how.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxKJrt xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx BRIGHTEN S0ME0.N S MAILBOX. Greeting cards availabl< or purchase at select Post Offices. ****xxxxxxx^xx»SSjxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Order stamps at sps.com/shop or call l-800-Stamp24.% to jsps.com/cllckj- ip to print shipping labels with po< . For other Information cal 1-800-ASK-USPS.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xjh xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Get your mail riran and where you want it with a secutlipost Office Box. Sign up for a box omfne at usps.com/poboxes xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

All sales.final on stamps and postage Refunds for gi anteed services only Thank you or your business

HELP USH§RVE VOU BETTER TELL USil POJ Exhibits Filed in The District Court of Travis County,Texas

OCT 2 8 2016 f* At sZ* t*> KM. Velva L Price, District Clerk

VASUBEHARA GRACE MCGEE JUDGE KARIN CRUMP Staff Attorney Court Operations Officer (512)854-9903 250TH DISTRICT COURT (312) 854-4807 HEMAN MARION SWEATT JAMIE K. FOLEY TRAVIS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 1FRAIN "F1N0" ALANIZ Official Reporter Court Clerk P.O. BOX 1748 (512) 854-5800 (512)854-9321 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767 (512) 854-9312 (512) 854-2469 (FAX)

October 28,2016

Mr. Charles N. Draper Ms. Andralee Cain Lloyd 160Maeves Way Assistant City Attorney Austin, Texas 78737 City of Austin-Law Department VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: P.O. Box 1088 cd®teiasland.com Austin, Texas 78767-1088 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL andralee.llovd(5)austintexas.eov

Re: Cause No. D-l-GN-13-000778; CHARLES N. DRAPER V. GREG GUERNSEY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF PUNNING AND DEVELOPMENT tth WATERSHED PROTECTION REVIEW DEPARTMENT, ETAL.; in the 419d District, Travis County, Texas.

Dear Mr. Draper:

I have received Plaintiffs Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relating to the Court's Order Granting Defendants' Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by this Court on October 18, 2016 (the "Order") following a non-evidentiary hearing on October 11, 2016. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are neither required nor appropriate following a summary judgment ruling; therefore, the Court respectfully denies Plaintiffs Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Sincerely,

Ka/nTCnmip Jddge^Oth District Court Travis County, Texas Original: Velva L. Price, District Clerk

004869584 1

Filed fn The District Court ofTravis County, Texas ^^

NO. D-l-GN-13-000778 At OCTf?tz^ 18 2016 tft fk CHARLES N. DRAPER § IN THE DISTRIcTcoWOF*** ^ § Plaintiff, § § v- § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS § GREGGUERNSEY, IN HIS CAPACITY § AS DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND § DEVELOPMENT WATERSHED § PROTECTION REVIEW DEPARTMENT § ANDCITY OF AUSTIN, § Defendants. § 419™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On October 11, 2016, the Court considered Defendant's First Amended Traditional and

No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs

Evidence. Plaintiff appeared representing himself Pro Se and Defendants appeared through their counsel ofrecord. After reviewing the pleadings on file, Defendants' motions and any responses thereto, the evidence presented, and arguments of the parties, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Evidence should be DENIED and Defendant's First

Amended Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment should beGRANTED.

IT IS THEREFOREORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Evidence is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' First Amended Traditional and No-

Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiffs lawsuit against Defendants is DISMISSED with prejudice to re-filing and all relief requested against Defendants is DENIED.

Order on Motion for Summary Judgment < \

This Order disposes of all parties and all claims pending before the Court. It is, therefore, a final and appealablejudgment.

SIGNED this October /? . 2016

judge-presiding :rump

Page2 of2 Orderon Motion for Summary Judgment IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS 419th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CHARLES N. DRAPER, § § Plaintiff, ProSe § § § CAUSE NO. D-1GN-13-000778 § GREG GUERNSEY, § IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF § PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT § WATERSHED PROTECTION § REVIEW DEPARTMENT, § AND CITY OF AUSTIN § § Defendants. §

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF PAST-DUE FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCULSION OF LAW

Plaintiff, Charles Draper, gives the Court notice that its findings of fact and conclusions of

law are past-due and ask the Court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law.

INTRODUCTION

1). Plaintiff, Charles Draper, sued defendants, Greg Guernsey, et al, for fraudulent

misrepresentations, violation plaintiffs constitutional-vested-rights, under Texas

Constitution, Article 1, §17 (a), (160), (161), additional torts on March of 2013.

2). The honorable Justice Karin Crump's Court signed attached judgment on October 18th, 2016.

