Court Opinion

ID: 4068728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-30 00:06:42.693595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:32:50.418061
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                               14-14-00860-CV
                                                               FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                            HOUSTON, TEXAS
                                                                         6/22/2015 11:03:57 PM
                         14-1400860-CV                                   CHRISTOPHER PRINE
                                                                                        CLERK

                      No.14-11-00977-CV
      _________________________________________________
                                                            FILED IN
                                                     14th COURT OF APPEALS
                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS                HOUSTON, TEXAS
               FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT           6/22/2015 11:03:57 PM
                                                     CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
                      HOUSTON, TEXAS                          Clerk
     __________________________________________________

    DEBRA JENNINGS, ESQ. AND DEBRA JENNINGS, P.L.L.C.
                        Appellant

                                V.

                       AMERICAN ASSET

                           Appellee
_____________________________________________________________

       On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. Four

             Harris County, Texas; Cause No. 1030758
_____________________________________________________________
                         RESPONSE TO

                     MOTION TO DISMISS
_____________________________________________________________

             LAW OFFICE OF DEBRA V. JENNINGS
                       Debra V. Jennings
                    lawyerdvj@yahoo.com
                   State Bar No. 10631850
                      6140 HWY 6, # 269
                  Missouri City, Texas 77459
                  Telephone: (832) 230-4455
                  Facsimile: (1832) 442-3700
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

   NOW COMES Appellant, Debra Jennings, and submits this response in opposition to

Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss and in support will show:

1. THE MOTION TO DISMISS FAILS BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE PROPER FORM
   A. THE MOTION DOES NOT CONTAIN A CERTIFICATE               OF CONFERENCE AS REQUIRED BY
      TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

       Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a)(5) states that a motion filed “must” contain:

       (5) in civil cases, except for motions for rehearing and en banc reconsideration, contain
       or be accompanied by a certificate stating that the filing party conferred, or made a
       reasonable attempt to confer, with all other parties about the merits of the motion and
       whether those parties oppose the motion.

Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a)(5) (emphasis added). A close examination of the motion to dismiss

(Exhibit “A”) reveals that it contains no such certificate.   The motion should be denied and

appellee should, at a minimum be required to re-file the motion with a correct certificate of

conference.

   B. THE MOTION DOES NOT ATTACH EXHIBITS OR AFFIDAVITS AS STATED IN THE MOTION.

       Appellees motion to dismiss (a significant and dispositive request) reads in its entirety as

follows:
See MOTION TO DISMISS (Exhibit “A). As one can see, there is no substantive argument and only

three (3) conclusory headings. The final sentence of the Motion to Dismiss reads: “Appellee will

rely on the attached Brief and Affidavit with Exhibits.” Id.

       Unfortunately, there is no attached brief, no attached affidavit, and no attached exhibits.

By its own definition, the motion is deficient, because there is nothing attached to “rely” upon.

The motion should be denied and appellee should, at a minimum be required to re-file the motion

with the correct brief and affidavits.

2. THE MOTION FAILS BECAUSE IT SEEKS RELIEF IDENTICAL TO THAT
   SOUGHT IN APELLEE’S RESPONSIVE BRIEF ON THE MERITS.

       Attached hereto as Exhibit B is “Appellee’s Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Appeal” which was filed six (6) days before the “Motion to Dismiss.” Although it appears to be

a brief in support of the instant motion, it is not. It cannot be. It was filed 6 days before the

motion to dismiss and on the day that the Appellee’s Brief was due. It was not accompanied by

any motion. See APPELLEE’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL (Exhibit “B”);

see also, ORDER SETTING JUNE 12 BRIEF DEADLINE (Exhibit “C”).            The June 12, filing is

Appellee’s brief on the merits. Not only was it filed on June 12, it was not accompanied by a

motion. Moreover, the undersigned was informed today by the Court of Appeals deputy clerk

that the June 12 filing has been lodged as “Appellee’s Brief” and that the undersigned should

treat it as such and file a reply brief before the expiration of 20 days from June 12th. See

AFFIDAVIT OF DEBRA JENNINGS REGARDING CLERK CONFERENCE (Exhibit “D). The online case

information page also confirms this by showing the June 12 filing under the heading of “Briefs,”

and not “Case Events”. See 14TH COURT OF APPEALS ONLINE CASE INFORMATION PAGE (Exhibit

“E”). Most importantly, this Court issued an order on June 12, acknowledging that “Appellee’s
Brief” had been filed on that day and that the Reply Brief was due 20 days from June 12. See

ORDER ON REPLY DATE (Exhibit “F”).

