Shaine Carl Cagle v. Donna Gail Andrews

Opinion

December 29, 2014 /receIved^

DEC 2 9 ZOU

VTHIRDCOURTOF APPEALS/ \ JEFFftErD.KYlE X

Ciu/^hte. 13-M-QOfe.tt-Cv/

MoW U.i,.<*L^ \ALw/ nr^^3"

AL

PflMfr- &M lWf«/J&.^*aH». Co^k-

g^U.^CJMU Yin AA(Xkl— ^vidTi,

CoaU^> ftN/J -Uu^ j\ffiJJy,v *\j*_ rfita^-Vf^ ki/Q .t (vfyi&xSrv UhoLjfe> cmK (wiflalL -U&6 0^c<<(k^f(^M><MjL~ ki& ^l,v^/v-Ak j)q^J^ ^ rbffl If

l

MfWf, ffll,)^, fafl+jtJLCjAih/4 Tft SdiL, 6>J/t dr CAM <ilAAA^-4tAX4-J :*L-

a i

,^a^ flr^ iz/tfl H

« ^Lt uiAV fwhA -4m C»jr^ ki. (s a. fta <^ liWJ" idMi to a^^ -h m*e^ <U^— ftU-VY*^. iW H,Ai*Mli IIP1 :eu£Ljl^

^

^k^r^JZ^^U^-f^ (Vo S^/i^f,or/>\^-

j^3 A: Pris*~^

&# \\*J2h&~

7

l/vlt^A/,^ U'tU-f^.j/diA CuHf fcT L^lvJ -flWr^c- (£- Daa/a CftA TWftu£ motion toy^Afa iK^\Mguu., tii^fOoo/y aL AL i -Mqu •jir/XOi^f.^r fart o£ %*fe ^MfiJL^CoA CAgll- o^iWs? C<f4c- fJo, M^ivjL4l frM-OOfe^-frf &aL •AgJb—

p&ffiK Lot)L4*—C&< llldii .Lfjt (V)iU. "le*/^ ?

jLlAJt^ gjPlifft^iV^-^ |fQCtJLCJ^WM^w(V^) ujcc^ l/Afr)/^ p^gl k^4Jk fr>A <M- ActtfitblJu 4t-1kifl fi^^lv^^

k,^ r^v^'s AAc^L-lto

(wxyVfis/v5 -K 4^ ^>wi (WtK^-fokA fe (uPlkA -k d\ or k»'*> (%<vvr^(!AM/v£ *TO /kfc-, ^ulW £jWU ^\jj& (W / (WW A>tf

to $^Y^ror/KA- tots.

Z<^?

Ls^£s^k^SMl±L<L^-

Dk^xkL

1/w- Ui/n Qri^yjA^A

JWl&^aa^n CyiJC

Rd\ £M ^r. .Sorh/to & ^ Ca

lUric/ft. mil M^)oJld^ ijW/lfcL

~hr~

J^.1L^3M5

§&6&3ofJ

-J (B -J

W in •vl