Case No. 04-15-00271-CV

ROWLAND J. MARTIN IN THE COURT OF1 APPEAL

Appellant

v. FOR THE FOURTH DigTJS^T Z.

en

BEXAR COUNTY, et al. *^

Appellees BEXAR COUNTY, -o ^-

£2 VT"""— JC

APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED MOTION Tpg^5^ is AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLATE gRfiEF <■<:

TO THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS:

NOW COMES Appellant, Rowland J. Martin, Administrator and Heir of the Estate of

King, pursuant to Tex. R. App. Pro 27.1, and files this, his "Appellant's Supplemental Amended

Motion To Abate And For Extension Of Time To File Appellate Brief," in support of which the

following is shown:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant supplements his pending abatement motions to request the Court to take

judicial notice of the filing of final notice of appeal, and to request retroactive grant of

abatement from July 10,2015 until such time as the Court may provide for the filing of an

appellate brief. Supplementation of the record is also requested. Appellant has ascertained that

the dismissal proceeding is final based on the order of June 29, 2015 that came to his attention on

July 17,2015, and is ready, willing and able, to proceed with the filing of his appellate brief.

DISCUSSION

After diligent pre-filing inquiries into docket records in Exhibits and after

receiving new papers that the Probate Court transmitted by postal mail on or about July 21, 2015

in Exhibit D, Appellant now construes the order on June 29, 2015, and the newly transmitted

findings on July 21,2015, as indicative rulings that together clearly and unambiguously establish
the Probate Court's intention to accord finality to the dismissal action taken on June 29, 2015.

Further, the delay in proceeding with regular appeal was not for dilatory reasons, but was in

response to an extraordinary need for diligence in ascertaining the factual foundation for

invoicing appellate jurisdiction by way of regular appeal on April 16, 2015. The breakdown in

communications with the Probate Court reported in Appellant's motion of July 24, 2015

substantiates the reasonableness of the caution that Appellant has attempted to exercise.

The attachments include copies of docket records and orders on June 29, 2015, and July

10, 2015 in Exhibits C, and copies of related documents containing probate court findings

that issued on July 21, 2015 in Exhibit D. In pertinent part, the Probate Court's final dismissal

order on June 29,2015 grants the respondents' motion for nunc pro tune dismissal order in lieu

of the erroneously dated order on March 31, 2015. The July 10, 2015 order granted hearing on

motion for correct die judgment. The findings issued on July 21,2015 operate as final response

to Appellant's notice of late filing of findings of fact and conclusions of law filed on July 10,

2015, and also provides reasonable basis for the presentation of arguments about the nature of

the Probate Court's error in dismissing Appellant's cause of action for declaratory and injunctive

relief. Notwithstanding, reliance on the July 21, 2015 findings of fact for establish the finality of

the order on June 29,2015, Appellant takes special exception to the actions taken on July 21,

2015 for the reason that the breakdown in communication with the Probate Court is more

extensive than originally believed.

Under the fundamental error rule, jurisdictional errors can be raised for the first time on

appeal. In re King's Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951); Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air

Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440,445-46 (Tex. 1993). Applying fundamental error analysis,

Appellant is aggrieved in particular by the fact that the Probate Court transmitted its findings on
July 21, 2015 by way of citation referring to the style of the case as "In the Estate of Rafael G.

Trevino," and with an accompanying order directing Martin to show cause why he should not be

removed as Administrator for the Estate of King, based on supposed representation to the

probate court that no final settlement has been filed. copy of the 2008 heirship settlement that

Appellant represented to the Probate Court at the hearing on March 31, 2015 is attached in

Exhibit E. Appellant infers from the latter the probable cause of the breakdown in

communication lies in the Probate Court's reliance on oral arguments by the counsel for the tax

authorities to ascertain its jurisdiction without regard to evidence of record and the case law

authorities cited in Appellant's pleadings.1

As general rule, "[receiving suit papers or actual notice through procedure not

authorized for service is treated the same as never receiving them." Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d

833, 836 (Tex. 1990). It is unclear here how the requirements for service of proper Estates Code

citation, and for the filing of proper Estates Code return of service, can even plausibly be met

in the current state of the appeal. Firman Leather Goods Corp. v. McDonald Shaw, 217 S.W.

