ACCEPTED 05-15-00586-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 9/21/2015 5:54:39 PM LISA MATZ CLERK
NO. 05-15-00586-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS AT DALLAS 9/21/2015 5:54:39 PM LISA MATZ Clerk
LEE ARTHUR BUSH APPELLANT V.
EMMA JEAN BUSH APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 254“‘ District Court of Dallas County, Texas The Honorable James Martin (deceased) presiding
APPELLEE’S BRIEF Appellee’s attorney Thelma S. Clardy 610 Uptown Blvd. #2000 Cedar Hill, TX 75104 Tel: 972-298-6001 Fax: 972-432-7646 E-mail: thelclardy2012@att.net
NO ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Appellant Apgellee Lee Arthur Bush Emma Jean Bush
Trial Counsel for Appellant Trial and Appellate Counsel for Agpellee Robert S. Widner Thelma S. Clardy 291 1 Turtle Creek Blvd. 610 Uptown Blvd. Suite 405 Suite 2000 Dallas, TX 75219 Cedar Hill, TX 75104
Appellate Counsel for Appellant Chad M. Ruback 81 17 Preston Rd.
Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75225 TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ......................................... .. [1]
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................ .. [2]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................ .. [3]
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................... .. [4]
RESPONSE TO ISSUES ON APPEAL ................................................... .. [5]
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................. .. 1
ARGUMENT ................................................................................ .. 2 ARGUMENT RELATED TO ISSUE ......................................... 1 .. 2 ARGUMENT RELATED TO ISSUE 2; ........................................ .. 6 PRAYER ...................................................................................... .. 9 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................................... .. 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................... .. 10 APPENDIX A: COMPLETE CASE HISTORY REGISTER
[2] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Tex. Family Code, Sec. 6.711
Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892 S. W.2d 853 H"ex. I 995) In the Marriage of C.A.S., 405 S. VV3d3 73 (I'ex.App. ——Dallas 201 3)reh. Dismissed.
Pakdimounivong v. City ofArlington, 210 S.W.3d 401, 412 (Tex.App — Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied).
White HarriS—White, N0. 01-07-0052] -C V, V. 2009 WL 1493015 at *6 (Tex.App.— Houston [1“ Dist.] May 28, 2009, pezideniea) STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a divorce case initiated by Appellee, Emma Jean bush. Appellant, Lee Arthur Bush, is appealing certain parts of the division of property. After a bench trial before the Honorable James B. Martin, at which both parties were represented
by counsel, Judge Martin signed a written rendition on January 11, 2015 explaining his decision and making a division of the property. A Visiting judge signed the formal Final Decree of Divorce on February 26, 2015. Judge Martin died on April 19, 2015 after a lengthy battle against cancer.
[4] RESPONSE TO ISSUES ON APPEAL
RESPONSE TO ISSUE #1: The “Rule 11 agreement” relied upon by Appellant was made in a case that was initiated in 2002 but was voluntarily nonsuited by the parties some six years prior to the filing of the lawsuit at issue here. (RR 61). That agreement A signed by the lawyers in that case and not the parties — was made during the pendency of, filed in, and specifically referenced in that other cause. It has no relationship nor application to this cause. Thus, there was no agreement to be established in the case at bar. Furthermore, Appellant did not seek to enforce the whole agreement, nor did he prove that any part of the agreement had actually been performed.
The trial court did not commit reversible error in awarding certain property to Appellant. Appellant’s verbal testimony was insufficient to conclusively prove by clear and convincing evidence that the two pieces of realty were his separate property. Appellant admitted that he had “tracing” documents that supposedly proved his contention but his lawyer failed--or perhaps refused—to introduce them into evidence. Only after his trial lawyer withdrew, did Appellant as pro se file the documents with the Court, which was a dilatory and improper effort on his part to support his position.
RESPONSE TO ISSUE #2: Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were submitted to the court. The failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law was not a fatal error and did not prevent Appellant from knowing the reasons for the court’s ruling.
