ACCEPTED 03-14-00561-CV 4520225 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS March 31, 2015 3/16/2015 5:52:55 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK 03-14-00561-CV
RECEIVED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS THIRD DISTRICT, AUSTIN 3/16/2015 5:52:55 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk DANA DUSCHMANN and KEVIN BIERWIRTH, Appellants, .
V.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No.2 Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C-I-CV-14-006351
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
Dana Dutschmann c/o 13276 Research Blvd. Ste. 204 Austin, Texas 78750 dana.dutschmann@hotmail.com (512) 779-6254 IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES
Appellant
Dana Dutschmann c/o 13276 Research Blvd. Ste. 204 Austin, Texas 78750
Appellee
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAE)
Counsel for Appellee
Douglas G. Dent 6836 Bee Caves Road, Bldg. 3, Suite 303 Austin, TX 78746 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of Parties and Counsel. ........................................................... .i
Table of Contents ........................................................................... .ii
Table of Authorities ....................................................................... .iii
Statement of Jurisdiction ................................................................... 1
Statues, Rules and Authorities Relevant to the Case ................................... 1
Statement of the case ....................... ~ ............................................... 3
Issues Presented ............................................................................. 4
Argument and Authorities ................................................................ .4
Issue One: Whether Appellant was Denied Equal Rights ........................... .4
Issue Two: Whether Appellant was treated with equality ......................... .4, 5
Issue Three: Whether Appellant was denied an open court and a remedy at law ............................................................................ 4, 7
Issue Four: Whether the Court's premature issuance of a Wirt of Possession Denied due process of law .......................................................... .4, 10
Conclusion ................................................................................ 12
Prayer ..................................................................................... 12
Certificate of Service ................................................................... 13
Certificate of Compliance .............................................................. 13
Appendix ................................................................................. 14
11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Hanks v. City ofPort Arthur, 121 Tex. 202, 48 S.W.2d 944,945 (1932) ... 10
In re BLD, 113 S.W. 3d 340, (Tex. 2003) ........................................ 11
Lassiter v. Department ofSocial Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981) ............... 11
Lucas v. United States, 757 S.W.2d 687,690 (Tex. 1988) .................... 8,9
Morrison v. Chan, 699 S.W.2d 205 at 207_(Tex. 1985) ......................... 8
Nelson v. Krusen, 678 S.W.2d 918,921 (Tex. 1984) ............................. 8
Pettit v. Penn., La.App., 180 So.2d 66, 69 ....................................... 8
Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d 661, 666 (Tex. 1983) ...................... 8,9, 10
State v. Green, 232 S.W.2d 897, 903 (Mo. 1950) ............................... 7
Texas Ass 'n ofBusiness v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440,448, (Tex. 1993) ............................................... 9
Wallingford v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 252 S.W.3d 720
(TexApp.-Amarillo 2007) ........................................................ 9
111 STATUTES
Texas Property Code, Chapter 51 .................................................. 1
RULES
Tex.Prop.C. §24.007 ............................................................. 2, 4
Tex R.Civ.P. 510.13 ......................................................... 2,4, 10
TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Texas Constitution, Art.l Sec. 3 .................................................... 1
Texas Constitution, Art.l Sec. 3a .................................. ~ ............... 1
Texas Constitution, Art.l Sec. 13 ............................................. .1, 7
Texas Constitution, Art.l Sec. 19 ............................................... 1,2
Texas Constitution, Art.l Sec. 29 ............................................... 1, 2
Texas Constitution, Art.5 Sec. 6 .................................................. .1
REFERENCES
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition ............................................ 8
IV STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction of the appeal because Appellant appeals a final
Judgment from the Travis County Court at Law #2, Travis County, Texas. Texas
ConstItution, Art.1 Sec. 3, Sec. 3a, Sec. 13, Sec. 19, Sec. 29, and Art. 5, Sec. 6
This Court has jurisdiction concerning appeal of forcible detainer
proceedings, Texas Property Code, Chapter 51.
STATUTES, RULES AND AUTHORITIES RELEVANT TO THE CASE
Texas Constitution
Art. 1, Sec. 3 . EQUAL RIGHTS. All free men, when they form a social
compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive
separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.
Art. 1, SEC. 3a. EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. Equality under the law
shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national
origin. This amendment is self-operative.
Art. 1, Sec. 13. EXCESSIVE BAIL OR FINES; CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT; REMEDY BY DUE COURSE OF LAW. Excessive bail shall
not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment
inflicted. All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his
lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.
1 Art. 1, Sec. 19. DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, ETC.; DUE
COURSE OF LAW. No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty,
property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the
due course of the law of the land.
Art. 1, Sec. 29. PROVISIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED
FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT; TO FOREVER REMAIN INVIOLATE.
To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare
that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of
government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to
the following provisions, shall be void.
