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 ,

- against

ROBERT N. FREEMAN II , DEMAR BOREN And LORENA Y E ATES, 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 CLERK2 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, a nd denied Plaintiff s ’ motion for

re

- hearing. This case is pending in the 198 th 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 se verance and Plaintiff ’ s

motion for rehearing which w ere heard on September 26 th

, Hono r able Rex

Emers on signed Orders Granting s everance of all of the above individual

de fendants based upon a review of previous Order s of August 29 th in which he

grant ed Summary Judgment t o all the individual defendants and excluded

Plaintiffs ’ Summary Judgment evidence . Judge Emerson also on September

26 th

, 2014 deni ed P laintiffs’ 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 sam e 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 “ re treat ”

where they purchased leases on small parcels of land with frozen ma intenance

fees for their lifetimes. The Plain tiff s/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 (Demar3 Boren and Lorena Yeates) of a partnership in which Robert Freeman II was

principal. Plaintiffs knew Mr. Freeman as the “ owner ” of the re t reat 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 lifet ime

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 t enancies 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 Cou nty District Court, 198 th

District, against the above named individuals and the partnership w hich

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

Statuto ry Fraud, Fr a u dulent 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

- he aring 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 circumstance s and an ineffective

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

- and

the Plaintiffs see k the Court ’ s consideration of all issues involving Judge

Emerson ’ s rulings under one appeal

. Since the facts relating to the rulings are4 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

sch edule for Plaintiffs/Appellants was issu ed. The transcript is necessary in

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

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

is due to be rendered.

Respectfully Submitted,

/S/ C arole 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 9th th 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