No. 2014-005741-1

Federal National Mortgage § In the County Court Association, § Plaintiff, § §

v. § § at Law Number 1 Tony R. Jimenez and § Cynthia L. Jimenez and § all occupants, § Defendants § 1428 Shirley Way, Bedford, TX 76022 § Tarrant County, Texas



### D EFENDANTS 

### ’ M OTION FOR 

### N EW 

### T RIAL

Defendants, Tony R. Jimenez and Cynthia L. Jimenez and all occupants

(hereinafter “Defendants”), still urging and relying on their other pleadings and argument

heretofore made, ask the Court to vacate the Judgment granted herein on or about April

14, 2015 (“Judgment”), in the interest of justice and fairness.

1. Motion is Permissible in County Court at Law. This Motion for New Trial

is permitted under applicable Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (“TRCP”). Shaw v. Shaw

,

2008 Tex.App. LEXIS 3417 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth, May 8, 2008) at *4-*9 provides

a length analysis to this effect.

2. Judgment That Is Not Final Cannot Support Writ of Possession. Given

D EFENDANTS ’ M OTION FOR N EW T RIAL E-FILED TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS 5/14/2015 10:23:05 PM MARY LOUISE GARCIA COUNTY CLERK
BY: H.E. F.f

i ling of this M otion f

or N e w T r ia l, 1 the r e is no f

i n a l a n d a p p e a l a ble j udgm e nt to suppor

t

an y wri t o f p o s s es s i o n

. T h e Th i rt een t h Co u rt of Ap p eal s h a s r e f erred t o “

. . . a wri t

o f e x e c u t i o n , w h i c h r e q u i r e s a j u d g m e n

t c r e d i t o r t o w a i t t

h i r t y d a y s a f t e r t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n

t

i s s i g n e d o r t

h e o v e r r u l i n g o f a m o t i o n f

o r n e w t r i a l

. . . ” I n R e G e n e r

a l M o t o r s A c c e p t a n c e

C o r p o r a t i o n , ( T e x

. A

p p

. – C o r p u s C h r i s t i 2 0 0 8 )

, N o

. 1 3

- 0 8

- 4 7 4

- C V

. I t s e e m s w e l l s e t t l e d

t h at : “ W e h av e n o d ou bt t h at i n Tex as t he s t at u t o ry t erm ‘ ex ecu t i o n ’ i n cl u d es wri t s

o f p o s s e s s i o n

. . . ” W

i l l i a m s v

. M

a s t e r s o n , 3 0 6 S

. W

. 2 d 1 5 2

, 1 5 5 ( T e x

. C i v

. A p p

. - - H o u s t o n

1957)

. I n the e ve n t this M o tion is gr a nte d, t he r e is like w i se no fi n al j u d gm ent to suppor t

a wri t

. Tex as co u rt s h av e reco g n i zed t h i s p ri n ci p l e t hat a fi n al ju d g m en t i s req u i red

t o s u p p ort a wri t

. Th e Su p rem e Co u rt

, i n Hi n d e v. Hi n d e , 7 0 1 S.W .2 d 6 3 7, 6 3 9 (Tex

.

1 9 8 5 ), s t a t e d

, aft er a l en g t h an al y s i s o f t h e n eces s i t y o f a fi n al ju dg m en t t o s u p p o rt

en fo rcem en t rel i ef, t h at a “ wri t o f ex ecu t i o n can on l y i ss u e aft er a ju dg m en t b eco m es

f i n a l

. ” I n a c c o r d w i t

h t h e s a m e p r i n c i p l e s , t

h e F i f t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s d i s c u s s e d

, i n m a

j o r i t y

an d d i s s en t ing opinions in C onroy v

. M

anos , 679 S

. W

. 2d 12 4 (Tex .Ap p

– Dal l as 1 9 8 4 ),

t h e b as ic p ri n ci p le o f ex ecu t i o n b ei n g av ai l ab l e on a ju dg m en t o n ly aft er i t i s fi n al an d

ap p eal ab l e. Fo rci b l e det ai n er ru l es an d t h e st at ut e are u n u s u al

, i n t h at i t i s p o s s i b l e to

o b t ai n i s s u an ce of a wri t at t he co u n t y co u rt l ev el b efo re t he ju d g m en t o f t h e co u rt can

ev en b e b o n d ed fo r ap p eal

, b u t i t i s cl ear t h at in th at i n st an ce t h ere i s n o i n t en t i o n t h at

1 T ex as Ru le o f

Civ il P ro ced u re (“ T RCP ”) 3 2 9 b

.