Tex R.Civ.P. 510.13. Writ of Possession on Appeal. The writ of possession, or execution, or both, will be issued by the clerk of the county court according to the judgment rendered, and the same will be executed by the sheriff or constable, as in other cases. The judgment of the county court may not be stayed unless within 10 days from the judgment the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court pursuant to Section 24.007 of the Texas Property Code.
Tex.Prop.C. §24.007 Appeal: (a) A judgment ofa county court in an eviction suit may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court. In setting the supersedeas bond the county court shall provide protection for the appellee to the same extent as in any other appeal, taking into consideration the value of rents likely to accrue during appeal, damages which may occur as a result of the stay during appeal, and other damages or amounts as the court may deem appropriate. (b) Notwithstanding any other law, an appeal may be taken from a final judgment of a county court, statutory county court, statutory probate court, or district court in an eviction suit.
2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Dana Dutschmann rented a property at 3305 Spaniel Drive, Austin, Texas,
from Kevin Birthwirth. On August 7, 2014, judgment in a forcible detainer case
was rendered in favor of Federal National Mortgage Association. At that point, the
case was timely appealed and both the statute and the rules state that Appellant has
10 days in which to post a supersedeas bond in order to stay execution of the writ.
The Court issued a writ of possession on August 13, 2014, six days after
judgment and four days before the time to post a supersedeas bond expires.
Further, the trial court judge must set the amount of supersedeas bond to be posted,
and it did not, and after a Motion to Set Supersedeas Bond, would not allow a
hearing on the matter until after the execution of the writ.
As a result, Appellant and her possession were summarily and unlawfully
tossed to the curb. Appellant asserts that she was denied equal rights, equality, an
open court and a remedy by due course of the law, all Texas Constitutional
violations.
3 ISSUES PRESENTED
ISSUE ONE WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED EQUAL RIGIlTS
ISSUE TWO WHETHER APPELLANT WAS TREATED WITH EQUALITY
ISSUE THREE WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED AN OPEN COURT AND A REMEDY AT LAW
ISSUE FOUR WHETHER THE COURT'S PREMATURE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF POSSESSION DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
ISSUE ONE Whether Appellant was denied equal rights
1. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 510.13 states that in a suit for forcible
detainer that has been appealed for a de novo trial to a county court, when
judgment is against the tenant at sufferance, the judgment of the county court may
not be stayed unless within 10 days from the judgment the appellant files a
supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court pursuant to Section 24.007
of the Texas Property Code.
2. The plain meaning of the statute is clear. After a judgment in county court,
the amount of supersedeas bond must be set and Appellant has ten days in which to
post it.
4 3. None of this occurred. The bond amount was not set and the writ issued
before the ten days.
4. This is not the normal practice of the courts, and Appellant asserts to this
court that except where the court is exhibiting prejudice against a particular
defendant, it is the normal policy and practice of the court to 1) set a bond amount
and 2) wait the mandatory ten days before issuing a writ of possession. In this
instance, the Travis County Courts at Law # 1 and #2 harbor extreme prejudice
against interpleader Kevin Bierwirth. Because of her association with Mr.
Bierwirth, Appellant was denied equal rights protection.
ISSUE TWO Whether Appellant was treated with Equality
5. Appellant asserts she was not treated with equality. The statute and the rule
previously cited would lead a normal person to believe that the words of the statute
and rule apply equally to all who approach the court in any matter, whether it be a
forcible detainer or not. Appellant offers evidence that she was not treated equally
as it applies to others.
6. Appellant notices this Court of the case of KBRealtron Management v.
Frank Seliger, Cause No. C-I-CV-14-003211, Travis County Court at Law #1.
When the first suit for forcible detainer went to the County Court at Law # 1, Judge
Phillips, after realizing that the name KBRealtron Management was associated
5 with Kevin Bierwirth, summarily dismissed the case against the renter, Seliger,
forcing the owner of the property, Ethiopian Evangelical Church to file another suit
for eviction. Appendix, Exhibit 1
7. When the second suit was adjudicated as Ethopian Evangelical Church v.
FrankM Seliger, Cause No. C-I-CV-14-005819, Judge Phillips, after a jury trial,
entered judgment on September 15, 2014, setting an appeal bond of $13,500.
Appendix Exhibit 2
8. On September 24, 2014, Seliger posted bond with a personal check. On
September 26, 2014, the check was dishonored. Appendix Exhibit 3 page 5. When
notified, The Ethopian Church ordered a writ of possession which was posted on
September 29, 2014. Appendix Exhibit 4 At that point, upon the complaint of
Seliger, Judge Phillips set an immediate hearing for September 30, 2014, at which
time Judge Phillips hand wrote an order recalling the writ and noting that the
appeal bond has been paid into the court registry. Appendix Exhibit 5
9. On November 5, 2014, the cash bond of $13,500 was paid into the court
registry. Appendix Exhibit 6 page 7
10. In the instant case, no appeal bond was set, when Appellants motioned for a
hearing to set bond, Appellants were not given an immediate hearing although the
court knew that time was of the essence. (In Seliger's case, a hearing was set the
day after the writ had posted). The writ issued on the 6th day, not the 11 t\ in
6 contradiction to county court rules, and, Appellant could not approach the court for
relief, as, the clerk refused to schedule a timely hearing.
