Cristina Castaneda v. Dannette Zuniga

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 24, 2015·No. 13-14-00606-CV·Published

Opinion

FILED AMENDED APPELLANT'S BRIEF «N THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS August 21, 2015 COPPusc^ST,™* AUG U <£$!> Cause Number: 13-14-00606-CV CEGIkE FOY Q@AWj£§$L£RK

In the 13th Court ofAppeal at the Hidalgo County Administration Building 10/^. Cano 5th Floor Edinburg, TX 78539

Cristina Castaneda V. Dannette Zuniga

Original proceeding from Hidalgo County Court 2 Honorable Judge Jaime Palacios presiding

Appellant's brief on the merits

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Cristina Castaneda 1405 Grouse Ave. Donna, Texas 78537 956-534-7942 ccastaneda0227@gmail.com Pro Se Litigant

RECEIVED AUG 2 h 2015 13TH COURT OF APPEALS Identities of Parties and Counsel

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(a) Appellant presents the following list of all parties and name and addresses of its counsel.

Appellant:

Cristina Castaneda 1405 Grouse Ave. Donna, TX 78537 Telephone: 956-534-7942 ccastaneda0227@gmail.com Pro se

Respondent:

The Honorable Judge Jaime Palacios Hidalgo County Court 2 100 N. Closner3rd Floor Edinburg, TX 78539

Appellee: Dannette Zuniga 3729 Frio Ave. McAllen, TX 78504 Pro se Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(b) Appellant presents the following table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3 STATEMENT OF CASE 4 ANY STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT 5 ISSUES PRESENTED _6 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 8 ARGUMENT 9-10 PRAYER 11 APPENDIX 12 SPECIAL ATTACHEMENTS CONTRACT 13-15 LAST NOTIFICATION OF ADJUSTMENT SEC. 8 16 LETTER REGARDING SPECIAL INSPECTION 17 LETTER 30 DAY NOTICE 18 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FAILED STATUS ~ 19-21 ORDER DENYING NEW TRIAL 22 ORDER OF EVICTION AND POSTMARKED 23 LETTER FROM MHA JUNE'S RENT 24 ^ Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(c) Appellant presents the following index of authorities

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

EDWARDS V. HABIB

ANTHONY AWEKKA V. JOHN BONDS

COLLIERY CO. V. FOUT

STATUES:

24C.F.R. 982.310(B) NON-PAYMENT OF RENT BY PHA IS NOT GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF LEASE

24C.F.R. 982.453 OWNER BREACH OF CONTRACT RESULTS IN PENALTIES CONTRACT AUTOMATICALLY 180 DAYS FROM LAST ASSISTANCE CHECK

24C.F.R. 982.310(D) (2) RENOVATIONS NO GOOD CAUSE FOR EVICTION

PROPERTY CODE TITLE 8 SEC. 92.052 (a) DILIGENT EFFORT TO REPAIR OR REMEDY

PROPERTY CODE TITLE 8 SEC. 92.053 (b) BURDEN OF PROOF DILIGENT EFFORT WAS MADE TO REPAIR

SUBSIDY LAWS SEC.8-1 l.G OWNER MUST NOT SEEK PAYMENT FOR AMOUNT ABATED NOR USE AS CAUSE FOR EVICTION

TEXAS PROPERTY CODE 92-331 RETALIATION PROHIBITED FOR SIX MONTHS

TRCP 509.6(A) FAILURE TO REMEEDY

TRCP 509.9 WRITS ARE NEEDED FOR REMOVAL OF PERSONS AND PROPERTIES Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(d) Appellant presents the following statement of the case

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

PROCEDUAL BACKGROUND: APPEALED JUSTICE OF THE PEACE CHARLIE EZPINOZA RULING FOR PLAINTIFF HEARING COUNTY COURT 2 JUDGE JAIME PALACIOS ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 RULED IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE AMOUNT OF THREE MONTHS RENT AND ORDER TO VACATE BY SEPTEMBER 6, 2015 WHICH WAS SIGHNED AND MAILED SEPTEMBER 5, 2014 AND WAS STAMPED POST MARKED SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 APPEALED HIS JUDGMENT AND REQUESTED MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL SUBMITTED NEW EVIDENCE FROM LEGAL AID, MCALLEN POLICE DEPT. AND MCALLEN HOUSING AUTHORITY AND WAS DENIED NEW TRAIL