2 D E F E N D A N T S ’ M O T I O N F O R N E W T R I A Lt h e wri t b e ex ecu tab l e i n t h e i n t eri m . Li k ewi s e, g i v en t h e fi rs t p ri n ci pl e es t ab l i s h ed

i n t h i s M o t i o n , t hat a m o t io n fo r n ew t ri al i s p erm i s s i b l e i n t hes e cas es , t h en i n l i g ht

o f t h e g en eral p ri n ci p l es o f ex ecu t i o n o n l y o n fi n al ju dg m en t s , t h ere can b e n o v al id

ex ecu t i o n o n a ju dg m en t h erei n u n t i l i t i s fi n al an d ap p e a l a b l e, an y m o t i o n fo r n ew

t ri al h av i n g b een ap p ro p ri at el y d i s p o s ed

.

3

. Defect i v e Pl ead i n g M ean t Su i t Sh o u l d Hav e Been Ab at ed o r Di s m i s s ed

,

o r J u d gm en t Sh o u l d N o t H av e Been Gran ted

. Th i s s u i t s ho u l d hav e b een a b a t e d o r

al t ern at i v el y d i s m i s s ed

, d u e t o t h e fai l u re o f t h e O ri g i n al Pet i t io n to b e s w o rn in

c o m p l i a n c e w i t h T e x a s R u l e o f C i v i l P r

o c e d u r e ( “ T R C P ” ) 5 1 0

. 3 ( a ) a

n d / o r o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e

l aw, b ecau s e t h e Ori g i n al Pet i t io n was n o t “ s wo rn t o b y t h e p l ai n t iff” as req u i red by

t h e p l ai n l an g u ag e o f t h e Ru l e. TRCP 5 00 .3 (d ) s ay s : “ Ev i ct i o n cas es are g o vern ed by

Ru l es 5 0 0 -5 0 7 an d 5 10 o f Part V o f t h e Ru les o f Ci v i l Pro ced u re. T o th e ex t en t o f an y

co n fl i ct b et ween Ru l e 5 10 an d t h e res t of Part V, Ru l e 5 1 0 ap p l i es .” Th e fo l l o wi n g

s u b p art (e) s p eci fi es th at t h e othe r r ule s of ev i d en ce an d p ro ced u re d o n o t ap p l y ex cep t

i n l i m i ted ci rcu m s t an ces y et t o b e d efi n ed by cas e l aw. Th ere i s t h erefo re n o p ro v i s i o n

o f t h e ap p l i cab l e ru l es t h at p erm i t s an y o n e ot h er t han a p l ai n t i ff’ s au t h o ri zed o ffi cer

t o s wear t o a fo rci b l e d et ai n er p et i t i o n , s o a s t h e Ori g in al Pet i t i o n st o o d at t h e t i m e

o f t ri al

, i t fai l ed t h e t hres h o l d r e q u i rem en t o f a v al i d pl ead i n g th at co u l d h av e b een

co n si d ered b y

t h e Co u rt

.

3 D E F E N D A N T S ’ M O T I O N F O R N E W T R I A LE s t a b l i s h e d l a w r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f R u l e 5 1 0

. 3 ( a

) b e f o l l o w e d

.

T he F our t h C our t o f A p p e a l s , i n a

n a l y s i s l a t e r a p p r o v e d b y t

h e S upr e m e C our

t

, e xpla ins:

“ W e ll- se ttle d pr inc i pl es o f l aw g u i d e o u r i n t erp ret at io n of this pr oc e dur a l

ru l e. W e ap p l y t he s am e ru l es o f co ns t ru ct i o n t o p ro ced u ral ru l es as we

a pply to sta t ute s. I n r e V anD e W ate r , 966 S

. W

. 2d 730, 732 ( T e x. A pp.

- S a n An t o n i o 1 9 9 8

, o r i g

. p ro ceed i n g ). " W here a ru l e o f p ro ced u re is cl ear,

u n am bi g u o us , an d sp eci fi c, we co n s tru e t h e ru l e's l an g u a g e a cco rd i n g
to i ts lite r a l m e a

ning. " M u rphy v

. F r i e n dsw ood D e v

. C

o. , 965 S

. W

. 2 d 708,

7 0 9 (Tex .Ap p .-Ho u s t o n [1 s t Di st .] 1 9 9 8, n o pet .). Ru l e i n terp ret at i on i s

" a p u r e q u e s t i o n o f l a

w o v e r w h i c h t h e j u d g e h a s n o d i s c r e t i o n

. " S e e M i t c h e l l

En er g y Co r p . v. As h wo r t h , 9 4 3 S.W .2 d 4 3 6 , 4 3 7 (Tex .1 9 9 7 ).

