-
ACCEPTED 04-14-00569-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 2/5/2015 7:19:52 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK 04 -14 -00569- CV FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS 3Jn ~be C!Court 446 S.W.3d 41
(Tex.App.-Waco 2014) ................................................. 15 Avco Corp., Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div. ofAvco Corp. v. Interstate Southwest, Ltd.,
251 S.W.3d 632, 662 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th] 2007, pet. denied) ............... 23 Avila v. St. Luke's Lutheran Hosp.,
948 S.W.2d 841, 858 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. denied) ......... ... ........ 12 Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist.,
925 S.W.2d 618, 629 (Tex. 1996) ........................................................ .11 Baxter v. Palmigiano,
425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976) ............................................................ 5, 19 Beaumont Bank, NA. v. Buller,
806 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991). ............ ..................... ... ............... 12,13 Bragg v. Edwards Aquifer Auth.,
71 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Tex. 2002) .......................................................... 11 Brown v. Bank of Galveston,
963 S.W.2d 511, 513 (Tex.1998) .......................................................... 15 Cent. Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Islas,
228 S.W.3d 649, 651 (Tex.2007) ........................................................ .16 City ofHouston v. Williams,
353 S.W.3d 128, 133 (Tex. 2011). ............ ... ....... ........... ... ....... ............ 14 City ofKeller v. Wilson,
168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex.2005) ......................................................... 16 EX Parte S.d., 07-13-00168-cv (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1-15-2015) ......... ... ............... ... ........ 11 F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez,
237 S.W.3d 680, 683 (Tex. 2007) ... ... .................. ... ....... ........ ... ........... 11 lX Gee v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,
765 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex. 1989)~ ....................................................... 26 Goldstein v. Comm 'n for Lawyer Discipline,
109 S.W.3d 810(Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, pet. denied) ....... .................. ........ 12 Helena Chemical Company v. Wilkins,
47 S.W.3d 486(Tex. 2001) ... ... .......... ........ ... .......... ........ ... .......... ..... 20 Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine,
835 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex. 1992) .......................................................... 20 John Masek Corp. v. Davis,
848 S.W.2d 170, 173 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied) ......................................................................... 16 Johnson Savage v. Fehrenkamp, 03-05-00060-cv (Tex.App.-Austin 4-2-2009) ......................................... 23 JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Professional Pharmacy II, 02-11-00373- CV (Tex.App.-Ft. Worth 12-31-2014) ................................ 20 LowvHenry,
221 S.W.3d 609, 617 (Tex.2007) ........................................................ 11 McCraw v. Maris,
828 S.W.2d 756(Tex. 1992) ............................................................. 26 Nath V Texas Children's Hospital And Baylor College OfMedicine, 12-0620 (Tex. 8-29-2014) ............... ... .......... ........ ... ....... ........... ... ..... 11 Oscar Luis Lopez v. Madel. of Texas,
200 S.W.3d 854(Tex.App.-Dallas 2006) ..................... ... ....... .............. .... 25 Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore,
439 U.S. 322, 813 331 (1979) ............................................................. 12 x Powers v. M. L., 14-09-00814-cv (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 10-26-2010) ............... . .. ... 22 Saf Nat'l Cas. v. State, 01-07-00123-cv (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 4-17-2008) .......................... 10 Scurlock Oil Co. v. Smithwick,
724 S.W.2d 1(Tex. 1986) ................................................. , .... 10,12,13,15 Smalley v. Smalley, 14-13-00717-cv (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 6-12-2014) ........................ 14 State v. Shumate,
199 S.W.3d 279, 284 (Tex. 2006) ... . .. .................. . ......... . ....... . ........... . 11 Szczepanik v. First S. Trust Co.,
883 S.W.2d 648, 649 (Tex. 1994) ...................................................... 20 Tanner v. Nationunde Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,
289 S.W.3d 828, 830 (Tex.2009) .................. . .. .......... . ....... . .. ............. 16 Tex. Dep 't ofPub. Safety v. Petta,
44 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tex. 2001) ... .. .......... . .. ....... . .......... . .. ....... . ...... . ... 14 Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Teletron Energy Mgmt., Inc.,
877 S.W.2d 276, 279 (Tex. 1994) ... . .............................. . ....... . .. .......... 20 Texas TrunkR. Co. v. Jackson 22 S.W. 1030(Tex.1893) ................................................................. 20 Yarbrough's Dirt
Pit, 65 S.W.3d at 216... . .. .................. . .. ....... . ............. 12 STATUTES AND RULES TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §10.001(2) ...... . .. .......... . ....... . .. .... 11,12 TEX. CIV, PRAC. & REM CODE ANN§ 10:1004(d) ......... . .. ......................
11 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 41.004(a) (West 2008) ....................... 23 Xl TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN.§ 312.002, .003 (West 2013) ...... ... ... ... .. .. ... ...... 11 TEX.R.APP.P. 8l(b)(l) ...... ............................................................. 26 TEX.R. Civ. P. 194.2 ...................................................................... 24 TEX.R. Civ. P. 301 ........................................................................ 15 Restatement (Second) ofJudgments § 13 ............ ... .......... ........ ... .......... 10 Xll STATEMENT OF CASE Nature the case this is an appeal arising a jury trial with a judgment in favor of Appellee. 3CR 185. Course ofproceeding. On November 4, 2013 Supp.A 1 CRl Helvetia Asset Recovery Inc. ("Helvetia") filed the lawsuit giving rise to this appeal claiming Puerto Verde Ltd. was owner of the shares of Helvetia Supp.A 1 CRl and Burton Kahn, ("Kahn") breached his fiduciary duty. 1 CR5. On December 9 2014 to December 11, 2013 the temporary injunction hearing was conducted and the temporary injunction order was signed on December 18, 2014 Supp.A 1 CR108. On March 3 and 4, 2014 a hearing was held for a Motion for Sanctions. Appellee' s First Motion For Sanctions Supp.B 2CR121. On April 1, 2014, Judge Tanner signed a Final Judgment and Order of Sanctions against Kahn and his attorney George, and found that Puerto Verde owned the stock in Helvetia., Supp.A 3CR 229. Judge Tanner stated that ownership of Helvetia was "a subject of a different type different of motion that is before me right now." Supp.B 2RR20 On May 12, 2014 Jury trial started and on June 11, 2014 Final Judgment signed by Judge Mery in favor of Appellee. 3R185. Disposition Of The Case, Kahn filed his notice of appeal on August 7, 2014. 4CR 444. X111 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION Appellant appeals final judgment of June 11, 2014. There is no dispute regarding the Fourth Court of Appeals have appellate jurisdiction over this matter . .STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Appellant does not believe that oral argument is necessary as the arguments in brief hopefully will convince the Court to reverse the Judgment. XlV RECORD REFERENCES The Reporter's Record will be cited as follows: [Vol.] RR [page] Reporter's Record on October 3, 2014 Supp. A [Vol.] RR [page] Reporter's Record on January 14, 2014 Supp.A Excerpts [Vol.] RR [page] Reporter's Record on January 14, 2014 EXHIBITS Supp.A EXH 1[page] Supp. B [Vol.] RR [page] Reporter's Record Case Number 202 CI 18394 Appeal Number 04-14-00357 CV on May 23, 2013 EXHIBITS Supp.B lEXH [page] The Clerk's Record will be cited as follows: [Vol.] BCR [page] Clerks submission on October 3, 2014 Supp. A [Vol.] ACR [page] Clerks submission on January 14, 2014 Supp. B [Vol.] CCR [page] Clerks submission Case Number 202 CI 183 94 Appeal Number 04-14-00357 CV on May 23, 2013 Supp. C [Vol.] DCR [page] Clerks submission on --------December 5,, 2014 Supp. D [Vol.] ECR [page] Clerks submission on February 4, 2015 xv ISSUES PRESENTED ISSUE 1: The court abused its discretion by allowing Collateral Estoppel from the Final Judgment and Sanction Order determining the ownership of the shares. Issue 2: The court abused its discretion by denying appellant's JNOV because the jury's answers were not based on the evidence presented. Issue 3: The Court abused its discretion by not allowing any appellant's witnesses to give testimony due to lack of detail in disclosure filed 6 days before trial. Issue 4: The court abused its discretion by striking Defendants' First Amended Original Answer To Plaintiffs First Amended Original Petition And Application For Permanent Injunction Relief, Afiinnative Defenses, Verified Denials, Third Party Claims, And Motion To Show Authority. Issue 5. The court abused its discretion by sustaining Appellee' s Motion To Exclude Evidence Or Alternatively Motion In Limine. iv XVl STATEMENTOF FACTS BACKGROUND Burton Kahn ("Kahn") ("Appellant") and John Ripley founded the Joabert Development Company ("Joabert") in 2006, to develop and sell housing lots in Northeast San Antonio. Appellant did all the work and John supplied the funds. Supp.A EX lRR 7. Agreement was that John Ripley was to supply the funds and the Appellant to do all of the day-to-day were which included purchasing of the property, bookkeeping and control of the funds, engineering design subdivision, coordination with government officials for approval and constructing the infrastructure and roadway according to the approved plans. Appellant never got any compensation for the eight years that he worked and never took a salary. Supp.A 4RR44, Supp.A 3RR 114 John Ripley sold two shopping centers and the money went to a 1031 tax evasion exchange company in California and then the Exchange Company returned the funds (less commissions) to a Construction Corporation that Kahn owned 100%, in which Kahn spent the money working on the Joabert project. Supp.A 4RR 115 1 John Ripley had another development named Key Largo, but it had of Lis Pendens on it and could not be used for funding. Supp.A 2RR 33 Kahn contacted an attorney Terry George ("George"), who did the paperwork for foreclosure and formed Texas Corporation named Helvetia. Supp.A 5RR4 John Ripley owed Falcon International Bank for a construction loan on Key Largo. Supp.A lRR 33 A Bahamian Corporation Maple Bush Holding Ltd ("Maple Bush") paid off the note Falcon International Bank and then foreclosed on Key Largo. Supp.A 1RR34 Robert Ripley, brother of John Ripley testified he owned Maple Bush Supp.A 2RR86 but his name is not on any of documents of Maple Bush Ltd, . Supp.A 2RR103._ is a foreign Corporation not registered with the Secretary of State. Supp.A 2RR 86 Key Largo, the foreclosed property was sold to a newly formed holding corporation named Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc. ("Helvetia"). 2RR88. 2 Funds were earmarked to be used to develop a subdivision known as Royal Crest (Joabert Property) in North east San Antonio Texas .. Supp.A 1CR3, Supp.A 3RR 80. Helvetia was a conduit to accumulate funds for Joabert. In Helvetia's original petition funds were earmarked to go to Joabert.. Supp.A lCR 3 The first phase of Joabert subdivision was within one month of completion, the partnership ended and lawsuits began (August 26, 2013). Supp.A 3RR38 CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP Robert Ripley, John's brother was not an owner of Joabert.. Supp.A 3RR97 wanted to take the Helvetia property for himself. On September 5, 2013 Robert Ripley sent Kahn an e-mail stating. Puerto Verde Ltd. a Bahamian Corporation not registered with the Secretary of State . Supp.A 3RR 86 was taking over. Kahn realized that the shares of Helvetia had never been purchased and on September 7, 2013 Kahn paid to Helvetia $1000 for the shares Supp.A lEXH 346-348 On September 16, 2013 John Ripley and Robert Ripley went to Randolph Brooks Federal Credit Union and took approximately 50 pages of documents 3 showing that they own the shares in Helvetia Supp.A 3RR 81. The Bank did not give them access. On October 23, 2013, Puerto Verde Ltd. a Bahamian Corporation, claimed to be a 100% stockholder of Helvetia filed a lawsuit 2013-CI-17516, Supp.A lEXH 309-355 in the style of"Action on Fraudulent Lien on Property." Robert Ripley swore that the documents in this suit were true, showing proof that Puerto Verde Ltd. is the owner of Helvetia. The documents presented Minutes Of The Organizational Meeting Of The Board Of Directors Of Helvetia Asset Recovery Inc. For A For-Profit Corporation dated August 17, 2007. ("Original Minutes"). Supp.A lEXH 329-334. Note on the top of each page there is a signature space for the custodian of records signed by Kenneth Moore ("Moore") the president designated in the original minutes. Moore testified at the injunction hearing that he was not the custodian of records Supp.A 4RR137 and only signed documents once at closing on December 6, 2007 Supp.A 4RR 144 "Yes. That was the only one time I did." Supp.A 4RR144 A stock certificate shows on page Supp.A lEXH 335 that Kenneth Moore's signed the document three times but only positive of the lower 2. Supp.A 4RR151 but on upper right Moore stated that's not my signature Supp.A 4RR141-142 Moore later was not sure Supp.A 4RR150-151 Moore also testified that he did not issue any stock nor did collect 4 Moore also testified that he did not issue any stock nor did collect any money. Supp.A 4RR136 The stock certificate was not the form with the Original Minutes. Robert Ripley testified that he made one up on Pagemaker program and