       A close examination of “Appellee’s Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Appeal”

shows that it makes (albeit with more complete discussion) the same exact arguments that are in

the instant “motion.” Compare APPELLEE’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

(Exhibit “B”) with MOTION TO DISMISS (Exhibit “A).

       Because the “motion” requests a complete disposition of the Appeal (dismissal) a full

panel of judges will be required to rule on it. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.4 (“…in a civil case, a

single justice should not do the following: … (2) dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a

motion for rehearing.”). Thus, it would be a waste of judicial resources to empanel 3 justices

only to determine that the motion lacks proper form and exhibits, when the better drafted request

on the same grounds has already been filed as a brief on the merits and is awaiting a reply brief

and a 3 justice panel. Because the same arguments have been filed as a brief on the merits,

denial of the instant motion on technical grounds will not prejudice Appellee.         The same

arguments will be heard when the court convenes on the merits. The motion should be denied

as duplicative.

3. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER APPELLANT TO RE-FILE HER BRIEF TO
   AVOID SUBSTANTIAL PROCEDURAL CONFUSION.

   A. THE CLERKS RECORD IS INCOMPLETE.

       Attached as Exhibit “G” are pages 36 and 37 of the Clerk’s Record filed in this case. As

one can see, the affidavit beginning on page 36 is cut off and incomplete. CLERK’S RECORD

SELECTED PAGES (Exhibit “G”).         The actual affidavit has another page.      See COMPLETE

AFFIDAVIT (Exhibit “H”). This affidavit is one a crucial exhibit to appellant’s brief that did not

make it into the Clerk’s Record. The undersigned has requested by letter that the Clerk below
supplement the record to include the complete affidavit and a number of other critical

documents. See LETTER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTATION OF CLERK’S RECORD (Exhibit “I”).

    B. THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF IS IN NEED OF REVISION

          Admittedly, Appellant’s Brief was not well written. It was prepared in the midst of

intense settlement negotiations and proceedings in the lower court. It needs to be amended and

supplemented. The undersigned takes full responsibility. Appellant has asked by way motion

for an extension for time in which to file her Reply Brief. In doing so appellant intends to

supplement or amend the originally filed brief.             See MOTION     FOR   EXTENSION    TO   FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF (Exhibit “J”). The rules allow such supplementation. Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 38.7 states that “A brief may be amended or supplemented whenever

justice requires, on whatever reasonable terms the court may prescribe.”         See Tex. R. App. P.

38.7.     Rule 38.9 suggests that such corrections should be allowed and the case should only be

dismissed for briefing defects on the filing of a second defective brief:

          38.9. Briefing Rules to be Construed Liberally
          Because briefs are meant to acquaint the court with the issues in a case and to present
          argument that will enable the court to decide the case, substantial compliance with this
          rule is sufficient, subject to the following.
          (a) Formal Defects. If the court determines that this rule has been flagrantly violated, it
          may require a brief to be amended, supplemented, or redrawn. If another brief that does
          not comply with this rule is filed, the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party
          from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief.
          (b) Substantive Defects. If the court determines, either before or after submission, that the
          case has not been properly presented in the briefs, or that the law and authorities have not
          been properly cited in the briefs, the court may postpone submission, require additional
          briefing, and make any other order necessary for a satisfactory submission of the case.

Tex. R. App. P. 38.9 (emphasis added). A second chance is the rule. In Berardinelli v. Pickels,

05-12-01390-CV, 2014 WL 6560029 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 23, 2014, no pet.) the Court

stated:
       Berardinelli was given the opportunity to file an amended brief. However, the
       amended brief fails to comply with the briefing requirements set out in Texas Rule of
       Appellate Procedure 38.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(g), (i); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895–
       96. Accordingly, this Court is authorized to dismiss Berardinelli's appeal. See Tex. R.
       App. P. 42.3; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895–96.

Id. at *3 (citing Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2010, no pet.)) (emphasis added).

       Here, if the court were simply to direct the parties to start over, supplementing the record,

and re-filing the briefs in proper form, the confusing process of amending and supplementing in

the reply brief could be avoided.

   C. A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING PROCEDURAL MOTIONS ARE ON FILE

       Currently, a number of outstanding motions clutter the non-brief docket of this case.

