Ernest Ray Koonce v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee Under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of April 1, 2005, Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-WHQ2 ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
01-15-00228-CV
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
11/2/2015 5:15:17 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
No. 01-15-00440-CV 1st COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
11/2/2015 5:15:17 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
________________________________________________________________
Clerk
IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS
________________________________________________________________
IN RE ERNEST R. KOONCE, RELATOR
________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding From the 127th Judicial District Court of
Harris County
Cause No. 2010-64752
__________________________________________________________________
APPELLANT/REALTOR’S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE, WELLS
FARGO’S, MOTION TO STRIKE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
ERNEST R. KOONCE
Pro Se
15938 Fleetwood Oaks Drive
Houston, Texas 77079
Tel: (832) 434-3186
Fax: (832) 328-7171
rayk469@gmail.com
No. 01-15-00440-CV
________________________________________________________________
IN THE THIRD FIRST COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS
________________________________________________________________
IN RE ERNEST R. KOONCE, RELATOR
________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding from the 127th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas
Cause No. 2010-64752
__________________________________________________________________
APPELLANT/REALTOR’S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE, WELLS
FARGO’S, MOTION TO STRIKE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
ERNEST R. KOONCE
RELATOR, Pro Se
15938 Fleetwood Oaks Drive
Houston, Texas 77079
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS:
Ernest R. Koonce, Appellant/Relator, and those similarly
situated, respectfully submits this Response to Wells Fargo’s Motion
to Strike Supplemental Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and would
show the Court as follows:
2
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL
Relator, Ernest R. Koonce, hereby certifies that the following are the
list of parties and their respective counsel, if any, to the best of his
knowledge and understanding of the rules.
PARTIES COUNSEL
Relator
ERNEST R. KOONCE Pro Se
Respondent
HONORABLE RK SANDILL 127thth Civil District
Court of Harris County, TX
201 Caroline, 10th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Court Phone Number:
(713) 368-6161
Chris Daniels 201 Caroline
Harris County District Clerk Houston, Texas 77002
Real Party in Interest:
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA Bradley Chambers
Texas Bar No. 2400186
Valerie Henderson
Texas Bar No. 24078655
Baker, Donelson, Bearman,
Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.
1301 McKinney Street
Suite 3700
Houston, Texas 77010
(713) 650-9700 – Telephone
(713) 650-9701 – Facsimile
vhenderson@bakerdonelson.com
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cases
Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S.W.3d 191, 208 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2007,
pet. ref'd) ................................................................................................................................ 16
Black v. Shor, 443 S.W.3d 170 (Tex.App. Corpus Christi, 2013)............................. 5
CNA Ins. Co. v. Scheffey, 828 S.W.2d 785, 792 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1992,
writ denied) ........................................................................................................................... 14
Delaporte v. Preston Square, Inc., 680 S.W.2d 561, 563 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1984,
writ ref'd n.r.e.) .................................................................................................................... 14
Delaporte, 680 S.W.2d at 563 ............................................................................................. 14
Ex parte Finn, 615 S.W.2d 293, 296 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1981, no writ)......... 14
In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 213
(Tex.2009 ......................................................................................................................... 17, 21
In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 213
(Tex.2009) .............................................................................................................................. 17
In Re Lumbermens Mutual Insurance, 184 S.W.3d 718, 727 (2006). ..................... 6
In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S. Ct. 623, 625, 99 L. Ed. 942 (1955) .... 13
Standard Fruit & Vegetable Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 985 S.W.2d 62, 65 (Tex. 1998) 5
Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 62.105 (Vernon 1988). .............................................................. 14
Texas Code of Judicial Conduct......................................................................................... 15
Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 62, 93 S. Ct. 80, 84, 34 L. Ed. 2d 267
(1972) ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Statutes
Babcock v. Northwest Memorial Hosp., 767 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex.1989) ............ 13
Other Authorities
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL .............................................................. 3
Rules
