in the Estate of Johnnie Mae King ( 2015 )

Case No. 04-15-00271-CV
ROWLAND J. MARTIN ) IN THE COURT OF1 APPEAL
Appellant )
en
v. ) FOR THE FOURTH DigTJS^T Z.
BEXAR COUNTY, et al. ) k *^ 2
Appellees ) BEXAR COUNTY, r -o ^-
£2 VT""— JC
APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED MOTION Tpg^5^
AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLATE gRfiEF
—
w
is
~°
<■<:
TO THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS:
NOW COMES Appellant, Rowland J. Martin, Administrator and Heir of the Estate of
King, pursuant to Tex. R. App. Pro 27.1, and files this, his "Appellant's Supplemental Amended
Motion To Abate And For Extension Of Time To File Appellate Brief," in support of which the
following is shown:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant supplements his pending abatement motions to request the Court to take
judicial notice of the filing of a final notice of appeal, and to request a retroactive grant of
abatement from July 10,2015 until such time as the Court may provide for the filing of an
appellate brief. Supplementation of the record is also requested. Appellant has ascertained that
the dismissal proceeding is final based on the order of June 29, 2015 that came to his attention on
July 17,2015, and is ready, willing and able, to proceed with the filing of his appellate brief.
DISCUSSION
After diligent pre-filing inquiries into docket records in Exhibits A - C , and after
receiving new papers that the Probate Court transmitted by postal mail on or about July 21, 2015
in Exhibit D, Appellant now construes the order on June 29, 2015, and the newly transmitted
findings on July 21,2015, as indicative rulings that together clearly and unambiguously establish
the Probate Court's intention to accord finality to the dismissal action taken on June 29, 2015.
Further, the delay in proceeding with a regular appeal was not for dilatory reasons, but was in
response to an extraordinary need for diligence in ascertaining the factual foundation for
invoicing appellate jurisdiction by way of a regular appeal on April 16, 2015. The breakdown in
communications with the Probate Court reported in Appellant's motion of July 24, 2015
substantiates the reasonableness of the caution that Appellant has attempted to exercise.
The attachments include copies of docket records and orders on June 29, 2015, and July
10, 2015 in Exhibits A - C, and copies of related documents containing probate court findings
that issued on July 21, 2015 in Exhibit D. In pertinent part, the Probate Court's final dismissal
order on June 29,2015 grants the respondents' motion for a nunc pro tune dismissal order in lieu
of the erroneously dated order on March 31, 2015. The July 10, 2015 order granted a hearing on
motion for correct die judgment. The findings issued on July 21,2015 operate as a final response
to Appellant's notice of late filing of findings of fact and conclusions of law filed on July 10,
2015, and also provides a reasonable basis for the presentation of arguments about the nature of
the Probate Court's error in dismissing Appellant's cause of action for declaratory and injunctive
relief. Notwithstanding, reliance on the July 21, 2015 findings of fact for establish the finality of
the order on June 29,2015, Appellant takes special exception to the actions taken on July 21,
2015 for the reason that the breakdown in communication with the Probate Court is more
extensive than originally believed.
Under the fundamental error rule, jurisdictional errors can be raised for the first time on
appeal. In re King's Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951); Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air
Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440,445-46 (Tex. 1993). Applying fundamental error analysis,
Appellant is aggrieved in particular by the fact that the Probate Court transmitted its findings on
July 21, 2015 by way of a citation referring to the style of the case as "In the Estate of Rafael G.
Trevino," and with an accompanying order directing Martin to show cause why he should not be
removed as Administrator for the Estate of King, based on a supposed representation to the
probate court that no final settlement has been filed. A copy of the 2008 heirship settlement that
Appellant represented to the Probate Court at the hearing on March 31, 2015 is attached in
Exhibit E. Appellant infers from the latter the probable cause of the breakdown in
communication lies in the Probate Court's reliance on oral arguments by the counsel for the tax
authorities to ascertain its jurisdiction without regard to evidence of record and the case law
authorities cited in Appellant's pleadings.1
As general rule, "[receiving suit papers or actual notice through a procedure not
authorized for service is treated the same as never receiving them." Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d
833, 836 (Tex. 1990). It is unclear here how the requirements for service of a proper Estates Code
citation, and for the filing of a proper Estates Code return of service, can even plausibly be met
in the current state of the appeal. Firman Leather Goods Corp. v. McDonald & Shaw, 217 S.W.