In Re Emer i tu s Co r

p o r a t i o n , 1 7 9 S.W .3 d 1 1 2

, 11 4 (Tex .Ap p.— San An t o n i o 2 0 0 5 ).

The T e xa s S upr e m e C our

t, in I n re C hristus S p o h n Ho s p i t a l Kl eb erg , 2 2 2

S

. W

. 3d 434, 437 ( T e x. 2007) ( e m pha sis supplie d)

, c ite d to I n R e E m e r i t u s Co r

p o r ation

an d affi rm ed t h at ru l es o f p ro ced u re are i n t erp ret ed b y

“

. . . a pp ly i n g t h e s am e ru l es o f c onstr uc tion tha t gove r

n the i nte r p r e ta tion

o f s t a t u t e s

. S e e B A S F F i n a P e t r o c h e m i c a l

s L t d

. v

. H

. B

. Z a c h r y , 1 6 8 S

. W

. 3 d
8 6 7 , 8 7 1 (Tex .Ap p .-Ho u s t o n [1 s t Di s t .] 2 0 0 4, p et . d en i ed ); s ee a l s o In

r e E mer i t us Co r

p

. , 1 7 9 S.W .3 d 1 1 2

, 1 1 4 (Tex

. Ap p .-San A n t o n i o 2 0 0 5

,
o ri g

. p ro ceed i n g ) (h o l d i n g t h at a ru l e o f p ro ced u re i s su b j ect t o t h e s am e

r u le s of c o n s t ru ct i o n as s tat u t es ). W hen a rul e o f pro ce d u r e is c le ar an d

una m bi guo us , w e co ns true the rul e' s la ng ua g e a cco rdi ng to i ts pl a i n

o r l i tera l m ea ni ng

. S

ee Tex. D e

p ' t o f Tr a ns p

. v. Need

h a m , 8 2 S.W .3 d
3 1 4 , 3 1 8 (Tex .2 0 02 ).

T he ine sc a

p a ble c o nc l usio n f

r o m a p p l y i n g t he f or e g oing pr inc iple s is tha t the Judgm e nt

was n ot p red i cat ed o n a v al i d p l ead i n g , an d s h o u ld b e s et as i d e.

1 2 Un i t ed St at es Co d e § 4 5 0 2 (1 2 ) d e f i n e s w h o h as ex ecu t i v e au t h o ri t y t o act

4 D E F E N D A N T S ’ M O T I O N F O R N E W T R I A Lfo r Pl ai n ti ff, wh ich i s an “ en t erp ri s e” co v ered b y t h i s s t at u t e per s u b s ect i o ns (3 ), (1 0 )

an d (2 0):

“ ( 1 2 ) E x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r T h e t e r

m “ e x e c u tive of

f ic e r ” m e a ns, wi t h res p ect to an en t erp ri s e, t h e ch ai rm an o f t h e b o ard o f
d irect o rs , ch i ef ex ecu t i v e o ffi cer, ch i ef fi n an ci al o ffi cer,
p res i d en t

, v i ce ch ai rm an , an y ex ecu t i v e v i ce p res i den t

, an d

an y s en io r v i ce pres i d en t i n ch arg e o f a p ri n ci pal b u s i n es s

u ni t, d iv i s i o n , o r fu n ct i o n.

1 2 Un i t ed St at es Co d e § 1 72 3 (b ) d et ai l s h o w t h e b o ard o f d i rect o rs of Pl ai n t i ff i s t o

ap p oi n t each an d ev ery p ers o n wh o s h al l b e an o ffi cer au t h o ri zed t o co n d u ct b u s i n es s

fo r t h e Pl ai n t i ff, i n cl u d i n g i n t h e co n t ex t o f Pl ai nt iff s u i n g an d b ei n g s u ed :

. . . W i t h i n t h e l i m it at i o n s o f law an d reg u lat i o n , t h e b oard

s h al l d et erm i n e t h e g en eral po l i ci es w h i ch s h al l g ov ern th e

o p e r a tions of the c o r

por a tion, a nd sha ll ha ve pow e r to a dopt

,
a m en d

, an d rep eal b y l aws g o v ern i n g the pe r f or m a nc e of the

p owers an d dutie s gr a nte d to or i m p o s ed u p on i t b y law. T he
b oard o f d i rect o rs s h al l s el ect an d effect t h e ap p oi n t m en t o f

q ual i fi ed p ers o n s t o fi l l t h e o ffi ces of p res i d en t a n d vi ce
p res i d en t

, an d s u ch o t h er o ffi ces as m ay b e p ro v i d ed fo r i n
t h e b y laws

.