[5] STATEMENT OF FACTS
In March, 2013, Appellee filed her petition for divorce against appellant, to
which Appellant responded by filing a counter petition. (RR — 11-19; R— 25-37).
During the case, appellant at times represented himself but at the time of trial was
represented by counsel. During the pendency of the trial, appellee propounded
discovery to appellant but he submitted incomplete responses. Additionally,
appellee was required to respond to appellant’s groundless pleadings wherein he
sought to revive a 2002 case which was voluntarily nonsuited by both parties and
was never reinstated or appealed.
At the trial, at which the husband was represented by counsel, he failed to
provide clear and convincing evidence to support his argument regarding the
division of property.
Page 1110 THE ARGUMENT
I. APPELLANT’S ATTEMPT TO RAISE A DEFUNCT RULE 11
AGREEMENT FROM A NONSUITED CASE WAS PROPERLY REJECTED; HE FAILED TO INTRODUCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AT TRIAL TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM THAT THE TWO PIECES OF REAL PROPERTY WERE HIS SEPARATE
PROPERTY.
(Appellee ’s Response to Issue No. 1)
Appellant throughout the processing of this case at the trial court level, argued
that a Rule 11 agreement entered in an earlier divorce case initiated in 2002 by
Appellee deserved to be honored. He started his argument by initially filing a
motion to enforce a Rule 11 agreement, which had been entered in the earlier
2002 case. Cause No. DF-O2-20587-V (hereinafter referred to as the “2002
case”) (RR 38-46). In his motion, appellant argued that the Rule 11 agreement
should be enforced as a contract because of alleged adherence to said agreement
by both parties. (RR 39). In the 2002 case referred to by appellant, the parties
had voluntarily nonsuited the 2002 case in which they both signed the nonsuit
order which was signed on May 3, 2006 (RR 61). The nonsuit was never
appealed nor was any type of motion for new trial was filed. Thus, the case was
Page2I10 dead as of May 3, 2006 — over eight years ago! In response to Appe1lant’s
frivolous motion, Appellee filed a motion to deny relief and quash motion for
enforcement of property division (RR 56-60). In her controverting affidavit
attached to the motion, appellee made it clear that the purported Rule 11
agreement was null and void, as it was of no force and effect in this Case. (R 58).
At the trial court level, the Associate Judge initially issued a ruling
transferring the 2013 case to the 2002 case (RR 75), to which Appellee filed an
appeal (RR 76-77). Appellant was thus attempting to enforce compliance of an
agreement that died in the 2002 case when that case was nonsuited into the case at
bar. No Rule 11 agreement was entered in this case. This was made clear in
Appellee’s responsive brief, in which she stated in her controverting affidavit that
there was no Rule 11 agreement to enforce nor was there any legal basis for doing
so. (RR 58-59). Based on the legal authority cited therein, the court overruled the
Associate Judge’s decision and maintained jurisdiction of the parties and the 2013
divorce case (RR 80-81). In its ruling, the court clearly stated that “it is settled law
that a Rule 1 I agreement is revocable at any time until the Court accepts it as the
agreement of the parties and treats it as an agreed stipulation that is incorporated
in a final order or Decree. In this case, the Rule 1I agreement was filed among the
papers in the case, but there never was a Final order or Final Decree of Divorce Page 3|10 and the Rule 1 I agreement becomes a nullity when the case is dismissed by the
” agreement of both parties. (RR 80). Since the 2002 case was nonsuited, there was
no final decree of divorce into which the Rule 11 agreement could be incorporated.
Further, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that a nonsuit results in a
dismissal with prejudice as to the issues decided in a partial summary judgment.
Hyundai Motor Ca. V. Alvarado, 892 S.W.2d 853 (Tex. 1995). In the cited case, the
Supreme Court went on to state that a nonsuit sought afier judicial pronouncement
results in a dismissal with prejudice as to the issues pronounced in favor of the
defendant.
