### 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 grantedin this case

### and nearly



### seven 

### months

since the trial court issueda 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 CLERK4. 

### Second, Appellants



### have already



### had their 

### time for filing a brief automatically 

### extended



### by the filing 

### of post-trialmotions. 

### 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

toresearch



### 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 theAppellants’ 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

fora 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