11. Please take note that one (1) day after Seliger's house was posted because no
supersedeas bond was in the registry, Judge Phillips convened an immediate
hearing and gave Mr. Seliger relief which Seliger, by law, did not have coming.
12. Appellant offers these facts and relates the inCidents because it is evident
from the treatment of the two defendants that Appellant did not receive equal
treatment in the county court.
ISSUE THREE Whether Appellant was denied an open court and a remedy at law
13. The open-courts provision in Texas Constitution Art. Sec. 13 says an injured
person "shall have remedy by due course of law" and prohibits the Legislature
from unreasonably abrogating well-established common-law claims. "Due Process
of law implies and comprehends the administration of laws equally applicable to
all under established rules which do not violate fundamental principles of private
rights, and in a competent tribunal possessing jurisdiction of the cause and
proceeding upon justice. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall
have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon
notice and which hears and considers before judgement is rendered." State v.
Green, 232 S.W.2d 897, 903 (Mo. 1950).
7 14. "The phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property
or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been
adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules
regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing,
Pettit v. Penn., La.App., 180 So.2d 66, 69." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition,
page 500.
15. This provision, known as the "open courts" provision, is premised upon the
rationale that the legislature has no power to make a remedy by due course of law
contingent upon an impossible condition. Morrison v. Chan, 699 S.W.2d 205 at
207 (Tex. 1985); Nelson v. Krusen, 678 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex.l984). In order to
establish an "open courts" violation, a litigant must satisfy a two-part test: first, he
must show that he has a well-recognized common-law cause of action that is being
restricted; and second, he must show that the restriction is unreasonable or
arbitrary when balanced against the purpose and basis of the statute. Lucas v.
United States, 757 S.W.2d 687, 690 (Tex.1988); Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d 661,
666 (Tex. 1983).
16. The Texas Supreme Court has determined that this provision includes at
least three separate constitutional guarantees: (1) courts must actually be operating
and available; (2) the legislature cannot impede access to the courts through
8 unreasonable financial barriers; and (3) meaningful remedies must be afforded, "so
that the legislature may not abrogate the right to assert a well-established common
law cause of action unless the reason for its action outweighs the litigants'
constitutional right of redress." Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd.,
852 S.W.2d 440, 448 (Tex.1993). Wallingford's argument invokes the third
guarantee. Wallingford v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 252 S.W.3d 720 (TexApp.-
Amarillo 2007)
17. A litigant challenging a statute on the third open courts guarantee must
satisfy two criteria: First, it must be shown that the litigant has a cognizable
common law cause of action that is being restricted. Second, the litigant must show
that the restriction is unreasonable or arbitrary when balanced against the purpose
and basis of the statute. Lucas v. United States, 757 S.W.2d 687, 690 (Tex. 1988),
quoting Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d 661, 666 (Tex. 1983). See Wallingford v.
Trinity Universal Ins. Co. 252 S.W.3d 720 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2007).
18. Appellant questions neither the standing of the Plaintiff nor the subject
matter jurisdiction of the court. Appellant instead asserts that once a case is firmly
embodied in a court all parties have equal access to set hearings and be heard. This
process is part of the open courts right. When some parties can gain instant access
to a hearing and others cannot be timely heard, it can only be assumed that the
courts are not open to the parties who cannot schedule a timely hearing. 9 19. All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his
lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. The
"Open Courts Provision" is, quite plainly, a due process guarantee. Sax v. Votteler,
648 S.W. 2d 661, (Tex. 1983); Hanks v. City of Port Arthur, 121 Tex. 202, 48
S.W.2d 944, 945 (1932).
20. Appellant was entitled to the right to file a supersedeas bond, however,
because the court would not set a timely hearing date (within ten days of the
judgment) in order to name a bond amount, and because the court issued the writ
of possession five days before it lawfully could, Appellant was denied an open
court and a remedy at law.
ISSUE FOUR Whether the Court's premature issuance of a Writ of Possession denied due Process of law
21. Tex.R.Civ.P. 510.13 and Tex.Prop.C. §24.007 both state that an appellant
has ten days in which to post a supersedeas bond in the amount the court has set,
before execution of a judgment.
22. In this case, the court issued the writ 5 days before the deadline for filing a
bond. The court made it even more difficult on Appellant, as it did not set the
amount of bond when it issued judgment.
10 23 The phrase "due process', although incapable of precise definition, expresses
the requirement of fundamental fairness. In re BLD, 113 S.W. 3d 340, (Tex.
2003); See Lassiter v. Department a/Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981).