2d 137,140 (Tex. Civ. App. - El Paso 1948, no writ) (proper return of service must precede
1 Appellant questions the reasonable of the Probate Court's finding that representations were made
to suggest that the estate inventory includes one parcel of property as to which there has been no final
settlement. See generally, "Relator's Brief in In re Martin, Case No. 04-13-00370-CV (Tex. App. - San
Antonio, 2013) ( writ denied). In fact, the Probate Court itself expressly confirmed the existence of a
settlement when it acknowledged Appellant's capacity to proceed pro se at the hearing on March 31, 2015
with the statement: 'The settlement agreement with the other 50 percent heirs takes away that concern for
me." Vol. 1 RR 8, lines 19-21. See also, Vol. 1 RR p 4 (lines 7-16) (Martin: 'There was a settlement
agreement that involved a mutual exchange of releases between myself, in my capacity as an heir, and
[the estate of) Opal Gilliam.") and p. 5 (line 13) - p. 7 (line 23) (Martin: "...[A]s I said earlier, there was
an heirship settlement agreement where the other 50 percent interest holder released all claims against my
distribution from the estate."). Appellant is unfamiliar with the source of the Probate Court's belief as of
July 221, 2015 that there is only "I remaining asset" in the estate, as the statement facially neglects to
consider Martin's demands to remove clouds from title to real property of the estate in Case NO. 2015-
CI-4779, and related efforts to wipe the slate clean by litigating the chose in action in Martin v. Bravenec,
et al. Case No. 15-0541 (Tex. S. Ct., filed July 23, 2015). The finding is unsupported in the reporters
record, and apparently neglects to consider evidence of clerk's record of the dismissal proceeding that
was originally administered on March 31. 2015.
divestiture of trial court jurisdiction in order to be effective). Indeed, it is difficult to see how
expectations of fundamental due process can be fulfilled where a reviewing judge is acting sua
sponte in a prosecutorial capacity based on unnoticed evidence and attestations grounded in
sources known only to the same reviewing judge. Cf., Gonzalez v. State, Case No. 04-14-00222-
CR (Tex. App. - San Antonio, July 15, 2015) (due process requires good faith disclosure of
exculpatory evidence in prosecutorial setting).
Reserving a detailed explanation of the factual basis for alleging fundamental errors for
the intended appellate brief, it suffices to challenge the process administered in connection with
the Probate Court's findings on July 21, 2015 with respect to (1) a lack of personal jurisdiction in
the probate court under Estates Code Section 1051.003(a) (3) which requires a citation under the
code to include "the style and number of the proceeding" for the matter under review, (2) a lack
of subject matter jurisdiction in the probate court under case law authority guaranteeing
opportunities for self-representation by pro se administrators in Exparte Shaffer, 649 S.W.2d
300 (Tex. 1983), and (3) a lack of capacity in the probate court to comply with structural
safeguards in Tex. R. Evid. 605 ("The judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as a
witness. No objection need be made in order to preserve the point.")
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
For all the reasons above, the Court of Appeals is respectfully requested to allow the late
filing of an opening appellate brief concurrently with the requested abatement of the appeal
retroactively to July 10, 2015. On one hand, it clearly appears that the Probate Court has spoken
on the issue of the finality and that further proceedings to modify the judgment through the
probate court process would be futile. On the other hand, the known errors from March 31, 2015,
coupled with prima facie errors on June 29,2015, from withholding notice and opportunity to be
»rd, and other prima facie errors on July 21. 20,5. from legally insufficient finding of fact
d.cate that the appeal is ripe for fundamental error review.
