NO. 05-17-00648-CV 

In the

Fifth Court of Appeals

Dallas, Texas 

____________________

LINDA HOUSTON, APPELLANT

VS.

EILEEN HOUSTON, APPELLEE 

________________________________

APPELLANTS’ REPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLEE’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE SUR SURREPLY _________________________________

On Appeal from

Probate Court No. 1

Collin County, Texas

Cause No. PB 001-56605

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:

 NOW COME, Linda Houston (“Appellant”) to submit this Response in 

Opposition to Eileen Houston (“Appellee”) Motion for Leave to file a Surreply. In 

support of this Response, Appellant respectfully shows the Court as follows:

I. LEGAL AND FACTUAL REASONS FOR OPPOSING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE

1. Appellee’s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply Brief (the “Motion for 

Leave”) fails to present this Court with good cause necessitating the 

submission of a surreply. Appellee merely directs the Court to the 

APPELLANTS’ REPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 1

ACCEPTED

05-17-00648-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

6/8/2018 11:49 AM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 06/08/2018 11:49:00 AM LISA MATZ Clerk
Surreply Brief itself attached to the Motion for Leave to support their 

argument. Reliance on the Surreply in support of a Motion for Leave is 

not the proper procedure for granting leave. Appellee’s Motion states 

“in order to respond to new arguments asserted by Appellant” but does 

not provide or identify any new arguements to be addressed. Appellee 

should have provided some modicum of legal or factual reasoning with 

the Motion for Leave which they have failed to do here. Appellee 

further claims “to respond to new documents submitted by Appellant 

in the Supplemental Clerk’s Record”; however, only one reference to 

the Supplemental Clerk’s Record is made stating “Appellant is simply 

wrong”. This is hardly a factual response to any Record reference, or 

necessitates a surreply. 

2. Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure do not expressly permit the filing 

of a surreply brief by an Appellee; such filings are only permitted at 

the court’s discretion. (See In re Estate of Washington, 289 S.W. 3d 

362, 370 (Tex. App. – Texarkana, 2009)(citing Tex. R. App. P. 38.1, 

38.2, 38.3 and 38.7).

3. Under the STANDARDS FOR APPELLATE CONDUCT -

LAWYERS’ DUTIES TO THE COURT

 Item 6. - “Counsel will not submit reply briefs on issues previously 

 briefed in order to obtain the last word.” 

 The Surreply Brief contains over 1065 words (out of certified 

 1635) specifically repeating the Appellee’s Response Brief. 

 Statements not duplicated have simply been re-worded repeating the 

 previous views. (not included in this word count) 

APPELLANTS’ REPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 2
 

4. The Motion for Leave is completely devoid of any reasoning 

necessitating the submission of a surreply. Appellee provides no legal 

or factual analysis indicating that the Appellants added new argument 

in its Reply Brief necessitating a surreply. Nor does the Motion for 

Leave provide a summary of Appellee’s argument to qualify the need 

for a surreply. Instead, Appellee surreptitiously states the Court is 

required to read the Surreply itself in order to glean the good cause for 

its submission. From there, the Appellant is required to at least review 

and analyze Appellee’s briefing which the Court has yet permitted to 

be filed. Unfortunately, this has resulted in spending additional 

resources, additional delay and incurring additional costs. Without 

question, the Motion for Leave should be denied for failure to provide 

any legal or factual reasoning for filing a surreply. However, to the 

extent Appellant has been forced to review an unfiled surreply and file 

this Response to the Motion for Leave, Appellee’s maneuvering 

borders on sanctionable conduct.

5. Finally, the denial of the Motion for Leave would not prejudice the 

Appellee because the Appellee has already had the opportunity to 

present this same information, without overwhelming the process with 

a surreply. 

Furthermore, this matter constitutes an Estate Accounting and Trust Accounting; 

issues which were briefed through Appellant’s Brief and Appellants’ Reply Brief. 

The Appellee fails to address these issues in their Response Brief and again fails to 

address the issues in the attempt to surreply. Appellee also repeats a reference to

APPELLANTS’ REPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 3
APPELLANTS’ REPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 4
Linda Houston 

Pro Se

9804 Sota Grande 

Plano, Texas. 75025 

972-955-0370

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 8th day June, 2018, a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing instrument is being served upon the parties listed below via 

the Court’s electronic notification system and mail: 

David B. Koch COATS❘ROSE, P.C 

14755 Preston Road, Suite 600 

Dallas, Texas 75254

(972) 788-1600 Telephone

dkoch@coatsrose.com 

Attorneys for Appellee, Eileen Houston 

 

APPELLANTS’ REPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 5