24. What fundamental fairness requires in a particular situation is determined by
"considering any relevant precedents, and then ... assessing the several interests
that are at stake. Id Lassiter at 25, 101 S.Ct. 2153.
25. What was at stake in this case was the untimely and unlawful execution of a
writ of possession which caused undue harm to Appellant.
26. What was at stake in this case was the reliance of Appellant on the law, the
right to post a supersedeas bond within ten days of the judgment. That right was
denied her.
27. Had the law been followed and the court acted in a fair and forthright
manner, Appellant would still be ensconced in her home while the issue of the
application of the two year statute of limitations was being heard by this court.
28. Since the issuance is contrary and in defiance of all law on the matter as it
pertains to county courts, Appellant claims that she was denied due Process of law.
11 CONCLUSION
29. County Court at Law #2 did not follow the Texas statute or Rule of Court
when it disenfranchised Appellant from her home without due process.
30. County Court at Law #2 did not allow Appellant timely access to the courts
in order to effect a remedy.
31. County Court at Law #2 did not grant equal nor fair treatment to Appellant.
32. Appellant has been damaged by the denial of due process and inequality
exhibited by the County Court at Law #2 in this case.
33. To grant access to the court and to remedy, even when it is misapplied, and
to not grant another party a scintilla of equal treatment is a violation of the Texas
Constitution Bill of Rights.
PRAYER
Appellant prays that this Court will examine the unfair and unlawful
treatment of Appellant in this instance and remand the case back to the trial court,
order the court to set a supersedeas bond amount, and restore the status quo to the
date of judgment.
Appellant prays that decency, fairness and the upholding of the letter of the
law will prevail in this appeal.
12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true ~A correct copy of Appellant's Briefwas sent by U. S. Postal Service on March 1~t2'015.
Douglas G. Dent 6836 Bee Caves Road, Bldg. 3, Suite 303 Austin, TX 78746
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the number of words in' this Appellant's Brief is 2,740 words. '
TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT
EXHIBIT 1 ORDER OF DISMISSAL CAUSE #C-I-CV-14-003211
EXHIBIT 2 JUDGMENT IN CAUSE #C-I-CV-14-005819
EXHIBIT 3 TRAVIS COUNTY CLERK'S REGISTRY FOR CAUSE #C-I-CV-14-005819 Pages 1-6
EXHIBIT 4 WRIT OF POSSESSION CAUSE #C-I-CV-14-005819
EXHIBIT 5 ORDER AND RECALL OF WRIT IN CAUSE #C-I-CV-14-005819
EXHIBIT 6 TRAVIS COUNTY CLERK'S REGISTRY FOR CAUSE #C-I-CV-14-005819 Page 7
14 EXHIBIT 1 No. C·l·CV· t 4·003211
KBREALTRON MANAGBMENT, § IN THE COUNTY COURT Plaintiff § VS. § AT LAW NUMBER 1 FRANK M. SELIGER § Defendant § TRAVIS COUNTY. TEXAS
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
and nU1'J1lx,,.oo cause be and it hereby til dis:mJsj.ed)wm.
against the plaintiff. The clerk is order ........,."'I'....'Sited in this case to the Ethiopian Evangelioal Christian 4 Y2 Streett Austin, Texas 78702.
J.
~'PHIUJ" 11111111 111111111111 IJlIIII EXHIBIT 2 CAUSE NO. C-I-CV-14-00S819
ETHIOPIAN EVANGELICAL CHURCH § IN THE COUNTY COuJT '-" :::;n?: .-,... " ~ ... f; Plaintiff, § :/) ,""1 '- § ·"2f,. .... -0 , v. § AT LAW NO. 1 !r.:- :r, \ U"I ..--.., ....., § ,- -0 FRANK M. SELIGER, § :x Defendant. §
JUDGMENT
On the 25th day of August, 2014, came to be tried in its re :ve- styled and numbered cause, wherein ETHIOPIAN EVANG AL ~H&IRltM.,~aintiff, appeared by and through its counsel of recor~ James Mine ready for trial and FRANK M. SELIGER, Defendant, appea:rec.1 . ready for trial. A Jury was requested and assembled and a y of fact were submitted to the jury. The Jury returned a verdict take nothing, and that the Plaintiff regains possession of the 2108 EAST YAGER LANE. AUSTIN, TEXAS 78754. It is the the Plaintiff is justly entitled to a judgment against the DefenljllDlj1111lU
ORDERED, ADJUDGED ~""~""",,,,pu;.w'" the Court that ETHIOPIAN EVANGELICAL CHURCH, PI e and recover from FRANK M. SELIGER, Defendant, possession of 'bed as 2108 EAST YAGER LANE. AUSTIN, TEXAS 78754.
ORDERED. A:JiJUt)QSa D DECREED by the Court that ETHIOPIAN EVANGELICAL aHlKR.4~l'h. .lajflIL~1~ have and recover from FRANK M. SELIGER, Defendant, the s an costs of court together with interest thereon at the rate of 5% ch let execution issue in Plaintifrs behalf.