WHEREFORE. PREM.SES COHERED. AppeUan, prays tha, the Cour, gran, reiief
aU tags, for .such other relief both in law and in equity as he may be justly entitled.
ted: July 27, 2015 D
Respectfully Submitted,
Rowland J. MaY
951 Lombrano
San Antonio, Tx 78207
(210)323-3849
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I delivered a copy of this, "Appellant's Supplemental Amended Motion To Abate," to
Attorney Conry Davidson via email c/o Bexar Appraisal District, 411 S. Frio, San Antonio,
Texas, 78204 on July 27, 2015.
Dated: July 27,2015
Rowland J. Martin
951 Lombrano
San Antonio, Tx 78207
(210)323-3849
EXHIBIT
A. Probate Court Docket Records from Case No. 2001-PC-1263 referring to orders on June
29,2015 and July 10,2015.
B. Probate Court Order of June 29,2015
C. Probate Court Order of July 10,2015
D. Probate Court Papers and Findings transmitted on July 21,2015
E. Probate Court Heirship Settlement Agreement in Case No. 2001-PC-1263
A
RUN DATE: Q7/I7/20IS Bixir County Cantrall2«d Docket Systta Pa: IS PGM: WB4900P
RUN TIKE: 15:38:07 JO-: SPPROO
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
0017* 06/22/2015 2158 7377 1)002
DESC:
ORIGINAL DATE STAMPED COPY OF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
00177 06/22/2015 2ISS «SU 0006
DESC: ANSWER/RESPONSE
RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR REHE
ARINB, ETC.
00179 06/23/2015 2160 3676 0016
DESC: MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AMD AUTHORITIES OPPOSING
RESPONDENTS* MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
00190 06/23/2015 2160 3672 000«
DESCI OBJECTION
PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS'
PLEADtNG
00180 06/24/2015 2158 9986 0003
DESC: MOTION
FOR ORDER NUNC PRO TUMC
00181 06/24/201S 21SS 9815 0013
DESC: NOTICE
PET1TIONER'S-OF LATE FILING OF FINDING
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAM AND
PETITIONER'S NOTICE OF ULTRA VIRES
EXCEPTIONS TO ENTRV OF NUNC PRO TUNC
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
001B2 06/26/2015 2159 2269 00IS
' DESC:
PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL ORDER ANO HIS
NOTICE OF DEADLINE FOR FILING OF
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
00183 07/02/2015 2159 5798 0008
DESC: MOTION FOR NEM TRIAL
AND FOR CORRECTION OF THE OVERRULING OF
THE MOTION FOR REHEARING DATED APRIL 9,
2015
00191 07/02/2015 2160 3692 0006
DESC: MOTION FOR NEM TRIAL
AND FOR CORRECTION OF THE OVERRULING
OF THE MOTION FOR REHEARING DATED APRIL
9, 2015
00185 07/07/2015 2159 8405 0021
DESC: PETITION
FOR RELIEF
00192 07/07/2015 2160 3700 0006
DESC: MOTION
PETITIONER'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR
CORRECTION OF JUDGMENT N.O.V.
00184 07/08/2015 2159 9869 0020
DESC: SUPPLEMENTAL
RUN DATE: 07/17/2015 B»ar County centralized Docket Systea Pi: 17 PGM: OXB4900P
RUN TIKE: 15:38:07 JCl! SPPR0D
00028 03/30/201S KELLY H. CROSS 2I5S 2007 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER OF
DEFENDANTS' JOINT NOTION TO DISMISS FOR
JURISDICTION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
DEFENDANTS' JOINT APPL TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION
00029 13/30/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2153 3928 0003 0.00
DESC: ORDER
ON DEFENDANTS1 JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS JOINT APP TO DISM
ISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
00030 03/30/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2153 3141 000< 0.00
DESC: ORDER
ON DEFENDANTS JOINT HOT I OH TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OR IN THE ALTER
NATIVE DEFENDANTS JOINT APP TO DISSMISS
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
00031 06/19/2015 KELLY M. CROSS 2158 f»2< 0002 0.00
OESC: ORDER
MOTION TO SET
00032 06/29/2015 KELLY H. CROSS 2159 34«2 0002 0.00
~ CESC: ORDER NUNC PRO TUMC
ON DEPENDENTS' JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, DEFENDANTS' JOINT APPLICATI
ON TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
00033 07/14/2015 KELLY H. CROSS 2160 3648 0002 0.00
DESC: ORDER
ON DEFENDANT'S JOINT MOTION TO APPEAR
TELEPHONECALLY
• BOND INFORMATION*
SEQ DATE FILED PRINCIPAL
00001 06/04/2001 ROWLAND J MARTIN, JR
AGENT: STEPHEN T. PATE AMOUNT: 5000.00
SURETY: WESTERN SURETY CO
REASON: ADMINISTRATOR FORM: CORP
RELEASE DATE:
B
CAUSE NO. 2001PC1263
IN THE PROBATE COURT
IN THE ESTATE OF §
JOHNNIE MAE KING §
Decedent §
§
§
§
ROWLAND MARTIN, ADMINISTRATOR, §
Petitioner
v.