Appellants have filed a motion to compel production of exhibits.         See MOTION    TO   COMPEL

EXHIBITS (Exhibit “K”). A ruling on such motion would be unnecessary if the Court were to

order appellant to file a properly conforming Appellant’s Brief.

       Appellee has filed a motion requesting a second extension for filing of its appellee’s

brief. See SECOND MOTION FOR APPELLEE BRIEF EXTENSION (Exhibit “L”). The very existence

of such motion suggests that appellees did not intend to file the “Brief in Support of Motion to

Dismiss” as its brief on the merits. An examination of the brief shows that it does not argue the

merits, but only the technical defects. See APPELLEE’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

APPEAL (Exhibit “B”). A ruling on the second extension motion would be unnecessary if the

Court were to order appellant to file a properly conforming Appellant’s Brief.

       As discuss previously, the appellant filed a motion for extension to file its reply brief.

See MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF (Exhibit “J”). Filing a reply
brief to correct errors in the original brief is a confusing way to correct such errors. The better

way would be to order appellant to file a properly conforming Appellant’s Brief.

       Appellant has filed a motion for an extension of time to file this very response and was

confused as to its due date. MOTION FOR TIME ON DISMISSAL RESPONSE (Exhibit “M”). See also

AFFIDAVIT   OF   DEBRA JENNINGS REGARDING CLERK CONFERENCE (Exhibit “D). All of these

concerns are obviated if this Court were to order Appellant to file a properly conforming

Appellant’s Brief, restarting the schedule.

   D. A RE-FILED APPELLANT’S BRIEF WOULD RESOLVE THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES.

       As contemplated by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court is vested with the

inherent power to “…postpone submission, require additional briefing, and make any other

order necessary for a satisfactory submission of the case.” Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(b) (emphasis

added). As implied by the Rules of Appellate Procedure, it is not proper to dismiss the appeal

for the defects which are argued in the motion to dismiss. Rather, the Court should order a re-

filing of appellant’s brief and, per Berardinelli, supra, only dismiss the case if a second defective

brief is filed. Moreover, to order the re-filing of the appellant’s brief, will obviate this Court’s

wasting resources. It will not have to issue rulings on the confusing morass of motions currently

before the Court.
       WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, APPELLANT PRAYS that this Court (1)

deny Appellees’ motion to dismiss; (2) order appellant to re-file its opening brief within 30 days

of the date of the Court’s order to re-file; and (3) deny all pending motions or place such motions

in abeyance pending the re-filing of appellant’s brief.

                                              Respectfully submitted,

                                              /s/ Debra V. Jennings
                                              ___________________________
                                              Debra V. Jennings
                                              lawyerdvj@yahoo.com
                                              State Bar No. 10631850
                                              6140 HWY 6, # 269
                                              Missouri City, Texas 77459
                                              Telephone (832) 230-4455
                                              Facsimile: (1832) 442-3700
                                              Attorney for Appellant

                                              Of Counsel (legal writing and research only)
                                              Stuart Starry
                                              State Bar No. 19079050
                                              35 Ruebens Road
                                              Sandia Park, NM 87947

                                  CERTICATE OF SERVICE

       This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to Motion to

Dismiss was served on June 22, 2015, to the following counsel of record:

Andrew Totz
State Bar No. 24004958
Totz Ellison & Totz, P.C.
2211 Norfolk, Suite 510
Houston, Texas 77098
Phone: 713-275-0305
Fax: 713-275-0306
EXHIBIT A
                                                                                                             ACCEPTED
                                                                                                         14-14-00860-CV
                                                                                         FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                                      HOUSTON, TEXAS
                                                                                                   6/18/2015 11:28:22 AM
                                                                                                   CHRISTOPHER PRINE
                                                                                                                  CLERK

                                          NO. 14-14-00860-CV

                                                                                        FILED IN
                                                                                 14th COURT OF APPEALS
                                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS                        HOUSTON, TEXAS
                                  FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS                   6/18/2015 11:28:22 AM
                                        AT HOUSTON, TEXAS                        CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
                                                                                          Clerk

                   DEBRA V. JENNINGS, ESQ. and DEBRA V. JENNINGS, P.L.L.C.
                                                 Appellant

                                                   v.

