ACCEPTED

03-16-00563-CV

13922444

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

11/22/2016 10:11:29 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

NO. 03-16-00563-CV 

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 

BILLY WAYNE BASKETT, 

Appellant 

V. 

LINNET SUE BASKETT, 

Appellee 

From County Court at Law No. 4 

Williamson County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. I4-1600-FC4 

BRIEF OF APPELLEE LINNET SUE BASKETT 

James A. Vaught 

State Bar No. 20526300 

VAUGHT LAW FIRM, P.C. 

5929 Balcones Drive, Suite 201 

Austin, Texas 78731 

(512) 342-9980 phone 

(512) 610-9980 facsimile 

e-mail: jimmy@vaughtlawfirm.com 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE 

LINNET SUE BASKETT 

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/22/2016 10:11:29 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 

Pursuant to Rule 38.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellee 

provides the following information to this Court: 

APPELLANT 

Billy Wayne Baskett 

APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT 

Justin M. Jackson 

1460 E. Whitestone Blvd., Suite 140 

Cedar Park, Texas 78613 

(512) 528-1900 phone 

(866) 929-283 8 facsimile 

APPELLEE 

Linnet Sue Baskett 

APPELLATE COUNSEL FORAPPELLEE 

Jimmy Vaught 

VAUGHT LAW FIRM, P.C. 

5929 Balcones Drive, Suite 201 

Austin, Texas 78731 

(512) 342-9980 phone 

(512) 610-9980 facsimile 

jimmy@vaughtlawfirm.com e-mail 

The foregoing information is also provided to assist the members of this Court 

in determining issues of disqualification and recusal under Rule 16 of the Texas Rules 

of Appellate Procedure. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. .................................. i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................ ii-iii 

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................. I 

This is an enforcement action arising out of a divorce case. Appellant 

Billy Wayne Baskett failed to tum over property awarded to Appellee 

Linnet Sue Baskett, and damaged, destroyed, and defaced other property 

awarded to Linnet. Billy went so far as to deface some of Linnet's 

property with crude and obscene words. After an evidentiary hearing, 

the trial court held Billy in contempt and awarded Linnet damages in the 

amount of$12,161.14 and assessed attorney's fees against Billy in the 

amount of $7,500.00. 

ISSUES PRESENTED ..................................................... 2 

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ........... 2 

Billy Throws Linnet Out of the House Without Most of Her Property ..... 2 

Parties Settle Divorce in Mediation ................................ 4 

Linnet Attempts to Retrieve Her Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

Most of Linnet's Property Was Damaged, Defaced or Missing ........... 5 

Linnet Provides Evidence of Repair or Replacement Value 

of Missing and Damaged Property ................................. 8 

Divorce Decree is Signed by the Court .............................. 9 

ii 
Linnet Files Petition for Enforcement of Property Division and 

Trial Grants the Petition for Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................ 10 

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ........................................ 12 

I. 

THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR AND DID NOT SUBSTANTIVELY 

MODIFY THE TERMS OF THE UNDERLYING AGREED FINAL DECREE 

OF DIVORCE .................................................... 12 

IL 

THE TRIAL COURT'S A WARD OF DAMAGES WAS SUPPORTED 

BY LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. ....... 14 

III. 

THETRIALCOURTDIDNOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT 

A WARDED DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF LINNET SUE BASKETT ..... 16 

PRAYER .............................................................. 18 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................. 19 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................... 19 

111 
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 

STATUTES AND RULES 

Page 

TEX. FAMILY CODE§ 3.003 ........................................... 14 

iv 
NO. 03-16-00563-CV 

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 

BILLY WAYNE BASKETT, 

Appellant 

v. 

