NO. 04-14-00655-CV 

IVARENE HOSEK AND VICTOR § IN THE FOURTH 

HOSEK, § 

Appellants, g 

v. E COURT OF APPEALS 

ROSALE SCOTT, g 

Appellee. SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 

APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS’ MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 

Appellee ROSALE SCOTT files this Response to Appellants’ Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Appellants’ Brief and in suppoit thereof, respectfully shows the Court as follows: 

1. Normally, Appellee’s counsel does not oppose extensions, but Ms. Chi1nene’s 

well—established pattern of unreasonable delays should factor into the Court’s limiting this 

extension to no more than thirty (30) days. 

2. Appellants’ Brief was due on January 7, 2015. Rather than file their request to 

extend their deadline in advance, Appellants decided to serve their 60-day Motion for Extension 

of Time to File Appellants’ Brief (“the Motion”) on January 7, 2015, the date their brief was due. 

3. First, summary judgment was granted in this case on or about March 3, 2014. See 

CR 147-149. A finaljudgment was filed in this case on or about June 19, 2014. See C.R. 2I0— 

215 (Final Judgment). Accordingly, it has been over ten months since summary judgment was 

granted in this case and nearly seven months since the trial court issued a Final Judgment. 

Appellants’ argument that “Counsel has begun research” in this case, is simply inadequate. See 

the Motion atp. 2.

ACCEPTED

04-14-00655-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

1/8/2015 4:53:51 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 01/8/2015 4:53:51 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
4. Second, Appellants have already had their time for filing a brief automatically 

extended by the filing of post-trial motions. Following the final judgment, Appellants filed a 

Motion for New Trial, which they never even set for hearing. See CR 248-250. The obvious 

basis that they filed the Motion for New Trial, was to extend their deadlines. 

5. Third, Appellants have had their time for filing a brief extended by their delays in 

securing the Reporters’ Record. The Appellate record was due to be filed by October 17, 2014. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. However, the Court received Notice of a late filed Record. See 

Fourth Court Correspondence dated October 21, 2014, Court File. The Court granted an 

extension on the filing of the Reporters’ Record until December 1, 2014. See Court Order dated 

October 29, 2014, Court File. Appellants’ deadlines were further extended because the 

Reporters’ Record was not filed on the extended deadline but was instead filed on December 8, 

2014. See Fourth Court Correspondence dated December 8, 2014, Court File. Accordingly, 

Appellants automatically received approximately a seven week extension because of the delays 

in the filing of the Reporters’ Record. 

6. Finally, it is important to note that Appellants are not being prejudiced by their 

delay because Appellants are receiving royalty payments during the appeal. In fact, they have 

received nearly $195,000.00 in royalties between January and November 2014. See Affidavit of 

Ivarene Hosek at p. 2 attached to Appellants’ Reply in Opposition to Increasing Supersedeas 

Bond, Court File. Scott, who prevailed on summary judgment over ten months ago, has not 

received any royalties. 

7. Appellants have had an adequate amount of time in which to research and file 

their brief. It has been over ten months since summary judgment was granted and nearly seven 

months since a final judgment was entered. A sixty day extension would result in the
Appellants’ initial brief being filed approximately a year after the trial COUIT initially granted 

summary judgment. Moreover, Appellants continue to receive royalties during the appeal 

whereas Scott, who has been determined to own fifty percent of the minerals under the Property 

in question, is not receiving any royalties. Accordingly, Appellants request for a sixty day 

extension should be denied and at most, this Court should permit Appellants an additional thirty 

days in which to file their brief. 

BARTON, EAST & CALDWELL, P.L.L.C. 

One Riverwalk Place, Suite 1825 

700 N. St. Mary’s Street 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Telephone: (210)225-1655 

Facsimile: (210) 225-8999 

By: /s/ G. WADE CALDWELL 

G. WADE CALDWELL 

State Bar No. 03621020 

Email: gcaldwell@beclaw.c01n 

RAQUEL G. PEREZ 

State Bar No. 00784746 

Email: rperez@beclaw.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document will be served in the manner 

indicated below this 8th day of January, 2015 upon the following: 

Michele Barber Chimene __ First Class Mail 

The Chimene Law Firm _ Facsimile 

15203 Newfleld Bridge Ln. __ Hand Delivery 

Sugar Land, TX 77498 J; Electronic Transmission 

Email: michelec@ai1"mail.net 

Robert J . Ogle _ First Class Mail 

Attorney at Law _ Facsimile 

508 E. San Antonio Street _ _W Hand Delivery 

Boerne, Texas 78006 A Electronic Transmission 

Facsimile: (830) 249-8508 

Email: bob@ogleattorney.com 

Counsel for Appellants 

/s/ G. WADE CALDWELL 

G. WADE CALDWELL 

ILAQUEL G. PEREZ 

M:\2000\2200 OIL AND GAS CLl'ENTS\l2l Hosck V ScoII\4TH COA APl’EAL\Pleadings\Appcllc‘s Response to Appellants’ Molion for 

Extension ofTime to File Appellants’ Briefidocx