CRISTINA GONZALEZ AND BRADLEY §
BALDERAMAS, ATTORNEYS OF THE §
§ NO. 1
LAW FIRM LINBARGER, GOGGAN,
BLAIR AND SAMPSON §
§
******•**********•***•••*•*•*♦*** §
§
ROWLAND MARTIN, ADMINISTRATOR, §
Petitioner §
§
v.
§
§
BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT §
and APPRAISAL REVIEW §
BOARD OF BEXAR COUNTY § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
Respondents §
npiwPNUNCPROTUNC
nANTS- IOf"T MOTION TO P^Miy TOR LAO -
™ ALTER"ative.DEFENDANTS' IQINT APPLICATION.
™™ ALTER
PK OF
TO niSMISS FQP I *PK OF JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION
On March 31.2015 came on to be heard Defendants. Bexar Appraisal District's and Bexar
Appraisal Review Board's Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or in the alternative.
Defendants' Joint Application to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
Counsel of record appeared for the respective parties herein, and after receiving evidence
and hearing argument, the Court FINDS that said Motion/Application should be GRANTED.
IT IS, THEREFORE. ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendants, Bexar
V02 I 59P3UM2
Appraisal District's and Bexar Appraisal Review Board's Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction or in the alternative, Defendants' Joint Application to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction is GRANTED.
This is a final order. All relief not granted herein is DENIED.
SIGNED, ORDERED, AND ENTERED on
JUD^E PRESIDING
Page 2
V02 15qP3U43
c
10
Cause No. 2001-PC-1263
2015 JUL-2 P.M I,
Rowland J. Martin, IN THE PROBATE COURT
Petitioner in His Capacity As
As An Individual And As -*•■• .::;:.hI'y. rf:x
Administrator For The Estate of sv.,
Johnnie Mae King, Decedent
v.
BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND
BEXAR APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD
Respondents
Rowland J. Martin, NUMBER ONE
Petitioner in His Capacity As
As An Individual And As
Administrator For The Estate of
Johnnie Mae King, Decedent
v.
CRISTINA GONAZALEZ AND BRADELY )
BALDERAMAS, ATTORNEYS FOR THE )
LAW FTRM OF LINEBARGER GOGGAN )
BLAIR AND SAMPSON, )
Respondents ) FOR BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION TO SET
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:
i
Comes Now, Rowland Martin. Administrator for the Estate of King, and Petitioner in the above
styled cause, and files this Motion to Set for a hearing on the Petitioners' Motion For New Trial And For
Correction Of The Overruling Of The Motion For Rehearing Dated April 9,2015."
ORDER
The above "Motion For New Trial And For Correction Of The Overruling Of The Motion For
Rehearing Dated April 9,2015" is hereby set for the W day ofJuly 2015 at £(ffl o'clock
)in the Bexar County Probate Court #1.
Signed this K) day of July 2015.