2d 137,140 (Tex. Civ. App. El Paso 1948, no writ) (proper return of service must precede

Appellant questions the reasonable of the Probate Court's finding that representations were made

to suggest that the estate inventory includes one parcel of property as to which there has been no final

settlement. See generally, "Relator's Brief in In re Martin, Case No. 04-13-00370-CV (Tex. App. San

Antonio, 2013) writ denied). In fact, the Probate Court itself expressly confirmed the existence of

settlement when it acknowledged Appellant's capacity to proceed pro se at the hearing on March 31, 2015

with the statement: 'The settlement agreement with the other 50 percent heirs takes away that concern for

me." Vol. RR 8, lines 19-21. See also, Vol. RR (lines 7-16) (Martin: 'There was settlement

agreement that involved mutual exchange of releases between myself, in my capacity as an heir, and

[the estate of) Opal Gilliam.") and p. (line 13) p. (line 23) (Martin: "...[A]s said earlier, there was

an heirship settlement agreement where the other 50 percent interest holder released all claims against my

distribution from the estate."). Appellant is unfamiliar with the source of the Probate Court's belief as of

July 221, 2015 that there is only "I remaining asset" in the estate, as the statement facially neglects to

consider Martin's demands to remove clouds from title to real property of the estate in Case NO. 2015-

CI-4779, and related efforts to wipe the slate clean by litigating the chose in action in Martin v. Bravenec,

et al. Case No. 15-0541 (Tex. S. Ct., filed July 23, 2015). The finding is unsupported in the reporters

record, and apparently neglects to consider evidence of clerk's record of the dismissal proceeding that

was originally administered on March 31. 2015.
divestiture of trial court jurisdiction in order to be effective). Indeed, it is difficult to see how

expectations of fundamental due process can be fulfilled where reviewing judge is acting sua

sponte in prosecutorial capacity based on unnoticed evidence and attestations grounded in

sources known only to the same reviewing judge. Cf., Gonzalez v. State, Case No. 04-14-00222-

CR (Tex. App. San Antonio, July 15, 2015) (due process requires good faith disclosure of

exculpatory evidence in prosecutorial setting).

Reserving detailed explanation of the factual basis for alleging fundamental errors for

the intended appellate brief, it suffices to challenge the process administered in connection with

the Probate Court's findings on July 21, 2015 with respect to (1) lack of personal jurisdiction in

the probate court under Estates Code Section 1051.003(a) (3) which requires citation under the

code to include "the style and number of the proceeding" for the matter under review, (2) lack

of subject matter jurisdiction in the probate court under case law authority guaranteeing

opportunities for self-representation by pro se administrators in Exparte Shaffer, 649 S.W.2d

300 (Tex. 1983), and (3) lack of capacity in the probate court to comply with structural

safeguards in Tex. R. Evid. 605 ("The judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as

witness. No objection need be made in order to preserve the point.")

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

For all the reasons above, the Court of Appeals is respectfully requested to allow the late

filing of an opening appellate brief concurrently with the requested abatement of the appeal

retroactively to July 10, 2015. On one hand, it clearly appears that the Probate Court has spoken

on the issue of the finality and that further proceedings to modify the judgment through the

probate court process would be futile. On the other hand, the known errors from March 31, 2015,

coupled with prima facie errors on June 29,2015, from withholding notice and opportunity to be
»rd, and other prima facie errors on July 21. 20,5. from legally insufficient finding of fact

d.cate that the appeal is ripe for fundamental error review.

WHEREFORE. PREM.SES COHERED. AppeUan, prays tha, the Cour, gran, reiief

aU tags, for .such other relief both in law and in equity as he may be justly entitled.

ted: July 27, 2015 Respectfully Submitted,

Rowland J. MaY

951 Lombrano

San Antonio, Tx 78207

(210)323-3849
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

delivered copy of this, "Appellant's Supplemental Amended Motion To Abate," to

Attorney Conry Davidson via email c/o Bexar Appraisal District, 411 S. Frio, San Antonio,

Texas, 78204 on July 27, 2015.