Approved as to Substance and Form
111111111.1111111111 000903116 EXHIBIT 3 TIME: 03:39:58 PM TRAVIS COUNTY, STATE OF TEXAS DATE: Jan 9, 2015 P. O. BOX 149325 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78714-9325 PAGE: 1
C-1-CV·14-005819 ETHIOPIAN CHURCH VS SELIGER PARTY: COURT/JUDGE: CC2 COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 STATUS: DO DISPOSED FILING DATE: 06-24-2014 CASE TYPE: CJP CV J P APPEAL DATE CASE ENTERED: 06-24-2014 . EVENT CATEGORY: PERIOD: TO DATE PARTY EVENT RECEIPT # AMOlJNT 06-24-2014 OF 1 ASM:CV JP APPEAL FILING $257.00
Create New Case and Ass~sslWaive - Assessment Event
06-24-2014 OF 1 OPN:CV JP APPEAL FILED PRO SE
06-24-2014 OF 1 ISS:CV NTC OF APPEAL AND COSTS
06-24-2014 PL 1 ISS:CV MONEY ON DEPOSIT LTR .
06-24-2014 OF 1 ORD:CV CASH BOND ORDERED $1500.00
06-24-2014 OF 1 PMT:CV CASH BOND PAYMENT C 108825 $-1500.00 Received Of: SELIGER FRANK M Memo: BANK OF AMERICA
07-14-2014 OF 1 ORD:CV APPEAL BD RENT ORDERED $1000.00
07-14-2014 MSC:CV OTHER
REQUESTING A PRE-TRIAL HEARING TO SET A JURY-TRIAL IN THIS CASE
07-14-2014 OF 1 PMT:CV APPEAL BD RENT PAYMENT C 109184 $-1000.00 Received Of: SELlGE~ FRANK M Memo:
07-14-2014 OF 1 PMT:CV JP APPEAL FILING C 109185 $-257.00 Received Of: SELIGER FRANK M Memo:
07-23-2014 OF 1 ASM:CV JURY DEMAND FEE $22.00 SELIGER FRANK M
07-23-2014 OF 1 PMT:CV JURY DEMAND FEE C 109281 $-22.00 Received Of: SELIGER FRANK M Memo: TIME: 03:39:58 PM TRAVIS COUNTY, STATE OF TEXAS DATE: Jan 9, 2015 P. O. BOX 149325 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78714·9325 PAGE: 2
C·1-CV·14-005819 ETHIOPIAN CHURCH VS SELIGER PARTY: COURT/JUDGE: CC2 COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 STATUS: DO DISPOSED FILING DATE: 06·24·2014 CASE TYPE: CJP CV J P APPEAL DATE CASE ENTERED: 06·24·2014 EVENT CATEGORY: PERIOD: TO
DATE PARTY EVENT RECEIPT # AMOUNT
07·31·2014 MOT:CV FOR JUDGMENT
PORPOSED ORDER ATTACHED
08·05·2014 OF 1 PLD:CV ANSWER FILED PRO SE
08·05·2014 OF 1 PMT:CV CASH BOND PAYMENT C 109447 $·1000.00 Received Of: SELIGER FRANK M Memo:
08·13·2014 PLD:CV PEREZ QCR COMPLETED
08·15·2014 PLD:CV PEREZ QCR COMPLETED
08·18·2014 MOT:CV CONTINUANCE
08·18·2014 JDP:CV JUDGE'S ACTION
parties appeared on plaintiffs motion for writ of possessio n. motion denied as this is not a pauper's affidavit appeal. defendant has paid the appeal bond as set by the JP.