HonJKelly Gross"
Be*ar County Probate Court #1
D
11
NO. 2001-PC-1263
IN THE ESTATE OF RAFAEL G. TREVINO, DECEASED
TO: Rowland J. Martin, Jr., Pro Se
951 Lombrano
San Antonio, Texas 78207
SHOW CAUSE CITATION
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BEXAR §
i
GREETINGS:
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO BE AND APPEAR before The Honorable
Kelly M. Cross, Judge of Probate Court No. One, at a hearing to be held at the Bexar
County Courthouse in Probate Court No. One, located at 100 Dolorosa, Room 123, San
Antonio, Bexar County, Texas on July 30, 2015 A.D., 2015 at 9:15 a.m., then ancl there
to appear and show cause.
A copy of the COURT ORDER TO APPEAR AND TO SHOW CAUSE WljW THE
ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED accompanies this citation.
WITNESS Gerard C. Rickhoff, Clerk of the Probate Court No. One of Bexar
County, and seal of Bexar County, at my office in the City of San Antonio, Bexar
County, Texas this oy_ day of July A.D. 2015. Issued same day.
GERARD C. RICKHOFF
Clerk of Probate Court No. One of
Bexar County, Texas
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the original of this instrument and copy of the COURT ORDER TO
APPEAR AND TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD NOT BE
REMOVED was mailed by United States Certified United States Mail, Return Receipt
Requested, postage prepaid, to personal representative and the attorney of record for
the personal representative on this c/j\ day of July, 2015.
Rowland J. Martin, Jr., Pro Se
951 Lombrano ,
San Antonio, Texas 78207 j
GERARD C. RICKHOFF
Clerk of Probate Court No. One of
Bexar County, Texas
NO. 2001-PC-1263
IN THE ESTATE OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT
§
JOHNNIE MAE KING, § NUMBER ONE
§
DECEASED § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
COURT ORDER TO APPEAR AND TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED
On this day, the Court on its own motion, complaining of Rowland J. Martin, Jr.,
failure of the Administrator to conclude the administration of this cause, which has been
pending since 2001 and which Rowland J. Martin, Jr., has represented to the Court that
there is 1 beneficiary and 1 remaining asset in the estate, a parcel of land and the
estate is still open.
Texas Estates Code § 361.052(6)(A) provides, in pertinent part, that the i
Administrator may be removed if:
(6) the representative, as executor or administrator, fails to: (A) make a final
settlement by the third anniversary of the date letters testamentary or of
administration are granted, unless that period is extended by the court on a
showing of sufficient cause supported by oath;... ;
The Administrator of this estate, Rowland J. Martin, Jr., has failed to make a final
settlement by the third anniversary of the date that letters of administration were issued
in this cause. The Court has determined that the Administrator should now be cited in
accordance with the law to appear and to show cause, if any, he may have as to why he
should not be removed as Administrator in accordance with the provisions of Texas
Estates Code §§ 361.051 and 361.052, and another administrator or receiver appointed
to conclude the administration of this estate.
IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by this Court that
Rowland J. Martin, Jr. shall appear and show cause why he should not be removed as
Administrator and the Clerk of this Court be and is hereby directed to issue citation to
Rowland J. Martin, Jr., as Administrator of the Estate of Johnny Mae King, Deceased,
by certified mail, return receipt requested, requiring the Administrator to appear before
this court in the Bexar County Courthouse in Probate Court No. One, located at |i00
Dolorosa, Room 123, San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas 78205 on July 30, 2015, at
9:15 a.m., then and there to show cause, if any, he may have as to why he should not
be removed as Administrator of the Estate of Johnnie Mae King, Deceased.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by this court that all costs associated herewith be
charged against Rowland J. Martin, Jr., individually. !
Signed July 21, 2015.
Kelly M. Cfoss,
Judge Presiding
DEPUTY
E
12
CAUSE NO. 2001PC1263
IN THE ESTATE OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT
§
JOHNNIE MAE KING, § NO. 1
§
DECEDENT § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER APPROVING JOINT MOTION TO ENFORCE RULE U AGREEMENT
On this day, came on to be heard the Joint Motion of the parties to approve Compromise
Settlement AgreemenL The Court has reviewed the parties1 Motion and finds that it is well taken
and should be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Compromise
Settlement Agreement is approved and entered of record.
Signed this fo^day of C^A*-^*- , 2008.