faxed the form to his brother John Supp.A 4RR30. There are no fax identifications on the certificate. The stock certificate stated that the Corporation's name was Puerto Verde Inc. not Puerto Verde Ltd. The original motion in Case number 2013- CI - 18 394 Supp.B 1CRl describes the above conflicts before the injunction hearing proved the allegations were correct. Appellee was able to have Kahn's attorney a Jay Peterson sign a Rule 11 Agreement without Kahn's approval and eliminate the finding of Case 2013-CI- 183 94 for no apparent reason and waiving a jury trial. Kahn fired Peterson and complaining that Peterson was either bribed or coerced. Supp.A 4RR83 There was no statement or affidavit contradicting that accusation. This failure gives rise to an inference that the evidence is unfavorable to Appellee, Baxter v. Palmigiano,425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). One of the compensations that Peterson got was a finding in Final Judgment And Order Of Sanction "42. Helvetia has not sought sanctions against the associate attorney, Mr. Petterson. Although Mr. Petterson signed the offending pleading, Mr. Petterson attempted to rectify the error within 5 ten days by entering into the Rule 11 Agreement." Supp. B 3CR 249 Peterson was not named in the sanction motion or order. Judge Pozza stated that the Rule 11 was unenforceable Supp.A Excerpts 1RR102 however she signed the set aside of case 2013-CI-18394 without any discussion or reason. Judge Tanner Notes at the sanction hearing sanctioned Kahn for the attempted withdrawal of the Rule 11 Agreement. Supp.A 2CR22 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 9 WRING INSTRUCTIONS On August 21, 2007 the Title Company sent Kahn an email wiring instructions for the $1.2 million money trail exchange. Supp.B lEXH 30 Robert Ripley took this document and crossed out sender and in his own handwriting that stated "Please transfer 1.2 million USD to my escrow agent as outlined in these instructions. The funds will be used to capitalize a Texas holding (-hold) co. and in return Puerto Verde will receive 1000 shares. " This document was not given to anybody. Robert Ripley testified that Scott Morrison ("Morrison") was the trust officer for the Bahamian bank Supp.A 2RR 14 and Morrison asked about ownership on October 22, 2013. Supp.A lEXH 39 and Robert Ripley didn't know of it when he asked Kahn in Email dated February 18, 2014 Supp.A 1EXH61. These instructions were never sent to Morrison but Morrison sent the transfer funds. Supp. A 1EXH 36 6 Robert Ripley testified that the funds for the transfer came from the Ripley family trust. Supp.A 2RR 12 Robert Ripley also testified that the funds for the transfer a computer company. Supp.A 3RR 33 There are no Bank records of this transfer and there are no records of the title company that this document was in existence and was given or received. Robert Ripley testified that he owns both Puerto Verde Ltd and Maple Bush are not registered Texas 2RR86 Robert Ripley does not have the original stock certificate . Supp.A 3RR 88 nor the receipt from the Title Company nor the minutes of the original meeting, that he claimed in his affidavits of case 2013-CI-17516 and testimony previously cited above. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 39 ORGANIZTION KIT In order to get the minutes timing and to correct the Inc. or Ltd. suffixes,, Appellee submitted to the court Exhibit 39 Supp.A lEXH 381, which he called a kit. Supp.A 2RR36-37Appellee claimed that was provided by Mr. Terry George. Supp.A 2RR37 George testified that he never provided any copies to anyone but Burt Kahn. Supp.A 5RR31 George testified that Exhibit 39 was not his work. Supp.A 5RR32 Exhibit 39 was comprised of transmittal and instruction letter, Supp.A lEXH 384, By laws Supp.A lEXH 391 and the initial meeting minutes of August 8, 2,007. Supp.A lEXH 418 The transmittal does not have any information on who has sent it nor a signature but it does state to review and call if 7 there are any changes. Supp.A lEXH 384, The bylaws and initial minutes has George's signature on dated August 8, 2007 as if these documents are final. George testified that the signatures looked like his but the documents were not the documents George gave to Kahn. Supp.A 5RR31 The shares to be issued to Puerto Verde, Inc. 1000. is written in pencil . Supp.A lEXH 420 Also per August 8, 2007 minutes state that George resigned as Director on August 8, 2007. Robert testified that he received Exhibit 3 9 by courier in Canada but does not have any envelope that it came in. Supp.A 3RR25 Ripley testified that this Exhibit 3 9 was specially flown in to San Antonio from Canada for the injunction hearing. Supp.A 2RR39 The bylaws state in pencil the offices to be 6751 Walzem which is different from the minutes of August 17, 2007 which has George' s address. Supp.A EX 1RR231. Attorney George in his last words stated "39 0 I'm starting to wonder about- about some criminal activity myself' Supp.A 5RR 32 On December 9 2014 to December 11, 2013 the temporary injunction hearing was conducted and the temporary injunction order was signed on December 18, 2014 Supp.A 1 CRl 08. The order stated that a trial on the merits is to be held on May 12, 2014. 1 CRll 7. On March 3 and 4, 2014 a hearing was held for a Motion for Sanctions. Appellee' s First Motion For Sanctions. Supp.B 2 CR121 On April 1, 2014, Judge Tanner signed a Final 8 Judgment and Order of Sanctions against Kahn and his attorney George Supp.B 3CR 229. Appellee added in findings that the ownership Puerto Verde Ltd. even though Judge Tanner stated that ownership of Helvetia was "a subject of a different type of motion that is before me right now." Supp.B 2RR20 Judge Pozza Ordered trial on the merits of the lawsuit is set for May 12, 2014. Supp.A 1CR189 On May 12, 2014 Jury trial started and on June 11, 2014 Final Judgment signed by Judge Mery 4 CR185. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The trial court abused its discretion by allowing collateral estoppel from a sanction order that was being appealed de novo and prevented Appellant to present a defense and having a fair trial. The judgment for Appellee without any evidence from Appellee. Thus the trial should be reversed and remanded for a new trial. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ISSUEl THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND SANCTION ORDER DETERMINING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SHARES OF HELVETIA. The Appellee claimed in 2CR 263. Plaintiff Motion To Exclude Evidence For Alternative The Motion In Limine, that the Final Judgment And 9 Sanction Order determined the ownership of the shares of Helvetia. Items 3,6,7,41 on 2CR266, 267,268 and 278 respectively. In the Supplemental Amended Temporary Injunction Order dated December 18, 2013 Judge Pozza ordered a trial on the merits of the lawsuit is set forth May 12, 2014. Supp.A 1 CRll 7 In Scurlock Oil Co. v. Smithwick,724 S.W.2d I(Tex. 1986) states: Therefore, we now adopt the rule of the Restatement (Second) ofJudgments § 13, and hold that a judgment is final for the purposes of issue and claim preclusion "despite the taking of an appeal unless what is called an appeal actually consists of a trial de novo." We overrule Texas Trunk R. Co. v. Jackson and its progeny. The sanction Order is on appeal and there are several issues that by law require a review consisting of a trial de novo: A.STATUTE REPRESENTNE PARTY Appellant claims that a party cannot be charged monetary sanction under TEX. CIV, PRAC. & REM CODE ANN§ 10:1004(d) \\hen the party is representative by counsel. This is a legal issue and is to be reviewed de novo. In Saf Nat'l Cas. v. State, 01-07-00123-cv (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 4- 17-2008) states: 10 This case requires us to construe the meaning of a statute. Because statutory interpretation is a question of law, we employ a de novo standard of review. Bragg v. Edwards Aquifer Auth.,
71 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Tex. 2002). If the language of a statute is not ambiguous, we must give effect to the plain meaning of its words unless doing so would lead to absurd results. See Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist.,
925 S.W.2d 618, 629 (Tex. 1996) InEX Parte S.d., 07-13-00168-cv (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1-15-2015) states: When construing statutes, we use a de novo standard of review, and our primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature's intent. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 312.005 (West 2005). See F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez,
237 S.W.3d 680, 683 (Tex. 2007). To discern that intent, we begin with the statute's words. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 312.002, .003 (West 2013). See State v. Shumate,
199 S.W.3d 279, 284 (Tex. 2006). In NATH v. TEXAS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AND BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, 12-0620 (Tex. 8-29-2014) states: "However, Chapter 10 provides that a claim that lacks a legal or factual basis - without more - is sanctionable. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE§ 10.001 ~see also
Low, 221 S.W.3d at 617. Legally, the claim must be warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument to change existing law. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 10.001 (2). But Chapter 10 expressly prohibits monetary sanctions against a represented party based on the legal contentions in a pleading.
Id. § 10.004(d)("The court 11 may not award monetary sanctions again' st a represented party for a violation of Section 10.001(2). "). Accordingly, the trial court could not have properly awarded sanctions against Nath for groundless legal contentions in his tortuous interference claim." In Goldstein v. Comm'nfor Lawyer Discipline,109 S.W.3d 810(Tex.App.- Dallas 2003, pet. denied) stated: "A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to allow a plaintiff to use collateral estoppel offensively. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore,
439 U.S. 322, 813 331 (1979); see also Scurlock Oil Co. v. Smithwick,
724 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tex. 1986) (citing Parklane Hosiery with approval). A trial court abuses its discretion only when its action is arbitrary and unreasonable,without reference to guiding rules or principles. Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller,
806 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991). In determining whether to apply collateral estoppel offensively, the trial court must consider the Parklane Hosiery factors. See ParklaneHosiery
Co., 439 U.S. at 329-30; Yarbrough's Dirt
Pit, 65 S.W.3d at 216.The first factor is whether application of the doctrine will tend to increase litigation by allowing a plaintiff to "wait and see" before filing suit instead of joining in the prior litigation. See Parklane
Hosiery, 439 U.S. at 329-330; see also Avila v. St. Luke's Lutheran Hosp.,
948 S.W.2d 841, 858 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. denied). Second, the offensive use of collateral estoppel may be unfair under the circumstances of a particular case. Under this factor, we consider the defendant's incentive in the first action to vigorously defend the suit, or the foreseeability of future suits, and the availability of 12 procedural safeguards in the second suit that were not available in the first suit. A trial court abuses its discretion only when its action is arbitrary and unreasonable, without reference to guiding rules or principles. Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller,
806 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991). In Plaintiffs first amended motion for sanctions , Plaintiff states that George is also a representative party. Supp.B 2 CR1359 The trial court acted unreasonable and without reference to guiding rules or principles when it did not consider that the statute that monetary sanction under TEX. CIV, PRAC. & REM CODE ANN § 10 :1004(d) \Wen the party is representative by counsel is a legal issue and is to be reviewed de novo by Appellate court and that collateral estoppel is should not allowed under In Scurlock Oil
Co, supra. B. SURJECTMATTERJURISDICTION In the order of April 1, 2014 there are claims that Appellee owns the shares of Helvetia in the dialog of the Order. These notations are the basis of Appellee' s claim of ownership. During the sanction hearing(" SH") on March 3-4, 2014,, Kahn requested a ruling on the foreign corporation issue but did not get one. Kahn also stated" the issue in this particular case is who owns the stock along the company" . The court replied, "well that's a subject of a different type of motion that is before me right now is certainly a welcome to urge that to some court when 13 you file a proper motion." Thus the court declared that the ownership of the stock was not in her subject matter jurisdiction. Supp.B 2RR20 In Smalley v. Smalley, 14-13-00717-cv (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 6-12-2014) stated: 'Whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo. City ofHouston v. Williams,353 S.W.3d 128, 133 (Tex. 2011). The trial court acted unreasonable and without reference to guiding rules or principles when it did not consider that subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that is reviewed de novo . C. FULLY LITIGATED The Sanction trial Judge Tanner declared that the issue of ownership was not in her jurisdiction and did not litigate the ownership issue. Therefore collateral estoppel cannot be allowed based on Final Judgment And Sanction Order because facts sought to be litigated ( Ownership of the shares of Helvetia) were NOT were fully and fairly litigated in the Sanction hearing as required by Tex. Dep't ofPub. Safety v. Petta,
44 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tex. 2001). The trial judge allowance of collateral estoppel without fully litigated on the issue of ownership of the shares of Helvetia was arbitrary and unreasonable, without reference to guiding rules or principles. 14 CONCLUSION OF ISSUE 1 The findings found in the Final Judgment And Sanction Order dated April 1, 2014 should not allowed to be collateral estoppel based on Scurlock Oil Co. v.
