Irma Lemus and Manuel Lemus v. John Rene Aguilar, Johnny B. Wells, Laura Ashley Wells, and Johnny Montoya Garza

Opinion

ACCEPTED

04-14-00609-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

5/12/2015 1:42:29 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

NO. 04-14-00609

_____________________________________________________________________________

FILED IN

4th COURT

IN THE TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS - FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL OF APPEALS DISTRICT

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

IRMA LEMUS and MANUEL LEMUS, JR., 05/12/2015 1:42:29 PM Appellants

V. KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk

JOHNNY MONTOYA GARZA, JOHN RENE AGUILAR, LAURA ASHLEY WELLS and JOHNNY B. WELLS, Appellees

On Appeal from Cause No. 2012-CI-00251, 225th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

______________________________________________________________________________

APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION RE APPELLANT’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

COME NOW Appellees, JOHNNY MONTOYA GARZA, JOHN RENE AGUILAR,

LAURA ASHLEY WELLS and JOHNNY B. WELLS, and respectfully request that this

Honorable Court clarify whether they are required to respond to Appellants Irma Lemus and

Manuel Lemus, Jr.’s May 11, 2015 brief as a supplemental brief to the one filed on April 20, 2015

or a substituted brief. In support thereof Appellees would show as follows:

I. APPEALS COURT ORDER TO REDRAW BRIEF

1.1 On April 29th, 2015, this Honorable Court ordered Appellants to file a “redrawn

brief” by May 11th because the Appellants’ original brief failed to conform with briefing rules,

Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(d), (f) (no references to record); 38.1(h) (no summary of the argument);

38.1(i)(no citations to the record); and 94.(i)(1), (2(B)(exceeds word limit) and 9.4(i)(3)certificate

of compliance on words in document).

1.2 ` Per Rule 38.9 Tex. R. App. P. the court may require that a brief be supplemented,

amended or redrawn. However, the word “redrawn” is not defined at least as far as the

undersigned’s research has discovered.

1.3 Appellants May 11th brief fully and fairly addresses the dispositive issues on appeal.

However, inasmuch as Appellants April 20th brief raises statements of fact and issues of law not

included in the May 11th brief, Appellees seek clarification as to whether they are required to

respond and rebut the statements of fact and issues on appeal as stated in the original brief, but not

raised in the subsequent brief. These include Issues 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and extensive volume and

page references to the record under the argument under Issue No. 5. While none of these are valid

complaints, and wholly unsupported by the record, whether referenced or not, they nevertheless

appear to require a response. Appellees would further submit that the Appellants have had the

benefit of several months of additional time to file a brief on appeal from the original January 8,

2015 appellate deadline.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellees respectfully request that this

Honorable Court clarify whether or not Appellees shall be required to respond to any issues raised

other than those brought forward in Appellants’ May 11th, 2015 brief and for such further relief to

which they may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Anita J. Anderson ANITA J. ANDERSON Texas Bar No. 01165955 LAW OFFICE OF ANITA J. ANDERSON Conference: 303 West Sunset Suite 103 Correspondence: POB 830722 San Antonio, Texas 78283 Telephone (210) 533-8726 Telecopier (210) 633-0989 ajanderson1111@gmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the above and forgoing has been forwarded by e-service and facsimile transmission to Ana Laura Hessbrook, attorney of record for Defendants Irma Lemus and Manuel Lemus, Jr. at 4100 N.W. Loop 410, Suite 105, San Antonio, Texas 78229 hessbrook@sbcglobal.net, (210) 706 -9467 and Sarah Anne Lishman, 310 South St. Mary’s St., Suite 845, San Antonio, Texas 78205, sarahanne@jamiegrahamlaw.com (210)308-5669 this 12th day of May, 2015.

/s/ Anita J. Anderson ANITA J. ANDERSON