AHRC News Reports On Looming TUPCA Battle in Texas! -- click title link--
Some of you may not be aware of the pending legislation created by the TCREA lawyer's lobby group for the CAI (Community Associations Institute and their related developer group the ULI). This legislation was crafted by a specialty group of lawyers to increase the powers over homeowners living in their communities (and all commons area communities like Sienna Plantation along with many others). Already this group has been successful at gaining the right of foreclosure by your HOA through their lobbying and court efforts. Let's not allow them to extend this power. Already thousands of HOA lead foreclosure filings have taken place in Harris county alone and have spread with this group into neighboring counties and across the state. If this legislation passes, and it has a good chance, it will extend developer control over homeowners long after build out. . .
-First click the title link above and read the full story!
-Then Search this site for your HOA attorney (remember you pay for him, but he's not representing you: http://pages.prodigy.net/hoadata/ )
-Search the Fort Bend County court records for current HOA filings by these lawyers (in your area): http://courtcn.co.fort-bend.tx.us:80/pls/public/ck_public_qry_cpty.cp_personcase_setup_idx
-Then contact your local legislator and tell them to vote NO on TUPCA this session!
-Area contact info:
Kyle Janek -- State Senate at Kyle.janek@senate.state.tx.us
Charlie Howard -- State Rep. at charlie.howard@house.state.tx.us
Dora Olivo -- dora.olivo@house.state.tx.us
-Remember to check Mr. Howard and Mr. Janek's campaign contributions list through the state ethics site or http://www.brazosriver.com to see which industry reps. are giving to their campaigns.
Stay informed and keep in touch!
**********
Committee for Responsible Development-Mo-City Group
responsible_dvlpmnt@yahoo.com
http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com
Missouri City, TX
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Monday, July 31, 2006
12 Comments:
AHRC comments:
11. America's illegal property laws that herd property owners into homeowner associations with landmines to be robbed by the CAI lawyer, politician, judge gangs
Re: Comment 10. The room was full of CAI lawyers, they even flew some in from out of state
CAI has been flying in their lawyers and evangelists to California Legislative Committee hearings for decades.
Here are some revealing articles on AB 770 being piloted through the California legislature by Assemblyman Gene Mullin for the governor's political appointee lawyers sitting on the Calfornia Law Revision Commission this year::
COMMITTEE ON BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION STAGE A DECEPTIVE GOVERNMENT HEARING - Mullin and Lowenthal use lobbyists and political donors to provide televised "expert" testimony to tax California homeowners
Two lawmakers push twin bills to tax homeowners in California homeowner associations - SB 551 and AB 770 will tax homeowners to provide government education but not enforcement of homeowner association laws
Mike Schneider Nevada's CAI Senator comes to sell CAI Government to Californians - He suppressed and oppressed Nevada Homeowners with three layers of government - the board of directors, the Ombudsman, and the Commission - all totally controlled by the CAI foreclosure lawyers
These illegal property robbing laws written by CAI lawyers and political affiliates are the landmines for the homeowner associations these CAI lawyers have already herded Americans into. These laws enable CAI lawyers to do mass robbing of life savings and homes of America's families.
Posted Jul 18 2006 4:58PM EDT
Username withheld
, California
10. The room was full of CAI lawyers, they even flew some in from out of state.
To Don from Michigan about the TUPCA proposal:
I was at the TUPCA hearing in Austin and testified against it. The CAI lawyers who wrote this proposal stated that they had no input from homeowners, only that they studied what homeowners have been saying at the legislature over the years, basically to be able to use our words against us.
The room was full of CAI lawyers, they even flew some in from out of state. Guess we look like easy pickins to them. It was quite ghastly to behold. Many were the foreclosure lawyers that benefit so nicely from the extortion.
I've read this bill proposal and it is designed to give the developers and board of directors even more dictatorship power than they already have, it is awful, and quite sickening. The Texas lawyers are NOT proposing legislation to protect homeowners, they are proposing legislation designed to keep their pocketbooks lined.
If you are really interested in what was said at the TUPCA hearing, here is the link - http://www.house.state.tx.us/committees/broadcasts.php?session=79&cmte=040. It's under the interim broadcasts for 3/21/06.