Smithwick, supraand statutes. Based on the above this Honorable. Court of Appeals should reverse judgment of June 11, 2014 and remand for new jury trial. ISSUE 2 THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING APPELLANT'S JNOV BECAUSE THE JURY'S ANSWERS WERE NOT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED. The court should grant a motion for new trial because the jury's answers are not based on the evidence presented. Testimony was from Appellant Burton Kahn~ representing Appellee was Mary Guzman, Adam Smith, builder-contractor who purchased lots from Helvetia~ and Amanda Tidmore a title person who guarantee title for the sales purchase of the lots at Helvetia. In American Alternative Ins. Corp. v. Davis,
446 S.W.3d 41(Tex.App.- Waco 2014) states: A trial court may disregard a jury's verdict and render a JNOV ifthere is no evidence to support the jury's findings or if a directed verdict would have been proper. Brown v. Bank of Galveston,
963 S.W.2d 511, 513 (Tex.1998)~ see TEX.R. Civ. P. 301. We review the trial 15 court's ruling on a motion for JNOV under a legal sufficiency standard. See Tanner v. Nationunde Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,
289 S.W.3d 828, 830 (Tex.2009). We "credit evidence favoring the jury verdict if reasonable jurors could, and disregard contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not." Cent. Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Islas,
228 S.W.3d 649, 651 (Tex.2007). We must uphold the jury's finding if more than a scintilla of competent evidence supports it.
Tanner, 289 S.W.3d at 830. "The final test for legal sufficiency must always be whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair- minded people to reach the verdict under review." City of Keller v. Wilson,
168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex.2005). A JNOV should be granted: (1) when the evidence is conclusive, and one party is entitled to recover as a matter of law; or (2) when a legal principle precludes recovery. John Masek Corp. v. Davis,
848 S.W.2d 170, 173 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied). QUESTION2 The Jury did not have evidence in regards to misappropriations of assets and lost profits as described in Final Judgment. 3CR 185 MISAPPROPRIATIONS OF ASSETS Misappropriations of assets $721 ,166.00.This comprised of $340,000.00 that Kahn had used to transfer funds. 2RR 15. There is testimony by Kahn that these funds are in this registry of the Court. 2RR 110, 2RR 111. There were questions on the amount that was in the registry of the Court and it appeared confusing. It is the 16 culmination of the funds so that nothing was stolen. Powers says that the funds went to the registry 4RR 142. There is no document, or motion or order claiming that the funds that were placed in the registry of the court were not adequate. There was no evidence showing that the $340,000 did not go into the registry of the court. The court did not want the amount placed in the registry of the court to go to the jury 4RR 143 so that the only evidence is that the $340,000 went to the registry of the court. Therefore these funds are not in the possession of Kahn and cannot be construed to be misappropriated. The reality is that the funds were distributed as per 3CR 41, 82 Loans to share holders $380,166.00 shown on income tax form were funds sent to Joabert and used on the Royal Crest property. This information was forbidden to get to the jury because of the Final Judgment And Sanction Order (collateral estoppel ) There is no evidence that the funds went to Kahn, nor is there any evidence that an actual loan was made to Kahn except the notation on the income tax. The jury was instructed under definitions that Puerto Verde Ltd. was the sole shareholder of Helvetia since 2007. 3CR193 This instruction has more weight than the notation on the income tax without any verification and should be considered that Puerto Verde Ltd is the shareholder and debtor. There is no evidence that Burton Kahn made that loan. There were no loan documents papers nor was there 17 any indication of when this loan occurred. The complete bank records of Kahn and all other corporations that Kahn controlled should show if Kahn received any loan distribution. APPENDIX-EXHIBIT C. The representative of Helvetia, Ms. Guzman did not present any evidence as to a loan. Ms. Guzman did not complain that there was any misappropriations of any funds. Ms. Guzman, the only representative officer of Helvetia only testified by reading what Robert Ripley said and submitting Exhibit 9 the Robert Ripley handwritten note to Robert Ripley on title companies e-mail. We only heard from how Werner Powers the attorney (non- witness) for Helvetia in his closing arguments that it was Kahn misappropriated funds. 4RR 142. There is no evidence of any loan documents. There is no evidence that these funds went to Kahn. No evidence of what happened in 2013? No evidence that the loan paid? Kahn was prohibited from testifying anything about the Royal Crest Project or Joabert. The reality theory that Joabert was the financier and the funds distributed to Joabert was the stockholder loan stated on the income tax statement. Appellee prevented Chris Kohn ("Kohn")the accountant, who authored the income tax statement from testifying. Appellee did not call Kohn. The inference that no information is given regarding the loan information shows that Appellee was hiding something. This refusal or avoidance is tantamount to a taking a fifth 18 amendment exemption in a criminal case. This is a civil case. The Constitution permits a trier of fact to draw such adverse inferences against a party in a civil suit. Baxter v. Palmigiano,425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). There is no evidence showing that Kahn got funds from this loan. LOST PROFITS Mary Ripley Guzman ("Guzman"), the representative of Helvetia did not produce any sales records and any lost sales. There is no evidence showing that there were any lost profits. The testimony of Adam Smith ("Smith") the Builder claimed that he had lost two sales in the period since the dispute. Smith stated he had sold 20 lots in this period, and usually loses I 0% of the sales 4RR 222 . (2 lost house sales) Thus there were no lost sales and no lost profits. Adam Smith did not provide any documentation to show that there were any lost profits. The calculation and non testimony of attorney powers showing lost profits by using Amanda Tidmore ("Tidmore"), the title closer is not competent evidence. Tidmore claimed that she did not close on 5 transactions 4RR208. She did not specify what type of transactions nor did she know the lot numbers or whether those lots were sold to somebody else. Tidmore did not purchase any lots. Tidmore only works for an insurance company, who insures title. The person who would know, if there were lost sales of lots would 19 be Guzman, the representative of Helvetia. Since the dispute to the trial to June 1, 2014 in reality there were 36 homes sold in this. And last year same period there were only 14 so there was no lost profits whatsoever with an additional $525,000 =/- income to Helvetia. 3CR 91-394 (Sales per Bexar County Clerk) In Helena Chemical Company v. Wilkins,47 S.W.3d 486(Tex. 2001) states: Recovery for lost profits does not require that the loss be susceptible to exact calculation. Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Teletron Energy Mgmt., Inc.,
877 S.W.2d 276, 279 (Tex. 1994). However, the injured party must do more than show that it suffered some lost profits. Teletron Energy Mgmt.,
Inc., 877 S.W.2d at 279. The loss amount must be shown by competent evidence with reasonable certainty. Szczepanik v. First S. Trust Co.,
883 S.W.2d 648, 649 (Tex. 1994); Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine,
835 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex. 1992). This is a fact-intensive determination.
Heine, 835 S.W.2d at 84. At a minimum, opinions or lost-profit estimates must be based on objective facts, figures, or data from which the lost- profits amount may be ascertained.
Szczepanik, 883 S.W.2d at 649;
Heine, 835 S.W.2d at 84. In a recent case JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Professional Pharmacy II, 02-11-00373- CV (Tex.App.-Ft. Worth 12-31-2014) reiterates the same facts. Appellee did not provide any facts and documentation as per described in Helena Chemical Company v.