LINNET SUE BASKETT, 

Appellee 

BRIEF OF APPELLEE LINNET SUE BASKETT 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

Linnet Sue Baskett, Petitioner in the trial court and the Appellee in this Court, 

respectfully submits her briefin support of the Order of Enforcement of Property Division 

signed on May 11, 2016. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

This is an enforcement action arising out of a divorce case. Appellant Billy 

Wayne Baskett ("Billy") failed to tum over property awarded to Appellee Linnet Sue 

Baskett ("Linnet"), and damaged, destroyed, and defaced other property awarded to 

Linnet. Billy went so far as to deface some of Linnet's property with crude and 

obscene words. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court held Billy in contempt and 

Page 1 of 19 
awarded Linnet damages in the amount of $12, 161.14 and assessed attorney's fees 

against Billy in the amount of $7,500.00. 

ISSUES PRESENTED 

I. 

THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR AND DID NOT 

SUBSTANTIVELY MODIFY THE TERMS OF THE 

UNDERLYING AGREED FINAL DECREE OF DIVORCE. 

II. 

THE TRIAL COURT'S A WARD OF DAMAGES WAS 

SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY 

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. 

III. 

THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION 

WHEN IT AWARDEDDAMAGESINFAVOROFLINNET 

SUE BASKETT. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Linnet and Billy married in 2007. (CR 10). The parties initially separated in 

December 2013 and Linnet moved into an apartment. (RR Vol. 2, page 19, lines 24-

25, page 20, lines 7-8). The parties attempted to reconcile and Linnet moved back into 

the house and unpacked all of her items. Almost immediately, Billy asked her to 

leave. (RR Vol. 2, page 20, lines 3-6, page 21, lines 10-19). 

Billy Throws Linnet Out of the House Without Most of Her Property 

Linnet sought Billy's assistance in moving out of the house. Initially he agreed 

Page 2 of 19 
and then on the day she was supposed to move, he refused. (RR Vol. 2, page 23, lines 

8-18). Linnet didn't have much time to remove her property. She spent a whole day 

packing her property at his house before Billy threw her out. She was only able to 

remove a couple of carloads of her property. The rest of her property remained in 

Billy's house and he refused to let her have her property. (RR Vol. 2, page 23, lines 

21-25, page 24, lines 1-6). Billy did not allow Linnet to go back to the house and 

retrieve her property. (RR Vol. 2, page 24, lines 7-9). The property that was not 

packed included her chest of drawers with all of her clothing, her massage table and 

massage products, some items in a bookcase, cards from her deceased grandparents, 

a lot of cards from grandparents and parents for birthdays and Christmas, cash in 

some of the card, and silver dollars she received as a child. (RR Vol. 2, page 24, lines 

18-25, page 25, lines 1-15). The property that was packed included her personal 

kitchen items, china, glasses, wine glasses, and other items. Linnet purchased boxes 

and packing supplies to make sure that her valuables were packed properly and 

wouldn't break when moving. (RR Vol. 2, page 25, lines 17-25, Page 26, lines 1-3). 

All of her property was in perfect condition when Billy threw her out of the house. 

(RR Vol. 2, page 28, lines 14-19). Linnet unsuccessfully attempted to return to the 

house to retrieve her property. (RR Vol. 2, page 25, lines 4-9). 

Page 3 of 19 
Parties Settle Divorce in Mediation 

In May 2015, the parties settled the case in mediation. The mediated settlement 

agreement awarded Linnet: 

W-2. The furniture and furnishings, clothing, personal effects and 

jewelry lawfully in her possession or subject to her control, as 

well as all items of her personal property, jewelry and clothing 

now in Husband's possession, and specifically including the 

following: 

a. The couch and love seat in Husband's living room; 

b. The 37-inch Television; and 

c. Wife's jewelry chest and all its contents. 

Wife shall be given access to such items for removal not later 

than June 27, 2015. The parties intend in good faith to schedule 

such move on June 27, 2015. 

(RR Vol. 3, Exhibit 1, page 1). 

