Kb Realtron Management v. Stephanie Deleon

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 21, 2015·No. 13-13-00411-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

13-13-00411-CV

FILED THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

IN THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS 4/21/2015 10:23:31 PM CORPUS CHRISTI DORIAN RAMIREZ CLERK

4/21/15

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ, CLERK 13-13-00411-CV BY DTello IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS RECEIVED IN THIRTEENTH DISTRICT 13th COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI 4/21/2015 10:23:31 PM DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

Clerk

KBREALTRON MANAGEMENT

Appellant

v.

STEPHANIE DELEON

Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law # 1 Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-1-V-12-002167

APPELLANT'S BRIEF

Kevin Bierwirth

13276 Research Blvd. Ste. 204 Austin, Texas 78750

(512) 825-0331

IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES

Appellant

Kevin Bierwirth 13276 Research Blvd. Ste. 204 Austin, Texas 78750

Appellee

Stephanie DeLeon 4108 Kilgore Lane Austin, Texas 78727

Attorney for Appellee in JP Court and ancillary proceedings

Matthew J. Wagner Hall Attorneys, P.C. 701 Brazos, Suite 500 Austin, Texas 78701

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity of Parties and COllllsel.. .......................................................... .ii Table of Contents .... .. ... ... .... ..... ... ...... ... .... ..... ... .... ..... ...... ....... ...... .. ..iii Table of Authorities ........................................................................... v Statement ofJurisdiction ................ .. ......... .. .. ...... .. .............................. 1 Statement of the Case ............ ... ... ...... .. . ......... ... ...... .. . ............... .. . ....... 1 Issues Presented ............................................................................... 1

ISSUE 1 DID APPELLANT PROVE THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED?

ISSUE 2 DID THE PRESIDING JUDGE VIOLATE CANONS OF THE TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

ISSUE 3 WAS APPELLANT DENIED DUE PROCESS BY A JUDGE WHO WAS BIASED AND PREJUDICED

Statement of Facts ......... ......... ............... ......... ......... ......... ............... 2 Summary of Argument. ..... ... .... .. ... .. ... .... ... ... .... .. ... .. ... ....... .... .. .... .... .5 Arguments and Authorities ................................................................ 6 Conclusion ... ... .. ....... .. . ......... .. ................... .. .......... .... ..... .. ..... .. ..... 16 Prayer. .. .. . ...... ... ... ........ .. .. ... .. .. ...... ... ........ .. .. ........ .. .. ..... .. .. .......... 16 Certificate of Service ......... .. .......... .. . ......... .. .......... .. . ......... .. ..... .. .... 17 Certificate of Compliance ... .. ... .... ... ... .. .. .. ... .. ... .... ... ... ...... .. ... .... ... ... .17

Appendix

IV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases In re Thoma, 873 S.W.2d 477, (Tex.I994) ... .. . ... .... .. ... ... .. ...... .... ..... ... ... 15 United States v. Bray, 546 F.2d 851 (lOth Cir. 1976) ................................ 14 United States v. Haywood, 411 F.2d 555 (5 th Cir. 1969) .... . , ....... .. ..... .... .... 14 United States v. Lanham, 416 F.2d 1140 (56 th Cir. 1969) ........ , ... .. .. ... .. .. ... 14 Vaughn v. State, 3 Tenn.Crim.App. 54,456 S.W.2d 879, 883 ...................... 15 Statutes Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §51.012 ......... ... ...... ... ...... ... ...... .. 1 Texas Local Government Code §I92.001.. ....... .. .......... .... .. .. ....... .. . ....... .1 Constitution Texas Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 13 ......... .. .......... .. . ......... .. .............. .. . .15 Texas Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 19 ..................................................... 15 Texas Constitution, Art. 5, Sec. 6 ............. .. ................... .. .. .. ... .. .. .......... 1 Authorities Texas Code ofJudiciaI Conduct, Canon 1 and Canon 2 ........... , ... .... .... ... .... 6

v

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction of the appeal because Appellant appeals a final Judgment from the Travis County Court at Law #1, Travis County, Texas. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §5l.0l2, Texas Local Government Code §192.00l, and Texas Constitution, Art. 5, Sec. 6.