. 08·19·2014 PL1 ASM:CV ISSUANCE FEE $8.00 FRANK M. SELIGE
08·19·2014 PL 1 ASM:CV CONSTABLE 5 SERVICE FEE $150.00 FRANK M. SELIGE
08·19-2014 PLD:CV LETTER TO CLERK
SUBPOENA REQUEST: LEM LEM (LEMI) BERHAN
08·19·2014 ISS:CV SUBPOENA
PLACED IN CONSTABLE'S BOX
08·19-2014 PLD:CV LETTER TO CLERK TIME: 03:39:58 PM TRAVIS COUNTY, STATE OF TEXAS DATE: Jan 9, 2015 P. O. BOX 149325 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78714-9325 PAGE: 3
C-1-CV·14-005819 ETHIOPIAN CHURCH VS SELIGER PARTY: COURT/JUDGE: CC2 COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 STATUS: DO DISPOSED FILING DATE: 06-24-2014 CASE TYPE: CJP CV J P APPEAL DATE CASE ENTERED: 06-24·2014 EVENT CATEGORY: PERIOD: TO
DATE PARTY EVENT RECEIPT # AMOUNT
subpoena request: Pastor Paulos Wildesendt
08-19·2014 ISS:CV SUBPOENA
PLACED IN CONSTABLE'S BOX
08·19·2014 PL 1 PMT:CV ISSUANCE FEE C 109633 $-8.00 Received Of: FRANK M. SELIGE Memo:
08-19-2014 PL 1 PMT:CV CONSTABLE 5 SERVICE FEE C 109633 $·150.00 Received Of: FRANK M. SELIGE Memo:
08-21-2014 PLD:CV PEREZ QCRCOMPLETED
08-26-2014 CT: JURY SELECTED
08-26-2014 CT: VERDICT RETURN
08-26-2014 RET:CV SUBPOENA RET SERVED
08120/2014
08-27·2014 MSC:CV OTHER
PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY CHARGES
08-27·2014 RET:CV SUBPOENA RET SERVED
0812112014
08-27-2014 ORD:CV WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS
08-27-2014 ORD:CV CHARGE OF THE COURT
09-02-2014 OF 1 ORD:CV APPEAL BD RENT ORDERED $1500.00 TIME: 03:39:58 PM TRAVIS COUNTY, STATE OF TEXAS DATE: Jan 9, 2015 P. O. BOX 149325 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78714-9325 PAGE: 4
C·1·CV·14-005819 ETHIOPIAN CHURCH VS SELIGER PARTY: COURT/JUDGE: CC2 COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 STATUS: DO DISPOSED FILING DATE: 06-24-2014 CASE TYPE: CJP CV J P APPEAL DATE CASE ENTERED: 06-24-2014 EVENT CATEGORY: PERIOD: TO DATE PARTY EVENT RECEIPT # AMOUNT
09-02-2014 MOT:CV OTHER
MOTION TO HAVE A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE DEFENDANT'S SUPERSEDEAS BOND
09-02-2014 DF1 PMT:CV APPEAL BD RENT PAYMENT C 109771 $-1500.00 Received Of: SELIGER FRANK M Memo;
09·15-2014 MSC;CV ORO TO DISB SENT ACCTNG
09-15-2014 DSP:CV FINAL JUDGMENT JURY VER
09-15-2014 PL 1 MSC:CV NOTIF CHANGE OF ADDRESS
09-15~2014 OF 1 ISS;CV NOT OF JOG RULE 306
09-18-2014 OF 1 ISS;CV NOT OF JOG RULE 306
09-18-2014 DSB:CV CASH BOND DISBURSEMENT $2450.00
DISBURSED $2,450.00 CK #4597 Paid to the order of: Ethiopian Evangelical Church C-1-CV-14.Q05819 Cash Bond Disbursement
09-18-2014 OF 1 DSB:CV APPEAL BD RENT DISBURSE $1500.00
DISBURSED $1,500.00 CK #4598 Paid to the order of: Ethiopian Evangelical Church C-1-CV-14.Q05819 Rent Bond Disbursement
09-18-2014 DSB:CV APPEAL BD RENT DISBURSE $1000.00
DISBURSED $1,000.00 CK #4599 Paid to the order of: Ethiopian Evangelical Church C-1-CV-14-o05819 Rent Bond Disbursement TIME: 03:39:58 PM TRAVIS COUNTY, STATE OF TEXAS DATE: Jan 9, 2015· P. O. BOX 149325 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78714·9325 PAGE: 5
C.1·CV·14-005819 ETHIOPIAN CHURCH VS SELIGER PARTY: COURT/JUDGE: CC2 COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 STATUS: DO DISPOSED FILING DATE: 06·24·2014 CASE TYPE: CJP CV J P APPEAL DATE CASE ENTERED: 06·24·2014 EVENT CATEGORY: PERIOD: TO DATE PARTY EVENT RECEIPT # AMOUNT
09-24·2014 OF 1 MOT:CV OTHER
MOTION: TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THIS CASE· SO THAT THE DEFENDENT HAS FINANCIAL CLARIFICATION ABOUT WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS OWED TO WHOM
09·24-2014 OF 1 NTC:CV APPEAL
09·24·2014 DF1 ORD:CV CASH BOND ORDERED $13500.00
09-24·2014 OF 1 PMT:CV CASH BOND PAYMENT C 110123 $·13500.00 Received Of: SELIGER FRANK M Memo: DISHONORED BY 580 ON 09-26-2014
09-25·2014 MSC:CV ASSIGNMENT OF APPEAL
ASSIGNED TO: BLAIR HICKS
09-25-2014 JDP:CV JUDGE'S ORDER
FINAL JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL:
09-26-2014 OF 1 ASM:CV RETURNED CHECK FEE $25.00
DISHONORED PAYMENT
09-26-2014 OF 1 PMT:CV CASH BOND PAYMENT $13500.00
NEGATING RECEIPT C • 000110123 (DISHONORED PAYMENT)
09-26·2014 PL 1 ASM:CV WRIT OF POSS OR SEaUES $5.00 BERHAME LEMLEM
09·26·2014 PL 1 ASM:CV SERVICE WRIT OF POSSESS $160.00 BERHAME LEMLEM
