No. 12-14-00300-CV

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TWELFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER, TEXAS 

IN THE ESTATE OF RODNEY JOE KNIGHT, DECEASED 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law, 

Cherokee County, Texas, Cause No. 12025, 

The Honorable Kelley D. Peacock, presiding 

APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF 

Bill Pedersen, III

Texas Bar No. 24030011

Email: bill@bpedlaw.com

2501 Oak Lawn Avenue

Suite 380, LB - 50

Dallas, Texas 75219

Tel. (214) 630-4554

Fax. (214) 630-9264

Attorney for Appellant,

Natosha Moore-Knight

ACCEPTED

12-14-0030-cv

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

4/24/2015 11:59:24 AM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 4/24/2015 11:59:24 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
Appellant’s Brief Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................3

RESPONSE TO APPELLEE’S BRIEF.....................................................................4

PRAYER....................................................................................................................7

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.........................................................................8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................8
Appellant’s Brief Page 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Williams v. Bank One, Texas, N.A., 

15 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. App.-Waco 1999, no pet.) ........................................4

RULES

Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(1)............................................................................................8

Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(C).......................................................................................8

Tex. R. Civ. P. 245.....................................................................................................4

Tex. R. Civ. P. 252.....................................................................................................4
Appellant’s Brief Page 4

RESPONSE TO APPELLEE’S BRIEF

Appellant seeks to respond to Appellee’s Brief. Appellant will not repeat 

arguments or points raised and argued in Appellant’s Brief, only address certain 

specific claims and arguments made by the Appellee. 

Appellee seems to have two main points: (1) Appellant’s Motion for 

Continuance was not ruled on, but if it was Appellant did not preserve error, and 

(2) the absence of any additional evidence being heard on the merits of this lawsuit 

are due to Appellant’s lack of diligence. 

“NOSTRADAMUS” DEFENSE

The trial court in this case, following Appellant’s urging of her Motion for 

Continuance, heard testimony. R.R. vol. 2, pp. 5-6. The Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure provide that a trial court may implicitly rule on a request, objection or 

motion. Tex. R. App. 33.1(a)(2)(A), Williams v. Bank One, Texas, N.A., 15 S.W.3d 

110 (Tex. App.-Waco 1999, no pet.). Appellant urged her Motion to Continue the 

hearing, the Court stated “I really feel like we need to hear this today,” and 

testimony was heard. R.R. vol. 2, p. 5, lines 21-22. As discussed in Appellant’s 

Brief, the trial court’s denial was an abuse of her discretion, violated Texas Rules 

of Procedure 252 & 245, and denied Appellant due process. 

Appellee then appears to argue that this Court should evaluate the trial 

court’s January 7 denial in light of the entire procedural history of the case, even 
Appellant’s Brief Page 5

that which occurred after January 7. This argument presumes the trial court to be 

clairvoyant. Appellant would note that the Appellee cites to no authority that 

would suggest that a denial of a motion to continue should be evaluated based on 

what occurs after the denial. Appellee is attempting to create a duty of post-denial 

diligence which does not exist. 

APPELLEE’S OBSTRUCTION 

Appellee is attempting to establish waiver, or a lack of diligence, on 

Appellant’s part, in the period between the only evidentiary hearing in this case 

and the entry of the Judgment. Appellant does not believe that this argument has 

any real basis in law, but will respond to it without conceding its logical soundness 

or legal basis. 

Appellant sought new counsel following the January 7 evidentiary hearing. 

Appellee was aware of this no later than May 19, 2014, when undersigned counsel 

filed a Motion for Substitution of Counsel. C.R. 99-103. Appellee opposed this 

substitution, and the Motion was not granted until August 13, 2014. C.R 183. 

Appellee’s counsel refused to “forward any documents” related to the litigation 

until the Motion to Substitute was granted. C.R. 131. Despite this discourteous and 

unprofessional obstruction, undersigned counsel did his best to represent his client 

even before his substitution.
Appellant’s Brief Page 6

During this time period, when Appellee was fully aware that Appellant had 

new counsel, and refused to provide even a courtesy copy of any documents 

related to the litigation, Appellee filed his “Motion to Dismiss Claims in Will 

Contest.” C.R. 104-104-109. This pleading asserted that the issue of informal 

marriage had been tried by consent during the January 7 hearing. Even before the 

trial court could hold a hearing on Appellant’s Motion for Substitution, which 

Appellee insisted upon, Appellant filed both a Response and a Supplemental 

Response to this pleading. C.R. 143-163, 177-182. The Response noted the 

communication problems briefly described above, specially excepted to the Motion 

to Dismiss, and then addressed the merits of the Motion to Dismiss. C.R. 143-163. 

Specifically, Appellant noted that the trial court had not ruled on the question of 

informal marriage, and that no conventional trial on the merits had been held. Id. 

The Supplemental Response was filed following a telephonic hearing on July 31. 

C.R. 177. That was a conference held in chambers, and no record was made of that 

conference. It is inaccurate, if not deliberately misleading, for Appellee’s Brief to 

state “The Appellant never complained or denied that the issue of informal 

marriage had been tried by consent on January 7, 2014 until this appeal.” 

Appellee’s Brief, page 7. 

The point of this procedural history is to point out that undersigned counsel 

wasn’t in the case until August 13, when the Court announced that it had already 
Appellant’s Brief Page 7

finally decided the question of common law marriage. R.R. vol. 3, pp. 14-15, lines 

22-6. No opportunity existed for the Appellant to request a hearing or an 

opportunity to present additional evidence, because Appellee wouldn’t even 

“forward any documents” related to the case until the trial court granted 

Appellant’s Motion to Substitute Counsel. C.R. 131. On the same date the trial 

court granted Appellant’s Motion to Substitute, the trial court announced that the 

case was over. 

Appellee’s assertion that additional evidentiary hearings occurred is contrary 

to the record. The only time a witness was sworn, or anything other than lawyers’ 

arguments were heard, was on January 7, 2014. 

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this Court 

will reverse the Judgment of the Trial court, and remand this case to that Court for 

further proceedings, so that Appellant may fairly litigate the existence of an 

informal marriage. 

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF BILL PEDERSEN, III, PLLC

By: /s/ Bill Pedersen, III

Bill Pedersen, III

Texas Bar No. 24030011

Email: bill@bpedlaw.com

2501 Oak Lawn Avenue

Suite 380, LB - 50
Appellant’s Brief Page 8

Dallas, Texas 75219

Tel. (214) 630-4554

Fax. (214) 630-9264

Attorney for Appellant

Natosha Moore-Knight

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitations of Tex. R. App. P. 

9.4(i)(2)(C) because it contains less than 7,500 words, excluding the parts of 

the brief exempted by Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(1).

2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Texas Rule of 

Procedure 9.4(e) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally 

spaced typeface using “Microsoft Word 2010” in fourteen (14) point “Times 

New Roman” style font.

/s/ Bill Pedersen, III

Bill Pedersen, III

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

forwarded to all counsel of record via electronic filing on this 24

th day of apRIL, 

2015, as follows:

Wayne D. Haglund

State Bar No. 08697500

Email: whaglund@haglundlaw.com

P.O. Box 713

107 West Kerr Avenue

Lufkin, Texas 75902

Tel. (936) 639-0007

Fax. (936) 639-0016

Attorney for Roy Knight

By facsimile and electronic filing

/s/ Bill Pedersen, III

Bill Pedersen, III