Linnet Attempts to Retrieve Her Property 

On June 27, 2015, 1 Linnet, along with her sisters, her niece, her brother-in-law 

and a friend, went to the house to retrieve her property. When they arrived, they were 

shocked. Half of her items were stacked up and thrown in the driveway. Everything 

else was thrown in the front room. Billy moved her furniture into the front room and 

everything was shoved into the room and stacked on top of each other. Her property 

was not in the boxes she used to pack them - they had been opened and placed in 

1The parties mistakenly testified that the date was July 27, 2015 when in fact it was June 

27, 2015. (RR Vol. 2, page 119, lines 2-12). 

Page 4 of 19 
different boxes and in bags. Boxes were crushed on top of things and her property 

was just demolished. The boxes were all opened and items were missing. (RR Vol. 

2, page 27, lines 15-22, page 28, lines 20-25, page 29, lines 1-13, page 74, lines 9-13, 

page 79, lines 15-20, page 80, lines 2-4; RR Vol 4, Exhibit 4).2 Billy had a friend at 

the house who refused to let anyone look through the house to see if there was 

anything else. In fact, they were only allowed in one room. (RR Vol. 2, page 7 6, lines 

22-25, page 77, linel, page 81, lines 3-6, page 84, lines 4-7, page 119, lines 9-15). 

Although Linnet did not have a specific list of every single item she left in the house, 

she did have a general understanding of what she had left behind. (RR Vol. 2, page 

29, lines 20-25, page 30, line 1). However, Billy knew what property in his 

possession was her property. (RR Vol. 2, page 95, lines 13-25). 

Most of Linnet's Property Was Damaged, Defaced or Missing 

Although the couch was in perfect condition when she was thrown out, the 

couch had a broken frame and had a hole poked in the side that looked like it was 

intentionally done. One of the panels on a jewelry chest was kicked in and all of her 

good jewelry was missing. The missingjewelry included most of her hangingjewelry, 

a Tiffany necklace and bracelet, some gemstone jewelry ( such as peridot and citrines ), 

2Exhibit 4 are photos of the house and illustrate how Linnet found many of the 

items at the house. (RR Vol. 2, page 44, lines 7-10). 

Page 5 of 19 
some James Avery jewelry, some good jewelry, some Brighton jewelry, and her gold 

and silver. (RR Vol. 2, page 30, lines 11-25, page 31, lines 1-10, 14-25, page 32, lines 

1-11 ). 

Linnet also had a separate jewelry box which was at the house. When she 

arrived, it was empty. The missing items included jewelry from her childhood, her 

cruise card, her social security card, some Christmas cards with some money in them, 

and collectible things. It also included Christmas cards from her deceased 

grandparents. (RR Vol. 2, page 32, lines 12-25, page 33, lines 1-16). Linnet had left 

mail and packages behind when Billy threw her out of the house which were 

supposed to be in a small filing cabinet. The filing cabinet was empty and had been 

kicked in. (RR Vol. 2, page 33, lines 17-25, page 34, lines 1-13). The contents of her 

bedroom dresser were missing (including clothes, pajamas, socks, shorts and hosiery) 

and the drawers were stained inside like to cover up something. The dresser also had 

scratches and stain down the side. (RR Vol. 2, page 34, lines 14-25, page 35, lines 1-

3). Her night stands were empty. When she left, they contained some sentimental 

items, two rosaries, and some books and cards. In addition, one of the night stands 

had the word "cunt" written on it. (RR Vol. 2, page 35, lines 4-23 ). This word was 

Page 6 of 19 
written on numerous other items left at the house. (RR Vol. 5, Exhibit 5).3 

Linnet's small bookcase was missing and many of her books were missing 

including eight photo albums from her childhood. Of the books that were there, some 

of them had pages tom out and some had crude and offensive language written in 

them. In addition, a wooden storage cube had the backing destroyed. (RR Vol. 2, 

page 35, lines 24-25, page 36, linesl-24). 