This Court has jurisdiction concerning appeal of forcible detainer proceedings, Texas Property Code, Chapter 5l.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal of a Motion for Possession of Property and Unpaid Rent from County Court which was preceded by an action for forcible detainer from the justice court. The trial occurred on February 2, 2012 and judgment was rendered on February 2,2012 and timely appealed.

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE 1

DID APPELLANT PROVE THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED?

ISSUE 2

DID THE PRESIDING JUDGE VIOLATE CANONS OF THE TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

ISSUE 3

WAS APPELLANT DENIED DUE PROCESS BY A JUDGE WHO WAS BIASED AND PREJUDICED

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Kevin Bierwirth d/b/a! KBRealtron Management, (hereinafter Appellant) is a man who, after suffering an economic downturn, studied and became very aware of the rampant fraud in mortgage foreclosures and, as a result, has availed himself of his due process rights in fighting mortgage fraud in his own cases.

As a result of his actions in the courts against unlawful acts, such a robo-

signing, incomplete chain of title, etc., attorneys for mortgage companies have libeled and slandered his name. These very same bar card members have access to and relationships with the bar card carrying attorneys who have attained the rank of judge.

There is no way that Appellant can successfully staunch the rumor campaign which takes place behind his back. It is however, a fact that it is practiced and it is a fact that the rumors have an effect on the opinions of the judges.

Appellant believes that the Court will see the expression of that prejudice in his appeal.

Appellant has, for many years, had a d/b/a of KBRealtron Management. In this capacity, Appellant manages rental properties for landlords and sometimes for his own properties. It was in the latter capacity that he leased a property to Appellee.

Before Appellee signed the lease, (CR p.146-159, RR Vol. 2, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, RR Vol. 3), Appellee was fully informed that the property had been the subject of a foreclosure, which was on appeal, and that should Appellant lose possession, she would have to vacate the premises on short notice which would automatically facilitate the return of her deposit.

Appellee, after having the benefit of full disclosure, nonetheless elected to lease the premises.

Appellant inadvertently mislaid the $1200 certified check for the deposit, notified the Appellee and she cancelled the check. These were to be the only funds Appellant was to receive for the duration oftime Appellee occupied the premises.

Appellee refused to make payments pursuant to the lease, and after notice to Appellee, Appellant filed for forcible detainer. Appellee hired an attorney, Matthew J. Wagner, to defend her position at the forcible detainer case at the Justice level. It is clear from Wagner's pleadings, (CR page 173-181), that he had no llllderstanding of possessory interest in real property.

The law is clear, there are two issues in real property, one the right to title and, two, the right of possession. Appellant had never been removed from possession, and maintained the legal right to lease the property. Mr. Wagner's argument prevailed at the JP level and the case was appealed to county court, for a trial de novo.

Mr. Wagner was told on two separate occasions by district judges in a concurrent case that he was mistaken as to the possession issue. The judges told Mr. Wagner that as long as Appellant maintained his possessory interest, he could rent, lease, let sit idle, or anything else he chose to do with the property.

Mr. Wagner apparently finally got the message and withdrew as Appellee's counsel on August 15,2012. (CR page 311-313)

Appellee resided in the property from December 17, 2011, (CR page 267 line 20), to sometime in April of 2012.

Appellee executed a lease on the property on November 23, 20ll. eRR Vol.

3 page 14)

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

Kb Realtron Management v. Stephanie Deleon, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Kb Realtron Management v. Stephanie Deleon (Kb Realtron Management v. Stephanie Deleon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Clifton Thirley Haywood
411 F.2d 555 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
United States v. Luther Lee Lanham
416 F.2d 1140 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
United States v. Karl J. Bray
546 F.2d 851 (Tenth Circuit, 1976)
Goggins v. Leo
849 S.W.2d 373 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Vaughn v. State
456 S.W.2d 879 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1970)
In Re Thoma
873 S.W.2d 477 (Texas Supreme Court, 1994)
Baker v. West
7 S.W.2d 634 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)