Dated: July 27,2015

Rowland J. Martin

951 Lombrano

San Antonio, Tx 78207

(210)323-3849
EXHIBIT

A. Probate Court Docket Records from Case No. 2001-PC-1263 referring to orders on June

29,2015 and July 10,2015.

B. Probate Court Order of June 29,2015

C. Probate Court Order of July 10,2015

D. Probate Court Papers and Findings transmitted on July 21,2015

E. Probate Court Heirship Settlement Agreement in Case No. 2001-PC-1263

RUN DATE: Q7/I7/20IS Bixir County Cantrall2«d Docket Systta Pa: IS PGM: WB4900P

RUN TIKE: 15:38:07 JO-: SPPROO

AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

0017* 06/22/2015 2158 7377 1)002

DESC:

ORIGINAL DATE STAMPED COPY OF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

00177 06/22/2015 2ISS «SU 0006

DESC: ANSWER/RESPONSE

RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR REHE

ARINB, ETC.

00179 06/23/2015 2160 3676 0016

DESC: MEMORANDUM

OF POINTS AMD AUTHORITIES OPPOSING

RESPONDENTS* MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

00190 06/23/2015 2160 3672 000«

DESCI OBJECTION

PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS'

PLEADtNG

00180 06/24/2015 2158 9986 0003

DESC: MOTION

FOR ORDER NUNC PRO TUMC

00181 06/24/201S 21SS 9815 0013

DESC: NOTICE

PET1TIONER'S-OF LATE FILING OF FINDING

OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAM AND

PETITIONER'S NOTICE OF ULTRA VIRES

EXCEPTIONS TO ENTRV OF NUNC PRO TUNC

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

001B2 06/26/2015 2159 2269 00IS

DESC:

PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL ORDER ANO HIS

NOTICE OF DEADLINE FOR FILING OF

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

00183 07/02/2015 2159 5798 0008

DESC: MOTION FOR NEM TRIAL

AND FOR CORRECTION OF THE OVERRULING OF

THE MOTION FOR REHEARING DATED APRIL 9,

2015

00191 07/02/2015 2160 3692 0006

DESC: MOTION FOR NEM TRIAL

AND FOR CORRECTION OF THE OVERRULING

OF THE MOTION FOR REHEARING DATED APRIL

9, 2015

00185 07/07/2015 2159 8405 0021

DESC: PETITION

FOR RELIEF

00192 07/07/2015 2160 3700 0006

DESC: MOTION

PETITIONER'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR

CORRECTION OF JUDGMENT N.O.V.

00184 07/08/2015 2159 9869 0020

DESC: SUPPLEMENTAL
RUN DATE: 07/17/2015 B»ar County centralized Docket Systea Pi: 17 PGM: OXB4900P

RUN TIKE: 15:38:07 JCl! SPPR0D

00028 03/30/201S KELLY H. CROSS 2I5S 2007 0002 0.00

DESC: ORDER OF

DEFENDANTS' JOINT NOTION TO DISMISS FOR

JURISDICTION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

DEFENDANTS' JOINT APPL TO DISMISS FOR

LACK OF JURISDICTION

00029 13/30/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2153 3928 0003 0.00

DESC: ORDER

ON DEFENDANTS1 JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS JOINT APP TO DISM

ISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

00030 03/30/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2153 3141 000< 0.00

DESC: ORDER

ON DEFENDANTS JOINT HOT OH TO DISMISS

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OR IN THE ALTER

NATIVE DEFENDANTS JOINT APP TO DISSMISS

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

00031 06/19/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2158 f»2< 0002 0.00