Wilkins, supraTherefore there is no evidence of lost profits. 20 QUESTION 5. The Jury did not have evidence in regards to Kahn held for Helvetia. Misappropriations of assets $721 ,166.00. see Response Question 2 QUESTION?. The Jury did not have evidence that any damages were caused by Kahn's slander of Helvetia's title. There is no evidence of any lost profits by testimony of Guzman or Smith. In fact an increase of over $525, 000 income. Helvetia did not suffer any damages any lost profits and continued normal operations. There is no evidence showing that there was any lost profits. The testimony of Adam Smith the Builder claimed that he had lost two sales in the period since the dispute. Adam Smith stated he had sold 20 lots in this period, and usually loses I 0% of the sales that are not culminated. (2 lost lots sales) Thus there were no lost sales and no lost profits. Adam Smith did not provide any documentation to show that there was any lost profits. The calculation and non testimony of attorney powers showing a was profits by using Amanda Tidmore, the title closer is not competent evidence. 21 QUESTION9 The Jury did not have evidence for damages that Kahn's filing of a fraudulent court record. Helvetia did not suffer any damages any lost profits and continued normal operations. There is no evidence showing that there was any lost profits. The testimony of Adam Smith the Builder claimed that he had lost two sales in the period since the dispute. Adam Smith stated he had sold 20 lots in this period, and usually loses I 0% of the sales that are not culminated. (2 lost lots sales) Thus there were no lost sales and no lost profits. Adam Smith did not provide any documentation to show that there was any lost profits. The calculation and non testimony of attorney powers showing a was profits by using Amanda Tidmore, the title closer is not compete you evidence. The is no evidence for damages that Kahn's filing of a fraudulent court record. QUESTION 11 The Jury did not have evidence for exemplary damages due to the fact there were no actual damages that Kahn has caused per Questions 2, 5, 7, &9. In Powers v. M. L., 14-09-00814-cv (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 10-26-2010) states: 22 Section 41.004(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code precludes exemplary damages when no actual damages are awarded. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 41.004(a) (West 2008)~ see Avco Corp., Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div. ofAvco Corp. v. Interstate Southwest, Ltd.,
251 S.W.3d 632, 662 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th] 2007, pet. denied) (citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 41.004(a)) ("Exemplary damages are not available unless the plaintiff establishes that it sustained actual loss or injury as the result of an underlying tort."). Accordingly, we sustain appellant's first issue.[fn2] QUESTION 14 There being no actual damages, attorney fees are not applicable. In Johnson Savage v. Fehrenkamp, 03-05-00060-cv (Tex.App.-Austin 4-2-2009) states: Precision Tune asserts that the attorneys' fee award was improper because there was no finding of the actual damages required to support such an award. We agree. Therefore the attorney fees are not allowed. CONCLUSION OF ISSUE 2 This Appellate Court should reverse the trial court's judgment of June 11, 2014 and remand this case to the trial court for a new jury trial on the merits and not allow Collateral Estoppel from the Final Judgment and Sanction Order determining the ownership of the shares of Helvetia, because trial he court abused 23 its discretion by denying appellant's JNOV because the jury's answers were not based on the evidence presented. ISSUE 3 THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY NOT ALLOWING ANY APPELLANT'S WITNESSES TO GIVE TESTIMONY DUE TO LACK OF DETAIL IN DISCLOSURE FILED 6 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL. Appellee filed a motion to exclude witnesses on May 6, 2014 2CR 230 complaining that disclosing over fifty new witness on the eve of trial and giving nothing but a telephone number is trial by ambush. This is another LIE by Appellee state to the court because Appellant filed this same list in January, 2014,and again in March 31, 2014. Each witness as a brief description (mainly their title of who they are and from that title a connection to the project is shown. Appellee had ample time to complain but chose to ambush Appellant. Tex. Civ. P. 194 .2 ( e) the name address telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts and a brief statement of each identified person connection to the case with the case. The trial court ruled that the description was insufficient. 5 RR 87 The court abused its discretion by not allowing Appellant time to respond to Appellee's claim of no knowledge which was another LIE. The witness Tracy Plumber, Court Reporter was discussed in Defendants Demand To Return Original Documents. The only original document was 24 allowed by request because of other investigations and document, Exhibit 39 was specially marked as Exhibit 39-0 Supp.A 4RR 22, consisting of a transmittal and instruction letter, By Laws and the Minutes Of The Organizational Meeting Of The Board Of Directors Of Helvetia Asset Inc. A For Profit Corporation dated August 8, 2007 Supp.A lEXH 381. The original document of the handwritten self serving wiring instructions Supp.A 1EXH 32, that was not sent to anyone was replaced by Appellee without permission and not specially marked. The question was when the document was signed and ink dating. The possible witness FBI Agent Jenson who investigated Kahn due to Appellee's false claim that Appellant stole $400,000. The possible rebuttal of this witness in light of Appellant filing a complete accounting total compilation El CR 1-32 which shows that Appellant is owed over $77,000. In Oscar Luis Lopez v. Madel. ofTexas,200 S.W.3d 854(Tex.App.-Dallas 2006) states: "Further, it would increase the opportunities for parties - both plaintiff and defendant- to "sandbag" each other in hopes of a favorable trial outcome based on the disfavored practice of "trial by ambush." Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's final judgment and remand 25 this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." InMcCrawv. Maris,
828 S.W.2d 756(Tex. 1992) states: For the exclusion of evidence to constitute reversible error, the complaining party must show (1) that the trial court committed error and (2) that the error was reasonably calculated to cause and probably did cause rendition of an improper judgment. Gee v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,
765 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex. 1989); TEX.R.APP.P. 8l(b)(l). CONCLUSION OF ISSUE 3 This Appellate Court should reverse the trial court's judgment of June 11, 2014 and remand this case to the trial court for a new jury trial on the merits and not allow Collateral Estoppel from the Final Judgment and Sanction Order determining the ownership of the shares of Helvetia, because trial he Court abused its discretion by not allowing any appellant's witnesses to give testimony due to lack of detail in disclosure filed 6 days before trial. ISSUE 4 THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANTS' FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RELIEF, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, VERIFIED DENIALS, THIRD PARTY CLAIMS, AND MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY. Supp. C 1CRl 26 Appellee filed special exceptions on May 6, 2014. Supp.D lCR 1 Appellee Complained paragraph 3, that will a Kahn has no authority to represent Helvetia and Paradiv Corporation because Kahn is not a licensed attorney. Kahn agrees to that special exception. Appellee Complained paragraph 4. "4. To the extent the confusing allegations could be construed as some sort of trial of right to property with respect to the stock of Helvetia, that dispute is between Mr. Kahn and Puerto Verde, Ltd., the real owner of Helvetia. Mr. Kahn has not sued Puerto Verde, Ltd., who is clearly an indispensable party in any dispute concerning the ownership of stock. Accordingly, if this were such a claim being asserted, it cannot be asserted for lack of an indispensable party." These special exceptions forced Appellant to file an amended answer eliminating Paradiv and include Puerto Verde as to defendant an indispensable party. This again is trial by ambush. See Issue 3 The court found that the special sections did not require a repleading of the answer. 2RR14 ."THE COURT: ... Now, I don't find that the first amended original answer is in any way tied to special exceptions or elicited by special 27 exceptions. There's no question under the rules that it. is untimely filed. It is stricken. That's the first thing. It is stricken." CONCLUSION OF ISSUE 4 This decision was an abuse of discretion. The Special Exceptions forced Appellant to Answer. The elimination of the amended answer did not allow Appellant to bring in any evidence regarding Joabert and or Royal Crest subdivision which was the main purpose of all the work and investment for all those years. This ruling eliminated Appellant from having a defense and a fair trial and is cause for this Honorable Appellate Court should reverse the trial court's judgment of June 11 , 2014 and remand this case to the trial court for a new jury trial on the merits and not allow Collateral Estoppel from the Final Judgment and Sanction Order determining the ownership of the shares of Helvetia. ISSUE 5 THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING APPELLEE' S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION IN LIMINE ON ALL ITEMS AND SUSTAINING ALL APPELLEE'S OBJECTIONS. EACH ITEM OBJECTION FROM APPELLEE WAS SUSTAINED AND DEPRIVED APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF. 28 This issue is moot, if this Honorable Appellate Court sustains any of the previous issues. If it affirms all previous issues then the claim that Appellant was not allowed present financial documentation when Appellee was allowed to present to the jury partial incomplete and out of context financial data. This allowed an unfair trail and should A copulation of the financial data is in the Appendix as Exhibit A. CONCLUSION This Appellate Court should reverse the trial court's judgment of June 11, 2014 and remand this case to the trial court for a new jury trial on the merits based on any one of the 5 issues presented. PRAYER For the reasons, Appellant