Th ere h as b een b efo re t h e Co u rt n o ev i d en ce wh at s o ev er t h at th e p ers o n p u rp o rt i n g

t o s wear t o t he p et i ti o n i n t h i s cas e h as b een ap p o in t ed b y t h e b o ard o f d i rect o rs o f

Pl ai n t i ff as an offi cer o f Pl ai n t i ff t o act fo r i t i n t h i s cas e o r an y o t h er m at t er. Fu rt h er,

Defen d an t s wo u l d s h o w t hat th e p l ai n l an gu ag e of t h e ap pl i cab l e Ru l e m an d at es t h at

t h e o r i g i n a l p et i t i on be “ s wo rn t o b y t h e p l ai n t i ff” an d a l ack o f s u ch is n o t cu rab l e

5 D E F E N D A N T S ’ M O T I O N F O R N E W T R I A Lb y

an am en d m en t t o p l ead i n g as i n t h e i n s t an t cas e.

4

. Pl ai n t i ff Do es N o t Hav e Ri g h t t o Rel y o n th e Deed o f Tru s t ’ s Ten an cy

Lan gu ag e. Th i s su i t s h ou l d b e ab at ed o r d i sm i s s ed b ecau s e t h e Pl ai n ti ff is n o t en t i t l ed

t o th e b en efi t o f t h e l an g u ag e reg ard i n g t en an cy o n w hi ch Pl ai n t i ff rel i es fo r i t s cl ai m

t h at Pl ai n t i ffs are t en an t s at s u fferan ce an d Pl ai nt iff has a su p eri o r ri g ht t o i m m ed i at e

p o s s es s i o n o f t h e real pro p ert y at is s u e. Pl ai n t iff was n ot a b en efi ci ary o f t h e Deed o f

Tru s t n o r w a s it the gr a ntor of a tr uste e ’ s de e d to t

he r e a l pr ope r

ty

. D ue t o t h e fo reg o i n g,

t h ere i s t h erefo re n o fo u n d at io n fo r t h e J u dg m en t

.

W h erefo re, Defenda n ts a sk tha t the C our t r e c a ll a n y w r it of posse ssion pr es en t l y

i s su ed o r t h at m ay h ereaft er b e i s s ued

, vacat e t h e J u dg m en t i n i t s en ti ret y , vacat e al l

rel i ef g ran t ed as s o u g h t by Pl ai n t i ff as Pl ai nt i ff h as (an d h ad ) n o st an d in g , g ran t t h e

Defen d an t s a h eari n g an d n ew t ri al

, an d at s u ch n ew t ri al an ab at em en t o r d i s m i s s al

of P la intif f ’ s c a se , in the i n teres t o f

ju st i ce an d fai rn es s

. Defen d an ts p ray fo r s u ch othe r

an d fu rt h er rel i ef, at l aw o r i n eq u i t y , t o wh i ch t h ey m ay b e en t i t l ed

.

6 D E F E N D A N T S ’ M O T I O N F O R N E W T R I A LRes p ect fu l ly s u b m i t t ed

,

/ s / Mi ch a el Br i nkl ey

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Mi cha el Bri nk

l ey St at e Bar No

. 0 3 0 0 4 3 0 0

B R I N K LE Y L A W PLLC
P. O. Bo x 8 2 0 71 1

Fo rt W o rt h , Tex as 7 6 1 8 2-0 7 1 1 (8 1 7 ) 2 8 4 -3 5 3 5 ; m et ro (8 1 7) 5 8 9 -7 1 1 1
fax (8 8 8 ) 5 1 1 -0 94 6

m i ch ael @ b ri n k l ey

p l l c.co m At t o rn ey fo r Defen d an t s

Certi fi ca te o f Serv ice

I h ereb y cert i fy t h at a tru e an d co rrect co p y o f t h e fo reg o i n g has b een s erv ed

o n t h e fo l l owi n g at t o rn ey (s ) o f reco rd p ers on al l y o r t h ro ug h t h ei r rep res en t at i v e i n

a c c or da nc e w ith T e xa s R

ule s o f C ivil P r oc e dur e 21 a nd 21a

, on M o n d a y , M a y 1 4

, 2 0 1 5 :

Co l e D. Pa tto n / La nce J . Eri ck s o n M C C A R T H Y
, H O LT H U S & A C K E R M A N
, LLP
1 2 5 5 W es t 1 5 th St reet , Su i t e 1 0 6 0
Pl an o , Tex as 7 5 0 7 5 (2 1 4 ) 2 9 1 -3 80 0 / (2 1 4 ) 2 9 1 -3 8 0 1 fax

/ s / Mi ch a el Br i nkl ey

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Mi cha el Bri nk

l ey

7 D E F E N D A N T S ’ M O T I O N F O R N E W T R I A L