Antonio Arriaga and Inez Lara Rosales v. Obdulia Martinez Arriaga, Antonio Martinez Arriaga Jr., and Reyna Luisa Martinez Arriaga ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
13-15-00038-CV
THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
FILED CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
IN THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS 7/31/2015 2:27:20 PM
CECILE FOY GSANGER
CLERK
7/31/15 No.13-15-00038-CV
CLERK
In the Court of Appeals RECEIVED IN
13th COURT OF APPEALS
For the Thirteenth District of Texas
CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
Corpus Christi/Edinburg 7/31/2015 2:27:20 PM
CECILE FOY GSANGER
Clerk
ANTONIO ARRIAGA AND INEZ LARA ROSALES,
Appellants
v.
OBDULIA MARTINEZ ARRIAGA, ANTONIO MARTINEZ ARRIAGA,
JR.,
AND REYNA LUISA MARTINEZ ARRIAGA,
Appellees.
On Appeal from the 197th District Court
ofWillacy County, Texas
Cause Number: 2014-CV-0100-A
APPELLEES' REPLY TO APPELLANTS' BRIEF
Gene McCullough
Texas Bar No. 00794267
MCCULLOUGH AND MCCULLOUGH
P.O. Box 2244
323 East Jackson Street
Harlingen, Texas 78551-2244
Tel. (956) 423-1234
Fax. (956) 423-4976
Attorney for Appellees
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
In accordance with the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, and to assist
the members of this Court in determining whether disqualification and recusal
under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 16 is necessary, Appellees certify that
the following is a complete list of the parties, attorneys, and other persons who
have an interest in the outcome of this appeal:
Plaintiffs/Appellants
Antonio Arriaga
Inez Lara Rosales
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants
Juan Angel Guerra
Texas Bar No. 08581320
Law Office of Juan Angel Guerra
1021 FairParkBlvd.
Harlingen, Texas 78550
Juanangelguerral983@gmail.com
Tel. (956) 428-1600
Fax. (956) 428-1601
Defendants/Appellees
Obdulia Martinez Arriaga
Antonio Martinez Arriaga, Jr.
Reyna Luisa Martinez Arriaga
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
Gene McCullough
Texas Bar No. 00794267
McCULLOUGH & McCULLOUGH
P.O. Box 2244
323 East Jackson Street
Harlingen, Texas 78551-2244
gene@gmcculloughlaw.com
Tel. (956) 423-1234
Fax. (956) 423-4976
ii
Trial Court Judge
The Honorable Migdalia Lopez
197tl' Judicial District Court
576 West Main
Raymondville, Texas 78580
lll
STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellees submit that this case does not warrant oral argument. However, if
the Court designates the matter for oral argument, Appellees will participate.
lV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Identify of Parties and Counsel........................................... n
Statement on Oral Argument............................................. IV
Table of Contents........................................................... v
Index of Authorities........................................................ VI
State of the Case............................................................ 1
Statement of Facts.......................................................... 2
First Issue.................................................................... 6, 8
Second Issue................................................................. 6, 10
Third Issue................................................................... 6, 11
Fourth Issue.................................................................. 6, 12
Fifth Issue..................................................................... 6, 13
Sixth Issue..................................................................... 6, 13
Summary of the Argument.................................................. 7
Argument...................................................................... 8
Prayer.......................................................................... 14
Certificate of Service........................................................ 15
v
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page(s)
Law Offices ofWindle Turley, P.C. v. Ghiasinejad, 109 S.W.3d
68, 70 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth 2003)..... .. ... .. . .. .. ... ... . . ... ... ... .. .. ... 10
1-10 Colony, Inc. v. Chao Kuan Lee, 393 S.W.3d 467, 475
(Houston- [14th Dist]2012). ... .. ... .. .. ..... .. ... ..... ... . . ...... ... . . .... .... 9
Thompson v. Dart, 746 S.W.2d 821,823 (Tex. App.- San
Antonio 1988).. .. . . ... .. .. ... .. ... ... .. .. . .. .. ... .. ... ..... ........... ....... ..... 9
Flores v. Flores, 225 S.W.3d 651, 653 (Tex. App.- El Paso, 2006). ... .. 9
Mart. v. Amerman, 133 S.W.3d 262 (2004)... ... ... .. ..... ... ... ..... ....... 8
Statutes
Tex. Prop. Code §22.001......................................... .. . . . . . . . . . . ... 8, 9
TRCP 9la.......................................................................... 11
TRCP9la9........................................................................ 11
TRCP 60............................................................................ 11
TRCP 21............................................................................ 13
VI
'
L
No.l3-15-00038-CV
In the Court of Appeals
For the Thirteenth District of Texas
Corpus Christi/Edinburg
ANTONIO ARRIAGA AND INEZ LARA ROSALES,
Appellants
v.
OBDULIA MARTINEZ ARRIAGA, ANTONIO MARTINEZ ARRIAGA,
JR.,
AND REYNA LUISA MARTINEZ ARRIAGA,
Appellees.
On Appeal from the 197th District Court
ofWillacy County, Texas
Cause Number: 2014-CV-0100-A
APPELLEES' REPLY TO APPELLANTS' BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellees, Obdulia Martinez Arriaga, Antonio Martinez Arriaga, Jr. and
Reyna Luisa Martinez Arriaga, file this, their Reply to Appellants' Brief, and
would show the following:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed this lawsuit prose on March 7, 2014. Defendants filed their
Original Answer, Special Exceptions and Request for Appointment of Receiver on
1
April 3, 2014. The Court granted Appellees' Special Exceptions, Injunction, and
Appointment of Receiver at the hearing. All of Appellees' documents were
mailed, certified mail to the Plaintiff at the address identified on his pleadings.
The Court had numerous hearings on the matter. In fact, on one occasion the Court
postponed any ruling so that the Appellant, Antonio Arriaga, could obtain the
services of an attorney to assist him in this matter. Appellant Arriaga was ordered
by the trial court to cooperate with the appointed receiver, Annette Hinojosa on
numerous occasions, yet failed to do so. Further, all notices of hearing were
mailed to Appellant Arriaga at the address identified by him as his address in his
pleadings. Appellant Arriaga wholly failed to cooperate with the Receiver, or
comply with any of the Orders of the 197th District Court, despite numerous
opportunities to do so.
Inez Lara Rosales filed a pro se plea in intervention. The Appellees filed a
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 91 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Appellant Rosales did not appear at the hearing to urge her position on the motion.
In fact, Appellant Rosales did not appear at any of the hearings on this matter.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Appellant, Antonio Arriaga filed suit against his children, the Appellees,
on March 7, 2014. CR 7-15 The gravamen of the suit appears to be that Mr.
Arriaga was attempting to set aside conveyances of real property that he had made
2
to his children incident to a divorce settlement that he had made with his ex-wife
(their mother), Obdulia Arriaga. The deeds (dated 1991 and 1993, respectively)
conveying the properties were attached to his Original Petition as Exhibits "A" and
"B." In filing his Original Petition (and every pleading thereafter) Appellant used
the address of 294 West San Francisco, Raymondville, Texas 78580. CR 21.
Appellant sought a declaration from the Court that he and his 'wife [Appellant
Rosales] are true owners of the real estate property [sic] described in Exhibit "A."'
CR 9. The properties were rental properties in Raymondville, Texas for which
rents were being paid by various tenants. The Appellees answered with
Defendants' Original Answer, Special Exceptions, Counterclaim and Application
for Permanent Injunction. CR 25-27. The Appellees specially excepted to the use
of a declaratory judgment suit for the purpose of quieting title to real property
rather than a trespass to try title suit. They further requested the appointment of a
receiver to collect the rents on the various properties and injunctive relief enjoining
Appellant from collecting further rents during the pendency of the suit. The
answer was filed with the Willacy County District Clerk and served upon
Appellant by certified mail. All pleadings in this matter have been served upon
both Appellant Arriaga and Appellant Rosales (after her filing of the Plea in
Intervention) by certified mail return receipt requested. See attached Affidavit of
Arthur Eugene McCullough along with copies of the returned (unclaimed)
3
envelopes enclosing such pleadings. Appendix A. The order setting hearing was
issued by the district clerk and served upon Appellee at the address of 294 West
Hidalgo, Raymondville, Texas. CR 29 (Special Exceptions), 30 (Injunction).
Despite his claims that he never received copies of pleadings or notices of
hearings, Appellant appeared at the hearing on April 23, 2014. RR Volume 1, pg
3-22. The Court recommended to him that he retain counsel. RR Volume 1, Pg
15, ll 14-15; Pg 19, ll25; Pg 20, 111-4. As a result of that hearing, the Court
entered the Order Sustaining Defendants' Special Exceptions to Plaintiff's Petition
and Order Granting Injunction and Appointing Receiver. CR 33; CR 34-36. Both
documents were mailed to Appellant by the clerk to his address at 294 West
Hidalgo, Raymondville, Texas 78580, as noted on the face of each instrument.
Appellant apparently received the executed Orders, because he filed Plaintiff's
Objection to Defendants' Proposed Order on Sustaining Defendants' Special
Exceptions and Order Granting Injunction and Appointment of Receiver. CR 37-
38. That matter was set for hearing on June 25, 2014 by the Court by Order
entered May 19, 2014. CR 44. On June 16, 2014 the Appellees filed their Motion
for Contempt or in the Alternative Motion for Disgorgement of Rents. CR 45-57.
The Appellees alleged that the Appellant had continued to collect the rents in
violation of the Injunction issued by the court prohibiting him from doing so, and
had failed to cooperate with the Receiver appointed by the Court. On June 24,
4
2014, the Appellant filed a Motion for Continuance of the hearing to which he
attached an affidavit. He admitted in the affidavit that "I showed up because I
received the orders." CR 82. The Court granted the continuance of the hearing on
Motion for Contempt and reset the matter for August 20, 2014. CR 67. However,
at that hearing, the Court Ordered Mr. Arriaga to turn over all rents collected on
the properties to the appointed Receiver, Annette Hinojosa. On August 20, 2014,
the parties appeared as ordered. The Court received testimony from receiver,
Annette Hinojosa and Appellant Antonio Arriaga regarding his compliance with
the court's orders of injunction and appointment of receiver. The Court ordered
Mr. Arriaga to comply with the order and deliver rents and receipts from the date
of April 23, 2014 for the subject properties to receiver Annette Hinojosa, or he
would be found in contempt and placed in jail. CR 152. A compliance hearing
was set for September 11, 2014. The parties appeared for that hearing. The matter
was reset for September 24, 2014. On September 18, 2014, for the first time,
Appellant Inez Lara Rosales filed a Plea in Intervention in the matter. There was
no separate petition filed with the Plea in Intervention alleging a .cause of action
against any party. Appellees filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plea in Intervention
pursuant to Rule 91a. All matters were eventually heard on November 26, 2014.
