Rosa Serrano D/B/A the Lens Factory v. City Bank and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of Texas

Rosa Serrano D/B/A the Lens Factory v. City Bank and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company

DecidedAugust 10, 2015

Docket08-15-00044-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Rosa Serrano D/B/A the Lens Factory v. City Bank and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company (Rosa Serrano D/B/A the Lens Factory v. City Bank and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company) 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

Rosa Serrano D/B/A the Lens Factory v. City Bank and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS §

Rosa Serrano d/b/a The Lens Factory, § No. 08-15-00044-CV

Appellant, § Appeal from the

v. § County Court at Law No. 7

Texas Corporation; city Bank Texas, N.A.; § of El Paso County, Texas Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. § (TC#201-DCV-1079/2013-DCV-3139)

§ Appellees. §

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion requesting that we stay the appeal and order the trial court to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, Appellant is challenging the vexatious litigant and pre-filing orders entered by the trial court as well as the order dismissing her suit. Appellant is not entitled to findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the vexatious litigant orders. See Willms v. Americas Tire Co., 190 S.W.3d 796 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2006, pet. denied). Even if we assume Appellant could have sought findings on the vexatious litigant and pre-filing orders, she is required to comply with the requirements of Rule 296 and 297 and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellant filed a written request for findings pertaining to the vexatious litigant orders, but the record does not reflect that she filed a notice of past due findings of fact as required by TEX.R.CIV.P. 297. Consequently, Appellant is not entitled to findings and conclusions with respect to the vexatious litigant and pre-filing orders. Appellant is not entitled to findings and conclusions on the dismissal order because she did not file a written request for the trial court to enter findings with respect to that order or a notice of past due findings. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 296, 297. For these reasons, Appellant’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2015

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ. (Hughes, J., not participating)

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

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS §

Rosa Serrano d/b/a The Lens Factory, § No. 08-15-00044-CV

Appellant, § Appeal from the

v. § County Court at Law No. 7

Texas Corporation; city Bank Texas, N.A.; § of El Paso County, Texas Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. § (TC#201-DCV-1079/2013-DCV-3139)

§ Appellees. §

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion requesting that we stay the appeal and order the trial court to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, Appellant is challenging the vexatious litigant and pre-filing orders entered by the trial court as well as the order dismissing her suit. Appellant is not entitled to findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the vexatious litigant orders. See Willms v. Americas Tire Co., 190 S.W.3d 796 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2006, pet. denied). Even if we assume Appellant could have sought findings on the vexatious litigant and pre-filing orders, she is required to comply with the requirements of Rule 296 and 297 and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellant filed a written request for findings pertaining to the vexatious litigant orders, but the record does not reflect that she filed a notice of past due findings of fact as required by TEX.R.CIV.P. 297. Consequently, Appellant is not entitled to findings and conclusions with respect to the vexatious litigant and pre-filing orders. Appellant is not entitled to findings and conclusions on the dismissal order because she did not file a written request for the trial court to enter findings with respect to that order or a notice of past due findings. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 296, 297. For these reasons, Appellant’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2015

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ. (Hughes, J., not participating)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rosa Serrano D/B/A the Lens Factory v. City Bank and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosa-serrano-dba-the-lens-factory-v-city-bank-and-old-republic-national-texapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack