Elma Thomas v. Peters Colony

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 20, 2015·No. 02-15-00154-CV·Published

Opinion

RECEIVED FILED COURT OF APPEALS

OCT 2 0 2015 SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT Or TEXAS OCT 2 0 2015

DEBRASPISAK, CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS DEBRASKJAK, CLERK

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

CAUSE NO, 02-15-00154-CV

ELMA THOMAS, APPELLANT

V.

PETERS COLONY, APPELLE

Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV-2015-00793

ELMA THOMAS

APPELLANT

TELEPHONE: (469) 643-0654

SECONDARY TELEPHONE: (817) 323-4458

ht 2@hotmaill.com

PAGE 1

/VPPeUAWi-s Br2^£^

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Appellant, Elma Thomas has been a resident at Peters Colon since 2009. Appellant signed

documents earlier this year, under the impression that she had signed a new lease. However,

because of her tenure, and trust in Management, she did not obtain a copy of the documents

she signed. According to a copy of the Appellee's Brief that was mailed to the Appellant, her

leaseterm began on February 1, 2014, and ended on January 31.2014. Ifyou review the Lease

Contract (See Exhibit A), the Dateof Lease Contract is February 10,2014. Inthe body of the

Lease, paragraph 3, the Lease Contract Date is February 1,2014. The Date the Lease was signed

is February 10, 2014. There are too many inconsistencies inthe statements, and documents

from Peters Colony. There are inconsistencies inthe dates given for Appellant to Vacate the

premises, and the Lease Date (See Exhibit A). At the top of the Lease, the ContractDateis

February 10, 2014. In Paragraph 3,the Lease Contract begins February 1, 2015. The Appellant

signed the Lease in 2014, on February 10, 2014 Italso states that the lease will automatically renew month to month, unless a 30-day written notice of termination is given, or intent to

move out. s*ote-r*e M^iVur Heawrte iW^^ Ktensrv^xer, . SHt cu«rtfiT- *us.r mover ^.c i#m«^

6T.CL ****** * c^,t< r^ I ^

'4Wbl.l^ TH«fc Vfc^***f< *»£ p_,x,/ls £e>k**M 6***<^ ' T0 i ^ j %^ [^^ ,

ARGUMENT

Both sides did not have the opportunity to present their case, because both witnesses were threatened

to be held in Contempt of Court. One witness was allowed to confirm that the Appellant was indeed a

Pauper, and unable to pay court cost. Because of the threat of Contempt of Court, the Appellant was

afraid to call the witness back to the stand. The second witness was also threatened with Contempt of

Court during the Hearing. The Judge's behavior was unprofessional, as if this was some game, while

the clerk laughed at his conduct before, during, and after the Hearing was over. The Appellant asked if

she could call her witnesses, and it was denied by the Judge. However, he allowed the Attorney for

Peters Colony to speak, and set the Bond at $8222.00. The Hearing was only a formality, with

absolutely no intention of changing his mind. His mind was made up, before he entered the courtroom.

The Appellant had to act as her own Attorney, (because an Attorney was denied by the court), and

answer questions, that would have been ill-advised, had an Attorney been present.

Oral Argument

The County Court erred when it allowed testimony, and made a decision based on hearsay, which

should have been inadmissible in court. The Manager, Apartment Personnel, nor the Attorney for

Peters Colonywas present, when any of the alleged incidences occurred. There are no police reports

of anyone being threatened, or loud obnoxious behavior. However, it was stated that the police were

called, for the Appellant having her music too loud. The Appellant doesn't throw parties, she lives

alone. She does not deserve to lose her place to live. As a common courtesy, in living anywhere, you

should always be mindful of those around you. If there was an issue/problem, Management should

have spoken to both parties, in an effort to remedy the situation, and not taken one side over the other,

unless she had witnessed the dispute herself.

Oral Argument (Continued)

The JP Court (Carrollton) erred, when Iawarded Attorney's Fees to Peters Colony in the amount of

$600.00. An Attorney was not required at this juncture of the court proceedings. The Manager, or

Leasing Agent could have represented Peters Colony in court. It was at the sole discretion of the

Management to hire an Attorney. It is only at the County Court, or higher, that the Apartment has to

hire an Attorney, by law, because they do not own the Apartments. Therefore, the Appellant should not

be responsible for paying their Attorney's Fees.

Issue Presented

Appellant has been a Resident of Peters Colony since early 2009. She has never not renewed hear lease.

She signed documents, under the impression that she had a new lease. However, because of her

relationship with the Manager, she did not obtain a copy. What happened to the documents that she

signed? Five days is not sufficient for someone to move, receiving Housing Assistance. Proper

notification has to be given, or the Appellant would forfeit her housing.(See Exhibit B).

Prayer

It is the hope and prayer of the Appellant to come to a peaceful resolution, where she can maintain her

place of residence. Ifan agreement cannot be reached, the Appellant asking to move to another

Apartment Complex. It is also the Appellant's Prayer, that the Court not render judgment against the

sureties (Edith Burgess and Marisol Rodriguez) on Appellant's Supersedeas Bond. There have been no

damages to the Apartment before, no during these proceedings. All rent is paid through the Dallas

Housing Authority. PetersColony has not incurred any additional cost, Late Fees, etc., by the Appellant

being in her Apartment.

$ THE COURT SHOULD NOT AFFIRM JUDGEMENT AGAINST THE SURETY OF THE SURETY OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND.

The County Courtset a Supersedeas Bond in the amount of $8222.00, of which the Appellant

paid $822.00 earnest money. The justification for the bond being set at this amount, was to

provide protection for the Appellee, considering the value of rent likely to accrue during the

Appeal, damages which may occur as a result of the stay during the Appeal, and other damages

the court may deem appropriate. However, the Appellant is on the_Walker Program, which is a

part of the Section 8 program, and rent is paid directlyto the Apartment complex, by Dallas

Housing Authority. The value of rent has not accrued during this Appeal, and there have been

no damages incurred by Peters Colony before, nor during this Appeal by the Appellant.

Therefore, the Appellant, nor the sureties for the Appellant (Edith Burgess and Marisol

Rodriguez) should not have judgment rendered against them on the Supersedeas Bond.

This LeaseContract is only valid iffilled out beforeJanuary 1,1016.

TEXAS APARTMENT ASSOCIATION Apartment Lease Contract APARTMENT ASSQCWN GTCATEU- DALLAS

DateofLease Contract: ( February 10, 2014 This isa bindingcontract Rtad carefully before signing.

(wTreq this Lease Contract isfilled cart)

Moving In - General Information 1. PARTIES. This Lease Contact is between you, the resident(s) fltsf all and all remedies under state law and this Lease Contract will be peoplesigning the Lease Contract); Elma Thomas authorized. Ifyou violate the animal restrictions ofparagraph 27 orother animal rules, you'll pay an Initial charge ofS 10Q.QQ peTanimal (not to exceed $100 peranimal) and a dally charge ofS 10.00 and us, the owner: per animal (not to exceed $10per day per animal) from the date the Peters Colony animal was brought into your apartment until itisfinally removed. Well also have all other remedies for such violation.

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

Elma Thomas v. Peters Colony, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Elma Thomas v. Peters Colony (Elma Thomas v. Peters Colony) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.