The Court considered Appellees' Motion to Dismiss Receivership or in the
Alternative, Motion for Contempt. After reviewing the fact that Appellant Arriaga
5
,_I
had failed to amend his pleadings to re-state his grounds for relief, had failed to
cooperate with the receiver, and had failed to comply with the injunction against
further interference with the tenants, the Court dismissed his cause of action in its
entirety. RR Volume, 6, 1 11-Pg 20, 15. Appellant Rosales did not appear at that
hearing to urge her Plea in Intervention. !d. Pg 20, ll6-15. It was dismissed.
FIRST ISSUE
The trial court did not err by dismissing Plaintiff Arriaga's case for failure to
amend his Pleadings. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to amend his pleadings, and
refused to do so.
SECOND ISSUE
The trial court did not err in dismissing Appellant Rosales' Plea in Intervention.
Appellant did not appear to urge the Plea in Intervention or the Motion for Leave
to File Late Response.
THIRD ISSUE
The trial court did not err in granting Appellee's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Rule 9la of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in that Appellant wholly failed to
appear to urge her plea in intervention.
FOURTH ISSUE
The trial court did not err by entering the order signed on December 15, 2014.
FIFTH ISSUE
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by not obligating Appellees to notify the
Appellants of whatever motion was to be heard. Notices were sent by the District
Clerk's offices as well as Appellees to the addresses provided by Appellants.
6
SIXTH ISSUE
The trial court did not err by not allowing evidence to be presented related to
ownership of property in that there were no live pleadings to support such evidence
ever presented, despite numerous opportunities for the Appellant to amend his
pleadings.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Appellants come before this Court asking that several orders of the 197th
District Court be set aside. The premise of their argument is that they were not
notified of the substance of the hearings, and did not have adequate opportunity to
respond, that the court should not have dismissed a plea in intervention, and that
the court should have allowed a trial on the merits. What is fundamental to the
case are the following facts: The Appellant Arriaga requested declaratory relief of
the Court in what was at its basis a suit to quiet title to property he had deeded over
to the Appellees over 20 years before. The Court sustained special exceptions to
this method of pleading and urged Appellant to re-plead and to hire an attorney.
He never did either. Seven months later, the Court dismissed his case. Further, the
Court issued an injunction to preserve the status quo during the pendency of the
case, and to allow the appointed receiver to maintain the status quo during the
lawsuit. Appellant Arriaga continually failed to comply with the injunction or
cooperate with the receiver pursuant to the Court's Orders and admonishments.
Appellant Rosales failed to appear to urge her Plea in Intervention. She never
7
appeared before the Court, and the Court appropriately dismissed her Plea in
Intervention.
ARGUMENT
FIRST ISSUE
The trial court did not err by dismissing Plaintiff Arriaga's case for failure to
amend his Pleadings. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to amend his pleadings, and
refused to do so.
Appellant's lawsuit has at it basis the premise that he wants the Court to find
that he "and his wife are the true owners of the real estate property [sic] described"
within the pleading and in deeds as well as a lis pendens attached to the Plaintiffs
Original Petition. CR 7-17. There can be no conclusion drawn from the pleading
than that he is asking that the court establish title to the property identified within
the pleading. The appropriate vehicle for a suit to determine title to real property is
the Trespass to Try Title statute. Tex. Prop. Code, Section 22.001. The Appellees
correctly excepted to the Original Petition, citing in the Special Exceptions Martin
v. Amerman. 133 S.W.3d 262 (Tex. 2004). The Court granted the Special
Exceptions and Ordered the Appellant to re-plead and indicate the reasons that a
declaratory judgment would be appropriate in lieu of a Trespass to Try Title suit.
The Appellant chose not to do so. Instead, he attempts to explain away a mountain
of authority which reiterates the current state of the law in Texas-the proper
vehicle to determine title to real property is a suit to quiet title, or a Trespass to Try
8
'I
Title suit. In fact, Amerman, which Appellant claims is solely related to boundary
problems holds precisely that: "The statute expressly provides that it is the method
for determining title to ... real property." Id. at 268. All of the cases cited in
Appellant's Brief that are in the least relevant to the issue of determining title to
real property matter echo the ruling of Amerman. Flores, while cited by Appellant
in support of some sort of parol evidence argument, was, in fact, filed as a suit to
quiet title, or in the alternative a trespass to try title. Flores v. Flores, 225 SW.3d
651, 653 (Tex. App-El Paso, 2006). Even Thompson v. Dart, which Appellant
attempts to rely upon for the theory that there was some oral agreement to transfer
property in this case was a suit to quiet title. Thompson v. Dart, 746 S.W.2d 821,
823 (Tex. App--San Antonio 1988). Incidentally, that court held that there are two
ways to transfer property-one is by deed, and the other is by parol gift under
certain circumstances. Id., at 825. Attached to Appellant's Original Petition is the
deed proving that he transferred the property in question to his children. CR 11-
12. Appellant cites I-10 Colony for the proposition that a declaratory judgment can
be used to detennine title to real property. In fact, the case stands for the exact
same proposition as all the previous cases: "Given the mandatory language in
Property Code section 22.001 ("[a] trespass to try title action is the method of
determining title") ... a party may not artfully plead a title dispute as a declaratory
judgment action just to obtain attorney's fees when that claim should have been
9
brought as a trespass-to-try-title action." !-Colony v. Chao Kuan Lee, 393 S.W.3d
467, 475 (Houston-[14th Dist] 2012). (emphasis by court) What Appellant is
really trying to do with this suit is ask the court to set aside deeds he executed 20
years before, but he was unwilling to re-plead as ordered by the Court. Appellees
respectfully request that Issue One be denied.
SECOND ISSUE
The trial court did not err in dismissing Appellant Rosales' Plea in Intervention.
Appellant did not appear to urge the Plea in Intervention or the Motion for Leave
to File Late Response.
It is fundamental to our system of jurisprudence that if a party is seeking
relief from the court, they must present themselves before the court to urge their
case. Appellant Rosales filed a Plea in Intervention, but never came before the
court to urge the plea. Her Plea in Intervention came on to be heard on the same
day that the case in chief was heard before the court. Her plea alleged that she had
some sort of interest in the case in chief filed by her husband and which was never
properly pled. CR 88-90. However, by filing the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Rule 91 a, the Appellees placed in question whether there was a justiciable interest
in the suit. CR 99-100. Procedurally, "once the motion to strike has been filed, the
burden shifts to the intervenor to show a justiciable interest in the lawsuit. Law
Offices of Windle Turnley, P.C. v. Ghiasinejad, 109 S.W.3d 68, 70 (TexApp.-
Fort Worth 2003). However, there was no separate petition filed
10
contemporaneously with it. While Appellant's brief states that she had an interest
in the properties since they were purchased during her marriage to Appellant
Arriaga, there is no pleading or evidence supporting such claim in the record. In
spite of being ordered to produce the vesting deeds to these properties at the
hearing on April 23, 2014, Appellant Arriaga never produced them. There is no
evidence in the record as to when they were purchased. It is clear that the court did
not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Plea in Intervention. Id. (Articulating
abuse of discretion as the standard of review in striking a plea in intervention).
Appellees respectfully request that this issue be denied.
THIRD ISSUE
The trial court did not err in granting Appellee's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Rule 91 a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in that Appellant wholly failed to
appear to urge her plea in intervention.
Appellant Rosales takes the position that it was improper for Appellees to
file a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 91a in response to her Plea in
Intervention. TRCP 9la. Her position is that the exclusive method for addressing
such a plea is a motion to strike pursuant to Rule 60. TRCP 60. Neither Rule
provides that it is the exclusive remedy in any case. Further, Rule 91a provides
that "This rule is in addition to, and does not supersede or affect, other procedures
that authorize dismissal." TRCP 91a.9 There was no timely response to the
Motion filed, nor did Appellant appear to urge her position on the matter at the
11
hearing for which proper notice was given. CR 102. Finally, the entire case was
dismissed on the date that the Motion to dismiss was set. Therefore, such
intervention was rendered moot. Appellant's issue number three should be denied.
FOURTH ISSUE
The trial court did not err by entering the order signed on December 15, 2014.
Appellant Arriaga filed his petition for declaratory judgment related to
properties that he had transferred to his children over twenty years prior to filing
the suit. His contention was that somehow title had not vested in him. The court
properly granted Special Exceptions related to his pleading for declaratory
judgment. He never amended his pleadings to address the issue of why the matter
should not be pled as a suit to quiet title or a trespass to try title suit pursuant to
Chapter 22 of the Texas Property Code. Further, he was ordered to refrain from
interfering with the tenants in possession ofthe properties he was seeking. CR 35.
He repeatedly failed to do so. He further failed to deliver rents over to the receiver
in spite of admonishments from the court to do so. RR Vol4 of7, Pg 8, ll25-Pg 9,
ll9. It was not improper for the court to dismiss his case in its entirety for failure to
amend and plead a proper cause of action, and for failure to cooperate with a
receiver and for repeated violations of an injunction-the existence of which he
was fully aware. Mr. Arriaga had been at each of the hearings on the matter.
Further, he had been repeatedly admonished to retain counsel to assist him in the
12
matter. He refused to do so, and now wishes this court to undo the consequences
of his choices. Appellant's issue number four should be denied.
FIFTH ISSUE
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by not obligating Appellees to notify the
Appellants of whatever motion was to be heard. Notices were sent by the District
Clerk's offices to the addresses provided by Appellants.
District Clerk served notices of hearings upon the litigants. The Rules
require that counsel serve pleadings upon counsel or pro se litigants. TRCP 21.
Those Rules were followed. Appellant acknowledged receiving notices of hearing
in his affidavit filed as an attachment to his Request for Continuance of the Motion
for Contempt, as well as by his appearance at each scheduled hearing. CR Ill.
Further, Appellees served upon both Appellants each pleading that was filed by
certified mail. They were all refused. The Affidavit of Arthur Eugene McCullough
is attached hereto with copies of the refused certified mail envelopes which are still
in counsel's possession. Appendix A. This is a non-issue. No one can make a
litigant accept or claim his certified mail. Furthermore, the documents were sent
by regular mail as well. Issue number five is no issue at all and should be denied.