prays that this Honorable Court of Appeals reverse the trial court's judgment of June 11 , 2014 and remand this case to the trial court for a new jury trial on the merits and not allow Collateral Estoppel from the Final Judgment and Sanction Order determining the ownership of the shares of Helvetia. Respectfully submitted, Burton Kahn. Pro-se 1706 Alpine Cir., San Antonio, TX 78248 glentrail@yahoo.com 29 Tel (210) 408-9199 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Based on a word count run in Microsoft Word 2010 , this brief contains 6,388 words, excluding the caption, identity of the parties and counsel, statement regarding oral argument, table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, statement of issues presented, citations to record, signature, proof of service, certificate of compliance, and appendix, pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.4. Burton Kahn Pro-se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of this Motion was served on Appellee, Helvetia Asset Recovery Inc. through counsel of record on February 5, 2015.by Via Email Lisa. Barkley@haynesboone.com Haynes and Boone LLP Lisa Barkley 112 E. Pecan St. Suite 1200 San Antonio, TX 78205 - 1524 Via E-mail Werner.Powers @hayneshoone.com Werner A. Powers Natalie DuBose Haynes & Boone, LLP 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 7 5219 `` Burton Kahn 30 STATEOFTEXAS § BEXAR COUNTY § VERIFICATION Before m~, the undersigned notary on this day personally appeared Burton Kahn the affiant, a person whose identity is known to me. After I administered the oath to affiant, affiant testified: "My name is Burton Kahn I am overv 18 years of age, sound mind, and capable of making this affidavit I have read the brief attached hereto. The facts stated in a within my personal knowledge and are nd c Sworn to and subscribed before me by Burton Kahn on February 4, 2015 ~ Notary Public in and for the State of Texas My commission e x p i r e s - 31 APPENDIX A. FINAL JUDGMENT AND JURY CHARGE B. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §10.001(2) C. FIINACIAL RECORDS TABULATION 32 EXHIBIT A 2~13CI``~55 -0037 NO. 2013-Cl-18355 HELVETJA ASSET RECOVERY, INC. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § § v. § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS § BURTON KAHN and § PARADIV CORPORATION, § § 37 · DefendanJs. § 4Wth JUDICIAL DISTRICT FINAL JUDGMENT On May 12, 2014; the Court called this case for trial. Plaintiff Helvetia Asset Recovery, Jnc. appeared through its attorneys and annou·nced ready for trial. Defendant Burton Kahn appeared in person pro se and -announced ready for trial. Defendant Paradiv Corporation did not appear except through Its director and officer, Burton Kahn, who is not licensed to practice law in this state. The Court then empanelled and swore a jury consisting of twelve qualified jurors, and the case proceeded to trial. At the close of the evidence, the Court submitted questions, definitions, and instructions to the jury. On May 21, 2014, the jury returned its verdict. The m fl.-, Charge of the Court and the jury's verdict are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by ! l i reference. This Final Judgment expressly incorporates all findings of the jury for all purposes. I 2 The jury's verdict was received, filed and entered of record. Plaintiff moved for ~I J il judgment on the verdict, and the Court, having considered ·the pleadings, the evidence, the jury v verdict, and the applicable law, hereby renders Final Judgment on the verdict (the "Judgment") 0 L as follows: 4 ~ Jt is ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiff is declared the owner of the funds in the 9 registry of the Court that were deposited by Defendants pursuant to the Temporary Injunction p c; 8 8 FINAL JUDGMENT 5 previously entered herein, and that totaled, at the time of disbursement, the amount· of / $291,453.6 I. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff recover from Defendants Burton Kahn and Paradiv Corporation the sum of $854, I 66 in actual damages, plus pre-judgment interest from November 4, 2013, at the rate of $117.0 I per day until the day before this Judgment is signed. It is further ORDERED that Defendants receive a credit for sums Plaintiff received from the registry of the Court in the amount of$291 ,453.6 1, said credit to be applied against the actual damages and accrued interest as of the date the Judgment is signed. · It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff recover from Defendant Burton Kahn exemplary damages in the sum of$900,000. It is further ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiff recover its reasonable attorneys' fees as allowed by the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act and pursuant to Chapter 12 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code,§ 12.002(b)(3). It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff recover from Defendants Burton Kahn and Paradiv Corporation attorneys' fees in the sum of $280,000. In the event of an appeal to the court of appeals, Plaintiff, if successful, shaH recover an additional $20,000 in fees, and, if another appeal is sought; Plaintiff shall recover another $10,000 in fees. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff recover all costs of court. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff recover on all amounts awarded herein post- judgment interest at the highest lawful rate allowed by law as of the date of this Judgment until paid. Jt is further ORDERED that all amounts awarded herein, other than exemplary damages, are jointly and severally owed by Defendants Burton Kahn and Paradiv Corporation. FlNAL JUDGMENT Page2 lt is further ORDERED that Burton Kahn deliver and deposit into the registry of this Court within the next 30 days any sums that he was previously ordered to deposit into the registry of the Court and did not. It is further ORDERED that Burton Kahn be and he is permanently enjoined from conducting business in the name of the Plaintiff or in any way interfering with Plaintiff's business activities, including but not limited to Plaintiff's sales of lots in the Key Largo subdivision, based on any fact or circumstance that exists as of the date this Judgment is entered or which has ever existed in the past. It is further ORDERED that all writs and processes necessary or appropriate for the enforcement or collection of this Judgment or the costs of court may issue as necessary. All relief requested in this case and not expressly granted is denied. This Judgment finally disposes of all claims and all parties and is an appealable Final Judgment. SIGNED this// dayof~2014. D-2273499_2 FINAL JUDGMENT Pagel EXHIBIT A 1111 ff:``~-11111. \. . 201JC!t8335 -P00l91 . .. . ·~ . .. . - ··' CAUSE NO. 2013-Cl-18355 HELVETIA ASSET RECOVERY. JNC•• IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, v. BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS BURTON KAHN and "PARADIV CORPORATION, § Defendants. §. 407TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JURY CHARGE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY: After the cJosing arguments, you wiH go lo the jury room to decide the case 1 answer ·the questions that are attached, and reach a verdict. You may.discuss the case with other jurors on Jy when you are all together in the jury room. Remember my previous instructions: Do not dis<:uss the case with anyone else, either in person or by any other means. Do not do any independent investigation about the case or conduct any research. Do not look up any words in dictionaries or on the Internet Do not post infonnalion about the case on the Internet. q ' E1 Do not share any special knowledge or experiences with the other jurors. / ' Do not use your phone or any other electronic devfoe during your deliberations for any reason. / ~, Here arc the instructions for answering the qu~tions: (. , (I J J. Do not let bias, prejudice or sympathy play any part in your decision. ~i • 2. · Base your answers only on the evidence admitted in court and on the law that is in v 0 tbese instructions and questions. Do not consider or discuss any evidence that was not admitted I- in the ~zm ~As ~ 4 "'?!!' 3. Ya\.il~J
"1·--;--2=s=a=7-4-:--.2=0:-t--------1--;,..,...,."*C"'.'".... ..,+------ --(jg/(f1 TAX .·- 9199.27 ORIGINAl START 14ss``'= =~=_1_465``2.T EXP -.. T13328.02 S312.00; 10000.00 ... : --- ...... · · ·--··-- Aifto . · --~--2s11.oo . ___ - . 44121 5000.00 2916 ! Al\IV\. ,oo·.·. . . ! - - - + - - - - - · - . - ...... ,.... -··· ···----··--,- ··-·.--- ..---- .... --·- .~.:--1~-"tUV-'--V-".--'-+----~-----~ =-::c--o=+---+-·-__j - ... .,.. ------ - - · - - - - - - - - ----- BC ------~----- -- ------'-~· 30.00 .TOTAL H 29650.27-~--=-..-l--+----~ ·SPENT 29374.29 '~-~-----"-r------.-J=o=A=s=1:ft==T=FA=L:--:c=o=·N:.---------~=```` '---~·-='-·_:_·``~ ~=~·- ~ . .-... ._-_.-.. ~, 2012 :_Payee_____________ ·-"-1---------AMOUNT Check TRANSFERS FROM Bank c lntere Balance i I s ROMO TAX RC TAX 2870.48 --'------1---1--~---+-___:.--1---.-;"------"---+------ 1194 2,870.4$ 4412 ,____ ____._____ _1800.49 • S ROMO TAX Kl TAX 4391QR5 1195 43,9.1965 441? 1R004~ :·s·RoMo-tAX JD~- ---JR___ 2000.00 ___ Jt~- _,____. __2_5,-'_.1._s2-+-·___4__41__2 _____ -~-~----441_:69__ I SROMOTAXRC TAX 712.39 1'197 712.39 4412 1 -441.69 S ROMO TAX RC Tl\X 1109 1 1237.91 4412 706.12 S ROMO TAX RC TAX 1------1--1------cc--+--~;._ 1237.81 1199 4,000.00 ..___ . -· _____,:.:_____c....--!---·-- 4412 ------~---1-~ 3558.31 TXPMR JLR JR 1500.00 1------+-----+----------.--+-----'>---'----~--------L-.--;...____ 1200 12,000.00 4412 .. --- . -- --- 14058.31 NBP ENG 200:_66__,___1_31_3-1--_ _ _..____._ _______ ·----- ---·---- ~ 13657.43 CITY BANK .,,_____ i EXP 200.00 5640- 1 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - + - 13657.43 CAP l EXP 481.02 13176.41 1----~--·- --~----i----- .:. ..·,.-----+----+----+-----+----+---+-----=-'--cc-~ CAP 1 EXP 192. 92 1 12983.49 · - - - - - · - - ·.....__-+-------- "·-·---=--::-:--::-::-+----,--,--,-+------+-----!-----+---+-,,_..,,-----,-I BRUCE KAHN : ENG 300.00 1201 12683.49 . -· .. --"·--.NBP------:--ENG 40.16 1202 I .<'. -. C----· - - - - •. - ·-·····- ·- 1264!. 33 CITY BANK EXP 200.00 1----.,....,.--::'-c-:``~-c--+----------=+----"t-----'--- 56411 4,000.00 ... - - L--.:.. 4412 ! 30.75 16412.58 CITY BANK EXP 6755. 75 ; 9656.83 --- -CITY BANK EXP 6111.12 --~-----------··· -- ... . ..... -- ·-. ------~--·--·--+-3-54-5.-71.c.....i _____g~ :``-~ ·_ _ :~-~:· ··--=-!i-=...:o'~-~.o...=c:~=-o..__ ____._+____-__ =--- ------'--! ... -....-.....- .. ----·-'-----'--·--'-_-_-_-~;~:1~· ,---. RBFUC AUTO 313.00"-+··---+------l------1-----+---+---?R004Q ·----clriBANK- EXP 86.0!} ·- ·-·····-·--·-·------········· -· ·- ·---~--·---i---+---2-604-.4--10 ---CITY-BANK ...... -EX_P. . . .--8'-60-.94--'--1----1---------- .... -.. ---- 1743.46 -----'---+----1-------'-'-----~---+---~---j- IHS CONSULTING l:NG 288.00 1316 ' 1~55 ..if6 . . ·EN~·~G'---IN_E..,,._E-Rl-N-+--CE~NG-"-+--3~9-7.50--+- _,.f316 · - - - - - 1 - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - _ 5;-Y"E=- =·- 1057.96 I NBP ,___ _ _ _ _,___,_____ _ ENG 39.40 - .1~31-7-+------1--------4----- ' ___._~____, ______ ·-~··--··----+-·---+---+---- 1018.56. 1 ,.J C03A TAX, 100.00' 1Hi2 , 916.~0, :--CIWBANR---~- EXP ! - 241.58 ----+-I-6-7-6:-98--i , CITY BANK EXP; -29if37 --~---- -- --· 1 386.61 CITY BANK EXP ------l~r.u-9-1----+------!.--,- ·-- . ·- -~....... - + - ;-~--:>2=-<· 1 1-_ _ R_B_F_U_-c_. . _._._.-l-A_U_T_0+--,_3_1_3_.o_o-1---- - ~---·.... _·-_-_-----·-=--=--=--=--=--=-·=--=--=:,:======-·-_:~--:.·· . -46.52. __· ___ RBFUC AUTO' 313.00 154.59 -421.07 i NBP- -- -· ENG 1 __ 79.29. 1153 3,.000.00; 4412 2499.73 i liisl.J~NCE o~.~_A__.__Au_r_o-+--_s_19_.s_o_,___·'--11__·54_-_· ::~-------'------+----+_.. _ ._ ..__+_,....___..1. : _98=-=o=.2=--13: 1980.23 i r----------·- .-.. -·-+-__c_B~'---+----+---s~.o~oo-··~oo_·~-- 4412 .. _ .. ... _ 6980.23 1 CB , 20,000.00: 4412 ! 26980~23 1--------l--r.-'-_;RT--"".- 20,{)0000· U12 ! 46980.2~ t---------+--o.------+-··-··'"-~-L-- ---------=-~+----+---+--'c--~ CB 20,000.00' 4412 86980.23 ~---------1--c-==a-·+------+-!--t---(2-o-'-~o-oo-.-oo->i _ _ _4_4--'-12-+-------+---l--4--59-a-o-.23---1 l----A..,,_,H----+-A-U_T_O+---a-1-a-.00-·•. -,-1-1.-66--"·1----:...:...(2-0-,0-00-.0-0-'+)---4-4_1_2-1--.. ~-.-- --·-. ____ ,___26667.23; t--C_H_A_S_E_B_AN``KJLR JR 20,000.00' 1318 --·-44:r2 I 6667.23 i ' -BANKCHARG EXP ' 1151 -- -··-·-·---1------+---6·.·35'···· .... .. 666tf87; Cl~F~B~ ``--~..- +-;A_~X-~P-'- _~-+------=-``-;-:~-~+--·=:, · =-~==-----------·-->-.-....-..-.--,-~--- '--- ---~-~-~:E.-.-~ _ _;~;~ . ,- CITY DAN~ c.xr I 1,0$6.Q2 ··-·· l 4314.26 RBFUC AUTO! 313.00 ----1--------l--·. I 4001.25 ---crrvBANK EXP ; 390.30 --l---~---+-- r 3610.95 1MELOA CARRILLO -ENG : 60.00 1271 NBP ENG[ ·~-6-1-.1'--84--1-2-72--1----.....-....+-·-··· . 3489.77 ·e~.§ CONROLLE . TAX i :~!@.``-. 1319_...._ _ _ _ _ _ 3239.77. ! - ·----~39. ii" [-· .. . .. ···--- RBFUC AUTOi 313.QO\ ____5,000.00 4412 7926.77 ,--c-rrv-·~aANK EXP , 2s14.53 1 4952.24 1 CITY BANK·-t-'E=o..X-=-P-+---6..,.....98~.39~----+-·· ... J<1-.0,Q0;00_. . . ___44_12--'- .. 4-----t--14_25_3_.8--15 CITY BANK EXP 1 1,700.00 12553.85 TATE CONTROi i F FXP ;ono; 120; ·- .. ---..--l.-----'--1--·- '· 12503:85 RBFUC AUTO 313.00 i 12190 85 CITY BANK-·' EXP- -----·9tt[oor----------"---•- ---··-1- ~- __ ".. • 112at1'.2s ,._S ROMO TAX RC TNf . -t3.86 1206 ... -- -- 11236.39 ·-·EXP --·414.'73 ---·-· 9721 11651.12 RBFUC -- -·c·ITY BANK Auto 313.00 CXP .......-203<):.:54 .... ·~ ····--····--· · ··11aaa.12 850? .·se S-ROfvi:)'tJ\x RC i TAX 590.00 1200 .... !~000~00 7312 · ·--- .... 17917.stf ,...S~ROMOTAXRC 1 TAX 1,898.35---1269~ , 16019.23 ---~---Rf.il-uc .. '"AuTo~313~oq ·- ·-- ··----~ l ·--iiToe.23- CITY BANK -- EXP 742.96 ---: .., -----· I 14963.27 ,___._RBFUCf -- .. :AUTO 31.3J)O ... ·t· --···· ! 14650.27 . ·-------· 111,065.68 ---......--124,107.16 100,861.00:191.70 ---- ----·:·· .. . ........ ------- .... ~--- -· --- -· __ :.. --··---·-·-··- -----· .... -·-------+---~----+------ ·-·-· ORIGINAL 1 800.49 1800'4.9 . ·------·--·-+-----+--___:.::::.=.=-==-i I 4412 HELV:TIA -r· . t --·--=-----+-------!-- 113,692.43 '-------+--------! ~----··•· ... 7312 H GO ..o I 10,000.00 ···--------:---+-~-::-=-::-=t--+--.C.........:--'--+-------+----+~,---J-------l • 9721 JOA8ERT _4 _______. :. .:4:..:. 14..:. ::·. :. .;73;::..i. __ _I,._·_ _...l_ _ ___j._ 221>.22 SUB TOTA. ' 125,907.65 ... ·-----~128122.87 EXPENSE~ 111 ,065.68 -~- . ---- . - -2-39f88~55 254030.52 1---------·------- r---------··-·· .. ·-·----+- JLR·---+-------1------+------.l-.--- 24;000.00 -------1---l---~--...r-:----+--··--··-·· ·--·~---1--·----------+----+---+---- *-*****' ............. ···--··--·------· ENGtNEEF NG 1,466.32 "****,.... -----t--txAnUTTI"Q"\"EEXViP 51E~NHSiEiE~--;3~.9"'6~2~.5~0----+----1f-..:.,..=·=*d-.....--·--~-- r------t---'--'-t------"'---+-.;._:____-I--~==-==-+-- •·• ·-·- ·-- -·-~--IC------ ----C--·-··--·- EXPENSE 26,320.04 111,257:~8 '. ... ~-1·--·-···· 1---~-.. .- . t=_-·--·~____._----1·-·. ···-----~···- ------ 111,065.68! l 191.70 . · ---: __ __ 1·' --~ ___ I ·- ] ' Date .. Child Payee A~it Deposit Who Bank Charge !nterest 2011 1117 - - -. CAPITOL EXP 100.00 ··- CAPITOL 't:Jl.t' .,w.oo TRAIL INSURANCE EXP 150:00 .. .... - : ·- 3000.00 UNKOWN ·- 02/24 1129' llMELKDs OFF 60.00 .. - 1131 SILVIAROMo TAX 2869.31 ' L--.- SILVIARUMO .TAX -·· 5000-~ >.I.AMO ·-·~ ·- ! SILVIA ROMO TAX 400.00 9721 l-IOWARn l 5.00 "~--- ~ ... ... --- SLYVIA ROMO TAX: 105;16 .... ,UNKNO\AIN UNK-" ~,{)() l -·.·· 1.INKf\10\NN .. UNI< 959~19 - --···- ..:-- AuG2011 .. .AlJG2o11 - SEPT 2011 :SEPT2011 --- j -- - .. - ... ·- 1102 ALICIA. MINO ni;:F ., i;? no ' 1232 NBP ·- ENG 233.18 ' ·-·--- 1233 COSA TAX 1600.00 ! ·-· ·- . ··- -·' 1234 C08A TM 25.00 . 1237 OOSJ\ -· . TAX 1360.QO 1311.AT&T . -- EXP 122.31 5637.CITI EXP 200.00 I ---·. ·--· - 5638 ®"9 7318 - 7318 CXP 1000.00 ·z.oo.oo, ; ; .. --- ,.-- CITY :EXP.. ... 2s2s.12T _,_ CAP EXP 1434.39 5000.00 4412 ---- -- ...... .. ' 1312 IMELDA OFF --00.00 =9 CllJ t:J!.t' '02101 -- --~-``-- 1.u~·?n ' 03/01 _.....,__ _,_____,~ ~-+---<-14.ts.20 '04/01 --I-+-- (Hf . .... _ _ _ ·-1445.91 . ·051o·-1-+-P-R 100.00 I --+------ 50000;00 CK : - ---- . S1345.91 . 06/0-f+-'--'--- ~()~28 - 51346.19 07/01 -------· - · - - - - + - - 15.76 08/0f'' .. _____ ,. .. 51361:95 51361;95 08/0 1· CHECK 00000,oQ $7S.OO ·-T-+---=220-.10.. - - - - ·-.,,.-20-.1=7 ---- 25.00 10101 +------ -~-·- ----- '11!01 --·---- ----,----!- ----· -----~.-+-, - - - - ·.- ~'.oo -25:00 t21o1=-+-- 7.6[ t2/0f BK ..... ~5(04 0.00 .TOTALS ---- ~'952~69+---- 46.32 46-1353.971 - - --·-:....-- -+--- -----· --CHECKING · 48066.53 INCOME ----- ....... " R.ililt ni PH RRon~-'-~·-,f":+.+-r11_Trn._·-•+---1--- ~ -· · - 2012 - .. . ·- -·--+----+--- -----+----+- - DATE NAME- . HRS RATE; TOTA SS WH OTHE AMOIJN-T-~---1.-TY-P+C°K ~9/1 D~_~QS-IT BALANCE. :-.. --oTTlS Vi'll.Dr!MC~r:: LCt\MA. az. 00 p 10 I .:Si.oo 07/30 "CASH DL - --- -400.00 ,DL 104 ,__ - -:400_00 8 "01119 ETHAN MccAt:I-- 40.75 - - 1.2 489 2a 1 41 ~2ot 440.00 IF> 1001 sooo.oo 4560.oo "'7 07119 DON SHOEMAKER - . 24 11.25 "z76"15 r+-2r 228.oo p -1002 50Cf00 - 4832.00 7 07/19 WELDEN SHOEMAKER 16 · 14 224 13 11 . 200.00 P 1003 1500.00 6132.00 ! -,. --07/19 FREOSEEHA.lfs8r···- 32 9 288 16 1i. 36 219.00 p 1004-1400.00 7313:00 L----- r·o7719 AG -3~ 36.oo f> · 1oos 7277-:-oo, 7 07/19 h~ l=NTF=RPRISi=- . 7000 00 S --,-10{jff--·· ---- ---:i:\777on >--7 07/19 VALDEMERE LERMA·--· ~f. 16 544 31; --32 481.tlO p" 1007' . .. 4796.oo 7 07/20 DiXIEOIL 2898c00 D fooa 1898.00 1--7 ·T a" 01126 VOID CASH ETHAN MCCAU 40· - 12j 480 27 · --~·-- 41 20 · ---zfi 39 ··-~. V 0 p 1oc· 1009:------ 1010 1011 · -.. 1898.00 •oso.oo 1315600 7 07/26,LlONSH~AKER 40 1t25·· 450 25 45' ---'- 3.95. ~p 1012 ·'edoo 7 07126 WELD_E,N SHQEMAKE,R ··20 14: 280. -16 2$4;00 P 1013 647.oO vr1z.c l"RED SEEHAOSEN -·- ~ . 8 _¥"u' '!ts ' HI .:io· 251,00 p ·---im"4· --"396M 1-,=1 01ri6 AG - · , ~36 -- 36.oo P .· · 1015 ~-- 35o:«:Jo ,_ .7 01126 VA[BEMEREJERMl\~75. 16 14s ·12si - --~--·a-20,00 ·p -- 1016 - --· ~26o.oo 7 e-c07t26 VALDEME~E l,,1;_B.MA -~ W . 100 - TOO:OO P~ . 1017~---, -360.00 8 08J24 DON SHOEMAKER 32 H.251 360 45 315~00 P 1018 "675.00 1-----=--8 08!24 WELDEN SHOEMAKER. 20 14 .. 280 16 264.oO P 1019 --_939~00 a· 0~4 FRED-SEEHAUSEN. . 40 8! -·3.20 41 36 243.00 P 1020_____ -1182.00 -(f i:i°'2"1 AO - . .- -36 00.00 r ·1021 -1218.00 -8 ·-08/24 VALDEMERE LERMA 32· 16! "5:t2 58 454.00 ;P 1022 · -1672.00 ··a 00!24VALDEMERELERMA 4 20· "so 80.00·P 1023T -1752.00 a · :\iOib · · · v HJ24 ------``~ • -175200 8 VUllJ V 102:5 -17::>2.oO ! B o8i03 r;JEXAR COUNTY SWPPE MIT - - ----r---- 000:00 CF'- -1026 ---- -- ---=2252:00 --!81--08103 FRED'SEEHAUSEN 40·-- 6 320 ·33 36 251.00 p · 1027>----·- -250'.foo-: 8Tli8io3 vvELDEt.fSHOEMAKER ,20, 14 280 27' 253.00. P- - 1026 -2756.00 8 08/Q3 DONSHOEMAKER 32:11.25 aao· 62.: 328.()() p i 1029 -308400 •-8 08/03 VALDEMERE LERMA-·... 5 20 160 100.00 P 1030 _!l!... -- .. --.