OESC: ORDER

MOTION TO SET

00032 06/29/2015 KELLY H. CROSS 2159 34«2 0002 0.00

CESC: ORDER NUNC PRO TUMC

ON DEPENDENTS' JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, DEFENDANTS' JOINT APPLICATI

ON TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

00033 07/14/2015 KELLY H. CROSS 2160 3648 0002 0.00

DESC: ORDER

ON DEFENDANT'S JOINT MOTION TO APPEAR

TELEPHONECALLY

BOND INFORMATION*

SEQ DATE FILED PRINCIPAL

00001 06/04/2001 ROWLAND MARTIN, JR

AGENT: STEPHEN T. PATE AMOUNT: 5000.00

SURETY: WESTERN SURETY CO

REASON: ADMINISTRATOR FORM: CORP

RELEASE DATE:

CAUSE NO. 2001PC1263

ROWLAND MARTIN, ADMINISTRATOR,

IN THE ESTATE OF

JOHNNIE MAE KING

Decedent

IN THE PROBATE COURT

Petitioner

v.

CRISTINA GONZALEZ AND BRADLEY

BALDERAMAS, ATTORNEYS OF THE

LAW FIRM LINBARGER, GOGGAN,

BLAIR AND SAMPSON

******•**********•***•••*•*•*♦***

ROWLAND MARTIN, ADMINISTRATOR,

Petitioner

BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT

and APPRAISAL REVIEW

BOARD OF BEXAR COUNTY

Respondents

NO.

v.

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

npiwPNUNCPROTUNC

nANTS- IOf"T MOTION TO P^Miy TOR LAO ALTER"ative.DEFENDANTS' IQINT APPLICATION.

PK OF JURISDICTION

TMTM ALTER

TO niSMISS FQP *PK OF JURISDICTION

On March 31.2015 came on to be heard Defendants. Bexar Appraisal District's and Bexar

Appraisal Review Board's Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or in the alternative.

Defendants' Joint Application to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

Counsel of record appeared for the respective parties herein, and after receiving evidence

and hearing argument, the Court FINDS that said Motion/Application should be GRANTED.

IT IS, THEREFORE. ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendants, Bexar

V02 59P3UM2
Appraisal District's and Bexar Appraisal Review Board's Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Jurisdiction or in the alternative, Defendants' Joint Application to Dismiss for Lack of

Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

This is final order. All relief not granted herein is DENIED.

SIGNED, ORDERED, AND ENTERED on

JUD^E PRESIDING

V02 15qP3U43

Page
10
Cause No. 2001-PC-1263

Rowland J. Martin,

Petitioner in His Capacity As

As An Individual And As

Administrator For The Estate of

Johnnie Mae King, Decedent

v.

BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND

BEXAR APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD

Respondents

Rowland J. Martin,

Petitioner in His Capacity As

As An Individual And As

Administrator For The Estate of

Johnnie Mae King, Decedent

v.

CRISTINA GONAZALEZ AND BRADELY

BALDERAMAS, ATTORNEYS FOR THE

LAW FTRM OF LINEBARGER GOGGAN

BLAIR AND SAMPSON,

Respondents

IN THE PROBATE COURT

2015 JUL-2 P.M I,

-*•■• .::;:.hI'y. rf:x

sv.,

NUMBER ONE

FOR BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

MOTION TO SET

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:

Comes Now, Rowland Martin. Administrator for the Estate of King, and Petitioner in the above

styled cause, and files this Motion to Set for hearing on the Petitioners' Motion For New Trial And For

Correction Of The Overruling Of The Motion For Rehearing Dated April 9,2015."

ORDER

The above "Motion For New Trial And For Correction Of The Overruling Of The Motion For

Rehearing Dated April 9,2015" is hereby set for the day of July 2015 at £(ffl o'clock

)in the Bexar County Probate Court #1.

Signed this K) day of July 2015.

HonJKelly Gross"

Be*ar County Probate Court #1
11
NO. 2001-PC-1263

IN THE ESTATE OF RAFAEL G. TREVINO, DECEASED

TO: Rowland J. Martin, Jr., Pro Se

951 Lombrano

San Antonio, Texas 78207

SHOW CAUSE CITATION

THE STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF BEXAR

GREETINGS:

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO BE AND APPEAR before The Honorable

Kelly M. Cross, Judge of Probate Court No. One, at hearing to be held at the Bexar

County Courthouse in Probate Court No. One, located at 100 Dolorosa, Room 123, San

Antonio, Bexar County, Texas on July 30, 2015 A.D., 2015 at 9:15 a.m., then ancl there

to appear and show cause.

copy of the COURT ORDER TO APPEAR AND TO SHOW CAUSE WljW THE

ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED accompanies this citation.