SIXTH ISSUE
The trial court did not err by not allowing evidence to be presented related to
ownership of property in that there were no live pleadings to support such evidence
ever presented, despite numerous opportunities for the Appellant to amend his
pleadings.
13
'
I
The court ordered Mr. Arriaga to bring forth evidence of title to the
properties at the first hearing on the matters-along with the divorce decree from
his first wife. The order was made verbally from the bench, but he was also mailed
a copy of the Order directing him to do so. RR, Vol1, Pg 15, 120-Pg16, 16. The
order entered on May 8, 2014 specifically states in relevant part as follows:
"Plaintiff is to provide to Defendant's counsel certified copies of the following
within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order: Divorce Decree and every Gift
Deed to his children, along with the Deeds vesting title to these properties." CR
35. He had opportunities at no less than four separate hearings and over seven
months to do so. He never did. In the absence of such evidence, and the failure of
Mr. Arriaga to amend his pleadings there was nothing before the court upon which
to present evidence. Issue number six should be denied.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellees, Obdulia Martinez
Arriaga, Antonio Martinez Arriaga, Jr. and Reyna Luisa Martinez Arriaga,
respectfully requests that this Court affirm the Order of Dismissal entered by the
19i11 District Court on December 15, 2014, along with any other relief this Court
deems just and equitable.
14
Respectfully submitted,
;:&'McCULLOUGH
323 East Jackson Street
Harlingen, Texas 78551-2244
Tel. (956) 423-1234
Fax. (956) 423-4976
gene@gmcculloughlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certif'y that on July?J/, 2015, a true and correct copy of Appellees' Reply
to Appellants' Brief was served to each person listed below by the method
indicated:
VIA FACSIMILE: (956) 428-1601
AND REGULAR MAIL
Mr. Juan Angel Guerra
Attorney at Law
1021 FairParkBlvd.
Harlingen, Texas 78550-2300
15
APPENDIX A
. No. 13-15-00038-CV
In the Court of Appeals
For the Thirteenth District of Texas
Corpus Christi/Edinburg
ANTONIO ARRIAGA AND INEZ LARA ROSALES,
Appellants
v.
OBDULIA MARTINEZ ARRIAGA, ANTONIO MARTINEZ ARRIAGA, JR.,
AND REYNA LUISA MARTINEZ ARRIAGA,
Appellees.
On Appeal from the 197th District Court
of Willacy County, Texas
Cause Number: 2014-CV-0100-A
AFFIDAVIT OF GENE MCCULLOUGH
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF CAMERON §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared GENE
MCCULLOUGH, who swore on oath that the following facts are true:
"My name is GENE MCCULLOUGH. I am over the age of 18 years, of sound
mind and fully competent to make this affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the facts
herein stated and they are all true and correct.
"I have attached copies of all the certified mail that was addressed to Appellants,
Antonio Arriaga and Inez Lara Rosales, and were returned back to my office as
undelivered. The following is a list of what was mailed in those undelivered envelopes:
1) April 2, 2014 - Defendants' Original Answer, Special Exceptions,
Counterclaims and Application for Permanent Injunction;
2) September 9, 2014- Defendants' Motion for Trial Setting. This pleading
was sent both certified mail and regular mail. The regular mail was not
returned;
3) October 15, 2014- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Action with Prejudice
for Failure to Comply with Court Order and for Termination of
Receivership. This pleading was sent both certified mail and regular mail to
Raymondville and Brownsville addresses. The regular mail was not
returned;
4) October 29, 2014- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plea in Intervention
(came back for both Appellants). This pleading was sent both certified mail
and regular mail to Raymondville and Brownsville addresses. The regular
mail was not returned; and
5) February 10, 2015- Docketing Statement.
I verifY that the attached copies are true and correct copies of the original envelopes
mailed to Appellants, Antonio Arriaga and Inez Lara Rosales."
SIGNED on the 3l't day ofJuly, 2015. /':7
///
...'/
IN REPLYING PLEASE REFER
TO THIS FILE NUMBER
I
McCULLOUGH AND McCULLOUGH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
323 E. JACKSON
GRAHAM MCCUU.OUGH
P.O. Box 2244 TELEPHONE: 956/423-1234
GENE McCUL.L.OUGH HARLINGEN, TEXAS 78551·2244 FACSIMILE: 956/423·4976
www.qmccullouqhlaw.com
April 2, 2014
Mr. Gilberta Lozano
Wi!lacy County District Clerk
546 W. Hidalgo, 151 Floor
Raymondville, Texas 78580
RE: Cause No. 2014-CV-0100-A; Antonio Arriaga v. Obdulia Martinez Arriaga,
Antonio Martinez Arriaga, Jr. and Reyna Luisa Martinez Arriaga; In the 197'11
District Court of Willacy County, Texas
Dear Mr. Lozano:
In regard to the above-referenced cause, enclosed for filing please find the following:
1) Defendants' Original Answer, Special Exceptions, Counterclaim and Applicatino for
Permanent Injunction;
2) Order Setting Hearing on Defendants' Request for Injunction Hearing; and
3) Order Setting Hearing on Defendants' Special Exceptions.
Also enclosed is our firm's check in the amOLmt of $35.00 to cover the counterclaim fee.