                                  AMERICAN ASSET FINANCE, L.L.C.
                                                   Appellee

                             ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT
                           LA W NO. FOUR OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
                                 TRIAL CAUSE NO. 1030758-401

                                        MOTION TO DISMISS

        Appellee, American Asset Finance, L.L.C., files this motion to dismiss

and in support says as follows:

1.     This appeal is untimely. The foreign Judgment at issue on this appeal became final when filed in
Texas on April 22, 2013. Appellant had 30 days from that date to contest the Judgment and failed to do
so.

2.      The appeal of the trial court's Order Appointing Receiver dated September 17,2014, is also
untimely. Appellant had 20 days from the date of this Order to appeal and failed to do so.

3.      This appeal should be dismissed because it is unsupported by any record .evidence.

        WHEREFORE, Appellee requests that the court dismiss this appeal. Appellee will rely on the

attached Brief and Affidavit with Exhibits.
                                            Respectfully submitted,

                                            TOT~OTZ. P.C.

                                     By:
                                            ANDREW B. TOTZ
                                            TBA # 24004958
                                            2211 Norfolk, Suite 510
                                            Houston, Texas 77098
                                            Phone: 713-275-0305
                                            Fax: 713-275-0306
                                            Email: atotz@tetiegal.com

                                            ATTORNEYS FQR APPELLEE

                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above Motion to Dismiss with
 supporting brief and Affidavit with Exhibits was served on Appellants' through its
 counsel, via facsimile on the Ji!31ay of June, 2015, as follows:

Via Facsimile No. 1-8321442-3700
Debra V. Jennings
Debra V. Jennings, P.L.L.C.
14090 Southwest Freeway, Suite 300
Sugar Land, TX 77478

                                                         ~-..,            -
                                                    ANDREW B. TOTZ
EXHIBIT B
                                                                           ACCEPTED
                                                                       14-14-00860-CV
                                                       FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                    HOUSTON, TEXAS
                                                                  6/12/2015 3:08:13 PM
                                                                 CHRISTOPHER PRINE
                                                                                CLERK

                    NO. 14-14-00860-CV

                                                      FILED IN
               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS         14th COURT OF APPEALS
                                                  HOUSTON, TEXAS
             FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                  AT HOUSTON, TEXAS            6/12/2015 3:08:13 PM
                                               CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
                                                        Clerk

     DEBRA JENNINGS ESQ. AND DEBRA JENNINGS, P.L.L.C
                              Appellant
                           v.
             AMERICAN ASSET FINANCE, L.L.C.
                              Appellee

          ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT
         LAW NO. FOUR OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
          TRIAL CAUSE NO.I030758 and 1030758-401

APPELLEE'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

                                ANDREW B. TOTZ
                                TOTZ ELLISON & TOTZ, P.c.
                                SBOT #24004958
                                2211 Norfolk, Suite 510
                                Houston, TX 77098
                                Phone: 713/275-0305
                                Fax: 713/275-0306

                                ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE,
                                AMERICAN ASSET FINANCE, L.L.c.
                      IDENTITY OF PARTIES & COUNSEL

Appellee, American Asset Finance, LLC, represented by
Andrew B. Totz
Totz Ellison & Totz, P.C.
Texas Bar No. 24004958
2211 Norfolk, Suite 510
Houston, TX 77098
Phone: 713/275-0305
Fax: 713/275-0306

Appellant, Debra Jennings, Esq. and Debra Jennings, P.L.L.C., represented by
Debra V. Jennings
Texas Bar No. 10631850
6140 HWY 6, #269
Missouri City, Texas 77459
Phone: 832/230-4455
Fax: 1-832/442-3700
TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Appeal is Untimely.
                                       NO. 14-14-00860-CV

                DEBRA JENNINGS, ESQ AND DEBRA JENNINGS, P.L.L.C.

                                           Appellants

                                                v.

                            AMERICAN ASSET FINANCE, L.L.C.

                                           Appellee

     APPELLEE'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

       Appellee, American Asset Finance, L.L.c., submits its Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.

The appellee will be referred to as Appellee. Appellants, Debra Jennings, Esq. and Debra

Jennings, P.L.L.C., will be referred to as Appellant. Because Appellee has not been provided

with the record on appeal, it relies on the Affidavits of a Managing Member of Appellee and

counsel and the attached exhibits.

              STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

       The Notice of Appeal in this matter was filed on October 16, 2014. The appeal seeks to

collaterally attack a Final Judgment that was initially entered in New Jersey on May 25,2012.