§184.00 8 -08/03 V"[DEMEREL~RMA 40 16 6.40 6() .- •``L---``1 --___ ~3'.i4.00 1~8 OSl A RS 100.00 e 10;:)0 -0604.00 .8 OBI06 lMEibACAMMILLO .. . .. ---60.00 M 1037 ~--- -- -6924.00 ' .8 I 08/06 VOID -·--~---.-- v 1038 ~-- -6~24:00 ,-··a~ 681'09 ooNsHoEMAKER- 40 n.25 450 s9 - 381:00 F> 1039 -7s05;oo• . 8 08!U9 WELDEN SHOEMAKER 20• 14 280 16 248.00 P · -'f040 ·.7553,0Q. 8 --08/09 FRED SEEHAUSEN 4()' 8 32{} ' 18' 23 36 243.00 p - 10.iff -- 1000.00 "::ij79s.oo; a 08/09 AG · . .:35 3'6.oo P 1042>--·-100.00 ~872 oo .. 8 0810!'.l VAJJ:lPMt:iRt::TF"Ri'itl\- . - 40 -1R· Adn ~ - 4A ~i;i\--00 P~- -·-1043>-- SOOJlO -6!1~!100 1---c-8 -08/o9 VAL.DEMERE ~RMA -~5 ZO 100 ~ ----. __ 100.00._L --~ 1 ~!_1_782 812: 16 a 08/to,&Off"IVE- , . . .. 202.49 s -ss37.49 1045 1s2;s2. ·a 08116TNATIONAl 8L1IEPR1Nr · i- ------,- ' - - - .· - · : --~.33 ENG -1046' - -- - 400.00~-- -5276.ai t----=-0 06110 TXPMR CttAlNO'AW -· -- -· ' - - - · - . 59-4.10 c 10-47 . '"ooo.oo . --'-4071.00 . 8. - 08/10 CASHDA'lLABib.R:ER . : . T- 500:00 DL 1048 3200.0(f -2171.00 ~-8 '. 08110 TXOPMR PAFffs·-.- - - · _ 121.59 E - --1049 25000.00 -227_07.41 I 8 08110 CHASE BANK MIUXER Tl ETH 2812.00 E 1050 ··--;:-- 19895.41 ``8 08/17 CASH . ____:>Ula!U DL __ :_:105"! ___ ,.__ -:::_```` 8 08117 DONSHOEMAKE!R 40. 11:25 450 SQ 38'1~ P 1052 19014.41 8 OST17 WEL[}EN:SHOEMAKER c ·20 - 14 200- 16 - - ----~ooP- ··1053 -- . ··-- "1875Q.4~ R Mi11 FRmsF=t:HAusE:N .•., 40,_ -~ 8 ··Dll/1f.~• --· ··m--:::ra 2a 36 -36 242:92 P 36.00 P ~- 1055- _____ I 18507A~ 18471.49 -~-~, 081·1r~EMERel.ER¥A 40 tff_``~- 46, ~-=-- ``.P "Hl56~-~----'-- 179_13.65 8 08117 VALOEMERELERMA 5 20 100. :. 100.00.P 1057_ --~17``3.65 i s;-6im1 OQNSHOtMAKER- .4(!'°1125 A.sot- fig i '.IB1 OO'P 10!18 17432.65 r a1· 08J31 WELDENSHOEMAKER 201 14 280 I []! . 08!3.:! fREO.SEEHAUSE_t~L ___(_-``-~ -`` __ . __ -~ 16 ' -~·~fi-``-- _ 2__¥.00 P 1~_9 ~- _ 171``~ _ 1692~.65 __-_-- r--=-r-==~c=-- B Otl/91 l A~ --· ··----· -·· .. .,._ -- -~-``--- t -·--r-~1 · as:oo 1? 1061 16aes::-ei;- 8 081'31 VALDEMERE LERMA ·- ·40 16! 640 58! 562.00 ;P 1062 -16300.65 ~8-1-.,.06/_3~11+,-'V=ALD=··~e_M_ER_E_·:_LE_R_MA_·__-t--_ _5 -.~or, ~1.00 100.00 p 1063 16200.65 8 08l31 'VOID : p 1064 .,i--16200:65 -- - --o- -~IT~f=AL'o - . - . - .-- ---··--+-1=0-1---1"'4~,-22=-:-,.4-t--oz""4-++--·---..-·---:ioo.o_o_ P · 1005 ·· · -- · ! 10000.00 8 08/31.JERRYRICHIE ---- .. --.. 16 ... _1~! 208 21 l ~T87.o6 ·p - 105.67 p · 1ti66 1067 ·-·---=i:. -15713.98 1§~19-`` 8 08/31 •ARMONDO LERMA 8 14 '. 112 6 · . 8 08/31. FRED SEEHAUSEN BOBRIPJ,.E i f .aon.~1eR 1oss ·----.;-~14913~8 _I;_ Iv 14!1T3.98 -.:--r-r--..--=--=w= , • 1 . 1--+---t----------t---+---+---·- -``~- =-=````----=--+--1491j:98_ ' ! JV ·----1 --·· ·--- - ·-·-;--·~t··--·-·------·--rv--- -------!"--· ~--·-·-·-·-· I 1.4913.98 1A013.08 09/05! SAWS ··,---r--· ·-~----.....__,.···:----- ... - ... ........... --~-- ---<---~---+---++--~---~-``-+--~------+--~-c=--i 1060.00 W 1069 13853.98 ,___,.___09_1_05__,i_V_AL_D_E_M_E_R_E_L_ER_MA_··_+--_24--+-_16~:_384 36 .. ; 346,00 P 1069 13507.98 1---i--=:~·~=~-·1-;1 ````R~EM_Y_R_IC_H_IE_·---t-----+-----+-- _. _ __ ---~=-=``=- `` ~;``:: 9 09/~IMCOMASONRY ! ! , 2000.00jKL 1071 11284.98 ··9-00/051WELDENSHOEMAKER 20 14: 200 >-_1!!.;.:__+- 264:001P 1071 11020.98 -9 09/051 JEREMY RICHIE 24 13 j 312 39 l . • 273.0() j P 1072 10747:98 I 9 09105 FRED SEEHAU$EN 40 8 1 320 40 ; 35 j 244:0() 'P 1073 10503.98 1--o-9+--=09/05-=-=c.,,-1~-=o-=-o-N"'s.,..H"'o=e,,..,MAK...,..· "e=R=-.--+-____,.40.,...,·'"1..,...1_2,,...,5--',-.-450·..,.,,.+,.,.- 69 361.00 P 1014 10122.ss 9 09/05 VALDEMERE LERMA 3 20 60 i --'i5:oo 15·- ---1075 -------->---:i0047.98 ,__!:!-+--'OW_._1?_-~J_FR_F_U~Y_R_IC_H_IF~·----+--?_?_s...... f---,,-9+--_....,_F_,R~E=D~S=EE=-HA_·_U_SEN ,_~ --·····-· ``&~-~1-rccrn~c-.-·-·-- · · ___ 13 .2Q2 5; _ _-t---1-----· 1 -~=-~-· ' . . .· _ 38 . 254, 50 P _l_·_·:~c----~-·~54.00 P . __!~,_ .._____ 1 1 ::`` ~ 1078 ~g;g Q71l3 48 ·9539_·45- - -----``~:~il f) ;l\(J I ·00' :'J0.00 p 1060 -tioo.-23 : 09/05i``ci:~i````MA : ``J ``- S _d ____ ! ---~-i--~-- 1~· &--- -``:}--!~ --- --``J! 9 09/05 :weLDEN:sf!OEMAKER- ·- 20 14 280. 16 . l 2S4JJO , , - -:ros3"'-···· ---- 1326.23 ,_! _Ul:llOO ~·~· . . ·- Ltf{MA "IU lt> . Q'IV.. • . 04 i ;;J;JO.IJIJ t' ,jUU.UU llJllJ. .!:;> 9 09/05 DON SHOEMAKER 32 11.25 36tf .. - . 2sfOO:P -- ---------779~23 9 09!05 ·VVELDEN SHOEMAKER 20 14 280 264~00 p 515.23 9 01/01- DON SHOEMAKER 40 11.25.. 450 381.00 p 1087 134.23 9 09/23 FRED SEEHAUSEN 40 81 326 40 280.00 p 1089 85.ZS io 09123.!AG 36.00 p 1088 200.00 249.23 10 09/JO :DON SHOEMAKER 40 11.25 45():; 381.00 p 1091 182.83 51.06 ·;,-o--owao'!VVELDCM Sl40r;;,MAKGA 00 14; rul()'. 28-1.00 p 1000 '100:00 187.06 10 ~/~j.``~Q§_~E~AUS~f~t_ __+-'-_40--+---~--~9. ___4Q+ _ _..____ 244.00 P 1093 900.00 643.06 10 10/07 1AG , i 36.00 P 1092 700.00 1507.06 ~·· ._. "-·--7tlep---~---r----ir--~---r---rr;---__,...---;;;2;;;;;7.-;;;;7:;;;-'6t;:E::;-:N<.:;-:;:;1--:1'-0~9471------t--1"4:::;:79=-.36=-i lti i0/0i-:-1.JO'Ns"·""Ho=1::"M=AK==t..,.K~-+--~!llll=-1--1=1-=2t>~.~4"w~1._,·-++-``-_,__-~;;sts~,~.w.,,,,.·+"'~-+--.;,.1u·``,-,...+1 1titfoffj" ____fltm.&B: 10"·10107 WELDEN $HOC.MAKER 20 14 2$>1 1 264.00 P --1095. 186.10:· fl23:00 10 10/07 FRED SEEHA(iSEN- - 40 " - 'lr·-320:·-40 : : .. 36" - 244.ocf p--- -1698. 4000.00 --4879.oo .10 10/07 ·AG ' ------y· ·:35_ 36.00 P 1096 25000.00 29843.06 !TEXAS MUTUAL 904.00 I 1100 28939.06 10 10/14 DON SHOEMAl 4Ml=--~·I0 P 10s:ls:l ·---- •- - - c·~-1,.7700 10· 10/14 AG_____ ' I ' . -36 - 36~0 p 1101 28091.00 10 10t21 .-, ..- ·--- ----~----, · T v - -- -- --·2aoero0 J,g. Ci`` " • • +-- ~ ·------- - ``g;~:;~ 10 UJ.'21 FRED SEEHAUSEN 40 8 320 1 40 38 244.00 P 1102 -- -- .. -· - - .. -27847:00 i 1( 'f1/76 VALDEMj;;Rt;LERMA-----,---·5 --30 "-l5o . V 10000.00 37841.0o ·1.t 1·112.1 :ooFf·sFioEMAKER ;2S~e1 r142s, soo · .,, ___ . -·---- v 1 -~ro-:430s.oo -42.1s2.00I --~--. - -- BOBBY CHINESE -~ ---- - .·· . 7808.00 BR 20000.00 54344.00 . 11 : 11127 VALO~Ml;RE LERMA ·-·- -·--- - V 859.31 55003.31 ~ 11/27 :SLVIA ROMOJLRIP ---- ----.....,, --,--+--+-+----+--- - -- 10000.00 JLR . 162 45003.31 ~-119.l. ..f.$)St\PERMIT .. -.. ~. __ . -.. . . ;·--··. .... 25.nn CF_v_ 1024 . 44S7ttJ_1_ 1·1 ·11/27 IRS' . ````. 2043. .93 ·p , 1126 42934.38 _, 'f'!T"'Fti27-i:z··- 39.00 s 1127 -·- ·---- --42895.38 11 11127 IMELDA-------+--------··-------+---o------+--+ 60.00 M . ;· - 1128 42835.38~ 11 11127 NBP. - - - - - + - - i---- .... - --+---....+----+-- 66,~5 !:NC ··-1129 __ __ _ "1277013 11 11127 I ---+-----+\/ 1130: 42770.13 11 11127 · ---t-- .. " ' - - 1 - t - - - - t - - - 4000.00 IP . ffa1-, -----+--~3877{>-:-1_~ -· ~---·· .. _,_ ---~----'--- -``,i.·--~-``· ... . HfZT IMELDA .. : .. oo.oo M 11·20 4"SOS&.:>6 11127 NBP ! f}S.25 ENC: 1129 43034.13 ' ' \' 11127 - - 1 v 1130 43034.13 An00.00 p 1131· - 30034.13 -~ 11/27' i ~127 VALDEMERE LERMA 150.00.P 1132 38884.13 .. 11'27 DON SHOEMAKER ·- -· 300.00 p .. 1133 i.-- 38584.13 I• 11/27 VALOEMERE LERMA 300.0D p 1134 --"·- 38284.13 I• f11Z7 v 1·5()()00.00 10029-4.13 .. ·-- -- ... 5468.00 BR OW -- ·-· 40000.00 222816:13 !• 11127 WIRE TRACKS -·· -nao.oo eR 11127 RRIPLET CHINESE RETl RN i 1 230596.13 ; '" ~1 t/27 VALDEll!1Ef 41.20.W -·· L _ - - · - 108. 1072' 230546.13 230504,93· "' 11127 SAWS . - 110.54 ENC 1073 230394.39 "I• 11127 f\IBP 175.0(l s 1074 230219.39 11127 EZORIVE 11127 c·f>s· I 00403.~ c:LI::'.• 101"G _.,_ 183010;00 11 11127 TEXAS LANDMARK SUR 'EV 3000.00 s 1103 160816.09 ~. -· -- 400.00 p fi3s. -· 160416.09, I', 11/27 ,VAi.DEMERE LERMA .... ··-·- ---·- I•· -723.00 'P.. h .. .. - ---· ·- '' ...... . .. . -··· ! I - .. ·- -· !• . ·,.'---- -··· .. - -· - 137,475.69 ****'***•" 298030.84 348Z884.97-- ' .. ' 139.06 TYP CKNO DEPOSIT ~Al,ANCE ' ! 137614.75 .. ~- -- ·-· 139.lJ6: BAN KCHAH ~t!:i ' ··-- 25759.!,le PAY ROLL " H -·-·· ' 5416.49 SUR ~EV .. -- ··--·--- I• .. A1A300 DIF~ Fl 1----<" ---· -·····-- I• .- ! - 10824.02. EOl PMENi ... I• .. 66403.30 cPs:a~c ---- .I• ... ., . 16i:Kioo .DAYLABOR .. SAV500 --· .. ... .. "IZ0.00 MAlllTAti'I ... ... - ;, I 6296.00. _BOB RIPLE~ ---- : -- ·-·-,.- ! I< I• 1101.20,WA ER 904.00 INSI RA_~C"'.F .. - j I• -- -·· 10000.00 JLR ,. ----- l•i------ cm A/FEES - ... 525.00 342.82 ENC: NEER ii m "' "r. -. - -- -·· .... 2000.00 KEY .LARGO 111 ~--- .. .... .137,61~.75 .. -· 'i --· .,.._ MOFIED FOR lJ TALS · -- ' 139.06 BANI< CHAf;GES ·-·-·· ... 120,311.87 COii STRUV ~TION -- ~ ·«-·- ... ... 16,296.00 JR .... .. - _ ... 342.92 ENO ·-- 525.00 TAX i +------ ... .. .. --·· ' .. - ;...-..,. -· ' -. ·-·-·· .. 137,614.75 TOT N- ....._.._-..J ~- -·-- - -.. ' I• I• ORIGINAL ............. .t QRI• ·rot ~-OEP1 )Sff... NAI._- 298030.84 - • Ol;;POSffS G~R i;)t.P 0:MSi;;s 137614.75 . --··:. • ,SPENT ERR SAlJ ``CE 1§0416.09 ' BALANCE .. ---- ERR BAN !STAT MEN 160416;09 . ... ! . -1077.00 _____, 1i' 2000 qo" moN -O;OOj -``- MANK t-tt: - .·-----·· l:::RK ... .. ·- . .. I .. ... ! RANr lfltPW 1:i~Ml(~·r.ONT(.\UR ··-- ! ' .. ·. -- --· -·- ·----·- : 2013 MON DATE NAME HRS RATE TOTAL SS .. WH OTH1:1- AMOl.INT lYP CKNO DEPOSIT ;SAL.AtlCE . ·- OTHE~ AMQUNT TVP Cf5.NO oFPOf;IT RAIANr.F MON.DATE NAME FfRS RATE TO{AL SS WH i ... ., ... .. 160416]9 1 J 01£14 HOLTCAT7 972-40 E 1-077 159443.69 1i {11107 ALLSTATE; - ... 730.00 INS 1-078 1511713.69 - _, ....831.00 1{179 157882.69 250:00 g~ 1 01/01 COSAPLAT 1 Ul/Ul ~U:iAPLAf 1()80 157632.69 -·· -- I 1 01/01,DYE ENT 2500.00 sui: ERR 155132.SQ I 1 01/01 TExAs LAND"!~KSUR\'EY • ! -· 1.150.00 SUR ERR 153982.69 1 01/01 IRS .. 