Canon 2(A), (B)......................................................................................................................... 15
Canon 2(B). ............................................................................................................................... 15
Canon 3(B)(8)............................................................................................................................ 16
canon four ................................................................................................................................. 15
Canon three .............................................................................................................................. 16
Canon two.................................................................................................................................. 15
Erskine v. Baker, 22 S.W.3d 537, 539 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, pet. denied) ..... 16
Rule 38.7...................................................................................................................................... 6
T.R.A.P. Rule 52 ...................................................................................................................... 19
T.R.A.P. Rule 52.3(k)(2) ......................................................................................................... 19
T.R.A.P., Rule 52.3(k)(2).......................................................................................................... 6
TEX.CODE JUD. CONDUCT, .............................................................................................. 15
TEX.R.APP. P. 38.7 ................................................................................................................... 5
4
WELLS FARGO’S MOTION HAS NO MERIT
WF Issue A: Wells Fargo claims that the Court must strike the
Supplemental Petition for Writ of Mandamus because this Court
has failed to provide it’s permission pursuant to Black v. Shor, 443
S.W.3d 170 (Tex.App. Corpus Christi, 2013). Black, supra, does
not apply. In Black, supra, the issues involved in that case were
dealing specifically with a turnover order and an appeal, not a writ,
or potential misconduct in the trial court below, and further, the
supplemental briefs were submitted after oral argument. Black
involved an appeal, not a Writ of Mandamus. Nowhere in Rule 52
does it require a Motion for Leave to be sought in order to file a
Supplemental Petition for Writ of Mandamus (hereinafter referred to
as “Petition”) prior to this Court making a decision. Also, page 173
does not say what the Real Party In Interest states.
It is a well established rule that we may permit a party to
amend or supplement a brief "whenever justice requires."
TEX.R.APP. P. 38.7; see Standard Fruit & Vegetable Co., Inc. v.
Johnson, 985 S.W.2d 62, 65 (Tex. 1998) (appellate court has
discretion whether to allow filing of amended or supplemental brief
5
in interest of justice). See also, In Re Lumbermens Mutual
Insurance, 184 S.W.3d 718, 727 (2006). There is no case law or rule
which Relator can locate, and Wells Fargo has cited none, that
speaks directly to an Extraordinary Writ. In fact, Rule 38.7 of the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedures empowers the courts of
appeals to allow whenever justice requires. Wells Fargo alleges that
the issue presented in the supplemental Writ of Mandamus wasn’t
either raised in the trial court below, or in the original Writ of
Mandamus. However, that is not true at all. First, on 05/06/
2015, Realtor filed a motion with the Court in which he asked for a
ruling on his motion to allow the accelerated appeal in this case,
and asked for the Court to provide an answer as to why it changed
its ruling. Attached hereto as Appendix “1” is a true and correct
copy of that motion. On May 11, 2015, the trial Court denied both
the motion for accelerated appeal and the motion for the court to
explain why well after 10 months the court changed the case from
dismissed final to active. Attached hereto as Appendix “2” is a true
and correct certified copy of that order.
More importantly, T.R.A.P., Rule 52.3(k)(2) provides:
6
“The appendix may contain any other item pertinent
to the issues or points present for review, including
copies of excerpts of relevant court opinions, statutes,
constitutional provisions, documents on which the suit
was based, pleadings, and similar materials.”
(emphasis added)
Moreover, realtor did address the issues set forth in both his
brief and Writ. The trial court did not respond to the motion until
after the brief and Writ were filed.
Furthermore, Real Party in Interest (hereinafter referred to as
“Wells Fargo” or “WF”), has failed to identify any rule requiring a
Motion for Leave to file a Supplemental Writ of Mandamus.
Nowhere in Rule 52 does it reference any such duty to file a motion
for leave.
If any motion for leave was required, it’s not set forth in Rule
52 dealing specifically with Writs of Mandamus, and good cause
exists to allow the supplemental Writ because it goes to the heart of
the case, including a question of gross misconduct by the judge or
the clerk. The case was dismissed in it’s entirety on November 17,
2011, as reflected in the court’s docket. The other case proceeded
in Judge Baker’s court (3rd lawsuit), and was fully litigated.
Approximately 10 months later, on or about August, 2012, Wells
7
Fargo attempted to consolidate this case (second lawsuit) with the
third lawsuit in the 295th Judicial District Court of Harris County,
Texas, to which Realtor objected based on lack of jurisdiction. No
order was ever signed granting that motion. Sometime thereafter,
the case before this court was somehow reinstated long after the
court lost its’ plenary powers, without any sort of motion, any sort
of hearing, and without any explanation.