I would like to thank you in advance for the professional courtesies extended to our
office.
garding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the
--~-.l.
-~--------~ -- ...... - . ,. ___ _
FIRST COMMUNITY BANK 4~b1
1151 W. HIGHWAY77
SAN BENITO, lX 78586 88-82.8/1149
McCULLOUGH & McCULLOUGH 09-10 02
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PO BOX 2244 (956) 423-1234
HARLINGEN, TX78551-2244 4/2/2014
lg
PAY TO THE
ORDER OF
Gilbert Lozano $ **35.00 "
:m··
0
Thirty-Five and 00/1 00*******************************************************************************************************
DOLLARS l'jJ
Gilbert Lozano
546 W. Hidlago, 1st Floor II
E
Raymondville, Texas 78580
I
MEMO
Counterclaim Fee- Cause No. 2014-CV-0100-A; Arr Ck~)``~ ·-c:s-::;~ORIZED SIGNATURE
~
~
~·
111 00 ... 2 5 j,u• •: ~ j, ... '108 28 '1•: n•oo 5 b...... 811 1
'*
"'
I'
.~f~J'v.tf··__.....·.·
(;,
,,'
(
~' McCULLOUGHANDMcCULLOUGH "
ATTORNEYSATLAW -``~
``'':·~
. ·~ q
-~,;
!. 323E.JACKSON
f'.
r. P.O. Box 2244 ~.·'jfl;"i:f. .,.,"''' 2 A,...R
HAR!.JNGEN, TEXAS 78551•2244 111!1': . . -"'-•·
. ...... ,_
f~i
··~, __ '
~·
r PIACE$TICKER:A] WP OEENVEl,.'OPE:TfYTHE'RIGHT ~
), ------:-``!~!``````=````~--~--``
~ CERlfFIEIJ MAl£,. . ·.
\. '·. ·
~,
APR 28 2014
r::.``~,-
f;
!"
Anton\p Arr,Vctga, Pro Se '(1,\ '\
, ,:\ A" \ '\
i' 294 We\t.&m Francisco ~X'1 ' 1 '"``"P. oJ \ ,. I
'lle, Texas 78580 ·~
~'\ J> \ . <'&;·, I
,,
~;·
.
7012 3460 0002 5940 5161
;\o<.....
f~I.XIE 7·82 nE 1. e·-e-·g._· 00!;4/22/:1.4 -: !
l; RETURN TO SENDER
~ ., UNCLAIMED
UNABLE TO FORWARD
.I
;;,,
tJ!
7855~224444
i
"
r;J
_·¥:.
'
BC: *l.4·1..c&-·6·'5·9US---&£-42
HI J ii ;! f l • J t.! u ~ i Hf j :,pd~Hl~H~lih~h_f~l````Jt~l``I!J``~A;j!
j
l
''~'"~''``""'"''"'""""'""''"""'"'~"r""-"='"''-""'"·""'''"'' ''"-"""·"····~· • ---- , ___,. ,..
'
---·--------- ----- -----~--~-``-~-
'
'
- ---~-
·-"-------
---· -_.:;c __;,:.,. "¥."
-----,
......... ~­
.._......,
·j
d
'I
.,..-._,..- ........ lI
~.....
'1"-``-.
ti~pl81:e iteJTIS 1o 2, .and 3. 'Also compfete ~
I
:item 4:1f Restricted Delivery is desired. 1l
. ''{`` -;: I ~ Print your name and address on the reverse ~-
~• S!J that we. can _returt) the c_ard to you; i
"'-•"(.r• ~<·"':~ • ;Attach this card to the-back of the mailpiece, J
1
~:-·-
~ -'f..ohon· the front Jf space permits. ~
.!
1• .Article Addressed to:
D.
·enter delivery address below: DNa '
I
.c''
Q¥1``() \\{"'\~ 0\..___ ,'35
: aqLf 'l,J· s;,a_Vj``c.-~.
, ``ty\6.-Ju\ \l e._ ;v~
··~ . . ·· ····C:t&:;80
3460 0002 5940 5161
'"~ .•,.,.;...... .. ..., ..,,, ""'•·•
~ - ""·~- ...~., ., '"'"-'"'-·' -~---"~ "'"-'·"- "'" ·-'·"'·· ~-~
"'
IN REP!,."'NG PLEASE REFER
TO Ttflls FILE NUMBER
McCULLOUGH AND McCULLOUGH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
323 E. JACKSON
P.O. Box2244 TELEPHONE: 956/423-1234
GRAHAM McCULLOUGH FACSIMILE: 956/423-4976
GENE McCULLOUGH HARUNGEN, TEXAS 78551·2244
www.gmccullouqhlaw.com
September 9, 2014
Mr. Gilberta Lozano
Willacy County District Clerk
546 W. Hidalgo, 151 Floor
Raymondville, Texas 78580
RE: Cause No .. 20 14-CV-0 I 00-A; Antonio Arriaga v. Obdulia Martinez Arriaga,11
Antonio Martinez Arriaga, Jr. and Reyna Luisa Martinez Arriaga; In the 197'
District Court ofWillacy County, Texas
Dear Mr. Lozano:
In regard to the above-referenced cause, enclosed for filing please find the following:
1) Defendants' Motion for Trial Setting; and
2) Order Setting Hearing.
I would like to thank you in advance for the professional courtesies extended to our
office.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the
office.