Numerous items which were previously in the bedroom were missing, damaged 

or defaced with the C-word. For example, the credenza was scratched, had a broken 

drawer and was stained inside. Many of the items that Linnet had boxed up before 

Billy threw her out had been "re-boxed." The items that Linnet had boxed were 

bashed and crushed beyond recognition. (RR Vol. 2, page 37, lines 5-24, page 38, 

linesl-14). In addition, many items which were previously in the living room were 

missing including a collection of dolls from childhood, some crock pots, some 

curtains and curtain rods, a lot of Mikasa wine glasses and pictures and pots. (RR 

Vol. 2, page 38, lines 15-25, page 39, lines 1-5). 

Linnet's Haro bicycle at the house was destroyed; it had gashes in it, the chain 

3Exhibit 5 are photos illustrative of the items that Billy wrote obscenities and the C-word. 

Linnet testified that the obscenities appeared to be in Billy's handwriting. (RR Vol. 2, page 45, 

lines 15-21, page 46, lines 6-10; RR Vol. 5, Exhibit 5). In addition, after the divorce was filed, 

Billy inscribed the C-word on her front door and spray painted it on her garage door. (RR Vol. 2, 

page 47, lines 5-16). 

Page 7 of 19 
was mangled and rusty, and all of the accessories were broken off. It had recently 

been reconditioned and service and in perfect condition when Billy threw her out of 

the house. Some of the Christmas totes and decor were missing including cat 

ornaments that Linnet's family gave her each year, and other house decor. (RR Vol. 

2, page 39, lines 12-25, page 40, lines 1-14). 

From the time that Billy threw Linnet out of the house until she retrieved her 

property on July 27, 2015, her property was in Billy's home and subject to his control. 

(RR Vol. 2, page 27, lines 6-14, page 68, lines 1-3, page 122, lines 14-23). In fact, 

Billy admitted damaging and defacing some of the property. (RR Vol. 2, page 97, 

lines 6-13, page 105, lines 11-25, pate 106, lines 1-5, page 108, lines 4-6). 

Linnet Provides Evidence of Repair or Replacement Value 

of Missing and Damaged Property 

Linnet personally researched every item listed in the motion for enforcement 

regarding the property that could be either repaired or replaced. She used online 

research such as Ebay to determine the value of items could not be purchased and for 

the items that could be replaced, she printed out information from stores and how to 

replace the items. Linnet did not seek out the most expensive item, but looked for 

comparable items. Of course, she could not put a value on her lifelong photo albums, 

her keepsakes and her cards. (RR Vol. 2, page 40, lines 15-25, page 41, lines 1-10, 

Page 8 of 19 
page 63, lines 23-25. Page 64, lines 1-18; RR Vol. 3, Exhibit 3). Based upon her 

research regarding the items that were either missing or damaged beyond repair, the 

total costofrepairorreplacementwas $12,161.14. (RR Vol. 2, page 43, lines 2-9; RR 

Vol. 3, Exhibit 3). 

Divorce Decree is Signed by the Court 

The Agreed Final Decree of Divorce was signed in November 2015. (CR 57). 

Among other things, the Decree of Divorce provided: 

LINNET SUE BASKETT, Respondent, is awarded the following 

as Respondent's sole and separate property, and BILLY WAYNE 

BASKETT, Petitioner, is divested of all right, title, interest, and claim 

in and to such property: 

1. The household furniture, furnishings, fixtures, goods, appliances, 

equipment, electronics, computers, clothing, personal effects and 

jewelry lawfully in LINNET SUE BASKETT's possession or 

subject to the sole control of LINNET SUE BASKETT, as well 

as all items of her personal property,jewelry and clothing now in 

BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's possession, and specifically 

including the following: 

a. The couch and love seat in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's 

living room; 

b. The 37-inch Television; and 

c. LINNET SUE BASKETT's jewelry chest and all its 

contents. 

IT IS ORDERED, LINNET SUE BASKETT shall be given access 

to such items for removal not later than June 27, 2015. The Court 

finds the parties intend in good faith to schedule such move on 

June 27, 2015. 

Page 9 of 19 
(CR 60-61). 

Linnet Files Petition for Enforcement of Property Division and 

Trial Grants the Petition for Enforcement 

On November 25, 2015, Linnet filed a Petition for Enforcement of Property 

Division and for Contempt and/or Sanctions. (CR 78-85). After an evidentiary 

hearing before the Honorable John B. McMaster on January 28, 2016, Judge 

McMaster found that Billy was in contempt for each separate violation and awarded 

Linnet a judgment against Billy in the amount of $12,161.14 and ordered that Billy 

pay attorney's fees in the amount of $7,500.00. (RR Vol. 2, page 130, lines 14-18). 

The Order of Enforcement of Property Division was signed on May 11, 2016. (CR 

98-105). 

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 

The Trial Court did not amend, modify, alter or change the division of property. 

The Agreed Final Decree unambiguously awarded Linnet "all items of her personal 

property, jewelry and clothing now in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's possession" 

including "[t]he couch and love seat in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's living room," 

[t]he 37-inch Television," and "LINNET SUE BASKETT'sjewelry chest and all its 

contents. It was not limited to the couch, love seat, the television and the jewelry 

chest. 

Page 10 of 19 
Billy incorrectly argues that there is no evidence that 89 of the items that 

Linnet was awarded damages for were community property. It is undisputed that 

property possessed by either spouse during the marriage is presumed to be community 

property. It is also undisputed that the degree of proof necessary to establish the 

property is separate property is clear and convincing evidence. When Billy's counsel 

asked Linnet about the characterization of certain property, Linnet's trial counsel 

objected. "My objection, Judge, it's asking for her to make a legal conclusion on a 

characterization." The Trial Court sustained the objection. The same applies to a 

couple of other times when Billy's counsel asked Linnet whether something was her 

separate property. In reality, Billy's "proof' is not clear or convincing evidence. 

Assuming that Billy is accurate about the separate property, which Linnet 

vigorously denies, he has not only damaged, defaced and disposed of her community 

property items but has damaged, defaced and disposed of her separate property items 

which the court didn't have the authority to award to Billy. 

The Trial Court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Linnet damages 

for the missing property and the property that Billy damaged, destroyed, and defaced. 

Linnet personally researched every item listed in the motion for enforcement 

regarding the property that could be either repaired or replaced. She used online 

research such as Ebay to determine the value of items could not be purchased and for 

Page 11 of 19 
the items that could be replaced, she printed out information from stores and how to 

replace the items. Linnet did not seek out the most expensive item, but was looking 

for comparable items. Linnet offered an 87 page exhibit with the results of her 

research. Of course, she could not put a value on her lifelong photo albums, her 

keepsakes and her cards. In addition, the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in 

awarding attorney's fees. 

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES 

I. 

THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR AND DID NOT 

SUBSTANTIVELY MODIFY THE TERMS OF THE 

UNDERLYING AGREED FINAL DECREE OF DIVORCE. 

[In Response to Appellant's Issue 1] 

Contrary to Billy's conclusory arguments, the Trial Court did not amend, 

modify, alter or change the division of property. 

The mediated settlement agreement awarded Linnet: 

W-2. The furniture and furnishings, clothing, personal effects and 

jewelry lawfully in her possession or subject to her control, as 

well as all items of her personal property, jewelry and clothing 

now in Husband's possession, and specifically including the 

following: 

a. The couch and love seat in Husband's living room; 

b. The 37-inch Television; and 

c. Wife's jewelry chest and all its contents. 

(Emphasis added). The Agreed Final Decree of Divorce awarded Linnet: 

Page 12 of 19 
I. The household furniture, furnishings, fixtures, goods, appliances, 

equipment, electronics, computers, clothing, personal effects and 

jewelry lawfully in LINNET SUE BASKETT's possession or 

subject to the sole control of LINNET SUE BASKETT, as well 

as all items of her personal property, jewelry and clothing now 

in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's possession, and specifically 

including the following: 

a. The couch and love seat in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's 

living room; 

b. The 37-inch Television; and 

c. LINNET SUE BASKETT's jewelry chest and all its 

contents. 