FIRST REQUEST

3). Plaintiff, Charles Draper ask the Court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law and

require the court clerk to mail copies to all parties as requested on October 24th, 2016 under

CRCP Rule §297. R[ed •„ Tne ^^ ^ of Travis County, Texas 4). Plaintiff request was past-due 20 days after request was filed, CRCP Rule §297. ^ NOV 15201^ At l^-^Ca^ m. Velva L. Price, District Clerk TRIAL COURT RESPONSE

5). The Honorable Justice Karin Crump's letter on October 18th, 2016 response was; "Finding

of Facts Conclusion of Law are neither required nor appropriate following summary judgment

ruling; therefore, the Court respectfully denies Plaintiffs Requestfor FindingofFact and

Conclusion ofLaw".

6). TRCP § 299, Refusal of the Court to make a finding of fact requested shall be reviewable

on appeal. "Harm to the complaining party is presumed unless the contrary appears n the face

of the record when the party makes a proper and timely request for findings, and the trial court

fails to comply. Error is harmful if it prevents an appellant from properly presenting a case to

the appellant court." Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W. 2d 29, 30 (Tex. 1996)

Respectfully submitted,

Charles N. Draper 160 Maeves Way Austin, Texas 78737 Phone: 512.699.2199 Email: cd(a),teiasland.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 15, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Past-due Noticefor Finding ofFact & Conclusions ofLaw was sent by certified mail, return receipt request to Andralee Cain Lloyd, Austin Law Department, City Hall, 301 West 2nd Street. P.O. Box 1088, Austin, Texas 78767- 1088

Andralee Cain Lloyd, Assistant City Attorney Law Department City of Austin City Hall, 301 West 2nd Street P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767-1088 (512)974-2918 Fax:(512)974-2918 Filed in The District Court of Travis County, Texas

OCT 2 8 2016 r? At "P^i ffo Km. Velva L. Price, District Clerk

GRACE MCGEE VASU BEHARA JUDGE KARIN CRUMP Court Operations Officer Staff Attorney (512) 854-9903 250TH DISTRICT COURT (512)854-4807 HEMAN MARION SWEATT JAMIE K. FOLEY TRAVIS COUNTY COURTHOUSE IFRAIN "FINO" ALAMZ Official Reporter Court Clerk P.O. BOX 1748 (512)854-5800 (512)854-9321 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767 (512) 854-9312 (512) 854-2469 (FAX)

October 28,2016

Mr. Charles N. Draper Ms. Andralee Cain Lloyd 160Maeves Way Assistant City Attorney Austin, Texas 78737 City of Austin-Law Department VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: P.O. Box 1088 cd(5)teiasland.com Austin, Texas 78767-1088 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL andraleeMovd(ajqustintexas.eov

Re: Cause No. D-l-GN-13-000778; CHARLES N. DRAPER V. GREG GUERNSEY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WATERSHED PROTECTION REVIEW DEPARTMENT, ETAL.; in the 419th District, Travis County, Texas.

Dear Mr. Draper:

I have received Plaintiffs Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relating to the Court's Order Granting Defendants' Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by this Court on October 18, 2016 (the "Order") following a non-evidentiary hearing on October 11, 2016. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are neither required nor appropriate following a summary judgment ruling; therefore, the Court respectfully denies Plaintiffs Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Sincerely,

KapfiTCnimp Jddge^Oth District Court Travis County, Texas Original: Velva L. Price, District Clerk

004869584 ,*

Filed In The DistrictCourt of Travis County, Texas

OCT 18 2016 m NO. D-l-GN-13-000778 At fftZr &* CHARLES N. DRAPER § IN THE DISTRICT CoW^'8* § Plaintiff, § v- § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS § GREG GUERNSEY, IN HIS CAPACITY § AS DIRECTOROF PLANNING AND § DEVELOPMENT WATERSHED § PROTECTION REVIEW DEPARTMENT § ANDCITY OF AUSTIN, § Defendants. § 419™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On October 11, 2016, the Court considered Defendant's First Amended Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Evidence. Plaintiffappeared representing himselfPro Se and Defendants appeared through their counsel ofrecord. After reviewing the pleadings on file, Defendants' motions and any responses thereto, the evidence presented, and arguments of the parties, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Evidence should be DENIED and Defendant's First Amended Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED. ITIS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Evidence is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' First Amended Traditional and No-

Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiffs lawsuit against Defendants is DISMISSED with prejudice to re-filing and all relief requested against Defendants is DENIED.

Order on Motion for Summary Judgment age ° • V

This Order disposes of all parties and all claims pending before the Court. It is, therefore,

a final and appealable judgment.

SIGNED this October /£ ,2016

JUDGE^RESIDING KARINCRUMP

Page: of2 Orderon Motion forSummary Judgment