WITNESS Gerard C. Rickhoff, Clerk of the Probate Court No. One of Bexar

County, and seal of Bexar County, at my office in the City of San Antonio, Bexar

County, Texas this oy_ day of July A.D. 2015. Issued same day.

GERARD C. RICKHOFF

Clerk of Probate Court No. One of

Bexar County, Texas
CERTIFICATE

hereby certify that the original of this instrument and copy of the COURT ORDER TO

APPEAR AND TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD NOT BE

REMOVED was mailed by United States Certified United States Mail, Return Receipt

Requested, postage prepaid, to personal representative and the attorney of record for

the personal representative on this c/j\ day of July, 2015.

Rowland J. Martin, Jr., Pro Se

951 Lombrano

San Antonio, Texas 78207

GERARD C. RICKHOFF

Clerk of Probate Court No. One of

Bexar County, Texas
NO. 2001-PC-1263

IN THE ESTATE OF

JOHNNIE MAE KING,

DECEASED

IN THE PROBATE COURT

NUMBER ONE

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

COURT ORDER TO APPEAR AND TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED

On this day, the Court on its own motion, complaining of Rowland J. Martin, Jr.,

failure of the Administrator to conclude the administration of this cause, which has been

pending since 2001 and which Rowland J. Martin, Jr., has represented to the Court that

there is beneficiary and remaining asset in the estate, parcel of land and the

estate is still open.

Texas Estates Code 361.052(6)(A) provides, in pertinent part, that the

Administrator may be removed if:

(6) the representative, as executor or administrator, fails to: (A) make final

settlement by the third anniversary of the date letters testamentary or of

administration are granted, unless that period is extended by the court on

showing of sufficient cause supported by oath;...

The Administrator of this estate, Rowland J. Martin, Jr., has failed to make final

settlement by the third anniversary of the date that letters of administration were issued

in this cause. The Court has determined that the Administrator should now be cited in

accordance with the law to appear and to show cause, if any, he may have as to why he

should not be removed as Administrator in accordance with the provisions of Texas

Estates Code §§ 361.051 and 361.052, and another administrator or receiver appointed

to conclude the administration of this estate.

IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by this Court that

Rowland J. Martin, Jr. shall appear and show cause why he should not be removed as

Administrator and the Clerk of this Court be and is hereby directed to issue citation to

Rowland J. Martin, Jr., as Administrator of the Estate of Johnny Mae King, Deceased,

by certified mail, return receipt requested, requiring the Administrator to appear before

this court in the Bexar County Courthouse in Probate Court No. One, located at |i00

Dolorosa, Room 123, San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas 78205 on July 30, 2015, at

9:15 a.m., then and there to show cause, if any, he may have as to why he should not

be removed as Administrator of the Estate of Johnnie Mae King, Deceased.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by this court that all costs associated herewith be

charged against Rowland J. Martin, Jr., individually.

Signed July 21, 2015.

Kelly M. Cfoss,

Judge Presiding

DEPUTY
12
CAUSE NO. 2001PC1263

IN THE ESTATE OF IN THE PROBATE COURT

JOHNNIE MAE KING, NO.

DECEDENT BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER APPROVING JOINT MOTION TO ENFORCE RULE AGREEMENT

On this day, came on to be heard the Joint Motion of the parties to approve Compromise

Settlement AgreemenL The Court has reviewed the parties1 Motion and finds that it is well taken

and should be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Compromise

Settlement Agreement is approved and entered of record.

Signed this fo^day of C^A*-^*- 2008.