NATURE OF THE CASE: PLAINTIFF DANNETTE ZUNIGA BROUGHT A CIVIL SUIT DUE TO CONSTRUCTION AND NON-PAID RENT ON JUNE 3, 2014. ORIGINAL CONTRACT STATES THAT THERE IS A 10 DAY GRACE TO PAY RENT. PLAINTIFF BRETCHED CONTRACT BY FILING SUIT BEFORE THE 10™ AS STATED IN THE CONRACT. PLAINTIFF ALSO FAILED TO MAKE ACCOMIDATIONS OR REPAIRS THAT HAD BEEN REQUSTED IN WRITTING APRIL 30. THE MONTH OF MAY WAS THE LAST ASSISTANCE CHECK ISSUED DUE TO NON COMPLIANCE. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROPERLY FILL OUT THE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PORTION OF THE PETITION WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN MY PORTION ($0.00) OF THE RENT AS OF MAY. HOUSING WAS IN CHARGE OF ALL RENT DUE OR ABATED DUE TO NONCOMPLIANCE IN REPAIRS OF THE UNIT ON APRIL 30, 2014. PLANTIFF RECEIVED RENT FOR MAY AND CHOOSE TO REPAIR THE ROOF AND FAILED TO REPAIR THE FAILED STATUS UNDER HOUSING AUTHORITY. ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2014 THE PLAINTIFF REMOVED THE DEFENDANTS PROPERTY WITH OUT A WRIT OF EVICTION KNOWING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD BE FILED. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(e) Appellant presents the following statement of oral argument

STATEMENT OF ORAL ARGUMENT:

TEXAS LAWS AND RULES WERE DISREGARDED BY THE PLANTIFF, JUDGES AND HOUSING AUTHORITIES.

PLAINTIFF WAS OBLIGATED TO THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT AND FAILED TO UPHOLD THE CONTRACT. PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY RELEASED THE DEFENDANT OF THE CONTRACT SO THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD MOVE INTO A SUITABLE DWELLING UNIT WITHOUT ANY REPAIRS TO THE FAILED UNIT. (TRCP 509.6(A) FAILURE TO REMEEDY) WHEN RENT WAS NOT PAID PLAINTIFF DECIDED TO FILE SUIT TO COLLECT RENT THAT THE MCALLEN HOUSING AUTHORITY CLAIMED TO ABATE TILL REPAIRS OR ACCOMIDATIONS WERE MADE. (SUBSIDY LAWS SEC.8-1 l.G OWNER MUST NOT SEEK PAYMENT FOR AMOUNT ABATED NOR USE AS CAUSE FOR EVICTION)

NOTIFICATIONS AND PROPER PAPERWORK IS STILL PENDING BY McALLEN HOUSING AUTHORITY. A CASE HAS BEEN OPEN BY THE FAIR HOUSING AUTHORITY AGAINST THE McALLEN HOUSING AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE HUD DUE TO THESE ACTIONS. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(f) Appellant presents the following issues presented

ISSUES PRESENTED

DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN EXCLUDING CRITICAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE TIME?

IS THERE FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIAL COURTS?

DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN NOT GIVING SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE ORDER?

THE LANDLORD ISSUED A 30 DAY NOTICE WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE. DURING THE INITIAL TERM GOOD CAUSE HAS TO BE SOMETHING THE FAMILY DID OR FAIL TO DO. (24 C.F.R. 982.310(D)(2)) JUDGE PALACIOS ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT MOVE OUT BY SEPTEMBER 6, 2014 AND ISSUED THE PLATIFF DANNETTE ZUNIGA PAPERWORK TO PREPARE AN ORDER ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2014. THE SIGHNED ORDER WAS MAILED OUT TO DEFFENDANT ON THE 5th OF SEPTEMBER AND WAS NOT RECEIVED TILL SEPTEMBER 8, 2014. PROPER NOTICE WAS NOT GIVEN TO DEFENDANT AND THE ORDER SHOULD BE VOID. PLAINTIFF USED THE ORDER TO REMOVAL OF ALL PROPERTY ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2014 AND REMOVAL OF ALL OCCUPANTS ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 BY THE MCALLEN POLICE DEPT. AND WAS DONE WITHOUT A WRIT. (TRCP 509.9 WRITS ARE NEEDED FOR REMOVAL OF PERSONS AND PROPERTIES) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(g) Appellant presents the following statement of the facts

STATEMENT OF FACTS

ON APRIL 30, 2014 SPECIAL INSPECTION PROPERTY FAILED HUD REGULATIONS ON MAY 1, 2014 NOTICE TO VACATE DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ON JUNE 3, 2014 FILE SUITE IN JUSTICE OF PEACE CHARLIE ESPINOZA ON JUNE 16, 2014 ORDER TO PAY $625 AND $111 IN COURT COSTS ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 COUNTY COURT 2 JUDGE JAIME PALACIOS HEARD THE LAWS REGARDING REPAIRS THAT WAS PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE. ORDER IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT RECIEVED ORDER ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 TO FILE AN APPEAL. ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2014 THE ORDER WAS SIGNED AT 3:12PM ORDERING ALL OCCUPANTS TO VACATE PROPERTY 3709 FRIO AVE. MCALLEN TX 78504 AND RENT OWED OF $1250.00 ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2014 PLAINTIFF DANNETTE ZUNIGA REMOVED PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHOUT A WRIT.

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

Cristina Castaneda v. Dannette Zuniga, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Cristina Castaneda v. Dannette Zuniga (Cristina Castaneda v. Dannette Zuniga) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related