1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

 § 

FRANCES MARIE SIMS,

PLAINTIFF

V.

EILEEN MCDILDA

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF TEXAS

INDIVIDUALLY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

AND

CHERYL BELLESEN

MANGER OF LOAN RECOVERY FOR THE

TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING

BOARD

INDIVIDUALLY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY, 

DEFENDANTS

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 CASE NO.:

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES FRANCES MARIE SIMS, Plaintiff, and files this Complaint, alleging 

that Defendants EILEEN MCDILDA and CHERYL BELLESEN violated Frances Marie 

Sims' federal constitutional rights. In support of such allegations, Frances Marie Sims would 

show the Court as follows: 

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This complaint arises under the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343.

5:20-cv-00722
2

2. This complaint is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983: Every person who, under color 

of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District 

of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person 

within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured 

by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in 

equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

3. Venue is proper in this judicial Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, as the acts 

complained of arose in this district.

4. Venue is also proper in the San Antonio Division of the Western District of Texas 

since the Plaintiff has been a resident of Bexar County, Texas at all time relevant to this 

complaint. The loan at issue in this lawsuit was entered into and executed in Bexar County, 

Texas. The judgment taken against Plaintiff, which is the basis of this complaint, was abstracted 

in Bexar County, Texas. The aforementioned abstract placed a cloud on the title(s)of Plaintiff's 

real property located in Bexar County, Texas, which injured the Plaintiff. Therefore, a 

substantial part of the events occurred in the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division at 

the San Antonio Division is an appropriate venue. All conditions precedent have occurred or 

have been performed.

II. PARTIES 

5. At all times herein mentioned Plaintiff Frances Marie Sims has resided within the 

Bexar County, Texas.

6. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant, Eileen McDilda was employed by the 

Attorney General's Office for the State of Texas, and was acting under color of state law and as
3

the employee, agent, or representative of the Attorney General's Office for the State of Texas. 

This Defendant is being sued in her individual capacity and official capacity. Defendant may be 

served with process at the Office of the Attorney General of The State of Texas, 300 W. 15th 

Street Austin, TX 78701.

7. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant, Cheryl Bellesen was employed by the 

Attorney General's Office for the State of Texas, and was acting under color of state law and as 

the employee, agent, or representative of the Attorney General's Office for the State of Texas. 

This Defendant is being sued in her individual capacity and official capacity. Defendant may be 

served with process at the Office of the Attorney General of The State of Texas, 300 W. 15th 

Street Austin, TX 78701.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. Between August of 2001 and May of 2003, Ms. Sims cosigned 3 promissory notes for 

a college access loans administered by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

9. On or about February 1, 2008, The State of Texas took a default judgment against the 

original borrower of the 3 aforementioned promissory notes. The default judgment included 

$150.00 in attorney fees.

10. On January 30, 2009, The State of Texas filed suit against Ms. Sims to collect on the 3 

aforementioned promissory notes she had cosigned in cause number C-1-CV-09-001124.

11. On January 11, 2011, Ms. Sims was served with the aforementioned lawsuit that was 

filed on January 30, 2009.

12. On February 8, 2011, County Court at Law No. 1 for Travis County file stamped Ms. 

Sims, Pro Se, answer to the aforementioned lawsuit. At no time during the prosecution of cause 
4

number C-1-CV-09-001124 was Plaintiff represented by counsel.

13. On July 27, 2011, County Court at Law No. 1 for Travis County file stamped the State 

of Texas' Motion for Summary Judgment against Ms. Sims.

14. The aforementioned Motion for Summary Judgment contains a certificate of service 

stating: "I hereby certify that on AUG 02 2011 a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion 

for Summary Judgment has been forwarded by certified mail, return receipt requested to the 

Defendant by and through the attorney of record..." 1 Defendant, Eileen McDilda, certified to the 

Court that she had already forwarded the aforementioned Motion for Summary Judgment on a 

date that has not yet occurred and is in the future. The aforementioned certification contained 

within the aforementioned Motion for Summary Judgment is an impossibility.

