TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS 

For the 4

TH DISTRICT 

COURT OF APPEALS NOS.: 04-14-00824-CV

 04-15-00006-CV 

 TRIAL COURT NO.: CV-13-356 

ROBERT TYSON,

CARL AND KATHY TAYLOR,

LINDA AND RON TETRICK,

JIM AND NANCY WESCOTT, and

PAUL AND RUTHE NILSON,

 

 Plaintiffs/Appellants,

 -againstROBERT N. FREEMAN II, 

DEMAR BOREN

And LORENA YEATES, Husband and 

Wife,

 Defendants/Appellees.

 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: 

1. Plaintiffs/Appellants seek consolidation of the above two Court of 

Appeals causes. The Notice of Appeal filed by Plaintiffs/Appellants on 

ACCEPTED

04-14-00824-cv

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

1/8/2015 11:31:21 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 01/8/2015 11:31:21 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
2

November 14, 2014 sought to appeal the rulings by Hon. Rex Emerson in 

which he granted summary judgment to all individual defendants, and then 

simultaneously granted severance to them, and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for 

re-hearing. This case is pending in the 198th District Court, Bandera County, 

Texas under the above state case number with the sole remaining defendant 

being Medina Livestock Sales Company, LTD. 

2. Subsequent to hearing defendants’ motions for severance and Plaintiff’s 

motion for rehearing which were heard on September 26th, Honorable Rex 

Emerson signed Orders Granting severance of all of the above individual 

defendants based upon a review of previous Orders of August 29th in which he 

granted Summary Judgment to all the individual defendants and excluded 

Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment evidence. Judge Emerson also on September 

26th, 2014 denied Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing. 

3. These issues are before this Court on appeal, and are all based upon 

common questions of fact and each severed cause arises from the same set of 

circumstances. 

4. The action below was brought by former life-time leaseholders (veterans 

on fixed incomes and some disabled) in a senior citizen residential “retreat”

where they purchased leases on small parcels of land with frozen maintenance 

fees for their lifetimes. The Plaintiffs/Appellants then were able to put park 

models upon the premises, construct decks, additions, covered parking areas, 

and do landscaping thinking they had a home for the rest of their lives that 

they could afford. The leases were conveyed to them by management (Demar 
3

Boren and Lorena Yeates) of a partnership in which Robert Freeman II was 

principal. Plaintiffs knew Mr. Freeman as the “owner” of the retreat and as a 

real estate attorney. After the retreat premises was sold in 2008, the new 

owners went into Bankruptcy Court for the purpose of declaring the lifetime

leases null and void. 

5. In July 2013 the Bankruptcy Judge held that the leases were illegal under 

Texas case law as lifetime leases, and were actually tenancies at will which 

could be terminated by the Debtor. The Debtor’s counsel then notified 

Plaintiffs that their leases were terminated. 

6. Plaintiffs brought suit in the Bandera County District Court, 198th

District, against the above named individuals and the partnership which 

owned the premises for Violation of the DTPA, Common Law Fraud, 

Statutory Fraud, Fraudulent Inducement, Negligent Misrepresentation, 

Negligence and Gross Negligence.

7. All individual defendants below were released from suit on Summary 

Judgment, Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment evidence was improperly excluded, 

and Plaintiffs’ motion for re-hearing was denied while defendants’ motions 

for severance were granted. 

8. It would be a great financial hardship for Plaintiffs to have separate 

appeals as well as a redundancy of facts and circumstances and an ineffective 

use of the Court’s time. The appeal is being handled on a pro bono basis- and 

the Plaintiffs seek the Court’s consideration of all issues involving Judge 

Emerson’s rulings under one appeal. Since the facts relating to the rulings are 
4

interwoven, there would be no prejudice to Defendants/Appellees in not 

having separate appeals.

9. The transcript for the motion for re-hearing is not yet available. A briefing 

schedule for Plaintiffs/Appellants was issued. The transcript is necessary in 

order to properly substantiate and reference the brief. Plaintiffs/Appellants 

request an extension of time in order to first obtain the transcript before a brief 

is due to be rendered. 

Respectfully Submitted,

/S/ Carole K.Boyd

CAROLE K. BOYD

Attorney for Plaintiffs/Appellants

15751 Highway 16 North

Medina, Texas 78055

(830) 589-7587

Fax: (830) 589-7598

E-mail: ckbesq@hctc.net

 SBN: 00786793

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 9thth day of January, 2015, I served a true and correct copy of 

this pleading upon opposing counsel as follows:

C. Dixon Mosty 

By Fax: (830) 792-7717/ electronic filing

Stephen Schulte

By Fax: (830) 715-9292

/S/ CAROLE K. BOYD