There are additional reasons for denying Appellant’s argument alleging error
as noted below. First of all, he failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
to support his position.
Secondly, he was referring to an agreement that was not entered in this case
but was entered in the nonsuited 2002 case and thus was of no effect in the instant
case (RR 41-45). It is undisputed that the Rule ll agreement was signed in the
2002 case that is defunct and never had a final decree or other final order entered
other than the nonsuit (RR 41-45). The agreement is expressly entitled “Rule 1 l
” Agreemen and expressly references Cause No. DF-02-20587-not Cause No.
DF-13-06120-R — which is the case at bar. Thus, the Rule 11 agreement
?3age4I10 clearly applied only to the 2002 lawsuit. Judge Martin, when he denied
appellant’s motion to transfer or consolidate clearly ruled that the Rule 11
agreement became a nullity when the case was dismissed. (RR 80). He also ruled that because the 2002 case was nonsuited in 2006, there was no case into which
to consolidate the 2013 case, and there was no Rule ll agreement to enforce (RR
80). Additionally, appellant has not cited any Texas judicial opinion — nor have
we found one ~ that holds that a Rule 11 agreement filed in a case that was
voluntarily dismissed survives the dismissal but can nevertheless be filed years
later in another lawsuit and enforced as a contract in that lawsuit. The Rule 11
agreement from the 2002 case does not explicitly or implicitly state that it
survives the 2002 lawsuit.
Courts construe Rule 11 agreements in light of the surrounding
circumstances, including the pleadings, at the time the agreement is made and
will not construe Rule 11 agreements beyond their intended application. Austin
v. Austin, 603 SW 204; 587 SW2d 188, n.r.e. As already stated, appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence in this
case to support his argument. As a matter of fact, appellant Lee failed to respond
to discovery propounded by Appellant to prove that he used separate funds to
purchase certain real estate. Appellant had to file motions to compel not once
but twice to get Appellant to produce discovery which Appellant never P a g e 5 I 10 completely responded even as of the time of trial (RR 152). Instead, during the
trial, he made self—serving statements about what he reportedly paid and the
source of the funds to purchase the property, to which the court gave little if any
weight.
Thus, appellant’s argument that the trial court committed reversible error in
awarding certain real estate to appellee is without merit.
ISSUE NO. 2 THE EFFECT OF THE FAILURE TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WAS NOT FATALLY DEFECTIVE
(Appellee ’s Response to Issue No. 2)
Appellant asserts that the court never made make findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Although appellant does not clearly state it, it is assumed by
raising this argument, that he is asserting that the court committed error by doing so
and thus prevented him from knowing the basis for the court’s decision.
Appellee concedes that the court never issued findings of fact and conclusions
of law. However, appellant did in fact submit requested findings of fact and
conclusions of law. (R 139-142). It is noteworthy that the trial (at which both
parties were represented by counsel) was presided over by the late Honorable James
Martin who issued a detailed rendition of his ruling before his unfortunate passing. £3 5 g e 6 I 10 He is the one who observed the demeanor of the parties and was very familiar with
the history of the case. While a rendition does not amount to issuing findings of fact
and conclusions of law, the level of detail in the rendition is something worth noting.
Specifically, Judge Martin in his rendition following a contested trial on the merits
referred to, among other things, the appel1ant’s filing of the motion to enforce the
Rule 1 1 agreement signed by the attorneys in the 2002 case, necessitating a response
by Petitioner (appellee), the need for appellee to file a motion to compel in August
2013, to which appellant filed a motion to transfer and consolidate, and appellee
having to respond to that motion, a second motion to compel filed by Appellee, and
respondent’s (appellant) failure to even provide adequate document production by
the time of trial, and appellant’s groundless motion to appoint a receiver to
sell/preserve appe11ee’s residence in which appellant had no title interest or to which
he was not contributing. (RR 152). It is noteworthy that due to the scope and extent
of Appellant’s groundless pleadings, that appellee was awarded $2,500 in attorney’s
fees (RR 154).