(Emphasis added). Furthermore, the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce awarded 

Billy: 

1. The household furniture, furnishings, fixtures, goods, appliances, 

equipment, electronics, computers, clothing, personal effects and 

jewelry lawfully in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's possession or 

subject to the sole control of BILLY WAYNE BASKETT, SA VE 

AND EXCEPT all items of LINNET SUE BASKETT's 

personal property,jewelry and clothing now in BILLY WAYNE 

BASKETT's possession, and specifically including the following: 

a. The couch and love seat in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's 

living room; 

b. The 37-inch Television; and 

c. LINNET SUE BASKETT's jewelry chest and all its 

contents. 

(CR 58) (Emphasis added). 

The Agreed Final Decree unambiguously awarded Linnet "all items of her 

personal property, jewelry and clothing now in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's 

Page 13 of 19 
possession" including "[t]he couch and love seat in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's 

living room," [t]he 37-inch Television," and "LINNET SUE BASKETT's jewelry 

chest and all its contents." Clearly the property awarded to Linnet which was in 

Billy's possession was not limited to the couch, love seat, her jewelry chest and the 

television. As a result, the Trial Court did not amend, modify, alter or change the 

division of property. 

II. 

THETRIALCOURT'SAWARDOFDAMAGESAND 

ATTORNEY'S FEES WAS SUPPORTED BY 

LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT 

EVIDENCE. 

[In Response to Appellant's Issue 2] 

Billy argues that there is no evidence that 89 of the items that Linnet was 

awarded damages for were community property. He is incorrect for several reasons. 

First, it is undisputed that property possessed by either spouse during the 

marriage is presumed to be community property. It is also undisputed that the degree 

of proof necessary to establish the property is separate property is clear and 

convincing evidence. TEX. FAMILY CODE §3.003. Billy's "proof' that some of 

Linnet's personal property that he damaged and defaced was her separate property is 

sketchy at best. In fact, Linnet's trial counsel objected when Billy's counsel asked 

Linnet about the characterization of certain property. "My objection, Judge, it's 

Page 14 of 19 
asking for her to make a legal conclusion on a characterization." The Trial Court 

sustained the objection. (RR Vol. 2, page 59, lines 7-16). In reality, the same applies 

to a couple of other times when Billy's counsel asked Linnet whether something was 

her separate property. Furthermore, Billy's "proof' is not clear and convincing 

evidence. 

Second, Billy's argument about separate property and community property 

doesn't make sense. It is undisputed that the Agreed Final Decree unambiguously 

awarded Linnet "all items of her personal property, jewelry and clothing now in 

BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's possession." Billy failed to tum over Linnet's personal 

property, and damaged, destroyed, and defaced Linnet's other property. Billy went 

so far as to deface some of Linnet's property with crude and obscene words. 

Assuming that Billy is accurate about the separate property, which Linnet 

vigorously denies, he has not only damaged, defaced and disposed of her community 

property items but has damaged, defaced and disposed of her separate property items 

which the court didn't have the authority to award to Billy. In addition, Billy cannot 

claim that he didn't know the property for which damages were sought because the 

property was specifically identified in the Petition for Enforcement of Property 

Division and for Contempt and/or Sanctions. 

Page 15 of 19 
III. 

THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS 

DISCRETION WHEN IT A WARDED DAMAGES IN 

FAVOR OF LINNET SUE BASKETT AND 

ATTORNEY'S FEES. 

[In Response to Appellant's Issue 3] 

The Trial Court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Linnet damages 

for the missing property and the property that Billy damaged, destroyed, and defaced. 

Billy argues that Linnet sought and obtained damages for the cost of new items which 

were at least several years old. In reality, Linnet personally researched every item 

listed in the motion for enforcement regarding the property that could be either 

repaired or replaced. She used online research such as Ebay to determine the value 

of items could not be purchased and for the items that could be replaced, she printed 

out information from stores and how to replace the items. Linnet did not seek out the 

most expensive item, but was looking for comparable items. Linnet offered an 87 

page exhibit with the results of her research. Of course, she could not put a value on 

her lifelong photo albums, her keepsakes and her cards. Based upon her extensive 

research regarding the items that were either missing or damaged beyond repair, the 

total cost of repair or replacement was $12,161.14. 