15. Ms. Sims never received any documentation whatsoever concerning the aforementioned 

Summary Judgment Motion and its hearing that was allegedly held on September 9, 2011, 

relating to the aforementioned Summary Judgment Motion. Therefore, Ms. Sims did not file a 

response to said summary judgment. An Order was signed on September 9, 2011, granting the 

State of Texas' Motion for Summary Judgment setting forth a sum owed. 2The only legal work 

performed by the State of Texas in the cause against Frances Marie Sims was: (1) Filing of what 

appears to be a two page forum Original Petition, (2) citation with an officer's return, (3) Filing 

of what appears to be a 3 page forum Motion for Summary Judgment for full and final 

disposition of cause number C-1-CV-09-001124, (4) Filing of what appears to be a forum order 

for the aforementioned Motion for Summary Judgment. There was no discovery propounded in 

the suit filed against Frances Marie Sims. Notwithstanding the limited legal proceedings in this 

cause Eileen McDilda Esq. filed an affidavit for attorney fees and obtained a judgment awarding 

 

1

See Exhibit 1 pg. 3 (emphasis added)

2

See Exhibit 1 pg. 13
5

$5,000.00 in attorney fees.

16. Ms. Sims never received any notice whatsoever from the State of Texas or County 

Court at Law No. 1 for Travis County that a judgment had been taken against her relating to the 

3 aforementioned promissory notes . 

17. On or about December 16, 2011, without personal and/or actual notice to Ms. Sims the 

State of Texas filed a Judgment Lien in the Bexar County, Texas deed records based on the 

aforementioned judgment.

18. On or about October of 2018, for the first time Ms. Sims became aware of an abstract of 

the aforementioned judgment. Ms. Sims became aware of the aforementioned abstract of 

judgment because Ms. Sims had previously entered into a contract for the sale of real property 

and a title company was attempting to close on the aforementioned contract for the sale of real 

property. Prior to October of 2018, Ms. Sims had no knowledge that the aforementioned 

judgment had been taken against her by the State of Texas.

19. On or about February 8, 2019, Ms. Sims received a demand letter from counsel for the 

buyers of the aforementioned real property relating to the Judgment Lien filed by the State of 

Texas. The aforementioned demand letter stated that Frances Sims was in violation of Chapter 5 

of the Texas Property Code for failing to keep said real property free of any liens. 

20. Frances Marie Sims hired counsel to represent her against the threatened claims of the 

buyers of the aforementioned real property. Ms. Sims incurred legal fees to defend against the 

real property buyers claims, as a result of the aforementioned judgment and abstracted lien filed 

by the State of Texas.

21. On or about March of 2019, an agent for Ms. Sims contacted the manager for the 

Student Loan Collections, Bankruptcy and Collections Division, of the Office of the Attorney 
6

General for the State of Texas, and spoke to Cheryl Bellesen. Cheryl Bellesen advised Ms. Sims'

agent that entire amount of the account associated with the aforementioned 3 promissory notes

was owed. Cheryl Bellesen advised Ms. Sims' agent that the aforementioned amount that Ms. 

Sims had to pay included fees and interest associated with a prior judgment obtained against the 

original borrower of the loans Ms. Sims had cosigned for, and an additional $5,000.00 in legal 

fees to obtain the judgment against Ms. Sims. Additionally, Cheryl Bellesen is the person who 

filed the abstract of the aforementioned judgment, which placed a cloud on Ms. Sims real 

properties. Furthermore, Cheryl Bellesen required Ms. Sims to pay amounts in excess of the 

amount owed under the judgment against Ms. Sims including post judgment interest.

22. In order to mitigate damages claimed by the buyers of the aforementioned real property 

Ms. Sims paid off the aforementioned lien amount required by Cheryl Bellesen, acting as an 

agent for the State of Texas, and an additional $10,000.00 in attorney fees incurred by the real 

property buyers.

23. The Texas Supreme Court has held that a notice of hearing when summary judgment is

filed must be served on all parties in order to give notice when a response to the aforementioned 

summary judgment is due. 3 Ms. Sims never received notice of the filing of a summary judgment 

motion or notice of hearing in cause number C-1-CV-09-001124. Without the aforementioned 

notice Ms. Sims would not know that a response needed to filed and thus her Due Process rights 

were violated under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by not 

allowing Ms. Sims the opportunity to respond.

24. By reason of the above-described acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff sustained 

injuries, including but not limited to attorney's fees associated with the cloud on the title of 

 

3

See Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc., 989 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex. 1998)
7

Plaintiff's real property and other economic losses. Ms. Sims also experienced humiliation, 

indignity, and damage to her reputation. Defendants’ aforementioned conduct was shocking and 

willfully indifferent to Plaintiff’s rights and with conscious awareness that their actions would 

cause Plaintiff's aforementioned damages.

25. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, and 

done with reckless indifference to and/or callous disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and justify the 

awarding of exemplary and punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount to be 

ascertained according to proof at the time of trial.

