1 

## No. 04-14-00707-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO



### Melissa Broquet and John Broquet, Appellants

v.
Walter Mortgage Company LLC, et al., Appellees

From the 229 th District Court of Duval County, Texas {The Hon. Robert Blackmon Pres iding, Sitting by Assignment}

OBJECTION AND OPPOSITION TO SECOND “MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO F ILE APPELLANTS’ BRIEF”

T HE L AW O FFICE OF A UDREY M ULLERT V ICKNAIR Audrey Mullert Vicknair State Bar No. 14650500 802 N. Carancahua, Ste. 1350 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401-0022 (361) 888-8413; fax (361) 887-6207 avicknair@vicknairlaw.com

Attorneys for Appellees J ORDAN H YDEN W OMBLE C ULBRETH & H OLZER , P.C. Kenneth M Culbreth, Jr. State Bar No. 05207525 500 N. Shoreline Blvd. Suite 900 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401-0341 (361) 884-5678; fa x (361) 888-9149 kculbreth@jhwclaw.com ACCEPTED 04-14-00707-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 1/7/2015 3:14:08 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK2 TO THE HONORABLE FOURT H COURT OF APPEALS:

COME NOW Appellees and file their Objection and Opposition to S econd

“Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief.” The Motion wholly fails

to comply with T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.5, in that it contains none of the proper procedural

history of the case, seeks no new deadline, and provides no pro per reason for an

extension. The Motion is instead an unverified attack against Appellees Walter

Mortgage Company, et al, with no basis whatsoever. This is not a Motion for

Extension of Time. In addition, no Certificate of Conference i s included, and indeed

counsel for Appellees were not c onsulted before the filing of t his Motion. Nor were

counsel for Appellees consulted prior to the filing of Appellan ts’ First Motion for

Extension of Time, which likewise did not include a certificate of conference but

was granted nonetheless.

Appellees Walter Mortgage Compa ny et al object to and oppose in all things

this filing, which should be struck as failing to comply with a ny Rule of Appellate

Procedure. This is not a proper Motion for Extension of Time.

Appellees further object to an extension of time of any length (which is

unknown, given that no length is s tated in the motion). Appell ants must comply

with the Rules and file their Bri ef now that one 30-day extensi on has already been

granted.3 Appellants have not complied with the Rules when filing a motio n for

extension of time. Their current motion should in all things b e struck and the relief

requested denied.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE Appellees pray the Court to sustain their obj ection and

opposition to Appellants’ Second “Motion for Extension of Time” and strike the

motion. At a minimum the Court must overrule the motion. Appe llees pray for all

other and further relief t o which they are entitled.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Audrey Mullert Vicknair

__ Audrey Mullert Vicknair State Bar No. 14650500 L AW O FFICE OF A UDREY M ULLERT V ICKNAIR 802 N. Carancahua, Ste. 1350 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401-0022 (361) 888- 8413; (361) 887-6207 (fax) avicknair@vicknairlaw.com

Kenneth M Culbreth, Jr. State Bar No. 05207525 J ORDAN H YDEN W OMBLE C ULBRETH & H OLZER , P.C. 500 N. Shoreline Blvd. Ste. 900 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401-0341 (361) 884- 5678; (361) 888-9149 (fax) kculbreth@jhwclaw.com Attorneys for Appellees4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing Motion to Dismiss has been served on the following, by and through their counsel, on this _7th day of January, 2015 , by the efile.gov electronic filing system.

Hector P. Gonzalez 202 E. St. Joseph Ave. San Diego, Texas 78384 Hpg_law@yahoo.com

Attorney for Appellants /s/ Audrey Mullert Vicknair Audrey Mullert Vicknair