Sincerely,
.-'1 Annette C. Hinojosa
Ci
Cl (En
L~·. Office of Annette C. Hinojosa, P.C.
Cl . P. 0. Box 195/155 N. 3''' Street
Raymondville, Texas 78580
'
MCCULLOUGH AND McCULLOUGH !5.P'i!5f'08~
.•
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
323 E. JACKSON
P.O. Box 2244
HARLINGEN, TEXAS 7855f ·22.44
2s"'{(f(.
~ ~ ~;.~. ``'/~-
"::)
"
f'~. .f~f"U~'!i-*:i'.~•
rmi'
-,~¥ ""'"~l'l't'r'NIEY lll!OWi!$
~. $006.48°
o_;z 1 p
0000020339 SEP 09 2014
MAlLED FROM ZiP CODE 7 8-55-0
,.p...YMOtvo~
Ill Ul Ill 111111 Antonio Arriaga, ProSe
294 West San Francisco )
{{ ,~'\
\l (
0
c.\ /)
£ I
<'011
<<:<,
Y-.
)
Raymondvii
7009 1680'DOD~ ~lt2 9872 ft.n:-xiE :r·s-1,- D(~POs;-...,
0' ··q.
I:: "'111 y,;;;.-=~
fiJ"' ~fi~?··· ""
ATTORNEYS AT LAW _
t·, •'i.th..-::.,..>.).; .. .,...... - ~o.;,.- ...``&``-
323E.JACKSON
-®t......------·· z ~: ``:".S5i";:~ -'lim">?,!!"-'i""
f' P.O.Box2244 - :'1 ... ~- '~==w Pl"l'NEY aow::::s
r.: HARUNGEN, T£XAS7855!·2244 ``iiltli:::...,_--·
};
r 02 1? $006.69°
~;: (&\1V 0000020339 OCT 15 2014
MA!LEC) FROM ZlP CODE 78550
(;~'- li/
!f.,'
w
v
.. \D\'J\(0
~0
~'lMONDv_
~
``
/Antonio Arria·
·{jtf- 294 West San
Se
•A:111CISCO
( o;::\~9-
, G ~- i
r~
7009 1680 0001 9162 9940 Raymond'
NI'XIE TSZ' ii"E ~0'0S -!~/05:/~4
~
RETURN TO SENDER
lJ N CL AI ME 0
t:~;
'~
·- BC: 78551.224444
UNABLE TO FORWARD
*1.-·41.0-ll7'303.-~S-44
'-·
t'
•\ l i I! IIi I i \Ill' l Ili i i j i'' I!' i' \i il !!hi\ '1 i I ihi Iii 1l j i lh" !'.1 \
!''
-~- -------~- -----``·---
'
- -·-· ----- -~-~--
'
11 Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by (Printed Name)
a Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
D. Is deliveJY address different from item 1? Yes
1. Article Addressed to: DNo
If YES,. enier delivery address below:
Antonio Arriaga, Pro Se
294 West San Francisco
Raymondville, Texas 78580
2. Article
(Transfer from"
7009 1680 0001 9162 9940
PS Form 3811, July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt
IN REPLYING PLEASE REFER
TO THIS FILE NUMBER
McCULLOUGH AND McCULLOUGH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
323 E. JACKSON
GRAHAM McCULLOUGH P.O. Box2244 TELEPHONE: 956/423·1234
GENE McCULLOUGH HARLINGEN, TExAs 78551-2244 FACSIMILE: 956/423·4976
www.qmcculloughlaw.com
October 29,2014
Mr. Gilberto Lozano
Willacy County District Clerk
546 W. Hidalgo, 1st Floor
Raymondville, Texas 78580
RE: Cause No. 2014-CV-0100-A; Antonio Arriaga v. Obdulia Martinez Arriaga,
Antonio Martinez Arriaga, Jr. and Reyna Luisa Martinez Arriaga; In the 197'11
District Court of Willacy County, Texas
Dear Mr. Lozano:
In regard to the above-referenced cause, enclosed for filing please find the following:
1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plea in Intervention;
2) Order Setting Hearing; and
3) Order Granting.
I am requesting that the Court set this motion for November 26, 2014 with our other
motions currently set for that same day.
I would like to thank you in advance for the professional courtesies extended to our
office.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the
office.
i M,au_ Express~M
,fR~Celpt for MeYcharidisB
fotjpelilfery
'
,(
-·
f McCULLOUGH AND McCULLOUGH \
1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW
•
~-; 323 E. JACKSON ;,;
ls~' !i!l;T
. l..C~.!j .::,~
P.O. Box2244
1 HARLINGEN, TEXAS 78551 2244 8
• • -~ "' ).-() - (I_"/
"''1.V - ·=,• ........,
D ..
P 'N£Y BOWSS
~',
mumo
2n · · ·" ·;. 0000020339
jp
2 $OCT
006.690
,. -{J \\ ~"?"'"'''"m:
' ~ ~ ' ~LAC8S'rJCKEflATTOB-ol' ! • ', \
:~ -~:~: '"'~:-: c£iiiiieifiViiiii£?:;::~-:"~
\ c \~c;, \\J
~:
II II
7009 1680 0001 9162 9964
Ill Inez Lara Rosales
2955 32"d Street
Brownsville, T""< 7.1:'\?n
V·\\)'<
v IV
V)
~ N.-r,Y~a 7:. 8;2: DE :LJ~,Q~-- · 0;:~-'l, 1,j ~7 / 1::4.