GEPF
JUN 0 6 2008
03/07
CAUSE NO. 2001PC1263 JUN 0 6 2008
u£SRYRICKHOFF
ECOUKT1W.1
IN THE ESTATE OF
JOHNNIE MAE KING,
DECEDENT BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
JOINT MOTION TO ENFORCE RULE 11
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT:
NOW COME the parties to the above-styled and numbered cause and jointly move this
Court to approve the Settlement Agreement attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
HEARD & SMITH, L.L.P.
3737 Broadway, Suite 310
San Antonio, Texas 78209
(210) 820-3737
(210) 820^777 (Faj
By:.
MARK STANTON SMTTH
State Bar No.: 18649100
ATTORNEYS FOR CALVIN GELL1AM
ROWLAND MARTIN, PRO SE
.0809 F85879
CAUSE NO. 200I-PC-1263
IN THE MATTER OF ) IN PROBATE COURT #1
ESTATE OF JOHNNIE MAE KING ) IN AND FOR BSXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
RULE U
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
i. The parties to this setucmenl agreement, Calvin GiUiam sad Rowland Martin, agree to
settle all claims and controversies between mem which are asserted or assetable in the above captioned
case. Ibe parlies believe that the value of the awards, releases and waivers received by each ofthem are
satisfactory as consideration for settlement agreement, and ***** the terms are in the best interest of the
Estate and the puriies.
2. The parties agree to the following awards as considerations for entering into this
A. The parties agree to an award of the following to Calvin Gilliam: (I) Bank ofAmerica
account #03820-11014 with the January 2006 balance of $2,893.28; (2) American
Express account #0004011-3876-6976-002 with an approrinate balance of $14,000.
B. The parties agree to an award of the following to Rowland Mirtin: (1) 951 Lombrano
Street, San Antonio, Tx, (2) 244 Henry Street, San Antonio, Tx; and (3) Washington
Mutual Account #38636612-6 with the February 2006 balance of approximately $.58.
3. The above captioned proceedings shall be resolved by means of the filing of this Rule 11
Settlement Agreement.
4. The parties hereto agree to release, discharge and forever hold the other harmless from
any and all other claims, demands or suits, known or unknown, fixed or contingent, liquidated or
unliquidated (whether or not asserted in this case) arising from or related to the events, transactions and
accounts which are the subject matter of this case, including those involving tbs Conservatorsbp ofKing,
Case 8PP-003988, Los Angeles Superior Court This mutual release nms to the benefit of all attorneys
and agents of the parties. Parties as used in this release includes all named parlies to this case, as well as
Garth Gilliam and Valora Flukers, and all related entities of the parties. Rowlmd Martin additionally
agrees to waive claims for fees for services rendered as administrator in the Estate of King cause # 2001-
PC-I263.
5. Each signatory warrants and represents tlrat:
A. he has the authority to bind the parties for whom that signatory sets, and
B. the claims, suits rights and/or interests which are the subject natter hereto an owned by
the party asserting same, have not been assigned (except for attorney's fees), transferred
or sold and are free ofencumbrance otter man property taxes, assessments, and costs
including demolition fees. The parties further agree to indemnify each other in
connections therewith.
C. The parties agree to recognize the standing of Calvin Gilliam as a party tote Estate
proceeding for purposes of executing and implementing the terms of this Settlement
Agreement and the Agreed Order and Judgement authorizing it.
FG5880
6. The Motion To Approve Compromise and Settlement Agreement wiih Agreed Order and
Judgement attacbed are the documents the parlies agree to use to efiEectuate die terms ofthis settlement
agreement The parties agree to cooperate with such clerical revisions to those documents as are
reasonably required to implement the terms and spirit ofthis agreement
7. This agreement is made and pcrfonnablc in the county in which (he Estate was opened
and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State ofTexas.
8. As other terms ofsettlcment, the parties agree to bear all of their own attorney's fees.
9. Each signatory to this settlement has entered into same freely and without duress after
having consulted with professionals of his choice.
10. This agreement is not subject to revocation.
Signed this_£^5*y of«6^a8ft».
CalvmXHIhaM' ' Rowland Martin
TO 0809 PS5881