Billy Wayne Baskett v. Linnet Sue Baskett

ACCEPTED
03-16-00563-CV
13922444
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
11/22/2016 10:11:29 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
NO. 03-16-00563-CV
FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS 11/22/2016 10:11:29 AM
AUSTIN, TEXAS JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
BILLY WAYNE BASKETT,
Appellant
V.
LINNET SUE BASKETT,
Appellee
From County Court at Law No. 4
Williamson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. I4-1600-FC4
BRIEF OF APPELLEE LINNET SUE BASKETT
James A. Vaught
State Bar No. 20526300
VAUGHT LAW FIRM, P.C.
5929 Balcones Drive, Suite 201
Austin, Texas 78731
(512) 342-9980 phone
(512) 610-9980 facsimile
e-mail: jimmy@vaughtlawfirm.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
LINNET SUE BASKETT
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Pursuant to Rule 38.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellee
provides the following information to this Court:
APPELLANT
Billy Wayne Baskett
APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
Justin M. Jackson
1460 E. Whitestone Blvd., Suite 140
Cedar Park, Texas 78613
(512) 528-1900 phone
(866) 929-283 8 facsimile
APPELLEE
Linnet Sue Baskett
APPELLATE COUNSEL FORAPPELLEE
Jimmy Vaught
VAUGHT LAW FIRM, P.C.
5929 Balcones Drive, Suite 201
Austin, Texas 78731
(512) 342-9980 phone
(512) 610-9980 facsimile
jimmy@vaughtlawfirm.com e-mail
The foregoing information is also provided to assist the members of this Court
in determining issues of disqualification and recusal under Rule 16 of the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. .................................. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................ ii-iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT............................................. I
This is an enforcement action arising out of a divorce case. Appellant
Billy Wayne Baskett failed to tum over property awarded to Appellee
Linnet Sue Baskett, and damaged, destroyed, and defaced other property
awarded to Linnet. Billy went so far as to deface some of Linnet's
property with crude and obscene words. After an evidentiary hearing,
the trial court held Billy in contempt and awarded Linnet damages in the
amount of$12,161.14 and assessed attorney's fees against Billy in the
amount of $7,500.00.
ISSUES PRESENTED ..................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ........... 2
Billy Throws Linnet Out of the House Without Most of Her Property ..... 2
Parties Settle Divorce in Mediation ................................ 4
Linnet Attempts to Retrieve Her Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Most of Linnet's Property Was Damaged, Defaced or Missing........... 5
Linnet Provides Evidence of Repair or Replacement Value
of Missing and Damaged Property ................................. 8
Divorce Decree is Signed by the Court.............................. 9
ii
Linnet Files Petition for Enforcement of Property Division and
Trial Grants the Petition for Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................ 10
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ........................................ 12
I.
THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR AND DID NOT SUBSTANTIVELY
MODIFY THE TERMS OF THE UNDERLYING AGREED FINAL DECREE
OF DIVORCE .................................................... 12
IL
THE TRIAL COURT'S AWARD OF DAMAGES WAS SUPPORTED
BY LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. ....... 14
III.
THETRIALCOURTDIDNOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT
AWARDED DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF LINNET SUE BASKETT..... 16
PRAYER.............................................................. 18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE............................................. 19
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE......................................... 19
111
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Page
STATUTES AND RULES
TEX. FAMILY CODE§ 3.003 ........................................... 14
iv
NO. 03-16-00563-CV
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
BILLY WAYNE BASKETT,
Appellant
v.
LINNET SUE BASKETT,
Appellee
BRIEF OF APPELLEE LINNET SUE BASKETT
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
Linnet Sue Baskett, Petitioner in the trial court and the Appellee in this Court,
respectfully submits her briefin support of the Order of Enforcement of Property Division
signed on May 11, 2016.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This is an enforcement action arising out of a divorce case. Appellant Billy
Wayne Baskett ("Billy") failed to tum over property awarded to Appellee Linnet Sue
Baskett ("Linnet"), and damaged, destroyed, and defaced other property awarded to
Linnet. Billy went so far as to deface some of Linnet's property with crude and
obscene words. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court held Billy in contempt and
Page 1 of 19
awarded Linnet damages in the amount of $12, 161.14 and assessed attorney's fees
against Billy in the amount of $7,500.00.
ISSUES PRESENTED
I.
THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR AND DID NOT
SUBSTANTIVELY MODIFY THE TERMS OF THE
UNDERLYING AGREED FINAL DECREE OF DIVORCE.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT'S AWARD OF DAMAGES WAS
SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT AWARDEDDAMAGESINFAVOROFLINNET
SUE BASKETT.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Linnet and Billy married in 2007. (CR 10). The parties initially separated in
December 2013 and Linnet moved into an apartment. (RR Vol. 2, page 19, lines 24-
25, page 20, lines 7-8). The parties attempted to reconcile and Linnet moved back into
the house and unpacked all of her items. Almost immediately, Billy asked her to
leave. (RR Vol. 2, page 20, lines 3-6, page 21, lines 10-19).
Billy Throws Linnet Out of the House Without Most of Her Property
Linnet sought Billy's assistance in moving out of the house. Initially he agreed
Page 2 of 19
and then on the day she was supposed to move, he refused. (RR Vol. 2, page 23, lines
8-18). Linnet didn't have much time to remove her property. She spent a whole day
packing her property at his house before Billy threw her out. She was only able to
remove a couple of carloads of her property. The rest of her property remained in
Billy's house and he refused to let her have her property. (RR Vol. 2, page 23, lines
21-25, page 24, lines 1-6). Billy did not allow Linnet to go back to the house and
retrieve her property. (RR Vol. 2, page 24, lines 7-9). The property that was not
packed included her chest of drawers with all of her clothing, her massage table and
massage products, some items in a bookcase, cards from her deceased grandparents,
a lot of cards from grandparents and parents for birthdays and Christmas, cash in
some of the card, and silver dollars she received as a child. (RR Vol. 2, page 24, lines
18-25, page 25, lines 1-15). The property that was packed included her personal
kitchen items, china, glasses, wine glasses, and other items. Linnet purchased boxes
and packing supplies to make sure that her valuables were packed properly and
wouldn't break when moving. (RR Vol. 2, page 25, lines 17-25, Page 26, lines 1-3).
All of her property was in perfect condition when Billy threw her out of the house.
(RR Vol. 2, page 28, lines 14-19). Linnet unsuccessfully attempted to return to the
house to retrieve her property. (RR Vol. 2, page 25, lines 4-9).
Page 3 of 19
Parties Settle Divorce in Mediation
In May 2015, the parties settled the case in mediation. The mediated settlement
agreement awarded Linnet:
W-2. The furniture and furnishings, clothing, personal effects and
jewelry lawfully in her possession or subject to her control, as
well as all items of her personal property, jewelry and clothing
now in Husband's possession, and specifically including the
following:
a. The couch and love seat in Husband's living room;
b. The 37-inch Television; and
c. Wife's jewelry chest and all its contents.
Wife shall be given access to such items for removal not later
than June 27, 2015. The parties intend in good faith to schedule
such move on June 27, 2015.
(RR Vol. 3, Exhibit 1, page 1).
Linnet Attempts to Retrieve Her Property
On June 27, 2015, 1 Linnet, along with her sisters, her niece, her brother-in-law
and a friend, went to the house to retrieve her property. When they arrived, they were
shocked. Half of her items were stacked up and thrown in the driveway. Everything
else was thrown in the front room. Billy moved her furniture into the front room and
everything was shoved into the room and stacked on top of each other. Her property
was not in the boxes she used to pack them - they had been opened and placed in
1The parties mistakenly testified that the date was July 27, 2015 when in fact it was June
27, 2015. (RR Vol. 2, page 119, lines 2-12).
Page 4 of 19
different boxes and in bags. Boxes were crushed on top of things and her property
was just demolished. The boxes were all opened and items were missing. (RR Vol.
2, page 27, lines 15-22, page 28, lines 20-25, page 29, lines 1-13, page 74, lines 9-13,
page 79, lines 15-20, page 80, lines 2-4; RR Vol 4, Exhibit 4). 2 Billy had a friend at
the house who refused to let anyone look through the house to see if there was
anything else. In fact, they were only allowed in one room. (RR Vol. 2, page 76, lines
22-25, page 77, linel, page 81, lines 3-6, page 84, lines 4-7, page 119, lines 9-15).
Although Linnet did not have a specific list of every single item she left in the house,
she did have a general understanding of what she had left behind. (RR Vol. 2, page
29, lines 20-25, page 30, line 1). However, Billy knew what property in his
possession was her property. (RR Vol. 2, page 95, lines 13-25).
Most of Linnet's Property Was Damaged, Defaced or Missing
Although the couch was in perfect condition when she was thrown out, the
couch had a broken frame and had a hole poked in the side that looked like it was
intentionally done. One of the panels on a jewelry chest was kicked in and all of her
good jewelry was missing. The missingjewelry included most of her hangingjewelry,
a Tiffany necklace and bracelet, some gemstone jewelry ( such as peridot and citrines ),
2 Exhibit 4 are photos of the house and illustrate how Linnet found many of the
items at the house. (RR Vol. 2, page 44, lines 7-10).
Page 5 of 19
some James Avery jewelry, some good jewelry, some Brighton jewelry, and her gold
and silver. (RR Vol. 2, page 30, lines 11-25, page 31, lines 1-10, 14-25, page 32, lines
1-11 ).
Linnet also had a separate jewelry box which was at the house. When she
arrived, it was empty. The missing items included jewelry from her childhood, her
cruise card, her social security card, some Christmas cards with some money in them,
and collectible things. It also included Christmas cards from her deceased
grandparents. (RR Vol. 2, page 32, lines 12-25, page 33, lines 1-16). Linnet had left
mail and packages behind when Billy threw her out of the house which were
supposed to be in a small filing cabinet. The filing cabinet was empty and had been
kicked in. (RR Vol. 2, page 33, lines 17-25, page 34, lines 1-13). The contents of her
bedroom dresser were missing (including clothes, pajamas, socks, shorts and hosiery)
and the drawers were stained inside like to cover up something. The dresser also had
scratches and stain down the side. (RR Vol. 2, page 34, lines 14-25, page 35, lines 1-
3). Her night stands were empty. When she left, they contained some sentimental
items, two rosaries, and some books and cards. In addition, one of the night stands
had the word "cunt" written on it. (RR Vol. 2, page 35, lines 4-23 ). This word was
Page 6 of 19
written on numerous other items left at the house. (RR Vol. 5, Exhibit 5). 3
Linnet's small bookcase was missing and many of her books were missing
including eight photo albums from her childhood. Of the books that were there, some
of them had pages tom out and some had crude and offensive language written in
them. In addition, a wooden storage cube had the backing destroyed. (RR Vol. 2,
page 35, lines 24-25, page 36, linesl-24).
Numerous items which were previously in the bedroom were missing, damaged
or defaced with the C-word. For example, the credenza was scratched, had a broken
drawer and was stained inside. Many of the items that Linnet had boxed up before
Billy threw her out had been "re-boxed." The items that Linnet had boxed were
bashed and crushed beyond recognition. (RR Vol. 2, page 37, lines 5-24, page 38,
linesl-14). In addition, many items which were previously in the living room were
missing including a collection of dolls from childhood, some crock pots, some
curtains and curtain rods, a lot of Mikasa wine glasses and pictures and pots. (RR
Vol. 2, page 38, lines 15-25, page 39, lines 1-5).
Linnet's Haro bicycle at the house was destroyed; it had gashes in it, the chain
3Exhibit 5 are photos illustrative of the items that Billy wrote obscenities and the C-word.
Linnet testified that the obscenities appeared to be in Billy's handwriting. (RR Vol. 2, page 45,
lines 15-21, page 46, lines 6-10; RR Vol. 5, Exhibit 5). In addition, after the divorce was filed,
Billy inscribed the C-word on her front door and spray painted it on her garage door. (RR Vol. 2,
page 47, lines 5-16).
Page 7 of 19
was mangled and rusty, and all of the accessories were broken off. It had recently
been reconditioned and service and in perfect condition when Billy threw her out of
the house. Some of the Christmas totes and decor were missing including cat
ornaments that Linnet's family gave her each year, and other house decor. (RR Vol.
2, page 39, lines 12-25, page 40, lines 1-14).
From the time that Billy threw Linnet out of the house until she retrieved her
property on July 27, 2015, her property was in Billy's home and subject to his control.
(RR Vol. 2, page 27, lines 6-14, page 68, lines 1-3, page 122, lines 14-23). In fact,
Billy admitted damaging and defacing some of the property. (RR Vol. 2, page 97,
lines 6-13, page 105, lines 11-25, pate 106, lines 1-5, page 108, lines 4-6).
Linnet Provides Evidence of Repair or Replacement Value
of Missing and Damaged Property
Linnet personally researched every item listed in the motion for enforcement
regarding the property that could be either repaired or replaced. She used online
research such as Ebay to determine the value of items could not be purchased and for
the items that could be replaced, she printed out information from stores and how to
replace the items. Linnet did not seek out the most expensive item, but looked for
comparable items. Of course, she could not put a value on her lifelong photo albums,
her keepsakes and her cards. (RR Vol. 2, page 40, lines 15-25, page 41, lines 1-10,
Page 8 of 19
page 63, lines 23-25. Page 64, lines 1-18; RR Vol. 3, Exhibit 3). Based upon her
research regarding the items that were either missing or damaged beyond repair, the
total costofrepairorreplacementwas $12,161.14. (RR Vol. 2, page 43, lines 2-9; RR
Vol. 3, Exhibit 3).
Divorce Decree is Signed by the Court
The Agreed Final Decree of Divorce was signed in November 2015. (CR 57).
Among other things, the Decree of Divorce provided:
LINNET SUE BASKETT, Respondent, is awarded the following
as Respondent's sole and separate property, and BILLY WAYNE
BASKETT, Petitioner, is divested of all right, title, interest, and claim
in and to such property:
1. The household furniture, furnishings, fixtures, goods, appliances,
equipment, electronics, computers, clothing, personal effects and
jewelry lawfully in LINNET SUE BASKETT's possession or
subject to the sole control of LINNET SUE BASKETT, as well
as all items of her personal property,jewelry and clothing now in
BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's possession, and specifically
including the following:
a. The couch and love seat in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's
living room;
b. The 37-inch Television; and
c. LINNET SUE BASKETT's jewelry chest and all its
contents.
IT IS ORDERED, LINNET SUE BASKETT shall be given access
to such items for removal not later than June 27, 2015. The Court
finds the parties intend in good faith to schedule such move on
June 27, 2015.
Page 9 of 19
(CR 60-61).
Linnet Files Petition for Enforcement of Property Division and
Trial Grants the Petition for Enforcement
On November 25, 2015, Linnet filed a Petition for Enforcement of Property
Division and for Contempt and/or Sanctions. (CR 78-85). After an evidentiary
hearing before the Honorable John B. McMaster on January 28, 2016, Judge
McMaster found that Billy was in contempt for each separate violation and awarded
Linnet a judgment against Billy in the amount of $12,161.14 and ordered that Billy
pay attorney's fees in the amount of $7,500.00. (RR Vol. 2, page 130, lines 14-18).
The Order of Enforcement of Property Division was signed on May 11, 2016. (CR
98-105).
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The Trial Court did not amend, modify, alter or change the division ofproperty.
The Agreed Final Decree unambiguously awarded Linnet "all items of her personal
property, jewelry and clothing now in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's possession"
including "[t]he couch and love seat in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's living room,"
[t]he 37-inch Television," and "LINNET SUE BASKETT'sjewelry chest and all its
contents. It was not limited to the couch, love seat, the television and the jewelry
chest.
Page 10 of 19
Billy incorrectly argues that there is no evidence that 89 of the items that
Linnet was awarded damages for were community property. It is undisputed that
property possessed by either spouse during the marriage is presumed to be community
property. It is also undisputed that the degree of proof necessary to establish the
property is separate property is clear and convincing evidence. When Billy's counsel
asked Linnet about the characterization of certain property, Linnet's trial counsel
objected. "My objection, Judge, it's asking for her to make a legal conclusion on a
characterization." The Trial Court sustained the objection. The same applies to a
couple of other times when Billy's counsel asked Linnet whether something was her
separate property. In reality, Billy's "proof' is not clear or convincing evidence.
Assuming that Billy is accurate about the separate property, which Linnet
vigorously denies, he has not only damaged, defaced and disposed of her community
property items but has damaged, defaced and disposed of her separate property items
which the court didn't have the authority to award to Billy.
The Trial Court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Linnet damages
for the missing property and the property that Billy damaged, destroyed, and defaced.
Linnet personally researched every item listed in the motion for enforcement
regarding the property that could be either repaired or replaced. She used online
research such as Ebay to determine the value of items could not be purchased and for
Page 11 of 19
the items that could be replaced, she printed out information from stores and how to
replace the items. Linnet did not seek out the most expensive item, but was looking
for comparable items. Linnet offered an 87 page exhibit with the results of her
research. Of course, she could not put a value on her lifelong photo albums, her
keepsakes and her cards. In addition, the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in
awarding attorney's fees.
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR AND DID NOT
SUBSTANTIVELY MODIFY THE TERMS OF THE
UNDERLYING AGREED FINAL DECREE OF DIVORCE.
[In Response to Appellant's Issue 1]
Contrary to Billy's conclusory arguments, the Trial Court did not amend,
modify, alter or change the division of property.
The mediated settlement agreement awarded Linnet:
W-2. The furniture and furnishings, clothing, personal effects and
jewelry lawfully in her possession or subject to her control, as
well as all items of her personal property, jewelry and clothing
now in Husband's possession, and specifically including the
following:
a. The couch and love seat in Husband's living room;
b. The 37-inch Television; and
c. Wife's jewelry chest and all its contents.
(Emphasis added). The Agreed Final Decree of Divorce awarded Linnet:
Page 12 of 19
I. The household furniture, furnishings, fixtures, goods, appliances,
equipment, electronics, computers, clothing, personal effects and
jewelry lawfully in LINNET SUE BASKETT's possession or
subject to the sole control of LINNET SUE BASKETT, as well
as all items of her personal property, jewelry and clothing now
in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's possession, and specifically
including the following:
a. The couch and love seat in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's
living room;
b. The 37-inch Television; and
c. LINNET SUE BASKETT's jewelry chest and all its
contents.
(Emphasis added). Furthermore, the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce awarded
Billy:
1. The household furniture, furnishings, fixtures, goods, appliances,
equipment, electronics, computers, clothing, personal effects and
jewelry lawfully in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's possession or
subject to the sole control of BILLY WAYNE BASKETT, SAVE
AND EXCEPT all items of LINNET SUE BASKETT's
personal property,jewelry and clothing now in BILLY WAYNE
BASKETT's possession, and specifically including the following:
a. The couch and love seat in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's
living room;
b. The 37-inch Television; and
c. LINNET SUE BASKETT's jewelry chest and all its
contents.
(CR 58) (Emphasis added).
The Agreed Final Decree unambiguously awarded Linnet "all items of her
personal property, jewelry and clothing now in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's
Page 13 of 19
possession" including "[t]he couch and love seat in BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's
living room," [t]he 37-inch Television," and "LINNET SUE BASKETT's jewelry
chest and all its contents." Clearly the property awarded to Linnet which was in
Billy's possession was not limited to the couch, love seat, her jewelry chest and the
television. As a result, the Trial Court did not amend, modify, alter or change the
division of property.
II.
THETRIALCOURT'SAWARDOFDAMAGESAND
ATTORNEY'S FEES WAS SUPPORTED BY
LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE.
[In Response to Appellant's Issue 2]
Billy argues that there is no evidence that 89 of the items that Linnet was
awarded damages for were community property. He is incorrect for several reasons.
First, it is undisputed that property possessed by either spouse during the
marriage is presumed to be community property. It is also undisputed that the degree
of proof necessary to establish the property is separate property is clear and
convincing evidence. TEX. FAMILY CODE §3.003. Billy's "proof' that some of
Linnet's personal property that he damaged and defaced was her separate property is
sketchy at best. In fact, Linnet's trial counsel objected when Billy's counsel asked
Linnet about the characterization of certain property. "My objection, Judge, it's
Page 14 of 19
asking for her to make a legal conclusion on a characterization." The Trial Court
sustained the objection. (RR Vol. 2, page 59, lines 7-16). In reality, the same applies
to a couple of other times when Billy's counsel asked Linnet whether something was
her separate property. Furthermore, Billy's "proof' is not clear and convincing
evidence.
Second, Billy's argument about separate property and community property
doesn't make sense. It is undisputed that the Agreed Final Decree unambiguously
awarded Linnet "all items of her personal property, jewelry and clothing now in
BILLY WAYNE BASKETT's possession." Billy failed to tum over Linnet's personal
property, and damaged, destroyed, and defaced Linnet's other property. Billy went
so far as to deface some of Linnet's property with crude and obscene words.
Assuming that Billy is accurate about the separate property, which Linnet
vigorously denies, he has not only damaged, defaced and disposed of her community
property items but has damaged, defaced and disposed of her separate property items
which the court didn't have the authority to award to Billy. In addition, Billy cannot
claim that he didn't know the property for which damages were sought because the
property was specifically identified in the Petition for Enforcement of Property
Division and for Contempt and/or Sanctions.
Page 15 of 19
III.
THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS
DISCRETION WHEN IT AWARDED DAMAGES IN
FAVOR OF LINNET SUE BASKETT AND
ATTORNEY'S FEES.
[In Response to Appellant's Issue 3]
The Trial Court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Linnet damages
for the missing property and the property that Billy damaged, destroyed, and defaced.
Billy argues that Linnet sought and obtained damages for the cost of new items which
were at least several years old. In reality, Linnet personally researched every item
listed in the motion for enforcement regarding the property that could be either
repaired or replaced. She used online research such as Ebay to determine the value
of items could not be purchased and for the items that could be replaced, she printed
out information from stores and how to replace the items. Linnet did not seek out the
most expensive item, but was looking for comparable items. Linnet offered an 87
page exhibit with the results of her research. Of course, she could not put a value on
her lifelong photo albums, her keepsakes and her cards. Based upon her extensive
research regarding the items that were either missing or damaged beyond repair, the
total cost of repair or replacement was $12,161.14.
Billy focused on several specific items including the couch and love seat.
Although the couch was in perfect condition when she was thrown out, the couch had
Page 16 of 19
a broken frame and had a hole poked in the side that looked like it was intentionally
done. In fact, Billy admitted that he broke the frame when he dragging it from the
garage to the driveway. (RR Vol. 2, page 98, lines 24-25, page 99, lines 1-6).
Contrary to Billy's argument, Linnet valued the couch and love seat at approximately
50% of the retail purchase price. (RR Vol. 3, Exhibit 3).
Billy also focused on the jewelry chest and the jewelry which he asserts that
he did not take. However, Linnet unequivocally testified that one of the panels on a
jewelry chest was kicked in and all of her good jewelry was missing including most
of her hangingjewelry, a Tiffany necklace and bracelet, some gemstone jewelry (such
as peridot and citrines), some James Avery jewelry, some good jewelry, some
Brighton jewelry, and her gold and silver. Linnet's personal research supported the
value placed on the jewelry chest and the missing jewelry.
Billy also complained about the Haro bicycle. Linnet's Haro bicycle at the
house was destroyed; it had gashes in it, the chain was mangled and rusty, and all of
the accessories were broken off. It had recently been reconditioned and serviced and
in perfect condition when Billy threw her out of the house. Linnet's personal research
supports the value placed on the bicycle.
In addition, the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's
fees. The testimony and evidence offered by Linnet's counsel at trial was sufficient
Page 17 of 19
to support the attorney's fee award of $7,500.00. Her counsel testified that she has
been a practicing lawyer for 24 years, is board certified in family law, and is familiar
with the reasonable and customary attorney's fees charged in family law matters and
in pursuing a motion for enforcement. She also testified concerning her hourly rate
and that the total amount charged was $7,528.15 which did not include charges for
the time spent that day. Her trial counsel also offered her redacted bills. (RR Vol. 2,
page 86, lines 14-25, page 87, lines 1-18; RR Vol. 5, Exhibit 9). Linnet pied for and
properly was awarded attorney's fees.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Linnet Sue Baskett respectfully
requests that this Court affirm the Order of Enforcement of Property Division signed on May
11, 2016 and that this Court grant Linnet Sue Baskett such other and further relief as to
which she may show herself to be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
VAUGHT LAW FIRM, P.C.
5929 Balcones Drive, Suite 201
Austin, Texas 78731
(512) 342-9980
(512) 610-9980 Fax
By: ls/Jimmy Vaught
James A. Vaught
State Bar No. 20526300
jimmy@vaughtlawfirm.com
Page 18 of 19
Leigh de la Reza
State Bar No. 24037879
leigh@vaughtlawfirm.com
Lisa Stewart
State Bar No. 24029851
lisa@vaughtlawfirm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR
LINNET SUE BASKETT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
Appellee's Brief has been served upon opposing counsel, Justin M. Jackson, 1460 E.
Whitestone Blvd., Suite 140, Cedar Park, Texas 78613 via E-Service or via facsimile to:
(866) 929-2838 on this 21st day ofNovember, 2016.
ls/Jimmy Vaught
Jinuny Vaught
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that this Appellee's Brief contains 3,941 words excluding the
caption, identity of parties and counsel, statement regarding oral argument, table of
contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, statement of issues presented,
statement ofjurisdiction, statement of procedural history, signature, proof of service,
certification, certificate of compliance, and appendix.
ls/Jimmy Vaught
Jinuny Vaught
Page 19 of 19