26. By reason of the above-described acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff was 

required to retain an attorney to institute, prosecute, and render legal assistance to her in the 

instant action so that she might vindicate the loss and impairment of her rights. By reason 

thereof, Plaintiff requests payment by Defendants of a reasonable sum for attorney’s fees 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.

IV. COUNT 1

FRANCES MARIE SIMS AGAINST EILEEN MCDILDA, IN HER OFFICAL 

CAPACITY, FOR FAILING TO GIVE NOTICE OF A SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

AND HEARING IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

27. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs, subsequent 

paragraphs, and exhibits.

28. By reason of Eileen McDilda's failure to serve Frances Marie Sims with the filed 

Motion for Summary Judgment in cause number C-1-CV-09-001124 and failure to serve 

Frances Marie Sims notice of the hearing on said Motion, Eileen McDilda deprived Ms. Sims 

of her Due Process rights secured to her by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of 
8

the United States and laws enacted thereunder.

29. Any licensed attorney in the State of Texas should have known failure to serve Frances 

Marie Sims with the filed Motion for Summary Judgment in cause number C-1-CV-09-001124 

and notice of the hearing on said Motion would violate Ms. Sims' Due Process rights. Eileen 

McDilda's failure to serve Frances Marie Sims was done with conscious awareness as Eileen 

McDilda certified that she had served Plaintiff, when in fact the certification of service was dated 

almost a week in the future. This act was willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, and done with 

reckless indifference to and/or callous disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.

30. Therefore, Eileen McDilda, in official capacity as an attorney in the State of Texas'

Attorney General's Office, is liable to Frances Marie Sims for damages and attorney fees, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1988, as set forth in this complaint.

V. COUNT 2

FRANCES MARIE SIMS AGAINST CHERYL BELLESEN, IN HER OFFICAL 

CAPACITY, FOR TAKING MS. SIMS PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs, subsequent 

paragraphs, and exhibits.

32. By reason of Cheryl Bellesen's filing an abstract of the aforementioned judgment, 

taken in violation of Ms. Sims' Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process, Cheryl Bellesen 

place a cloud on the title of all of Ms. Sims' real properties. The aforementioned cloud placed 

on the title of all of Ms. Sims real properties was an unconstitutional governmental taking of 

Ms. Sims property rights. Plaintiff was deprived of her rights, privileges, and immunities 

secured to her by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and laws 
9

enacted thereunder. The act of placing a cloud on all of Plaintiff's real properties was willful, 

wanton, and oppressive.

33. Therefore Cheryl Bellesen, in official capacity as an agent for the State of Texas' 

Attorney General's Office, is liable to Frances Marie Sims for damages and attorney fees, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1988, as set forth in this complaint.

VI. COUNT 3

FRANCES MARIE SIMS AGAINST CHERYL BELLESEN, IN HER OFFICAL 

CAPACITY, FOR TAKING MS. SIMS PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

34. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs, subsequent 

paragraphs, and exhibits.

35. By reason of Cheryl Bellesen's requiring Plaintiff to pay sums in excess of the amount 

she had to pay in order to remove the aforementioned cloud on the title of all of Ms. Sims' real 

properties, was an unconstitutional governmental taking of Ms. Sims property rights under the 

Fourteenth Amendment. After reviewing all of the documents reflecting the amount Ms. Sims 

was required to pay to obtain a release of judgment, the amount in the documents, does not 

equate to the amount Cheryl Bellesen required Ms. Sims to pay to obtain that release. Plaintiff 

was deprived of her rights, privileges, and immunities secured to her by the Fourteenth 

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and laws enacted thereunder. The act of 

requiring Plaintiff to pay sums in excess of the amount she had to pay was willful, wanton, 

malicious, oppressive, and done with reckless indifference to and/or callous disregard for 

Plaintiff’s rights.
10

36. Therefore Cheryl Bellesen, in official capacity as an agent for the State of Texas' 

Attorney General's Office, is liable to Frances Marie Sims for damages and attorney fees, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1988, as set forth in this complaint.

VII. COUNT 4

FRANCES MARIE SIMS AGAINST EILEEN MCDILDA, INDIVIDUALLY, FOR 

FRAUD BY NONDISCLOSURE

37. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs, subsequent 

paragraphs, and exhibits.