(Exhibit 1 to Affidavit of Timothy J. Foley, Esq.). The appeal further seeks to reverse the Texas

trial court's Order Appointing a Receiver dated September 17,2014. The appeal is untimely on

both issues and should be dismissed.
       Appellants first sought to vacate the Judgment in New Jersey three years after it was

entered. The New Jersey court denied Appellants' application by Order dated April 13, 2015,

stating among other things that the motion was "untimely." (Exhibit 2 to Affidavit of Timothy J.

Foley, Esq.).

       On April 22, 2013, the New Jersey Judgment was filed with the Harris County Court in

accordance with the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), Tex.Civ.Prac.&

Rem.Code Sec. 35.001-35.008 under Case No. 1030758. (Exhibit 3 to Affidavit of Timothy J.

Foley, Esq.). On that date, the Judgment became a Final Judgment in Texas. Appellants, a

lawyer and her law firm, had 30 days from that date to contest the Judgment. They did not.

Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed as untimely.

       Once the Judgment became final in Texas, the Court closed that case. A new case was

opened for post-judgment proceedings, Case No.1 030758-401. (Exhibit 1 to Affidavit of

Andrew Totz, Esq.) After motions, hearings, discovery attempts and general obfuscation by

Appellants, a Receiver was appointed by Order dated September 17,2014. (Exhibit 1 to

Affidavit of Andrew Totz, Esq.) Appellants had 20 days to appeal that Order but failed to do so.

Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed as untimely.

       Appellants' Brief in support of their appeal lacks any citations to the record. The

Appellate Rules require that any facts are to be supported by citations to the record. Likewise,

any arguments are to be supported by record references. Appellants' Brief is unsubstantiated

inadmissible hearsay and their appeal should be dismissed.
                                SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

       The New Jersey Final Judgment against Appellants became enforceable as a Texas

judgment on the date it was filed. Walnut Equipment Leasing Company, Inc. v. Wen Lung Wu

et aI., 920 S.W.2d 285 (1996). That date was April 22, 2013. Appellants had 30 days from that

date to file a motion to contest the judgment or appeal. Malone v. Emmert Indus. Corp., 858
S.W.2d 547 (14th Dist Ct. of Appeals, Houston 1993). Tex. R. App. P. 26.l(a). Appellants failed to

do so. This appeal was filed on October 16,2014, a year and a halflate. The appeal should be

dismissed.

        Any objections regarding technical defects in the filing of the judgment have been

waived because they were not timely made. Carter v. Cline, Case No. 03-10-00855 (3d

Dist.Ct.App. October 13,2011) citing, Tanner v. McCaTthy, 274 S.W.3d 311,316 (Tex.App.-

Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) and Tri-Steel Structures, Inc. v. Hackman, 883 S.W.2d 391,

395 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, writ denied).

       On September 17,2014, the court below entered an Order appointing a Receiver. That

Order was to be appealed within 20 days of entry. Sclafani v. Sclafani, 870 S.W.2d 608 (1 st

Dist.Ct. App., Houston 1993). Appellant's appeal was not so filed and should be dismissed.

       Finally, Appellants, an attorney and her law firm, have failed to include any record

references in support of their factual and legal arguments in violation of this Court's rules.

Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed. Berardinelli v. Pickels, Case No. 05-12-01390 (5 th
Dist.Ct.App. October 23,2014) citing, Bolling v. Fanners Branch Independent School District,

315 S.W.3d 893,896-7 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.).

                              ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

                                   1. The Appeal is Untimely.

         a. The New Jersey Judgment became final when it was filed in Texas.

        In Walnut Equipment Leasing Company, Inc. v. Wen Lung Wu et al., 920 S.W.2d 285

(1996), the Texas Supreme Court made clear that when a foreign judgment is filed in accordance

with the UEFJA, it becomes "enforceable as a Texas judgment on the date it was filed." Id. at

. In the case at bar, that date was April 22, 2013. Once the foreign judgment was filed, the

burden shifted to appellant to prove the judgment was not valid or final. Mitchim v. Mitchim,

518 S.W.2d 362,364 (Tex. 1975)("foreignjudgment that appears valid and final makes prima

facie case for party seeking to enforce it, and burden is on resisting party to prove judgment is

not valid or final").

         b. Appellant had 30 days from the filing of the foreign judgment to contest its
            enforceability or to file an appeal.

        When the appellant has not filed in the trial court a timely motion for new trial, motion to

modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law,

the notice of appeal must generally be filed within thirty days after the judgment or other

appealable order is signed. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Without a timely filed notice of appeal, the

appellate Court lacks jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b); In re E.M.A., No. 05-11-00596-

CV, 2011 WL 3672297, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Aug. 23, 2011, no pet. h.) (per

curiam) (mem. op.).). See also, Malone v. Emmert Indus. Corp., 858 S.W.2d 547 (14th Dist Ct.
of Appeals, Houston 1993) (Motion to contest enforcement of a final judgment must be made

within 30 days of filing or court loses plenary jurisdiction.) Appellant at bar filed none of the

motions that would lengthen their time to appeal. Accordingly, they had 30 days from the date

the judgment was filed to appeal and failed to do so. This Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to

hear this appeal.

        c. Appellant has waived any objections to an alleged technical defect in the filing
           of the judgment because she did not timely challenge the alleged procedural
           defect.

       Appellant claims for the first time on appeal that the Affidavit of the Judgment creditor

filed on April 22, 2013, did not contain the creditor's address. Appellant, an attorney, does not

support this claim with any record evidence. Rather, Appellant makes reference to an exhibit

that she failed to file with the Court or serve on Appellee. Aside from being procedurally

deficient, Appellant's argument is also substantively deficient. Because Appellant did not raise

that issue in the trial court, timely or otherwise, it is deemed waived. Carter v. Cline, Case No.

03-10-00855 (3d Dist.Ct.App. October 13,2011) (technical defect of failure to file attorney

affidavit with authenticated judgment was waived when not timely made) citing, Tanner v.

McCarthy, 274 S.W.3d 311,316(Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (failure to file

Affidavit not a jurisdictional defect) and Tri-Steel Structures, Inc. v. Hackman, 883 S.W.2d 391,

395 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, writ denied)(failure to effectuate notice to debtor was technical

violation ofUEFJA that did not prejudice debtor where debtor had opportunity to assert defenses

by timely-filed motion.). Appellant could have contested the alleged defect by a timely-filed

motion but chose not to. Accordingly, her untimely objection is waived.
        d. Appellant has failed to appeal the Order Appointing Receiver within 20 days as
           req uired by law.

       Appellant attempts to appeal an order dated September 17, 2014, wherein the trial court

appointed a Receiver. It is well settled, however, that an appeal from an Order appointing a

Receiver must be filed within 20 days of the Order. Sclafani v. Sclafani, 870 S.W.2d 608 (1 sl

Dist.Ct. App., Houston 1993) See also, CPRC 51.014 (1)(allowing interlocutory appeal of order

appointing receiver); TRAP 28.1 (a) (interlocutory appeals when allowed by statute are treated as

accelerated appeals); TRAP 28.1 (b)( accelerated appeal to be filed in accordance with 26.1(b));

and TRAP 26.1 (b )(providing notice of appeal to be filed 20 days after order is signed).

Appellant's Notice of Appeal was filed on October 16,2014, more than 20 days after the Order

was signed and the appeal, therefore, is untimely and should be dismissed.

       2.      The Appeal is Unsupported by Record References and Should be Dismissed.

       Appellant does not make one reference to the record in her entire Brief. Rather, she cites

sporadically to two exhibits which she curiously labels Exhibit #1 and Exhibit #3. Even more

curious, Appellant fails to provide these exhibits either to the court or to the Appellee. The

Rules of Appellate Procedure are clear that factual statements and legal arguments must be

supported by references to the record. TRAP 38.1(g) and 38.1(i). The Brief is also supposed to

contain an Appendix (TRAP 38.1 (k)), which Appellant's Brieflacks. The result is a Brief based

on inadmissible hearsay, unsupported by any facts in the record or otherwise. In similar

circumstances, the appellate court has dismissed the appeal. Berardinelli v. Pickels, Case No.
05-12-01390 (5 th Dist.Ct.App. October 23,2014) citing, Bolling v. Farmers Branch Independent

School District , 315 S.W.3d 893, 896-7 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.).

       In Berardinelli and Bolling, the appellate court brought the defects in briefing to the

attention of the pro se plaintiffs and they failed to cure those defects. Here, Appellant is an

attorney and a law firm and even though they are appearing pro se, they should know better.

They should not be given a second bite of the apple and the appeal should be dismissed because

of these glaring omissions.

                                               PRAYER

       The Appellee prays that its Motion to Dismiss is granted.

                                               Respectfully submitted,

                                               TOTZ ELLISON & TOTZ, P.c.

                                               By: _ _     V----'---_ _
                                                    ANDREW B. TOTZ
                                                    SBOT #24004958
                                                    2211 Norfolk, Suite 510
                                                    Houston, TX 77098
                                                    Phone: 713/275-0305
                                                    Fax: 713/275-0306

                                               ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE,
                                               AMERICAN ASSET FINANCE, L.L.C.
                                   Certificate of Compliance

       I hereby certify that this Motion was typed in Microsoft Word and contains 2045 words

in this brief is less than 14,000 words and therefore it complies with Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure.

                                                     ANDREW B. TOTZ

                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I certify that a copy of the Appellee's Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss along

with the Affidavits in support of the Motion were served on Appellant Debra V. Jennings (Debra

Jennings, P.L.L.C.), whose address is 6140 HWY 6, #269, Missouri City, Texas, 77459, whose

fax number is 1-832/442-3700, by facsimile on June 12,2015.

                                                             v.
                                                                  ANDREW B. TOTZ

                      CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TRAP RULE 10.1(5)
                                     NO. 14-14-00860-CV

DEBRA V. JENNINGS ESQ. AND                  §         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
DEBRA V. JENNINGS, P.L.L.C.,                §         FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
     Appellants,                            §         AT HOUSTON, TEXAS
                                            §
V.                                          §
                                            §         ON APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT
                                            §         AT LAW NO.4 OF HARRIS COUNTY,
AMERICAN ASSET FINANCE, LLC,                §         TEXAS, TRIAL CAUSE NO. 1030758
    Appellee.                               §         AND 1030758-401
                                            §

                           AFFIDA VIT OF TIMOTHY J. FOLEY

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY                      }
                                             }
COUNTY OF PASSAIC                            }

       BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Timothy 1.

Foley, who, being by me duly sworn, on oath stated:

1.     I am the Managing Member of American Asset Finance, LLC, Appellee in this cause. I

have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this affidavit. They are true and correct. I am

authorized to make this Affidavit on behalf of American Asset Finance, LLC.

2.     American Asset Finance, LLC, owns a Final Judgment against Debra V. Jennings, Esq.

and Debra V. Jennings, P.L.L.c., Debtors/Appellants. The Final Judgment was initially entered

on May 25,2012, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County. (Exhibit

1.)

3.     On or about February 20, 2015, Appellants moved in the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Passaic County, to vacate the Final Judgment. By Order dated April 13, 2015, the

court denied Appellants' motion to vacate as, among other things, untimely. (Exhibit 2.)
4.      The Final Judgment was domesticated in County Court at Law No.4 of Harris County,

Texas, on April 22, 2013. (Exhibit 3.) The judgment is valid and subsisting, and a supersedeas

bond has not been approved and filed to suspend execution of the judgment.

                                                    Timothy J. Foley

     SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me on        _-,~:..£.--.,~/----,9,-"__:, 2015.

                                                    Sh ry L. Foley, E q.
                                                    A torney-at-Law
                                                    State of New Jersey
                                                    Authorized to Administer Oaths
                                                    Pursuant to NJ.S.A. §§ 41:2-1 & 46:14-6.1
EXHIBIT 1
                                                                                                                                 ,
                                                                                                 F I ~, E·D                  1A~ .
      FOLEY & FOLEY                                                                                 MAY 2· ~ '20\2 .              ;r1l::l
      23 Deerbrook Lane
      West Milford, NJ 07480                                                                   GARRY 8. ROTHSTAQT, J,S,e.   .._.,- ~ '"
      Pl10ne (973) 304-6003
      Counsel for Plaintiff
        ANmrucAN ASSET FINANCE, LLC,
                                                                         J-I '-15013-12(':)
                                                                    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                             Plaintiff.                             LAW DIVISION: PASSAIC COUNTY

       .v.                                                          DOCKET NO. PAS-L-704-12

       DEBRA V. JENNINGS, ESQ, and DEBRA                                                      CIVlL ACTION
       V.JENNINGS, P.L,L.C.,
                           Dejelldams.                                       ORDEn OF FINAL JUDGMENT
                                                                                   pYDEFAULT .