Appellee would submit that such failure was not fatal, particularly in light of
the Very detailed rendition by the court. (RR 152-155). In its rendition, the court
pointed out, among other things, that respondent failed to provide clear and
convincing evidence of his position that certain real property was separate property,
and therefore, the Court was required to consider all of the property of the parties as Fage7|10 community property.” (RR 153). Thus, appellant cannot be heard now to argue on
appeal that the property awarded to Appellee was separate property.
The Family Code, specifically, Section 6.711 provides that in a suit for
dissolution of marriage, on request by a party, the court shall state in writing its
findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the characterization of each
party’s assets, liabilities, claims, and offsets on which disputed evidence has been
presented... In the Marriage of C.A.S., 405 S.W3d3 73 (I’ex.App. — Dallas 2013)
reh. dismissed.
The purpose of findings of fact and conclusions of law are necessary to apprise
the appealing party of information adequate for the preparation of the party’s appeal.
Pakdimounivang v. City of Arlington, 210 S.W.3d 401, 412 (TeX.App — Fort Worth
2006, pet. denied). An ultimate fact is one that would have a direct effect on the
judgment. Id. There is no reversible effort if the refusal to file findings of fact
does not prevent a party from adequately presenting an argument on appeal. Id. The
controlling issue is whether the circumstances or the particular case require a party
to guess at the reasons for the trial couIt’s decision. White v. Harris-White, N0. 01-
07-0052I—C V, 2009 WL 1493015 at *6 (Tex.App.-Houston [1" Dist.] May 28, 2009, pet. denied).
9age8|10 The ultimate issue in this case was the just and right division of the estate. In
this case, the trial court made a ruling on the division of the estate in the manner in
which it deemed just and right given all the circumstances. Thus, the failure to issue
findings of fact and conclusions of law was not fatally defective.
PRAYER
In summary, the decision of the trial court was supported by the evidence and
should be upheld by the Court of Appeals. The argument presented by the appellant
are without merit in light of the record.
For the reasons stated herein, Appellant respectfully prays that this Court deny
appellee’s request for reversal of the trial court’s judgment and uphold same in its
entirety. Appellee further requests release of the bond to Appellee and all other
costs, and other relief to which Appellee may show herself entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
THELMA SANDERS CLARDY 610 Uptown Blvd.
Suite 2000 Cedar Hill, TX 75104 Tel: (972) 298-6001 Fax: (972) 432-7646 By: '7:4e€u«z S. 61¢/My
Cage9|1O Thelma S. Clardy
State Bar No. 17604900 E-Mail: the|c|ardy2012@att.net
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that, according to my word processor’s word-count function, in the sections of this brief covered by TRAP 9.4(i)(1), there are 1,902 words.
/s/ Thelma S. Clardy Thelma S. Clardy
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Appellee’s Brief was
submitted to counsel for Appellant on September 18, 2015:
Chad M. Ruback (chad@appeal.pro)
8117 Preston Rd. #300
Dallas, TX 75225
9age 10[1O Page 1 of 3
Skip to Main Content Locxoui My Accoun! Search Menu New Family District Search Refine Search Back Location 'All Dismci Family Couns Imaues Hetg REGISTER or ACTIONS as 2:;
EMMA BUSH vs. LEE BUSH § case Type: DIVORGE wrn-|ou'r 5 § suwr>e= é'%i’§.9‘a."’“° ur Date Ffied: 03/26/2013 g Locafion: 254th District Court
PARTY INFORMATION
msnnouan ausn, EMMA JEAN mam Land Attorneys smosns cunuv Retained 972-298~6D01 (W)
RESPONDENT Bl/SH, LEE ARTHUR CHAD H RUBACK Retained 2‘M»522-4243(W)
EVENTS & ORDERS OFTRE COURT DISPOSITIONS 02/28/2015 __ ~ (Judicial Offiost MAR11N, JAMES) V01./Book 7855, Page 1a:-, 1 pages
OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS 03/28/2013 03/28/2013 03/28/2013 03/29/2013 CITATION A T17 RR
~~ BUSH, LEE ARTHUR Served 04/172/2013 Returned 04/22/2013 04/05/2013 ISSUE NOTICE 04/O5/2013 5-‘
04/08/201 3 EL/ATTY BUSH, LEE ARTHUR Served D4/222013
~~~ Returned 04/2/2013 04/24/2013 TEMPORARY ORDERS HEARING (9:30 AM) (Judidal Oflicers TURNER, DON. TURNER, DON) Resuit HEARING HELD 04/24/2013 A /A Bo ~
. Page pages CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE . .
DH01/2013
O5/07/2013 ~ ' TEMP ORDERS - SIGNED, COPIES MAILED 5/7/13 DR:1R‘.’ GRDER ’
Vol./Buck 7830, Page 378, 1 pages 05/09/2013 05/09/2013 05/16/201 3 (COUNTER-PET/TION) - CERTMAIL# 9214 8901 06515400 0015 2952 06 BUSH. EMMA JEAN Served 05/20/2013 Returned 05/21/2013 03/19/2013 CANCELED PROVE UP (8:30 AM) (Judicial 0ifioarLOPEZ, DAVID) REQUESTED BY JUDGE 05/25/201 3
~ 06/25/2013
07/ 1 9/2013 CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE COPY OF RULE 11 07/25/201 3 (17/29/2013
07/29/201 3 ~ MOTION COMPEL TI FOR ENFORGEMENTOF FROETY DIVISION 08/08/2013 M0 ON TO 0 MPEL .
08/08/201 3 03 15 , AND RESPONSE TO TEMPORARY ORDERS HEAR 03/08/2013 ~~ GF 50 C~ ‘OLIDE E 08/1 5/201 3 mono" HEARING Result smsoacs RULE CONTINUED (9:39 11 AM) (Judicial omws TURNER. DON, TURNER, non) APPENDIX A 09/15/2013 ggmw r QUASH nerwneuer
http2//courtsJiallascounty.org/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=479694-3 9/18/2015 Page 2 of 3
OB/1 5/201 3 AFFIDAVIT CONTROVERTING 08/21/201 3 TEMPORARY ORDERS HEARING (1 :30 PM) (Judicial Officers TURNER, DON, TURNER. DON) Result: HEARING HELD 08/21/2013 BRIEF FILED 03/21/2013 BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF TRANSFERR/NG SECOND FILE) CASE 08/21/201 3 BRIEF FILED IN SUPPDRTOF TR1INSFE?R/NG SECOND F/LED CASE TO THE ORIGINAL CASE 03/21/2013 MOTION ~ MISCELLANOUS
~ DENY RELI§ AND QUASH MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT 08/21/2013 08/21/2013 NUHCE OF APPEARKNCE EMEQ Y O R Vol. ~ oak 7334, Page 464, 1 pages 08/22/201 3 NOTICE OF AF-‘:'=EfiL OF :3’;
09/30/201 3 APPEL LI (4:00 PM) (Judicial 01563!’ MARTIN, JAMES) 1 0/01/2013 QGRRESPOFJDEIIICE - LETTER TS FILE 10/09/2013 ORDER - I//IIQC. DECISION Vol./Book 7836. Page 420. 1 pages CANCELED ‘DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION (200 PM) (Judicial 0ifix>erMARTlN, JAMES) ~ ‘I 1/1 3/2013 BY OOURTADMINISTRA TOR 1 11261201 3 §:’IDTi ~ CG:'dFEL Motion to compel 04/28/2014 512,1pages 09/09/2014 09/09/2014 ~ ~~ RBIE?
09/1 3/2014 CANCELED MOTION HEARING (9:30 AM) (JudIdaI Ofiiwrs TURNER. DON. TURNER, DON) REQUESTED BYATTORNEY/PRO SE M/WITHDRAW 10/09/2014 A
10/09/201 4 SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY 10/13/2014 ~~ N — GUASH~ 10/14/2014 »CI.AIfI2 — r:E‘.«'IE?~.‘DED COLI2\I':"§‘:’R~I'»":Z'fiT!O¥\3 10/14/2014 T '§SC 10/15/2014 :30 FM) (Judicial Omrxer MARTIN JAMES) Rasult HEARING HELD 01/06/201 5 P.ES?5sflf\'SE TO MOTION FOR APPO/NTME/I/T OF RECEIVER 01/07/2015 BENCH TRIRL (1130 PM) (Judicial Otficer MARTIN, JAMES) Result HEARING HEIJ3 01/07/201 5 SOCKET SE-IE=T 01/1 1/201 5 01/23/201 5 F11‘.-*‘.T§CONCLUEIv’3§\IS’. OF LI-‘.‘1'*!
01/27/201 5 02/09/2015 02/09/201 ~
~ 02/09/2015 SUPPORTING 02/09/201 5 02/1 1/201 5 MCKTIQN - ¥‘ulIT§~iDP./—'.N AT RN58’ 02/13/2015 NUNSIGNED PRDFQSE9 DRDERIJUQ‘ 02/18/201 5
02/19/2015 02/5/2015 RES C/NSE A/I/SW/ER TO RESPONDENTS MOTTON FOR NEVII '/R/AL 02/26/2015 MOTION HEARING (6:45 AM) (Jucidal Oricer MARTIN, JAMES)
~ M/Sign/M/NT Result HEARING HELD 02/26/2121 5
Vuuaook 7854. Pageaos, 1 pages 03/27/2015 annex: . \n;:'r:+r:m=4xI A‘x‘TORNE‘( Vouaook 7854, Page 3854 1 nages 021271291 5 amass: .-on FINDING ow ::;2s*rzcoxcv..ueao}ss Of-‘ i.A".IV
03/04/2015 0312012015 __ rrazz __ 03/20/201 5
~ . .
03/20/2015 03/20/201 5 03/20/2015 L-3 .. .
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS RELATED TO M/NEW TRIAL. 04/ 07/2015 FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW O4/07/2015 ~
04/20/201 5 ggspersss psrmouens SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL K341291201 5 MOTION HEARING (9:00AM) (Judicial Olfioer JUDGE, VISFVINGI IWNT Rssulr. HEARING HELD
. x,n._. ,,,__._. -__:n-..-n.....:1 ,.__-.nn......1n..A-rncmn um:/cm < Page 3 of3
O4/29/2015 ORB ER 4 BEMY Vol./Book 7856. Page514. 1 pagu D5/OB/2015 BIGTVCE OF AF=?EA£. » CT~~‘F APPEAES Notice a/'Appea/-REQUESTED DESIGNATION WITHIN 3 DAYS; SUBMITTED NOA To 17-IE 5TH COA CONF. No. 12161
~ 05/03/2015 REQUEST CLERK PREPARE RECORD 05/14/2015 BOND FILED G5/14/2015 '5s’f0TION ~ STALH: 05/25/2015 NOTICE QF HEARWG Fi.'1\T I‘
NOTICE OF HEARING D5128/2015 RESPONSE RESPONDENTS RESPONSE as/12/2015 y_;§ATu3\~: r_Er?.':‘P. 03/23/2015 R PEI‘/77 NER‘S AMENDED RESPONSE TO RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR STAY 0812412015 MOTION HEARING (9:00 AM) (Judicial Oflieer JUDGE, VISITING) Resp M/Stay Result: HEARING HELD 06/24/2015 QEQE Vo Book 7 Page 80, ~ 9, 1 pages O6/24/2015 QREJ
~ ‘
Vouanok 7659, Page 81, 1 pages 06/25/2015 NOTE - GLERKS NO. 05-15-00586-CV, PREPARING CLERK'S RECORD 06/251201 5 1'3 CO/3| 3 RECORD P.5.YMEa\IT %\iV§)ICE2 ~ COA No. 054500565-CV REPARED INVOICE EMAILED COPY To ATI‘Y Cause No. DF-13-06120 EMMA JEAN BUSH Vs. LEE ARTHUR BUSH Pages: 324 Clerk's Record-s 324.00 TIansm'ptFee—$ 25.00 Total Fee-3 349.00 08/29/2015 .€«FPEE.E.z'%TE RECORD COA NO. 05-15-00586—CV, REC'D PYMT IN THE AMOUNT OF 5349 FROM CHAD RUBACK ATTORNEY ATLAW, SUBMITTED CLERK'S RECORD TO THE 5TH COA CONF. NO.1291O 06/80/2045 QQE~_~ W031‘ C;‘.R§.‘g
COA case no awsmsascv/, paacard 07/23/2015 BOND FILED 0712312015 NISCELLANOUS EVENT CASH BOND RECEIPT
FIJIANCIAL lnrmuunora
PETITIONER BUSH, EMMA JEAN TOE! Financial Assessment 2T7.00 Total Paymenls and Crediis 277.00 Balance Due as of DSI1 BI2015 0.00
03/28/2013 Transaction Assessment 280.00 03/25/2013 Transaction Assessment 8.60 03/28/2013 PAYMENT (CASE FEES’) Reoe&pt# 13083-2013-DCLK CLARDY, THELMA SANDERS (268.00) 04/05/2013 Tvansaction Assessmeu 8.00 04/05/2013 PAYMENT (CASE FEES) Reoeipt 3% 19649-2013-DCLK OLARDY. THELMA SANDERS (8.00) 1 1/27/20‘! 3 Transaction Assessment 1 .00
‘"27"°‘3 gRCE)°" CARD ' TBWLE #aa424—2m3-Dcu< BUSH, EMMA JEAN (1.00) Receipt
RESPONDENT ausu, LEE ARTHUR Total Finandal Asses -mu $0.00 Total Payments and Credits 620,00 Balance Due as of 03/18/2015 0.00
05I09I2013 Tlansatfiiun Assessment 98.00 05/09/2013 PAYMENT (CASE FEES) Receipt # 26659-2013-DGLK LEE A BUSH (98.00) 06/25/2013 Tlansadion Assessment 30.00 GSI25I2£H3 PAYMENT (PASE FEES) Receipt # 35444-2013~DCLK BUSH, LEE ARTHUR (30.00) 02/09/2015 Transaction Assessmem 60.00 02/09/2015 PAYMENT (CASE FEES) RECIEIDUI‘-7811-20154DCLK BUSH. LEE ARTHUR (60.00) 60-00 0312012015 Transactinn Assessment 03/20/2015 PAYMENT (CASE FEES) Receipt # 15156-2015-DCLK BUSH, LEE ARTHUR (60.00) 051142015 Transaction Assessmarn 4.00 05/14/2015 PAYMENT (CASE FEES) Receipt it 27893-2()15DCLK BUSH, LEE ARTHUR (4.00) 05/14/2015 Tnansacfien Assessment 15.00 05/14/2015 PAYMBGT (CASE FEES) Receipt # 275o1~2L:15DcLK BUSH, LEE ARTHUR (15.00) 06/25/2015 Transaaion Assessrnent 349-00 O6/29/2015 PAYMENT (CASE FEES) Receipt 6 373D6—2D15«DCLK CHAD RUEACK ATTORNEY AT LAW (349.00) 07/23/2015 Txansamon A .. 4.uo 07/23/2015 PAYMENT (CASE FEES Receipt #42546~2015-DCLK LEE BUSH (-4.00)
1.4‘... ll. _....4... J-'II-..-...._.4.- ..-..It"..._..T‘o...s..:I .~4._..I')t‘V.v...T‘I'\——-/I’I|'2.(nA’1 0/1 9/'>n1 <