1744.12 IRS 1136 6.69 152245.26 ···- ~-i 01/Uf ,f(~ 1 VALDEMERE LERMA 32.00 1·1,00 544.00 --· 55 489,QQ,P 2157 96892.65 50. - ·``. - 466:00:P 2158 96426:65 4 -04A>1 ARMONOD LERMA 32:0Q 15.00 516.0Q: .. ·4·, 04/01 ARMONOOLERMA exp -4.0() il4.00 56,(p 56.00 p 2159 96370,65 .. O 1 FRED SEEHAUSEN 4 40.00 14.00' ;560.00 ao ,· 36J)ff 434.oo P -· 2171' - --- &3624.41' 433.00 p 2172 93191.41: 4 04/01 ARMONOQ LEA.MA -- ~.00 15.00 486.00 53 -- ~- 221.00 p .2'173 - 92970.41 4 04/01 SCCllV LODez 16.oo 15.00 240.00 19 .. r----4 04/61 MICHAEL SISK 32.00 1:too 41fU'IO 4200. 374M P ?17A A?~i:IR41 ·-~ 4 CM/01 VL 40.00 11;0Q 680.-00.1105:00 575.00 p 2175 92021.41 .... - - - - --gf's65:4f '----4 ~64/o1 A,RMONDO LERM,6; ~xo 4.00 14.00 56.00 5S:Oo'EXP 2176 4: 04/01 Josuha Shoeve m-6 16.00 :15:00 240.00 18 222,00 p 2177 91743.41 4' 04A>1 CORTEZ LIQUID 95.00 FM 2179 - .. _ _ _Jl1648:41 4 04/01 lnaram 135])0 71.00 2485.00 COl'I 2180 . 89163.41 --· 4 04/01 A!3 ~36.00' 36.00 p 2181• 89127.41 4 04/01 gnrtire 1.00 150~00 E 2182 --- -·88977.41; 1,00 ' 550.00 E i ' 2183 - 118427.4.1 4 04/01 ~ dehrntt!!!. 1.1411.11 l;;t':S I t:MI' 15~);{)() EL LlB4 ~---- - --88277.41 -· ·- ... -· . 88220.41' 04/01 .IRS 57.00.IRS 2185 4 04A>1 DOOEOtL ... - - - 1230.89 b 2186 86989.52 ..4 . 4 .04/01 VALDEMERE LERMA EX! 4.00'26.00 oo.oo ,02.00. 10.oa :nz.oQ. .. - 80.00 EXP .. 2187 - -~-- 86909.52 ---- ..- O'-llQ'I MMONDO LERIW\ 04/01 'ARMONDO LERMA exp 4.00 14.00 ! 56,QO :>!' - ..~.00 I" 56.00 EXP ZIM ... .2189i C04::i.l.::tZ 86395.52 ····· 4 3S0,52 4 04/01 MICHAEL SISKm1 16.00 14.00 224.00 18 ..... 206.00_P 2193 ···- 85144.52 4 04/01 Scottvlopez 24.00 15.00 360,00 .33 -. 327.00°.P 2°1'94 - · 84817.52 4 04/01 Josul:la ShOeve m-6 32.00 15.1)() 480.00 18 ... 462.00 p 2195 84372.32 4·6'J01 m&MeouiD Rtn fVl I= --·!>~ 1 AG. .. ·36.()() 36.oo·P 2143. ---· 80356.46 ... .. .J0.00 p - 2162 ~- ~ ·:> UOIU1 AG -- .. -36.uu ·- 80320.46 5 05/01 TX LANDMARK SU~ . 4750.00 SUR ·-2196 - r--· 755-70:46 i ... .. 75334:'46 5 05/01 ARMON'oo LERMA 16.00 16:00 256.00 20 236.00 p .2198 5 05J0f:ARMONOO LERMA exp i .2.00 14.00 28.00 28:00 p 21.99 - 75306.46 s ()O/Q1 V"LOl::MCRC .LERMI"> -10.c>o 17'.'00 ;ooo:oo .•.Q;J ::iro.oa F' ``00 . 'f4T.3·i:40: 5 05101 FREO SEEHAUSEN m2 40.00 14.00 '560.00 90 .. .. 36.oo 434.00 p - 2201 74297.46 "---5 -05/01 AG ;.-36.00 36.00 p ; 2202· 74261.45 5 0511)1 ~Lopez 24.00. 15.00 .360.00 .. 33 32-7.00 p 2203 73934.46 ll&IO~ f;AIC~L !:H~I£ .., 1 '1.oi.00 " ..-00 -4.74U>O ..t2i .. OO 220-t '7361.3-~ eo.oo p"' ~ !iii ··y 5 05101 VAl.OEMEfU; Ll;RMA EXI 3;00 20.0Q §itoo. 2206 ·73453;46 5 05A)1 Scoflv Looei . . ... 1$.00 .15.00 24.o.001 16: 222.00 p 2207 73231.46 -- .. .. - ``t- 5 05/01 ,,... .. 1S3.0P E 2208 73078'46 -'--'20 J~O!\A>1 ~ . LER~.ce.; ~ _ _]:1113041'1 5, 05Al1 5 0511)1 AUSTl.N DIST 1A.75 :f6.00 2.QO 14.00 9 - -·-- .- 24R.00 28.00 62.17 P· p E 2209 2210 2213 .. 72802.46 72740.29 5: 05/01 FRED SEEHAUSEN m2 40.00 14.fM! 560,00 -- go -- -·· 36.oo .. 434:00 p 2215 72308.29 5 05l01 otXIEOiC. .. .. .. 784.01 0 2216 71522.28 : ::J IJt>IUT t=zC11-ttVt 424.00 tNG - 2218 fhnto,;!6 - - Li! _QS/Ol Josuha Sh~ m..a 16.00 15:00 .240DO f8 222._I>_!) p 2219 70876.28 ... '-5 0../01 VALOl;.Ul;IU:; Ll;PUA&;.V:I< .A,00 ~0;()0 ao.oo '·· 80.QO p car ·----.--.---- . - ::1%22 '70'106.!UI 70086.28 05/01 ilnaram ReariYMiX' 110:00 2224 . -= 3782.58 JLR 2225 663o3.70 5 05/01 CHASE CARD SEVICt:.5 5 0~01' VALDEM_ERE LERMA. 43"]0 >--·- >-----· 731.00 mo 121. -- -· 610.00 p 2232. 65693:70 ,~- >- '5 _ SI01 TXPMRFENGE ---- ' 2857.8<> FE 2240 - 5ss1s.11 5 05113 V,,,_, GmJNOY I 273;96 ~ 2241 55344.81 -· 1814.00 E 22"4: 53530.81 5 05tl3 DISEL PUMP SREVICE ... 5307tf.81' U;» 1:i IAKl"IONUU Lt:KJlllA ;;s~;oo \llU~ ;ou:.uu l)U -.::iz,\1\1 f' .zottl -5 b 05/13 VALDEMERE LERMA 40:00 17.00 680.00 105 . 575.00 p 2246 52503.81 5 05/13 FR,EO SEEHAUSEN m2 ~.00 14:00 56().00 90 36.00 43 tttl!>4.!>1 5 05113 IlSWltY. lOlleZ . 3.DO 15.00 12().00 18 ... ·- . 102.00 p 2250 50752:51 5 05113 MICHAEL SISK m1 32.DD 14.00 448.DO "8 400.00 p' - 2251 50352.51 5 ll5/13 :.VAl.[)tMERE LERMA EXf 4.00 :zo.oc. 60.00 80.00 p 2252 50272.51 ~71).00 ,, ~7G$.G1 Ii 'Ollli3 .IC>Ouho Shl'<>Ve> m 6 32.00 >JS.OO £1?-00 30 - ... 22&3. 5 05/1.3 CORTEZ .. 95.00 p 2254 49704.51 ·--· 480.00 p 2255 4922-4.51: 5 05/13 M&M ~.-- <--- 5 05/13 GUARDIAN INSFORFRE l .. ! 7586 27 JLR . 2256 41638.24' llSfi') Al.I i:lTATI= !i10.'-o ~§-~P5..!' ~1118.7.ol 5 " 051.13 ARMONDO LERMA exp 4.00 14:00 oo;oo;· ' •· 56.00 ~ 2258 L _ _ _ _ . _ _::_ . 41002.74 05/13 DIXIEOIL :· 700]10" p -- 2259 40362.74 .. 5 '---· ' 'l!66.67 P_:_~- -2260 .:. 5· 05/13 FRED SEEHAUSEN m2 24.00 14,00 336;()1) 32 36.00 40094.07 5 o5i13 1VAlO.EMERE LERMA EXI 5.00 20.00 100;0'() 10Q.OO p '- 2261 -.-.01 5 05113. CHASE CARD SERVICEs; -. 3782;58 JlR ... 2262 .. ~ 36211.49 5. 05113 CHASE CARO SERVICES 3598.64 E 2262 32612.85 5 05/13 ARMOt.iDO LERMA :4().00 16,00 640.00 ·l13' -. 567.00 p 2263 32055.85 ----- 5 05/13 ,ARMONDO lERMAe>q> 5.Q() 14.00 70.00 70:00 p -·~ 31985.85 ::J U!>ll.) VALUt:MtKt: L.~l'UlllA 1'W.U\I 111.uu ll>tl\l.W 100 n1;.i.ou IP ~ .. ·50000:00 .-------i!'f4l ..2288 2289 21488.66 >-·5 06/03 FRED SEEHAU$EN m2 40.00 14.00 sso.oo ``: 36.00 434.00 p 2290 21054.66 >--s,-.06~ NAPA ·-- !.---·· ... .. 676.0? E ·- 2.201 -··. - 20-4'70:so 6; 06/03 AG 72,00' p 2292 20407.59 6 06/03 VL - ··- 2.00 20-l?O 40.00 EXP 2294 20367.59 '."" 6 OEV03 Ingram Ready-MIX .. _ 071i.05 JLR 2295 19388.64 6 OBm~ I VAN GRUNDY - .. 65.Mlt= 7".HJR -- .. -- I-- 19323.64 ·! 6 06/03'DYE 1550.00 SUR 2298 1ffl3.64 6 06/03 lrniram ReadY Mii -- ' ·---- 2403.15 cor. 2299 .. 1537'0.49 6 06103 FRED SEEHAUSEN rn2 .. 40.00 14.00 soo:oo !!9.: 36.00 434.00 p 2300 .. 14936.49 6 ~oi;/()3 ALAN HYDJWJJJCS .. 211.11 E 2301 14725.32 0 UON.:1 texas rnmual insurance cri noany ; 3110.00 INS l30Z l16l::J,3io! G 00A)3 WILLIAM LEWIS 16.00 1-4.00 224.00 36 I 188.00 p 2~02 __ ,. 11427,~ ··ss7.7-+ 10009~.001 -``~ 2300. 1 6 Q61.E>3 !'CT I 221.50 2305• 10648.08' 6 D6I03- ALPHA TESTING - ti 06/03 FRED SEEHAUSE~. rn2 40;00 14.00 000.00' 00 i 36,00 434.00 p 2306 10214.08 6 06/!)3 DIXIEQIL __ - 276.62 D -2307 - 0037:46 R llMl3 A~ ,. - -~nn -··· !VI 00 p -- ?'los.: -- 0001.49 6, 06..V3 ASSOCIATEOESuPPLY . - 1039.95 E 2311 .. 8861.51 6, 06/03 CERTAPRO 5786.42 BK 2312 ; 3075.09 6 6 ..... ,.,,. CONENTAL 06/03 HYORAULIC S. BaES 6 00/03 FREOSEEHAUSEN m2 40.00 14.00 560:00 -- M ~RVIC~ -- 90 '"•• 36:00 ·- .. 545.79 .. 647.87 48.73 p E. E -· 2313 .• 2314 2315 ... I - 2528.30 1RR0.4.1 1831.71> 1831.70 ~ - . I ] . "i]TJ03 'CHASE 1039.51 E 1078 792.19 ' ,--.. -··- 7 07/03 US AJWAYSBOB i _.,, "'-+ 1143,52 440,00 p JLR 1079 ~56.33 -796.33 7 07/03 Josuha.Sht&ve. m;.ij - 30.00 16:00 480:00 40 1080 7 07/03 Vl 60.00 EXP 1081 ·856.33 ··-- 7 07/03 \It. ~:'?'Q HU>Q 57(1,00 : 464.00 p 1082' - -1320.33 - 7 07/08 GBMBINSURANCE -. ' 6879.W INS' 1084 -8200.32· ----, . Utiuts ,JQsuna.srneve ~ ,£lll.U\J It'-~.: lUISO -·· •o",e;";::l2j 7 07/11 vt 36;00 19.00 684.00 95.00 585.00 p 1086 -·. -8814.32 7 .07/11 Vl - 111.00 ExP 1087 -8925.32 7 T, emu Josuha Shte.ve m-6 07111 o1:.u11y Ln"" 32JJO 16.00 512.00. o>o.oo ·'t.o.oo .ioo.oo ao.01>" 66' - -.·-. ·- 452.00'P "i:l0.00 ,.. 1089 10$0 : .'9377.:32 ·S®T.::ll .. 7 07F11 RUDYLEHMA 32.DO · 13.00 416.00 11 405.00 p 1092 --- . : -10212.32 7 07/1 t ,FRED SEEHAUSEN m_2 40.00 14.00 56Q;OO 90 36:00 434;0() p 1093 ·10046-32 -- ·-· 1---, 7 07/11 DfXIEOIL ()7/H R.!W.L COMl<.Z - . .. .. -. -·· i 2000.00 b '160.. 00 p 1095 .. 1006 -· -12646,32 13006.3!! 1 D.7111 FLOOR DIRECT .. ' 1000.00 BK•.. 1104 ·14096.32 - 7 07/13 ASCO 839.39 E 2238 -14935.71, 7 07113 ADEL.ANTE CONTRACTC RS - : ' 10596.00 PLB1 2301 ! -25831.71 l 7 07/13 Vl 6:rno FXP: ?316 -7!'i.lll'l4 71 7 07113 WILLIAM LEWIS .. 16.00 'ifoo 224,00 ~ .,,. - 100:00 p 231.7 - -26082;71 ··- - 7 07/13 HPLTCAT 657.69 p 2318 -26740.40 7 07113 AG i 36.00 p - 2319 -26776-40 7; 07/13 Vl - - - -- -··20.00 ~- 2320 ·Zb796.40 7 07/13 GREG REVEIRA 35.00 ! 13.:()0 4?5.0Q 76:()0 379.QO p 2321 ·27175.40 7 07/13 .FRED SEEHAUSEN m2· .40.00 14.00 550,00 90 36.oo 434.00 p 23'12 --- . ---=2f6o9.40 7 07113 t=.MELDA CARRILLq_. -·. 00.00 p 2323 --~ f----27669.40 -··; "\hn..> . 07113 ARMONOOLl!RMA l.t'~ 32,00 15.00 480-~ 74 -406.00 p !:1,;;s!> t' .. - .. 2323 ;.!;jl!4 ·- ·28075.40 ·.t:OUO'f.J:l ·- ~ 07113 GREG REVEIRA ·- ·• ,___., .. 18.l)O .. 20· -·.· 214.00 p 2325 -28298.75• -·@13 ACT PIPE '" 137.29 PLB . ·- 2338 -28436.04 7 07113 GENUINE PART$ --·- s.38,P 2339 -28444.42 7 07/13 HOL.TOAT o~.C):i·p 2340 -2,91.:)().47 -· 7, 07'13 CONTINENTALBATTERI S 134.4() p 2341 ' -29270.87 7 07113 SAWS ; ... - 880.50 w .. 2342 -ao1sf31 -- --- ; 7 07113 iAi:il>O ? 0711, Vi!INCRUNOY ------ .. 1()8,25 E 1G3.00 i: .. 2343 .. -30259.62 . I t!3+t - Q0;422JS2 7 {)7/l3 AUSTIN DIST .. 144.55 p 2345 ·30567.17 - 7 07116 JESUS DE!:fOYOS ! 1395.00 E 2346, -31'962.ff .. ... 7 07116 AG 36:00 p 234yr--··· ·31998.17 • 7 07116 RUDYL.ERMA .. 11 ' ... ' - ' -- 7 07/:16 FRED sEEHAUSJ;:N ~2 8.00 194-90 t 93.00 p -·~.OOP -· ?~A ·- 1?. ::.l?ll<11 40.00 14,00 560.00 ~ 36._o() 2349 ' '32525.17 --r ~07116 VALDEMAR LERMA EXP 5:00 10Q:OO 100.00 •p 2350 -32625:-ff 1 07116 WILLIAM LEWIS 16.00 14.()0 !ll4,00- 36, 188.00 p 2351 -32813.17 ... ·-·- 7 07/16 $cotly Lopez 11>.oo 240.00' 32 208.00 p 2352 .- . -3302lJI. 7 07/16 Vl 646.00 p ... 2353 -33667.17 ·-· -· 7' 07116 Josuna srueve m-6 ~-00'16.00 ~,00 50 - 510,00 p - 2354 -34177.17 7'. 07/16 AG .. 72.00 p 2356 -34249.17 1 07116 TEXAS PMR SKID STEE -· 3200.00 E 2357 .. -37449.17 , I U/110 trulJUl::I I t
Document Info
Docket Number： 04-14-00569-CV
Filed Date： 2/5/2015
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/29/2016