38. Defendant, Eileen McDilda, failed to disclose to the Plaintiff that a summary judgment 

was filed and a hearing set on the said motion for cause number C-1-CV-09-001124. Eileen 

McDilda had a duty to disclose that a summary judgment was filed and a hearing set on the said 

motion for cause number C-1-CV-09-001124 under Texas law. The summary judgment was for 

a full and final disposition of cause number C-1-CV-09-001124, thus the required disclosure 

was material. 4Eileen McDilda knew Plaintiff was Pro Se and lived in a different city more 

than an hour away and Ms. Sims had no reasonable way to discover the lack of disclosure. 

Eileen McDilda remained deliberately silent as she did not ensure the Motion for Summary 

Judgment was received by the Plaintiff by filing evidence that the Motion for Summary 

Judgment was served in accordance with Texas law. Even after no answer was filed within the 

time frame allotted by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Eileen McDilda did not take any 

reasonable follow-up measures to ensure Pro Se Plaintiff received notice of hearing on said 

motion. Eileen McDilda knowingly failed to serve the Pro Se Plaintiff. That failure to serve was 

 

4

See Exhibit 1 pg. 13
11

done so that Plaintiff would not have notice of the summary judgment and not be able to file a 

response to the aforementioned summary judgment. Since Ms. Sims did not receive notice of 

the aforementioned summary judgment and hearing Ms. Sims did not take any action to safe 

guard her rights or her property. Because of the aforementioned nondisclosure Ms. Sims 

suffered injuries. 

39. Therefore, Defendant is liable to Frances Marie Sims for damages set forth in this 

complaint.

VIII. COUNT 5

FRANCES MARIE SIMS AGAINST CHERYL BELLESEN, INDIVIDUALLY,

FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT

40. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs, subsequent 

paragraphs, and exhibits.

41. Defendant Cheryl Bellesen represented to the Plaintiff that she owed amounts in excess 

of the amount she had to pay in order to remove the aforementioned cloud on the title of all of 

Ms. Sims' real properties. Cheryl Bellesen's representation to Ms. Sims of the amount she had to 

pay in order to remove the aforementioned cloud on the title was false. Cheryl Bellesen induced 

Ms. Sims to pay the excess amounts in order to obtain a release to remove the cloud on the title 

to Ms. Sims' properties. Ms. Sims relied on Cheryl Bellesen's representations because Cheryl 

Bellesen worked for the Attorney General's Office for the State of Texas. Ms. Sims was 

damaged because she paid an amount in excess of what is required under Texas law to obtain 

the release to remove the cloud on the title to Ms. Sims' properties.

42. Therefore, Defendant is liable to Frances Marie Sims for damages set forth in this 

complaint.
12

IX. COUNT 6

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

43. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs, subsequent 

paragraphs, and exhibits.

44. Plaintiff has suffered the following injuries arising out of the counts set forth in this 

complaint to include: Deprivation of Constitutional Rights, Mental Anguish, Loss of Profits,

Loss of Reputation, Loss of Credit Worthiness, Damages resulting from the cloud on the title to 

Ms. Sims real properties, and Attorney Fees related to the aforementioned cloud on the title to 

Ms. Sims real properties.

45. The Defendants actions were the legal cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries. Ms. Sims seeks 

all actual, consequential, direct, and special damages deemed to be attributable to Defendants.

Awarding such other and further relief as this Court deems fit, just, proper and equitable.

X. COUNT 7

DEMAND FOR ATTORNEY FEES

46. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs, subsequent 

paragraphs, and exhibits.

47. In her legitimate desire to pursue the rights and privileges guaranteed by the 

Constitution and laws of the United States, the Plaintiff has employed the undersigned counsel

to prosecute this action and has agreed to pay a reasonable fee for same, which fees and costs 

should be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
13

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Frances Marie Sims requests that: 

Defendants be cited to appear and answer, and on final trial, Plaintiff have: 

a. Injunctive and equitable relief;

b. Compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, damages for,

humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, and other nonpecuniary losses;

c. Judgment against Defendants for actual damages;

d. Punitive and exemplary damages as may be awarded by the trier of

fact;

e. Costs, including reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees, as well as

expert fees;

f. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and

g. Any other and further relief as this Court deems fit, just, proper and

equitable.

Respectfully submitted, 

Brian A. Jones 

The Law Offices of Brian Jones 

P.O. Box 100897

San Antonio, Texas 78201 

Phone:(210) 978-2559 

Fax:(210) 485-2461 

Texas Bar No. 24101974 

Email: Brian@TheJonesLawFirm-Tx.com 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF