Linda S. Nowlin v. Lori Keaton

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 9, 2015
Docket03-14-00608-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Linda S. Nowlin v. Lori Keaton (Linda S. Nowlin v. Lori Keaton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Linda S. Nowlin v. Lori Keaton, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-14-00608-CV 3711086 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/9/2015 11:35:00 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK NO. 03-14-00608-CV

IN THE FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE AUSTIN, TEXAS THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1/9/2015 11:35:00 AM AT AUSTIN, TEXAS JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk

LINDA NOWLIN, APPELLANT

V.

LORI KEATON, APPELLEE

APPEAL OF CAUSE C-1-CV-14-006938 FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW #1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

DAVID NOWLIN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

7301 RR 620 North, Ste. 155, 319 Austin, Texas 78726-4537 Telephone: (512) 468-4882 Email: DavidNowlin@me.com

NO ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES AND COUNSEL Appellant certifies that the following is a complete list of the parties, attor- neys, and all other interested persons regarding this matter:

1. The Appellant in this case is: Linda Nowlin Nowlin Properties 7301 RR 620 North, Ste. 155, 319 Austin, Texas 78726-4537

2. Appellant was represented David Nowlin at trial and on appeal by: Nowlin Properties 7301 RR 620 North, Ste. 155, 319 Austin, Texas 78726-4537

4. The Appellee in this case is: Lori Keaton The Giving Tree Learning Center 15102 Cavalier Canyon Drive Lakeway, Texas 78734

5. Appellee was represented Robby Abarca at trial and on appeal by: Attorney at Law P.O. Box 152547 Austin, Texas 78715

ii NOTATION AS TO THE FORM OF CITATION Citation in this brief will be as follows:

(a) Citation to the Reporter’s Record (R) will be to volume and page number, e.g., “2R12” refers to page 12 of the second volume of the Reporter’s Rec- ord and “SR12” refers to the same page of the supplemental volume. (b) Citation to the single-volume Clerk’s Record (CR) will be to page number only, e.g., “CR15” refers to page 15 of the Clerk’s Record. (c) Citation to the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s Exhibits (PX and DX respective- ly) will be to exhibit and page number, e.g., “2PX1” refers to page 1 of Plaintiff’s Exhibit #2. All exhibits in evidence are located, in the third vol- ume of the Reporter’s Record.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page....................................................................................................................i

Identification of the Parties and Counsel..................................................................ii

Notation as to the Form of Citation..........................................................................iii

Table of Contents.....................................................................................................iv

Index of Authorities..................................................................................................vi

Statement of the Case.............................................................................................viii

Points of Error..........................................................................................................ix

Statement of Facts.....................................................................................................1

Summary of Argument..............................................................................................7

Argument.................................................................................................................10

I. The Trial Court Erred in Refusing to Submit to the Jury Appellant’s Questions Regarding Past Due Rent or to Enter Judgment that Appellee Owed Appellant Rent, Attorney Fees and Costs of Court........10

A. Appellant Was Entitled to Past Due Rent in the Amount of $4,200.00 for July and August of 2014 as a Matter of Law...............11

B. Appellant’s Challenge to the Jury Charge and the Questions Posed for the Jury’s Consideration was Properly Preserved.........................14

C. Appellant Was Entitled to a Jury Determination on the Issue of Past Due Rent......................................................................................17

D. Appellant Was Entitled to a Judgment in Her Favor for Her Reasonable Attorney Fees and Costs of Court....................................18

iv II. The Trial Court Erred When it Refused to Submit to the Jury Appellant’s Questions Relating to Appellee’s Late Payment of Rent or to Enter Judgment that Appellee Breached the Lease by Failing to Pay Rent On Time...........................................................................................21

A. The Issues Presented herein, Including the Issue of Appellant’s Right to Possession of the Property, Are Not Moot............................21

B. Appellant Was Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law that Appellee Breached the Lease by Failing to Pay Rent for July of 2014 On or Before July 1, 2014..........................................................27

C. The Jury Verdict on the Issue of Late Payment of Rent was Unsupported by the Evidence.............................................................34

III. The Trial Court Erred When it Refused to Submit to the Jury Appellant’s Questions Relating to Appellee’s Refusal of Access or to Enter Judgment that Appellee Breached the Lease by Refusing Access for Maintenance and Repair.....................................................................37

A. Appellant Was Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law that Appellee Breached the Lease by Refusing Peaceful Entry to Perform Maintenance and Repair.......................................................37

B. The Jury Verdict on the Issue of Refusal of Peaceful Entry to Perform Maintenance and Repair was Unsupported by the Evidence..............................................................................................42

IV. The Trial Court Erred When the Presiding Judge Demonstrated Bias Against and Hostility and Animosity Toward Appellant and Her Claims at Trial..........................................................................................44

Prayer.......................................................................................................................48

Certificate of Service...............................................................................................49

Certificate of Compliance........................................................................................49

Appendix.................................................................................................................50

v INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Texas Supreme Court Amoco Production Co. v. Alexander, 622 S.W.2d 563 (Tex. 1981)...................................................................................10

Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1992)...................................................................................23

Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1983).............................................................................32, 40 Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001).....................................................................................11 In Re Daredia, 317 S.W.3d 247 (Tex. 2010)...................................................................................24 Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex.

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

Related

Marshall v. Housing Authority of San Antonio
198 S.W.3d 782 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
In Re Daredia
317 S.W.3d 247 (Texas Supreme Court, 2010)
Coker v. Coker
650 S.W.2d 391 (Texas Supreme Court, 1983)
Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis
46 S.W.3d 237 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Rice v. Pinney
51 S.W.3d 705 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Tiller v. McLure
121 S.W.3d 709 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Williams v. Lara
52 S.W.3d 171 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
State Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Payne
838 S.W.2d 235 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Jones
1 S.W.3d 83 (Texas Supreme Court, 1999)
Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp. Ex Rel. Sunbelt Federal Savings
837 S.W.2d 627 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
Amoco Production Co. v. Alexander
622 S.W.2d 563 (Texas Supreme Court, 1981)
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Williams v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
315 S.W.3d 925 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Shaw v. Greater Houston Transportation Co.
791 S.W.2d 204 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Straus v. Kirby Court Corp.
909 S.W.2d 105 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Linda S. Nowlin v. Lori Keaton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linda-s-nowlin-v-lori-keaton-texapp-2015.