09-26·2014 PLD:CV LETTER TO CLERK TIME: 03:39:58 PM TRAVIS COUNty, STATE OF TEXAS DATE: Jan 9,2015 P. O. BOX 149325 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78714-9325 PAGE: 6
C-1-CV-14-005819 ETHIOPIAN CHURCH VS SELIGER PARTY: COURT/JUDGE: CC2 CqUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 STATUS: DO DISPOSED FILING DATE: 06-24-2014 CASE TYPE: CJP CV J P APPEAL DATE CASE ENTERED: 06-24-2014. EVENT CATEGORY: PERIOD: TO DATE PARTY EVENT RECEIPT # AMOUNT 09-26-2014 PL 1 PMT:CV WRIT OF POSS OR SEQUES Z 2700 $-5.00 Received Of: BERHAME LEMLEM Memo:
09-26-2014 PL1 PMT:CV SERVICE WRIT OF POSSESS Z 2700 $-160.00 Received Of: BERHAME LEMLEM Memo:
09-29-2014 OF 1 ISS:CV WRIT OF POSSESSION
PLACED IN CONSTABLE'S BOX
09-30-2014 DF1 ASM:CV RETURNED CHECK FEE $-25.00
Ch!!ck was held, received pIc from Seliger on Friday, 9-26 re garding check status. Told accounting staff there was a prob lem. Received 1st notice from Chase Bank regarding check. Ca lied bank 9/3012014, appears the check did go through. No NS F. Cindy Bohanan
09-30-2014 JDP:CV JUDGE'S ORDER
or4er recalling writ of possession. jdp
09-30-2014 ORD:CV OTHER
ORDER RECALLING WRIT
10-02-2014 PLD:CV FILE COpy OF LETTER
10-02-2014 OF 1 RET:CV WRIT POSS RET UNSRVD
10-20-2014 OF 1 PLD:CV DESIGNATION OF RECORD
11-03-2014 OF 1 ASM:CV COpy FEE APPEAL $131.00
11-03-2014 MSC:CV CALL TO COUNSEL LESS 15
NOTIFIED APPELLANT OF COST FOR CLERK'S RECORD TIME: 03:39:58 PM TRAVIS COUNTY, STATE OF TEXAS DATE: Jan 9, 2015 P. O. BOX 149325 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78714-9325 PAGE: 7
C-1-CV-14-005819 ETHIOPIAN CHURCH VS SELIGER PARTY: COURT/JUDGE: CC2 COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 STATUS: DO DISPOSED FILING DATE: 06-24-2014 CASE TYPE: CJP CV J P APPEAL DATE CASE ENTERED: 06-24-2014 EVENT CATEGORY: PERIOD: TO
DATE PARTY EVENT RECEIPT # AMOUNT 11-05-2014 OF 1 ORD:CV CASH BOND ORDERED $13500.00
11-05-2014 OF 1 PMT:CV CASH BOND PAYMENT C 110671 $-13500.00 Received Of: SELIGER FRANK M Memo:
11-13-2014 MSC:CV CALL TO COUNSEL LESS 15
SPOKE TO APPELLANT RE: UNPAID TRANSCRIPT FEE; APPELLANT SAID THAT HE WOULD PAY BY FRIDAY, 11/14 (TRANSCRIPT IS DUE IN THE THIRD COURT ON MONDAY f1l17)
11-18-2014 DF1 PMT:CV COPY FEE APPEAL C 110808 $-131.00 Received Of: SELIGER FRANK M Memo:
11-24-2014 PLD:CV FILE COPY OF LETTER EXHIBIT 4 FESS HAB~E-AB "IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIII REQUESTOR: 3106 E 14 ~ ST 1111111 1111111111111111111 AUSTIN, TX 78702 000910850 (512) 998-5579
WRIT OF POSSESSION THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF' TRAVIS CAUSE NO.C-I-CV-14-005819
ETHIOPIAN EVANGELICAL CHURCH, Plaintiff vs. FRANK M. Defendant To any Sheriff or any Constable within the State On Sept.ember 15, 2014, in COUN'l'Y COUR~ AT LAW *2 of ~ t Texas, in the above-styled and numbered cause, ~ dgme t a ed against said Defendant(s) (Tenant)entitling the a Pl i. 'ff(s)to possession of the following-described premis 2108 EAST YAGER. LANE, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78754
THEREFORE YOU ARE COMMANDED TO: I.enter such premises and deliver the e f to the landlord; 2.instruct the Tenant (Defendant) s claiming under the tenant to leave the premises ·.m i if the persons fail to comply, physically remove t m. 3.instruct the Tenants to re 0 ~ the landlord, the landlord's representativ 0'< r persons acting under the officer's supervision, 11 personal property from the premi.ses other than y claimed to be owned by the landlord; and person place, the removed personal at a nearby location, but not sidewalk, passageway, street, or it i.s raining, sleeting, or snowing; . 0 the exterior of the front dear of the e enant that". this writ has been issued and ~QQ~ed on or after a specific date and time ning not sooner than 24 hours after the warning is ~~~e thorized at your discretion to engage the a bonded warehouseman to remove and store part or all r",.".·-·--ty at no cost to the Landlord or the of.ficer. executina are notified that you are not liable for damages J
from the execution of this writ, i f executed in good h reasonable diligence. You may use reasonable force, if executing this writ.