WF Issue B. WF claims that the supplemental petition, A-D
was not addressed by the trial court. This is a completely false
claim. On May 6, 2015, Realtor filed a Notice to the Court that a
Ruling on his Motion for Accelerated Appeal was overdue as it was
set for submission on February 23, 2015, and Notice that Evidence
was missing in cause No. 2007-30212, 127th Judicial District Court
of Harris County Texas, which the court denied. See Appendix “a”
and “b” respectively.
Appendix “a” does address the specific issues set forth in
Issues A-D. See pages 2 and 3 of said Appendix “a”. No
explanation has been provided although numerous attempts have
been made to obtain an explanation. Christine Reule’s declaration
as well as the attached emails support the fact that attempts have
8
been made, even by third parties, to obtain an explanation for the
sudden appearance of the case on the court’s active docket after the
case was dismissed, and the missing court documents. It’s very
suspicious that documents that prove the fraud conveniently came
up missing as soon as the Notice of Accelerated Appeal was filed,
and after the dispute was pointed out in the federal proceedings.
WF claims that Realtor failed to show how his supplemental
Writ of Mandamus is in anyway related to the granting of WF
motion for new trial. If Koonce failed to make a showing, it wasn’t
intentional.
The fact is Judge Sandill dismissed the case in full on
November 17, 2011. The docket reflected this fact for more than 10
months (the exact date of when the case was placed back on the
docket is unknown). This case magically appeared as an active
case on the docket more than 9 months after the court lost its
plenary powers. No motion, no notice, no hearing, or explanation; it
was pulled from archives and/or closed files by the trial court and
placed on the active docket forcing Koonce to file a plea to the
jurisdiction and declare the case was dismissed. The trial court
granted Koonce’s motion on December 17, 2014. WF then filed a
9
Motion for New Trial making the same arguments it made in its
response to Koonce’s plea to the jurisdiction. No new argument was
made. No new evidence was presented. The court then granted
that motion, and this Writ ensued as well as an interlocutory
appeal.
In the February 13, 2015 Reporter’s Record, starting at page
7, line 10, and continuing to page 8, line 20, the following took
place:
MR. KOONCE: -- you will see that they sent a paper to me on
November 15th, 2006, and claimed that the current
creditor/owner was Wells Fargo Bank, N.A..
THE COURT: I understand that, Mr. Koonce. The issue here is,
when you pled your lawsuit, you included Wells Fargo Bank
Trustee as a defendant. Because if you look at Paragraph 2 -- I
don't know if you have your file in front of you, but Paragraph
2 under Fact, actually labeled No. 2, under Section B,
defendant citing this application includes Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., as Trustee. And that's the issue here. The issue is, you
did not include them in the lawsuit but you nonsuited
everyone in the style, but they are not -- at the same time, you
know, they are not in your A introduction but they are in your
B facts. So, you know, in the state, we take -- it's a notice-
pleading state. So I take notice of the pleading, I have to
construe it liberally. And if you were to say, Judge, hey, we --
you know, we served them and they never answered, I would
have to grant a default against them because they are
included as a defendant. At the same time, because you
included them as a defendant and didn't nonsuit them, they
10
live as a defendant. And now they live as a counter claimant,
so --
MR. KOONCE: Your Honor, at best this is nothing but
misnomer, which the courts have addressed over and over.
THE COURT: I'm happy -- I am happy to grant the new trial.
And you have a right -- you now have a right automatically
allege the alternative, so you can mandamus me on the issue.
I'm more than willing to be mandamused on this issue,
because I want to agree with you, but I don't think I can. So...
(emphasis added)
The trial court admitted that Koonce only included WF, Trust
in the facts, not in the introduction where Defendants are named
and requests for citations are made. Describing someone or a
witness in a pleading does not mean you are suing them. It’s
merely a statement of a fact. The trial court seems to be confused.
There was no reason to change his ruling when no new arguments
were made. By admitting that the Trust was described in the facts,
and not the introduction, the trial court knew it was a factual
statement, not intended party to the lawsuit.
On page 3, lines 15 through 20, of the February 13, 2015 Reporter’s
record, the trial court states:
THE COURT: Okay. The concern in this case is -- and I think I
cited Mr. Koonce after evaluation, is sued Wells Fargo Bank,
11
N.A. You guys answered as Wells Fargo Bank as Trustee. He
nonsuited every single party that he sued. You guys answered
as a party that he didn't sue. (emphasis added).