Billy focused on several specific items including the couch and love seat. 

Although the couch was in perfect condition when she was thrown out, the couch had 

Page 16 of 19 
a broken frame and had a hole poked in the side that looked like it was intentionally 

done. In fact, Billy admitted that he broke the frame when he dragging it from the 

garage to the driveway. (RR Vol. 2, page 98, lines 24-25, page 99, lines 1-6). 

Contrary to Billy's argument, Linnet valued the couch and love seat at approximately 

50% of the retail purchase price. (RR Vol. 3, Exhibit 3). 

Billy also focused on the jewelry chest and the jewelry which he asserts that 

he did not take. However, Linnet unequivocally testified that one of the panels on a 

jewelry chest was kicked in and all of her good jewelry was missing including most 

of her hangingjewelry, a Tiffany necklace and bracelet, some gemstone jewelry (such 

as peridot and citrines), some James Avery jewelry, some good jewelry, some 

Brighton jewelry, and her gold and silver. Linnet's personal research supported the 

value placed on the jewelry chest and the missing jewelry. 

Billy also complained about the Haro bicycle. Linnet's Haro bicycle at the 

house was destroyed; it had gashes in it, the chain was mangled and rusty, and all of 

the accessories were broken off. It had recently been reconditioned and serviced and 

in perfect condition when Billy threw her out of the house. Linnet's personal research 

supports the value placed on the bicycle. 

In addition, the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's 

fees. The testimony and evidence offered by Linnet's counsel at trial was sufficient 

Page 17 of 19 
to support the attorney's fee award of $7,500.00. Her counsel testified that she has 

been a practicing lawyer for 24 years, is board certified in family law, and is familiar 

with the reasonable and customary attorney's fees charged in family law matters and 

in pursuing a motion for enforcement. She also testified concerning her hourly rate 

and that the total amount charged was $7,528.15 which did not include charges for 

the time spent that day. Her trial counsel also offered her redacted bills. (RR Vol. 2, 

page 86, lines 14-25, page 87, lines 1-18; RR Vol. 5, Exhibit 9). Linnet pied for and 

properly was awarded attorney's fees. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Linnet Sue Baskett respectfully 

requests that this Court affirm the Order of Enforcement of Property Division signed on May 

11, 2016 and that this Court grant Linnet Sue Baskett such other and further relief as to 

which she may show herself to be justly entitled. 

Respectfully submitted, 

VAUGHT LAW FIRM, P.C. 

5929 Balcones Drive, Suite 201 

Austin, Texas 78731 

(512) 342-9980 

(512) 610-9980 Fax 

By: ls/Jimmy Vaught 

James A. Vaught 

State Bar No. 20526300 

jimmy@vaughtlawfirm.com 

Page 18 of 19 
Leigh de la Reza 

State Bar No. 24037879 

leigh@vaughtlawfirm.com 

Lisa Stewart 

State Bar No. 24029851 

lisa@vaughtlawfirm.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR 

LINNET SUE BASKETT 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

Appellee's Brief has been served upon opposing counsel, Justin M. Jackson, 1460 E. 

Whitestone Blvd., Suite 140, Cedar Park, Texas 78613 via E-Service or via facsimile to: 

(866) 929-2838 on this 21st day ofNovember, 2016. 

ls/Jimmy Vaught 

Jinuny Vaught 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

I hereby certify that this Appellee's Brief contains 3,941 words excluding the 

caption, identity of parties and counsel, statement regarding oral argument, table of 

contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, statement of issues presented, 

statement of jurisdiction, statement of procedural history, signature, proof of service, 

certification, certificate of compliance, and appendix. 

ls/Jimmy Vaught 

Jinuny Vaught 

Page 19 of 19