               THIS MATTER being opened to the Court by plaintiff American Asset Finance, lle

\»    (AAF), by and through its counsel. Foley & Foley, f01' entry of a final judgment iri favor of AA.F
~
~     and against defendants Debra V. Jennings, Esq. and Debra V. Jennings, P.L.L.. C., on notice to
~~

-.
~.'   said defen dants, and default having been entered as against said defendants on April 26, 2012,

      and it appearing from the papers and evidence presented that plaintiff is entitled to such rolief,

      and for good cause shown, it is 011 the      ,,2.s. .~ay
                                                           . of ~                                      ,2012,

               ORDERED, that judgment Is hereby entered in favol' of American Asset Finance, LLC

      and against defenpants Debra V. Jennings, Esq. andbebra V. Jennings, P.L.L.C.,j9intly and

      severally, in the amount of $29,029.95, with post-judgment interest at the prevailing rate from
                              ~\tft! ffltlnfJe.lI ff,j !7mnm def~r.
".
~=j
                                                                                               IN mE COUNTY COURT OF
4,                L.L.C.,
  ,
0n                                                                                             AT LAW NO. FOUR (4)
'J
2                 VS.
6

                  DEBRA V• .IENNINGs. ESQ. AND                                                 HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
                  DEBRA V. JENNINGS, P.L.L.C. ,;:;,,',,;:;,[i,1:;, ,

                                                        7f"                          :<::
                            BEFORE ME, the undeF~Ig\l,edi~thority personally appeared Debra
                                                         to;!                       ,',_:::'
                  Jennings, known to me to be t4~ perso!,\,: whose name is subscnbed in the

                  foregoing instrument      and, acknole'd$~~me that she executed ~e same.                                        I

                  am of sound mind and over th~,,~:y,fc~18
                                             ,"'.'
                                                           years old. I have never been
                                                                        '",'    ,-,',",",'

                                                              -~-

                  convicted of a felony and I am ~Uy competent to testify. 1 have personal
                                                                --'<~

                  knowledge of the facts stated in ~~il~~it and the facts stated herein are

                  true and correct.

                      On or about August 5, 2014,                   a2R~!l!ed
                                                                        '!:::::~);:~';<>-;-;>--
                                                                                                   in court on a hearing. regarding
                  an Application for Turnover and                 t9~.!ll~4~pointroent, of a Rec~iver. (See•
                                                                        . '?:,~:/'~;:~-~;--:;";'          "
2
o
I
                                                                                              i
               on September 16, 2014.
                                 ,
                                      (See, Exhibit #2, page 16,HearinglI transcript). I
4
';                                                                                            I
               appeared in court, opposing counsel was not present, nor wruj the judge or
                                                                                              !
                                                                                              r
               any witness in the court. No hearing took place, no witness was present, no
                                                                                              I
               evidence offered in my case. The court coordinator advised m1 that nothing
                                                                                              I

o            , was on scheduled. I left the court. The court hearing schedule ~oes not have
o          c/~fP'
               ,
         ;li~~~;;~~~~n its docket for September 16, 2014 or any other day
                                                                          !

            "'i~e~~r~",hMY property consists of personal property and a '[chicle which
                                                                                             t
               \;q;~~~:;';;r /~~~~~' '-,<-:" - .                         I
               is all ex~ptpr9~.. 1 do not own any non·exempt property.
                                 '1 ; ,"~                           lI
                    Days latet, I learneditlie court signed orders Appointing a Receiver and
                                   '_;:::,,;~~rv ;;~:,,:~;;?il:~t>_,      -. .!
               turnover, affecting m1'i;i~~ withoutciHt~ recessed hearing of S~ptember 16,
                                                 ':j~:>,             ""i""I"                  !
               2014 ever being conducted. (See;.~: # 2 ~ing transcript)                           i

                The documents attached                       here~:ei~~d~t
                                                                 copies      originals      o~the
              which were made on or about the tiihel;",ireflected thereij:! and were
              maintained in the ordinary course of my busfu~s. '        , !i
                                                                                        , •""t ,
                     The statements contained herein are within my p~naJ'~~edge
                 d bel' f d          and correct.
                                              ' c : , ' "'Wi'i)'1
               an     Ie an are true                         ' I i i ' , , ! ' t¥)' jil
                     Further, Affiant sayeth not.                                             T11;;j~"';;;""~I'~b