Wells Fargo Bank as Trustee never filed an answer prior to the
nonsuit. No appearance was made by WF prior to November 17,
2011.
The fact is, the case was dismissed in full, file closed, and
without any warning, any hearing, any notice, the trial court
decided to pull a closed file and put the case on the active docket
long after the court lost jurisdiction. Koonce has found no case in
which a trial court has ever done this. It appears to be a case of
first impression.
Koonce’s position is that the entire case was dismissed on
November 17, 2011; 4 days later, WF filed an untimely cross-
complaint. It never appealed the dismissal, it fully litigated the
same issues and the same case before Judge Baker, obtained a
summary judgment based upon fraudulent statements (just like it
previously won an appeal in this very court based upon fraudulent
assignments); nor filed a motion for new trial until more than three
12
years later, three years too late. WF had 30 days from November
17, 2011 in which to file a Motion for New Trial. The trial court lost
jurisdiction on December 17, 2011. More than 10 months later,
the archived case was pulled and put back on the docket, breeding
suspicion, disrespect and threatening the integrity of the judicial
system.
No judge or clerk goes through closed files and randomly picks
one out to place back on the active docket, especially when the
court lost its plenary power more than nine months previous. This
act stinks to high heaven of corruption, likely ex parte
communication, special treatment and bias by a trial judge acting
without authority or any power to do so.
The parties have a right to a fair trial under both the United
States Constitution and the Texas Constitution. See In re
Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S. Ct. 623, 625, 99 L. Ed. 942
(1955) (holding that "[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic
requirement of due process"); Babcock v. Northwest Memorial Hosp.,
767 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex.1989) (holding that, "[i]n Texas, the right
to a fair and impartial trial is guaranteed by the Constitution"). In
13
Texas, part of the right to a fair and impartial trial is also secured
by statute. See Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 62.105 (Vernon 1988).
One of the most fundamental components of a fair trial is "a
neutral and detached judge." Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409
U.S. 57, 62, 93 S. Ct. 80, 84, 34 L. Ed. 2d 267 (1972). A judge should
be fair and impartial and not act as an advocate for any party.
Delaporte v. Preston Square, Inc., 680 S.W.2d 561, 563 (Tex.App.—
Dallas 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). A judge should not be any party's
adversary. Ex parte Finn, 615 S.W.2d 293, 296 (Tex.Civ.App.—
Dallas 1981, no writ); see Delaporte, 680 S.W.2d at 563. The
impartiality of the judge is not only a matter of constitutional law,
but of public policy, as well:
Public policy demands that a judge who tries a case act
with absolute impartiality. It further demands that a
judge appear to be impartial so that no doubts or
suspicions exist as to the fairness or the integrity of the
court. Judicial decisions rendered under circumstances
that suggest bias, prejudice or favoritism undermine the
integrity of the courts, breed skepticism and mistrust,
and thwart the principles on which the judicial system is
based.
CNA Ins. Co. v. Scheffey, 828 S.W.2d 785, 792 (Tex.App.—
Texarkana 1992, writ denied) (citations omitted).
14
The preamble to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct first
reminds us of the role of the judiciary and provides that intrinsic to
all sections of the code are the precepts that judges must respect
and honor their judicial office as a public trust. TEX.CODE JUD.
CONDUCT, Preamble. The individual canons are intended to state
basic standards for judicial conduct and to provide guidance to
judges. Id. Several of those canons are relevant to this Court’s
analysis of Koonce's issues.
Canon two provides that judges "should act at all times in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary" and "shall not allow any relationship to
influence judicial conduct or judgment." Id. Canon 2(A), (B). It
follows that the judge may not "convey or permit others to convey
the impression that they are in a special position to influence the
judge." Id. Canon 2(B). Similarly, canon four cautions a judge to
conduct all extra-judicial activities to avoid casting reasonable
doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge. Id.
Canon 4(A).
15
Canon three also addresses the judge's duty of impartiality
and prohibits, with limited exceptions, any direct or indirect ex
parte communications concerning the merits of a pending or
impending judicial proceeding. Id. Canon 3(B)(8). An ex parte
communication is one that involves fewer than all parties who are
legally entitled to be present during the discussion of any matter
with the judge. Erskine v. Baker, 22 S.W.3d 537, 539 (Tex.App.-El
Paso 2000, pet. denied). Ex parte communications are prohibited
because they are inconsistent with the right of every litigant to be
heard and with the principle of maintaining an impartial judiciary.
Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S.W.3d 191, 208 (Tex. App.-San
Antonio 2007, pet. ref'd). This proscription applies regardless of
whether the communication occurs through a social media website,
in the judge's chambers, or elsewhere. That is, while the internet
and social media websites create new venues for communications,
the court’s analysis should not change because an ex parte
communication occurs online or offline.
Our justice system's abhorrent reaction to ex parte
communications is purposeful. Such communications undermine
16
the principle of transparency which is promoted by the option of
conducting proceedings recorded in open court. The Texas Supreme
Court has ruled that transparency is something "we strive to
achieve in our legal system." In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas
Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 213 (Tex.2009). Ex parte
communications do not promote that transparency.
WF, by objecting, makes the need to seek the truth even more
paramount and the trial courts conduct more suspicious. Makes
you wonder what they are trying to cover up and hide. WF had
every opportunity to present any argument to the trial court below,
but willfully failed to do so and claims it was never before the court
below contrary to Appendix “a” attached hereto. Instead, when
Koonce wants to seek the truth, WF goes out of it’s way to move to
strike a Writ, with absolutely no grounds to do so (there’s a huge
difference between a Writ and a Brief).
Judges and justices must take great care in preserving the
integrity of the courts and the judicial process. If they do not, who
will?
17
As noted by Roger D. Townsend, Improper Jury Argument and
Professionalism: Rethinking Standard Fire v. Reese, 67 TEX. B.J.
448, 454 (2004)
When [judges] abdicate [their] duty, professionalism
suffers even more than when a lawyer makes an
improper argument, for what is permitted is considered
proper by the jury. All judges who do not stop improper
arguments—and all trial lawyers who make improper
arguments—have no business lamenting the public's low
perception of lawyers. They need only look in the mirror.
The need to discover the truth of why the court placed the
case on the docket after dismissal was final is paramount. It is
highly likely this so-called random act was the result of an ex parte
communication by WF and its attorneys, or some other improper
means. It certainly has the appearance of impropriety, bias, and
judicial misconduct.
The very integrity of the judicial systems is at risk. Public
confidences are eroded when Judges are biased, special treatment
is given to certain individuals or parties, and/or have ex parte
communications.
Just because Koonce is pro se, doesn’t mean the courts don’t
have to follow the rules.
18
Records attached to Supplemental Writ:
WF has failed to indentify which documents, if any, were not
presented to the trial court for consideration, and Koonce therefore
objects to this overly board statement and/or claim. Moreover, each
case cited by WF deals with an appeal, and is not specific for a Writ.
Nowhere in T.R.A.P. Rule 52 does it prohibit a person from
including other records; in fact, T.R.A.P. Rule 52.3(k)(2) allows such
records to be included. WF keeps attempting to use a brief
standard for a Writ standard without citation to any authority to
support its position.
Koonce cannot properly respond to this allegation because not
one document has been identified by WF that allegedly wasn’t
before the trial court. Rather, WF makes a blanket, in broad
language statement that “mandamus relief is nothing more than a
conglomeration of documents that were not part of the trial court’s
record in this matter, and should not be considered by the Court.”
Without specific objection to a specific document, Koonce is unable
to properly respond.
19
WF Issue C: WF claims that the matter had been fully briefed
in the original Writ, without referencing any particular pages, or
headings. The fact is, the original Writ did not discuss the actual
manual which had just been obtained. It makes one reference to
the document at page 15 in the Statement of Facts. There’s also no
heading regarding this specific issue, and a miscarriage of justice
will occur if the Court doesn’t allow it.
The supplementation was necessary. If somewhere in the
actual rules it requires Koonce to file a motion for leave, which
Koonce has not located with regards to extraordinary Writs, Koonce
therefore asks this Court for leave to file the supplemental Writ of
Mandamus which is necessary for this appeal.
If we are to seek truth and justice, we must have all hidden
facts revealed. Judge Sandill and the clerk’s placing this case back
on the docket more than 9 months after the court lost jurisdiction
is suspect of corruption.
Does the Court of Appeals and its clerk randomly pick out
cases that have been dismissed and place them back on the active
docket, without a motion? Relator thinks not.
20
We need to ensure that justice has not been tainted by a trial
judge or a clerk who may have acted in properly.
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Our justice system's abhorrent reaction to ex parte
communications is purposeful. Such communications undermine
the principle of transparency which is promoted by the option of
conducting proceedings recorded in open court. The Texas Supreme
Court has ruled that transparency is something "we strive to
achieve in our legal system." In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas
Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 213 (Tex.2009). Ex parte
communications do not promote that transparency.
WF, and its attorneys, have repeatedly made
misrepresentations to this Court. In the prior appeal, this Court
relied upon 2 assignments which were both dated 7 days prior to
filing of their summary judgment motion of March 23, 2009, in
affirming the trial court’s decision. Before this Court now are two
new assignments presented in Federal Court which are dated
February 17, 2005. These two different assignments support that a
21
fraud was committed upon this Court by WF, and is further
supported by WF Foreclosure manual. Wells Fargo also claimed
that it accelerated its note and deed of Trust in the first appeal to
this court, Appellate No. 01-10-00194-CV. It later claimed in the
third lawsuit that it did not accelerate the note, contrary to an
earlier position and prohibited through Judicial Estoppel. Now, WF
asserts res judicata for a Summary Judgment order it obtained
through means of fraud on the statute of limitations. WF talks out
both sides of its mouth, and the courts have demonstrated extreme,
prejudicial bias by allowing it to happen.
Any pro se litigant presenting such false documents, making
clear contradictory statements would have their pleading struck
without a second thought by the courts. Why is WF getting special
treatment? WF and its attorneys should be sanctioned for
presenting false and fabricated assignments, which is consistent
with its policies and procedures as set forth in its Foreclosure
Manual, false claims, intentionally misciting case law with the
intent to deceive and misrepresent the law, as well as securing a
summary judgment claiming that it did not accelerate the note and
deed of trust despite the fact that it told this Court it had in fact
22
accelerated, and this Court relying upon that statement in affirming
the trial court’s granting of a motion for summary judgment.
Furthermore, Wells Fargo claims in a notice of acceleration that
Wells Fargo Bank, NA is the owner and holder of the note and deed
of trust, and in this lawsuit claims it is Wells Fargo Bank, NA as
trustee who’s the owner and holder of the note and deed of trust.
Wells Fargo has intentionally deceived Koonce as to who is the
proper party in order to avoid the dismissal of their lawsuit. WF
went into federal court in January 2015, claiming that it sued
Koonce in the wrong court and therefore the statute of limitation is
extended and their complaint is timely filed. This is exactly the type
of conduct that warrants WF’s pleadings to be struck because it
thwarts the very foundation of justice and our judicial system.
Wells Fargo should have its pleadings stuck, and this Court should
reverse the trial court’s order granting a new trial, with the
inclusion that the case was dismissed in its entirety on November
17, 2015.
23
PRAYER
For the above reasons, Realtor requests that this Court deny
WF’s Motion to Strike as being meritless, grant Realtor’s request for
sanctions against WF, including striking of its pleadings, and for
such other and further relief as the court may deem just and
proper.
Dated: November 02, 2015
Word Count per computer: 3,891
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ernest Ray Koonce
Ernest Ray Koonce
24
CERTIFICATION
By my signature above, I, Ernest Ray Koonce, the Realtor in
the above styled case, do hereby certified that I have reviewed the
Petition for Writ of Mandamus, the Supplementation and this
Response to Wells Fargo’s Motion to Strike, and conclude that every
factual statement in the petition is supported by competent
evidence including in the appendix’s or record.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Rule 21(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a true
and correct copy of the foregoing document has been sent to the
following via efiling on this 2nd day of November 2015;
Bradley Chambers
Texas Bar No. 2400186
Valerie Henderson
Texas Bar No. 24078655
Baker, Donelson, Bearman,
Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.
1301 McKinney Street
Suite 3700
Houston, Texas 77010
(713) 650-9700 – Telephone
(713) 650-9701 – Facsimile
vhenderson@bakerdonelson.com
/s/ Ernest Ray Koonce
Ernest Ray Koonce
25