GEPF

JUN 2008
03/07

CAUSE NO. 2001PC1263

IN THE ESTATE OF

JOHNNIE MAE KING,

DECEDENT

JUN 0 6 2008

u£SRYRICKHOFF

ECOUKT1W.1

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

JOINT MOTION TO ENFORCE RULE 11

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT:

NOW COME the parties to the above-styled and numbered cause and jointly move this

Court to approve the Settlement Agreement attached hereto.

Respectfully submitted,

HEARD SMITH, L.L.P.

3737 Broadway, Suite 310

San Antonio, Texas 78209

(210) 820-3737

(210) 820^777 (Faj

By:.

MARK STANTON SMTTH

State Bar No.: 18649100

ATTORNEYS FOR CALVIN GELL1AM

ROWLAND MARTIN, PRO SE

.0809 F85879
CAUSE NO. 200I-PC-1263

IN THE MATTER OF IN PROBATE COURT #1

ESTATE OF JOHNNIE MAE KING IN AND FOR BSXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

RULE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

i. The parties to this setucmenl agreement, Calvin GiUiam sad Rowland Martin, agree to

settle all claims and controversies between mem which are asserted or assetable in the above captioned

case. Ibe parlies believe that the value of the awards, releases and waivers received by each ofthem are

satisfactory as consideration for settlement agreement, and ***** the terms are in the best interest of the

Estate and the puriies.

2. The parties agree to the following awards as considerations for entering into this

A. The parties agree to an award of the following to Calvin Gilliam: (I) Bank ofAmerica

account #03820-11014 with the January 2006 balance of $2,893.28; (2) American

Express account #0004011-3876-6976-002 with an approrinate balance of $14,000.

B. The parties agree to an award of the following to Rowland Mirtin: (1) 951 Lombrano

Street, San Antonio, Tx, (2) 244 Henry Street, San Antonio, Tx; and (3) Washington

Mutual Account #38636612-6 with the February 2006 balance of approximately $.58.

3. The above captioned proceedings shall be resolved by means of the filing of this Rule 11

Settlement Agreement.

4. The parties hereto agree to release, discharge and forever hold the other harmless from

any and all other claims, demands or suits, known or unknown, fixed or contingent, liquidated or

unliquidated (whether or not asserted in this case) arising from or related to the events, transactions and

accounts which are the subject matter of this case, including those involving tbs Conservatorsbp ofKing,

Case 8PP-003988, Los Angeles Superior Court This mutual release nms to the benefit of all attorneys

and agents of the parties. Parties as used in this release includes all named parlies to this case, as well as

Garth Gilliam and Valora Flukers, and all related entities of the parties. Rowlmd Martin additionally

agrees to waive claims for fees for services rendered as administrator in the Estate of King cause 2001-

PC-I263.

5. Each signatory warrants and represents tlrat:

A. he has the authority to bind the parties for whom that signatory sets, and

B. the claims, suits rights and/or interests which are the subject natter hereto an owned by

the party asserting same, have not been assigned (except for attorney's fees), transferred

or sold and are free ofencumbrance otter man property taxes, assessments, and costs

including demolition fees. The parties further agree to indemnify each other in

connections therewith.

C. The parties agree to recognize the standing of Calvin Gilliam as party tote Estate

proceeding for purposes of executing and implementing the terms of this Settlement

Agreement and the Agreed Order and Judgement authorizing it.

FG5880
6. The Motion To Approve Compromise and Settlement Agreement wiih Agreed Order and

Judgement attacbed are the documents the parlies agree to use to efiEectuate die terms of this settlement

agreement The parties agree to cooperate with such clerical revisions to those documents as are

reasonably required to implement the terms and spirit of this agreement

7. This agreement is made and pcrfonnablc in the county in which (he Estate was opened

and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State ofTexas.

8. As other terms ofsettlcment, the parties agree to bear all of their own attorney's fees.

9. Each signatory to this settlement has entered into same freely and without duress after

having consulted with professionals of his choice.

10. This agreement is not subject to revocation.

Signed this_£^5*y of«6^a8ft».

CalvmXHIhaM' Rowland Martin

TO 0809 PS5881