''
RETURN TO S E ru:rE·R
l
1
iH~CLAIMED
r \ UNABLE TQ FORWARD I
'[
,,
- - ......... , -::-:=• ,....,.-;:;:.s ·~r"--.--•-•
"?BE:·.::::-,. ~-~s 1 t?i2 ~2t"'
i.``, r~ h;-, ti J!li !f~-fJ vp!:!fljJ fli! ~! lnl 11 t``i~ i1 j llfil``~-1'JllJ I'
'
-- - ------- .
"·
•- Compl·ete items 1', 2, and 3._ Also complete A Signature
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 0 Agent
• Printyour .name and address on the reverse X D
· so that we can return the card tO you. B. Received by (Printed Name) c. Date of Delivery
• Attach )his card to the back of the mailpiece,
or oo the front If space permits.
D.,Jsdeiiveryaddressdlfferentfrom Item 1?
1. Artlc!e Addressed to: If YES, enter delivery address befow: 0 N'o
Inez Lara Rosales
2955 32"• Street
Brownsville, Te:xas 78520
2. Artfcle:Numl?"'... -
rrrans~(ro~ 7009 1680 0001 9162 9964 -~-............,
P$ Fcirm3811; July :2013 Dome;stio Return Receipt
,.
- --·-------~- ·-- --·- i ·----- --~-~
--------- -------~---~-------~
..__.``~-~,, --,•-"7~"'·-· -~·-- ·•:':--"-• .,._,__,~ "··-'·"
'
~
'
'tS
1, McCULLOUGH AND McCULLOUGH 9:;<5 Posr~
~- ATTORNEYS AT LAW ,.0 ~
'
f ':'7~;~]f````:!"::
323 E. JACKSON
P.O. Box 2244
HARLINGEN, TEXAS78551·2244
02 ;p $ 006.690
0000020339 OCT 29 2014
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 78.550
(fb ``~, p.-"(t-...\O..·.·.'".,'O V_.<'
_..).._
/,p)&/!'1 ~ (<."
"-.A
( ' J 0 ~1),?· \ )'-.l
ocr
7009 1680 0001 9162 9957 Raymondville ' \\ !'} J
wT''``
"""O,X_:.;_c: 1 s·z U"E 1.-``-~ ``··1: tz``'/'J.:.4~ !
I
RETURN TO
~;twn~> (L_';l,:'\J~
SENDER
UNCLAIMED
/
UNABLE TO FORWARD
BElli~
2nd ra:mc~
- =~·
~ ..... 795S~ZZ4444
l1 1 t i ~-p 1 0!! j
*~4~6-0563~-29-42
i t H H U.l I n l { I . I '"
< J [__ __.._."................. -·-··``~!.~.~ Info~.'!!~tion ·······-····-·-·····'
Total Filing Fees: $0.00 Current Status: .,accepted
Accepted Oate/Time: 2/10/2015 3:12:30 PM
Filing Description: Docketing Statement
Reference Number:212
Document Information
Document(s) Filed:
Lead Document:
In· Original - Docketing Statement.odf (PUBLIC]
~Transmitted - Docketing Statement. pdf [PUBLIC]
This site and all contents Copyright ©2003-2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
Loading ...
https://www.pmdocefile.comNiewFiling.aspx 2/10/2015
_,_
,.
I
I
I
Antonio Arriaga I
294 West San Francisco I
Raymondville, Texas 78580 ;;:::::::::#=;::===t-=======1
is.:i..i~Type . _ _. .~. ..·•_ · __ _ I
t• .CertilledMall• PrlorityMai!Elhandl~ 1~. !
-;~. -_InsuredJ``\1-. c.:J.: ll~c:tonO~;~hvery_: ··-. 1--
4: J;!estrlctod Oolivery? (EXtrS Fee) ~oves
~ ~ ~
-~-``~-~-``~-``~---``~- ``-``-'~'~'--`````` -``~ . 1E
2.~,!~j;6~ , 7012 3460 0002-5,94'0· 3761 _ I . . J . ---'
__,_ j ps ``yO, 88~11',~ui~2?13'~,.,_ _ --~l)o~:srr?~fu``ec•:PL -- ~ ~ ~ ---- ~ - -- · ·- · - -- !-
''
r-;r;z{xc-·V%W~-v·rcwM 1 tw'·trB<.'W'·'--ww ··= 'wi-avnnNrn 't --~--~ '1h;·g·iifr•ttt±'<¥' z ... " "--i ··ua-''i,f~"- '('4-cw·"'fir·-''•''M ;•ymtnNi&W=;wm·WJ.',......._j
I .
\'
--
'
McCULLOUGH AND McCULLOUGH o..ts-1; 78:2 DE 1.009 !Hl03/07/1.5
~'lit"--··---·­
dBSI'----- RETURN TO SENDER
tlNr1 ATMi=n
llNA!!LE TO !=ORWARO
EC~ 78:55]..:22·4444 *~4-l.-t0-02-769-l.-0-43
'• ,
7'6.'560$4~ ••H·l· 1 li 1 U~1!HliJl 1 1111t. U•tl h!lll~r!+l!lllt, 1.111i ·'llh l,
'