Issued and given under my hand and seal of said court at Austin, Texas by Dana DeEeauvoir, County Clerk, rravis County, Texas on September 29, 2014.
Page I 01'2 **$160,00 SERVICE FEE PAID-*
al ~a~ ~.-.:-:_O--h-a-n-d- ~ "'" - -t-.-h:.'--"O'rtt.:a-y--o-~OF Ie .R· S ;( ,~L-' " . RE:'URN---------------- .. ----- " .. -n----- .-__ , 2t1t: at~____ o'cl<)d: r..M and "otexecllted <)~ the _ ... day of I 20"..... at . ____ o'clock ___M To ce-:"tHy wh:ch Wl.tness my hand officially: ~ fr.."d~ p~ ~uat; A~ ~ ~:ble,-""PC·t··~"· S,- Tr·e'li.s r~ev-14-005819 ~~. 36<: _ 000000862 Carlos B. Constable Pel S,1i
I"'·
~ . ...
' ,," ~ . ., ......... t.
2614 SEf 2~ f·!.,~ ~. ..h {. 'i ", !
Page 2 of2 EXHIBITS Z.~\.\o~\J.t\ ~~t~~A.,c~J.. ~vt~ N~ t~~\~,/\.+\~~..; I~ /oro \f. ----t rW\~ \)1. ~£ tJ).f\'L c~\~ ~~ ( Dek''''''d~+-
O~e% ,------ ~'\.e. \N\"~~ (P~ Qo<,;t~~iO ,,_V'~- ~~\~ber 1" ~ t 10 fL\ \1\ CO(\(\ ft ~ C/).~e .)bo~ "'tiA'7tJ'
• "\he. '* \ 3.')00 • Af ~y\. '?c?;~ · IAttl
~ CA>\)r~
'Im~ 1111 IHI 111- ,000908063
----------_ ............•. _._--- Derrick Hill From: Alan Redd Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:53 AM To: Derrick Hilt Subject: FW: C-l-CV-14-00SS19 Ethiopian Church vs. Seliger
See below
.JlUm J. 'R.ecUf Sergeant Office of carlos 8. lopez Travis County Constable, Pet. 5 1003 Guadalupe St. Austin, TX 78701 www.ConstableS.com 81i!I},[edd@co.travis.tl<.us
offiCE!. No information contained within this corr s recommended that you contact legal counsel Cj e the State of Texas.
Miche B Civil Tea Travis Cou .-.~... " Mail: P.O. Box 149325, Austin, TX 78714-9325 Hand Delivery: Room 222; 1000 Guadalupe, Auetin, TX 78701 Overnight Delivery: 5501 Airport Blvd•• Austin, TX 78751·1410 (512) 854-9188 (Call Center] ciyil@co.travis.tx.u. Please vIsit our new website: www,Trav'sCoYntyCfU.org 1 EXHIBIT 6 TIME: 03:39:58 PM TRAVIS COUNTY, STATE OF TEXAS DATE: Jan 9, 2015 P. O. BOX 149325 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78714-9325 PAGE: 7
C-1-CV-14-005819 ETHIOPIAN CHURCH VS SEUGER PARTY: COURT/JUDGE: CC2 COUNTYCOURTATLAW#2 STATUS: DO DISPOSED FILING DATE: 06-24-2014 CASE TYPE: CJP CV J P APPEAL DATE CASE ENTERED: 06-24-2014 EVENT CATEGORY: PERIOD: TO DATE PARTY EVENT RECEIPT # AMOUNT 11-05-2014 OF 1 ORD:CV CASH BOND ORDERED $13500.00
11-05-2014 OF 1 PMT:CV CASH BOND PAYMENT C 110611 $-13500.00 Received Of: SELIGER FRANK M Memo:
11-13-2014 MSC:CV CALL TO COUNSEL LESS 15
SPOKE TO APPELLANT RE: UNPAID TRANSCRIPT FEE; APPELLANT SAID THAT HE WOULD PAY BY FRIDAY. 11/14 (TRANSCRIPT IS DUE IN THE THIRD COURT ON MONDAY 11/17)
11-18-2014 DF1 PMT:CV COPY FEE APPEAL C 110808 $-131.00 Received Of: SELIGER FRANK M Memo:
11-24-2014 PLD:CV FILE COPY OF LElTER