Todd Phillippi v. Citi Residential Lending, Inc., Argent Securities, Inc., Detsche Bank, and National Trust Bank
Opinion
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12-00302-CV
TODD PHILLIPPI, Appellant v.
CITI RESIDENTIAL LENDING, INC., ET AL, Appellee
From the County Court at Law Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. C-08-3657
ORDER ON REHEARING
Motion for Reinstatement of Appeal
Appellant Todd Phillippi’s motion for rehearing (“Motion for Reinstatement of
Appeal”) is granted. The Court’s memorandum opinion and judgment, dated January
9, 2014, are withdrawn, and this appeal is reinstated.
Fax Filings by Appellant
Because of Appellant’s numerous violations of the Court’s local rule for fax filing
of documents, Appellant is prohibited from sending any further documents to the Clerk of the Court by fax or filing any further documents with the Clerk of the Court by fax.
See 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 8. If the Court receives any document from
Appellant by fax, the document will not be filed or considered by the Court and the
Court’s $10 fax fee per document will remain due and owing by Appellant. If
Appellant fails to pay any due and owing fax fee within seven days after receipt of
the fax by the Clerk of the Court, this appeal will be dismissed without further
notification. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Payment of Filing Fees
Because of Appellant’s several failures to pay the filing fee for a document at the
time the document was presented for filing, TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO)
LOC. R. 5(b), Appellant is ordered to tender any required filing fee at the time of the
presentation of a document for filing, unless Appellant has filed an indigence affidavit.
TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5(c). If Appellant tenders a
document for filing without a required filing fee and without having filed an indigence
affidavit, the document will not be filed or considered by the Court and the Court’s
filing fee will remain due and owing by Appellant. TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 10TH TEX. APP.
(WACO) LOC. R. 5(c). If Appellant fails to pay any due and owing filing fee within
seven days after receipt of the document by the Clerk of the Court and has not filed
an indigence affidavit, this appeal will be dismissed without further notification. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c); 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5(c).
Service of Documents
Appellee has alleged that Appellant has committed numerous violations of the
Phillippi v. Citi Residential Lending, Inc. Page 2 service requirement in Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 (current
version available at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/rules/traphome.asp; 77 TEX.
B.J. 80 (2014)). To date, Appellant has not denied or otherwise responded to these
allegations.
Because of these apparent violations, Appellant is ordered to comply with the
following service requirements for all documents tendered by Appellant to the Clerk of
the Court:
1. The document shall comply with every applicable part of Rule 9.5.
2. Regarding Rule 9.5(d) and proof of service, the Clerk of the Court will not file a document that lacks proof of service and does not comply with this order.
3. If the document contains a certificate of service, the certificate of service must specifically comply with Rule 9.5(e) and must be supported by Appellant’s notarized verification, affidavit, or unsworn declaration (see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001(c)).
4. If Appellant tenders to the Clerk of the Court a document that does not comply with this order’s service requirements in any respect, the document will not be filed and will not be considered by the Court without further notification to Appellant, and the appeal will proceed as if the document were never tendered to the Clerk of the Court.
5. For any document tendered by Appellant to the Clerk of the Court more than seven days after the date of this order, if, upon motion by Appellee, see TEX. R. APP. P. 10.2, the Court determines that Appellant has failed to serve the document on Appellee in accordance with Rule 9.5 and this order, this appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Appellant’s Mailing Address
The Clerk of the Court has had at least two mailings to Appellant returned by the
United States Postal Service. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, Appellant is
Phillippi v. Citi Residential Lending, Inc. Page 3 ordered to file a certification of his current mailing address. The certification shall
comply with Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) and with the above order pertaining to
Appellant’s service of documents. If Appellant fails to timely file this certification,
this appeal will be dismissed without further notification. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
If Appellant’s mailing address changes while this appeal is pending, Appellant is
ordered to file a certification of his new mailing address within fourteen days of the
change of address. The certification shall comply with Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.1(b) and with the above order pertaining to Appellant’s service of documents. If
Appellant fails to timely file this certification, this appeal will be dismissed without
further notification. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Appellant’s Brief
Appellant’s brief was tendered to the Clerk of the Court by fax on January 15,
2014, after this appeal had been dismissed and in violation of the Court’s local rule for
fax filing of documents. 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 8. Appellant’s brief was
received but not filed.
Appellant’s brief is deficient in numerous respects: It lacks a statement of the
issues presented (TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f)); it lacks a summary of the argument (id.
38.1(h)); it lacks the appendix (id. 38.1(k)); it lacks proper proof of service (id. 9.5(e)); and
it lacks a certificate of compliance (id. 9.4(i)(3)).
Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, Appellant is ordered to file an
amended brief that corrects all of these deficiencies and that otherwise complies with
this order. No motion to extend time to file the amended brief by Appellant will be
Phillippi v. Citi Residential Lending, Inc. Page 4 entertained by the Court. If Appellant fails to timely file an amended brief, this
appeal will be dismissed without further notification. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b, c).
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Order issued and filed March 6, 2014 Do not publish
Phillippi v. Citi Residential Lending, Inc. Page 5
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Todd Phillippi v. Citi Residential Lending, Inc., Argent Securities, Inc., Detsche Bank, and National Trust Bank (Todd Phillippi v. Citi Residential Lending, Inc., Argent Securities, Inc., Detsche Bank, and National Trust Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.