Posted Jul 17 2006 1:51PM EDT
Amy McCorkle (View Profile)
Rockwall, Texas
More:
3. Wasn't it George W. Bush that signed hb2152 - the Texas foreclosure laws - into effect?
Wasn't it George W, Bush that signed HB 2152 - the Texas foreclosure laws - into effect?
He has a LOT to answer for!!!!!!!
Well Texas - looks like you all are toast if this gets passed.
Good luck.
Sincerely,
California Homeowner Activists
Posted Jul 17 2006 11:59PM EDT
Username withheld
, ot
2. TUPCA - a legislative initiative written by wolves for the Texas chickens
Just what America's homeowners need! CAI foreclosure lawyers continuing their scheming, writing of law,s and corporatizing all of America's private properties for their meal tickets!
Two of these TUPCA - CAI LAWYERS were assigned to " hear the homeowners voice loud and clear" ,,,and they did this by scouting websites.
The following quotes are from the TUPCA - CAI lawyers website:
TUPCA Q&A
Q: DID HOMEOWNERS - WHO ARE THE MOST AFFECTED BY THIS TYPE OF LAW -CONTRIBUTE TO THE DRAFTING OF TUPCA?
A: Yes, the homeowner voice was heard loud-and-clear during the drafting of TUPCA.
That is why TUPCA has an entire subchapter devoted to "Owners Rights." How did homeowners participate? In a number of ways. TUPCA Drafters drew upon several years of testimony by homeowners at public hearings sponsored by the Texas legislature.
The TUPCA Drafters also visited grassroots websites - such as www.ahrc.com (American Homeowners Resource Center) - to stay abreast of issues identified by activist homeowners. Further, the TUPCA Drafters studied homeowner-protective bills introduced (whether or not enacted) in Texas and in other states.
Two of the TUPCA Drafters were designated as the "homeowner representatives" to make sure the TUPCA Drafters were ever mindful of the homeowner perspective on any issue discussed. The TUPCA Drafters also have decades of professional experience working with homeowners in the context of planned communities. Finally, many of the TUPCA Drafters brought to the process their personal experiences as homeowners in planned communities.
Q: WHO ARE THE "TUPCA DRAFTERS"?
A: The TUPCA Drafters are a group of dedicated Texas real estate attorneys who generously volunteer their time and talent to improve the legal environment in Texas for planned communities. The core members of the group have been working together (as volunteers) since 1989 on legislation affecting condominiums and homeowner associations.
Texas has had public hearings on HOAs. Government employees with no affiliation to HOA vendors and conflicts of interest should now be drafting the legislative initiatives.
Lawmakers who sponsor legislation by wolves for the chickens they are required to protect should be removed from office and required to make restitution.
Posted Jul 17 2006 5:53PM EDT
Username withheld
,
More:
7. It isn't hard to figure out who is benefitting from this racket.
I've had several negative encounters already with our CAI-attorney and found out later that not only his he and some other area HOA lawyers on the CAI lobby which virtually wrote this legislation but are already listed as some of the top HOA foreclosure filing lawyers here in the Houston area.'
See and search http://courtcn.co.fort-bend.tx.us/pls/public/ck_public_qry_cpty.cp_personcase_setup_idx gor cases filed by Gammon (William Gammon and Marc Markel). I believe Markel is listed in the TUPCA lawyer lobby group.
Also check out the top Houston area HOA foreclosure lawyer filings list at http://pages.prodigy.net/hoadata/
It isn't hard to figure out who is benefitting from this racket. Many of these attorneys have their brokerage lic. and can pick the properties up for a song and point the finger at the "deadbeats" who didn't clean oil spots off their driveway. . . ;-)
Posted Jul 28 2006 11:35AM EDT
responsible development (View Profile)
, Texas
6. Address the factual issues of home owners supporting or not supporting TUPCA.
Look, the reality of the situation is that the power for HOAs to foreclose isn't going away any time soon. Currently, based on CASELAW foreclosures on homesteads have been deemed constitutional. This is unfortunate, possibly unethical, and there have been non-caselaw attorney positions that say this shouldn't be the case, but it is... At least for right now.. the FACT of the matter.
HOA foreclosures haven't been deemed unconstitutional in ANY of the other states that I know about. As such, I'm a proponent of suggesting that home owners deal with the laws we're dealt.
Many advocate groups spent a tremendous amount of time spinning their wheels - not to mention supporters time and money on the foreclosure issue. I'm suggesting a different approach:
1) Limit attorney fees. Attorneys are the ones that are making a killing with foreclosures, not HOAs. Of course, there are individuals in positions of power that are exceptions, but these are not the rule. Removing the outrageous attorney fees and making fees in line with the REAL debt will go a long way to massively reducing the foreclosures that happen. Hey, if home owners OWE the HOA legitimate funds, the home owners should have to pay. They shouldn't have to pay $4000 in attorney fees on a $200 assessment debt, which is what regularly happens. If you take away the ability for the attorneys to make money, watch the foreclosure rate come way down. HOAs will still have the power to foreclose, but they're not going to do so nearly as often if the foreclosure option is going to cost the HOA money AND it's going to remove the homestead from the home owner. Foreclosure SHOULD be a lose-lose situation for both sides and a means of absolute last resort.
2) Remove and ELIMINATE non-judicial foreclosure. This is where the real abuse CAN take place and equity can be stolen / redistributed to individuals. Guess what? TUPCA does this.
If you have specific objections to TUPCA, please post them... Complaining about the origins of our legistlative state of affairs does nothing to address the factual issues of home owners supporting or not supporting TUPCA.
There are a few Texas legislators have proven themselves to react to the demands of the CAI, even blocking legislation that would benefit the constituants that they swore to represent.. Shame on these people - and bring the light to the cockroaches.
Posted Jul 21 2006 4:31PM EDT
Darin Ginther
Cedar Park, Texas
5. AHRC is working to prevent spreading misleading information on legislation on AHRC
Following is a note to an AHRC subscriber who is promoting TUPCA, a bill which long time Texas homeowner advocates oppose.
Dear TUPCA promoter:
Thank you for taking the time to write an opinion on TUPCA.
As homeowners, media, and lawmakers have been misled many times by CAI foreclosure lobbyists, AHRC is working at preventing this by providing as much information as possible to our readers. e.g.
California bill analysts employed bu the lawmakers who sponsor the bill write deceptive analysis and include dozens of letters written by the homeowner association managers or an allied board member without the knowledge or consent of the owners. e.g. AB555 Manager license bill (Correa - Dutra) and AB 770 (Mullen)
Veteran CAI lawyer lobbyist James Lingle told Daily Journal reporter Linda Rapatoni he helped write "20 homeowner protection bills"
As you are urging Texas homeowners to support a CAI bill which veteran Texas homeowner advocates and their lawyers oppose, our readers are entitled to additional information about you and your interest in this bill.
Please provide a profile of yourself with your comments. Are you you a member of CAI, provide services to homeowner associations, or are you an HOA board member?
We'd be happy to publish your opinion along with this information.
Thank you
AHRC Staff
Posted Jul 21 2006 10:18AM EDT
AHRC Staff (View Profile)
, California
4. Associations have managed to amass a frightening amount of authority, including ignoring Consitutional rights and privileges
I, too, believe that non-judicial foreclosures are wrong. I also believe that associations have managed to amass a frightening amount of authority, including ignoring Consitutional rights and privileges. But so far, from what I have seen, homeowners in Texas have made little gains legislatively to reverse that trend.
Quite the contrary. Changes in the foreclosure law seemed to have been inspired by the Winoa Belvins ruling by the Texas Supreme Court - not by any legislative impetus and not by the voters alone. That is a shame - but that is a fact. I wonder, have any states with non-judicial foreclosures been able to affect any meaningful changes regarding foreclosure? I have not been able to find any.
Now comes TUPCA. From what I currently see, a big chunk of it reiterates existing laws and simply consolidates them without change. But, and this a big BUT, it does insert a couple of things that are of major importance. One it requires reasonableness in promulgating rules and regulations, vague and ambiguous though it may be.
Not so vague and ambiguous, in Section D, Protection of Owners - a innovative new idea! It guarantees homeowners the rights and privileges of the US Constitution and the laws of this state. Does any other state have this provision? Has any legislation in Texas managed to come close to doing this?
I strongly urge that we continue to try to change non-foreclosure laws. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Having Consitutional rights restored - regardless of who wrote TUPCA - is nothing to throw away. It is not the game, but it sure is a home run. Foreclosures, next inning.
I am not a lawyer, but it does seem to me, that with our Constitutional and state rights restored, we have an added weapon in the arsenal against non-judicial foreclosures. It seems to me that it takes the question out of contractual law and puts it in the realm of constitutional law and state law.
This legislation has an opportunity to pass - unlike every other piece of truly meaningful legislation that has come down the pike. If we can get our constitutional rights and privileges restored in 2006, I am all for it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Here's a good one for John & Marc:
Too Greedy
A very successful lawyer parked his brand-new Lexus in front of his office, ready to show it off to his colleagues. As he got out, a truck passed too closely and completely tore off the door on the driver's side.
The lawyer immediately grabbed his cell phone, dialed 911, and within minutes a policeman pulled up. Before the officer had a chance to ask any questions, the lawyer started screaming hysterically. His Lexus, which he had just picked up the day before, was now completely ruined and would never be the same, no matter what the body shop did to it.
When the lawyer finally wound down from his ranting and raving, the officer shook his head in disgust and disbelief.
"I can't believe how materialistic you lawyers are," he said. "You are so focused on your possessions that you don't notice anything else."
"How can you say such a thing?" asked the lawyer.
The cop replied,"Don't you know that your left arm is missing from the elbow down? It must have been torn off when the truck hit you."
"My God!" screamed the lawyer. "Where's my Rolex?"
Sounds like AHRC knows the ISP's of some of the lawyer lobbyist pushing this thing and their attempts at misinforming the public on the true intent of this legislation.
and more:
4. TUPCA is a hijacked bill by the very lobby group that benefits from this industry.
Judith and other TUPCA supporters.
I think it would be an awful mistake to support such a lacking piece of legislation. See the TUPCA review piece by THAG administrator and homeowner lawyer linked below and I might suggest looking at the court case samplings here at AHRC.
TUPCA is not an improvement. Not when it is a hijacked bill by the very lobby group that benefits from this industry. See the review link below (and keep an open mind):
OBJECTIONS TO TUPCA BY THE TEXAS HOMEOWNERS ADVOCACY GROUP - Homeowners are not going to watch CAI attorneys and industry advocates eat away at our constitutional and property rights - March 21, 2006 - By Harvella Jones - THAG
Additionally you may want to consider the impact the current Texas constitution has had on this CAI take-over (almost none--so why add more of the same). Anytime a lawyer lobby/spec. interest group writes legislation you can bet they have added all the needed safety nets for their group. Why weren't the homeowners groups and lawyers included in this bill and why would one of the founding original authors/legislators bow out claiming it had been hijacked???
Make the right choice and then call your local legislator. I have no desire to let a developer continue to control my community for almost a decade after build-out with the misinfo we have been exposed to lately. Better legislation is a must, not some faustian compromise (possibly planted here by CAI operatives). Let's stop mandatory membership practices and foreclosure. Lets make communities neighborly again!
Posted Jul 29 2006 12:39PM EDT
responsible development (View Profile)
, Texas
3. Texas is a corporation dominated, buyer beware state whose legislators are in deep with lobbyists
I don't have an "affiliation." The development I live in is developer controlled and has been for over 10 years. The management company is heavily involved in CAI and I am forced, through the use of my assessment, to make an annual donation to TLAC - and over my protests.
Every time we get near the 75% sell-out the CCRs require for a turnover of control, the developer adds to the subdivision. This has been going on for years. Perfectly legal - not moral by any stretch.
The rumor is that the developer is getting ready to turn over control to homeowners. And from what I hear from some homeowners, that scares the .... out of me. Last year, a group of homeowners, appointed by the developer, drafted guidelines which were put on hold because of the outrage of some homeowners. Not only did these guidelines try to control every aspect of the houses exterior, they had a set of guidelines for birdhouses! What will they come up with after they have dictatorial authority? Additionally, we do not even know what all our common areas are, what our obligations will be, what liabilities we will assume, and if our assessment was held artificially low while the developer sold its lots.
A group of us are in the process of trying to get information from a developer and management company that have been less than cooperative, and certainly not forthcoming, in the past.
I have a personal stake as well as a philosophical stake in better law governing homeowners associations and am well aware of the real and potential abuses both developer controlled and homeowner controlled associations can and do perpetuate.
As I said, TUPCA is NOT perfect. But homeowners groups have been unsuccessful in passing any meaningful legislation. This legislation does recognize that those living in associations have rights and privileges under US Constitution and the laws of the state. That is a giant step forward, one homeowners have not been able to accomplish. That provision means a lot to me personally. That provision also provides potential arguements against abuses that we presently don't have since courts have consistently held that disputes with associations come under contractual law.
TUPCA also provides better protection for potential buyers by requiring the sellers to notify buyers of the association and provide a lot more information, information that had I been privvy to, I would have reconsidered buying here, information homeowners in my association still don't have and are trying to get.
Many of the provisions of TUPCA are merely restatements of existing law and change nothing. Many of the new provisions do favor homeowners.
You say we should hold out for more meaningful legislation. Hold what out? We have nothing to bargain with. Our votes? Come on. This is a corporation dominated, buyer beware state whose legislators are in deep with lobbyists. I am all for taking what we can get now and continuing to work for a better tomorrow.
And let's keep in mind that not ever difference in opinion is a difference in principle.
Posted Jul 28 2006 8:41AM EDT
Judith Watkins
, Texas
2. I'm not sure what your affiliation is or who you work for but I live in a CAI dominated neighborhood
Re: I agree TUPCA is not perfect
Re: Proposed Texas Uniform Planning Community Act - Judith Watkin
Judith,
I'm not sure what your affiliation is or who you work for but I live in a CAI dominated neighborhood and have one of the many CAI lawyers who helped shape this legislation that gives developers years to control the HOA board after build out. I talked with one of the original legislators involved with the bill and he said that this bill was hijacked long ago by this lawyer lobby group. He is no longer supporting the tainted bill. Nor are most homeowner advocates in Texas (see THAG, THA and this site for example). We need to hold out for "real" legislation not this special interest garbage.
See an example piece on the powers really running this state and pushing for TUPCA:
OP/ED: Johnson Development Corporation of Houston Drops SLAPP-suit Against the Committee for Responsible Development (Still targeting family)-
Johnson Development Corporation of Houston, mega-developers of Riverstone, Sienna Plantation, Silver Lake and many other master-planned communities (Larry Johnson, President) dropped part of their lawsuit against the committee of homeowners who protested against up to 2700 apartments being brought to this community by them (but continues to target another Sienna family).
This strike case tactic, so common with developers involved in NIMBY (not in my back-yard) protests, tracks back to early last year when 40-50 residents, representing 7 area HOAs and thousands of independent homeowners, organized and merged several petition drives garnering over 1100+ signatures and presented them, along with a city ethics complaint violations against Mayor Allen Owen of Missouri City, for accepting nearly 60% of his campaign contributions over the previous 5 year period from Houston mega-development companies doing business in this area and not recusing himself when voting on the controversial apartment plan. These actions, by the banker/mayor Owen, lead to his being challenged in the '06 mayoral race for the first time in over a decade by Greyling Poats of Missouri City with many of these issues playing as central themes in the election.
A little over a week following the local media coverage of the July '05 city council session, Johnson Development Co. (JDC) and their senior vice president Doug Goff, filed what legal experts call SLAPP-suits (Strategic lawsuits against public participation). These are suits meant to target and silence critiques of unpopular development projects and cripple them financially (Canen & Pring, 1996).
This case has thus far resulted in the deposition of many area homeowners and spun off another protest against the strike suit itself as it enters its second year. The senior vice president, Goff, was also deposed in late May after 3 attempts to schedule it through the courts. Last Thursday the JDC lawyers of Howry LLP, a large Houston litigation law firm pushing this case since spring of last year, suddenly dropped the committee from the lawsuit. This turned out to be a sigh of relief for many Sienna area residents whom had been involved with the petition drive and a small victory of sorts.
Of course with this good news comes the intensification and focus of the case on the remaining targets/defendants in the suit. JDC still faces a counter-suit from the remaining targets/defendants claiming Fraud, Trade Deception, Harassment and Negligence for their actions leading up to the SLAPP-suit.
For background on this case visit:
http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/317/fight-over-apartments-could-restrict-free-speech-on-the-web
http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/487/sienna-plantation-developers-sue-community-activist-for-defamation
http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/645/texas-supremes-side-with-siennajohnson-deny-bid-to-seal-deposition
http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/719/activist-slaps-back-in-countersuit-against-sienna-plantation-developer
and for a topper: http://www.fortbendstar.com/Archives/2005_3q/070605/n_Tree%20huggers%20vs.%20developers%20in%20Mo%20City.htm
We will update this as the need warrants. STAY INFORMED AND KEEP IN TOUCH!
posted July 26, 2006
Posted Jul 27 2006 10:57AM EDT
responsible development (View Profile)
, Texas
1. I agree TUPCA is not perfect.
I agree TUPCA is not perfect. I also have problems with nonjudicial foreclosures and several other issues.
But TUPCA is much better than the laws we have now. Many of the powers of the association are the same as presently exist. TUPCA consolidates these into one statute.
But the differences are NEW AND CRITICAL. Section D, Protection of Owners, is a giant leap forward. It states, "Each lotowner in a planned community in this state has the rights, benefits, and privileges guaranteed by the consitution and laws of the United States and this state. The rights listed in this subchapter are in addition to all other rights that lot ownershave and are not exclsuive or intended to limit the rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United States and this state."
To be, this is of fundamental and monumental importance. Once that is the law, we have more power to change those provisions we do not like.
Section D also requires associations to set a maximum amount on accumlation of continuing fines and requires an association to establish standards for payment plans and it "must accet a plan that meets the standards."
It prevents nonjudicial foreclosures on a lien for a debt consisting solely of fines, late fees, interest, attorney's fee or a combination of these.
I will continue to study and research this proposal, but so far it is the best deal I have seen with the best chance of passing. Attempts to change the Property Owners Protection Act and other laws affecting associations have been piecemal and mostly unsuccessful. If this law does not pass, we will be in the same position we are in now. This law improves that position.
Posted Jul 17 2006 8:17AM EDT
Judith Watkins
, Texas
Isn't Mr. Markel involved with the HOAs at First Colony and Sienna Plantation? I found this blurb on his lobbying activities at the AHRC website: http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/tools/sub/yp/action/display/id/1262
Look's like the "watchdogs" are trying something all districts should be trying:
From FBN.com-
"...The Watchdog$ are still proposing that the district consider asking developers to donate land for schools. Here’s a suggestion, if we don’t need all these property acquisitions right now then how about immediately beginning negotiations with these developers to try and get them to donate the land for these future school sites? Why does it seem that everyone is so adverse to this idea? It’s been done before with Fielder Elementary."
Chris Cottrell, co-founder
Katy Citizen Watchdog$
Katy
This is a very entertaining piece from AHRC:
Tryanny and Opression within The Land of the Owners Of Homes
A Modern Fable
July 31, 2006
By The Brothers Very, Very Grim
Copyright The Brothers Very Very Grim Indeed, LLC
The Western Woods of Holly, Other State -
Gather round my children, and I shall tell a tale of Fear, Oppression and Tyranny within one of many Associations of Owners of Homes which has become a part of the modern world in which we live.
Once upon a time, deep with the western woods of holly, lived an ugly, obese and evil little two-headed troll named Sronebra.
One head was in the form of a man, and one head resembled that of a woman.
Due to the hugeness and swollen, bloated features of the unfortunate second head, it was difficult to discern but widely thought to be a female head.
Because of Sronebra's red-hot temper and inability to play nicely with others, the troll was consigned to a life within the walls of what it later claimed as its private fiefdom.
The nasty, mean spirited troll was not able to work outside of its home due to its evil nature and quick temper.
Since it had precious few things to do to occupy its time when it wasn't throwing parties for its offspring, its life lacked purpose and direction. It became bored and seized power and control within the community it resided.
Through means nefarious, it was able to rise quickly and steadily through the ranks until it became Emperor of the Association of Owners of Homes.
It ruled this kingdom of its own creation with an iron fist from its much exalted position behind the finest of folding card tables set up at Meetings both Secret and "Open" of the Owners of Homes. Its word was law as it became a legend in its own mind and grew more out of control by the day.
If an Owner of Homes dared to speak up on his or her behalf regarding an issue pertaining to their homes, the vicious male head of the two-headed troll would turn red-faced and angry, loudly screaming disparaging words to them in earshot of others to make itself appear larger in stature and importance.
The female head was usually too busy eating something to join in the screaming, as she could not scream successfully with her nearly always full mouth.
Most of the Owners of Homes, not prepared to deal with such an angry autocrat, would cower and refrain from going up against it nose to nose (to nose). Instead, sadly, they whispered of its unspeakable behavior amongst themselves when they thought it was not in earshot and would not retaliate.
Sronebra was deftly aided in its quest to become ruler of all he/she/it surveyed by the addition of the Manager of the Association of Owners of Homes, Jelly. He was so named because, when he was born, it was discovered he had the spine of a jellyfish.
Later in his life, this spinelessness became quite useful when dealing with the evil Sronebra. Because he lacked the spine to stand up to the abuses perpetrated by Sronebra, Jelly became a close friend and ally.
He could often be found within the inner sanctum Sronebra occupied, sharing various illicit mind-altering substances both legal and not, partaking of the huge bounty which Sronebra referred to as 'dinner,' and caring for the offspring when Sronebra ventured outside the sanctum.
Jelly could also be found making a little extra gold throughout the land walking the pets of the Owners of Homes, a perk his assistant, Scary Mary, later appropriated when she joined the Office of the Manager of the Association of Owners of Homes.
As Sronebra's evil reign of tyranny continued, the gold became low within the land of the Association of the Owners of Homes.
Much of it had been spent on lavish parties with much food and drink, and various other unnecessary expenditures of gold not shared with all the Owners of Homes.
Committees of the Wise were formed among some unfortunate Owners of Homes who were not mentally skilled enough to realize what was happening to their gold behind their backs.
New ways in which to spend much of the precious gold were thought up and put into practice. And to celebrate, more parties were thrown in which the Committees of the Wise could congratulate themselves on their great good fortune.
One day Sronebra woke up to the realization that the Pot of Gold was nearly empty. It searched its malevolent tiny brain within its huge fat heads for ways in which to add to the nearly depleted Pot of Gold.
And it had a brilliant plan! Let us hold Special Meetings for the Owners of Homes wherein we shall explain to them we need more of their gold.
Because most of the Owners of Homes are not too smart, they shall agree readily and put more gold into the pot. And, to celebrate, we shall have a party!
And that is just what they did! The Owners of Homes were charged more money in addition to their Dues of the Homeowners, in what was proclaimed as an Assessment of Special Needs.
To celebrate their victory, and to happily and neatly coincide with the Anniversary of the Association of Owners of Homes XX, a huge lavish party was planned and invitations were sent to Homeowners Present and Past.
These people brought with them guests from another land, that known as The Loaders of Free, who happily partook of the bountiful buffet paid for with the Gold of the Association of the Owners of Homes.
There was music and joy and food and drink as Sronebra happily reveled in its latest victory while alternatively stuffing its bloated face with much food and drink.
Extras of everything were ordered that the pantry within the inner sanctum of Sronebra would be filled with much much food. For, it could be a long winter and Sronebra must be cautious itself, its offspring, Jelly and Scary Mary would be well fed. What was not claimed by Sronebra was distributed between the Directors of the Board of the Association of the Owners of Homes to fill their pantries.
The ignorant Owners of Homes partied into the night and filled their swollen bellies with much as they ooh'd and ahh'd over the bountiful harvest. Surely, Sronebra is all things good.
Therein continued the pattern for many many years until one day Sronebra while in the midst of screaming at another Owner of Homes who dared to question its authority suffered a fatal Hemmorrage of The Brain brought on by the many years of anger, and abuse to itself.
And joy reigned throughout the land of the Owners of Homes, Jelly was never seen nor heard from again, and all was good.
I just wanted to add that I'm very disappointed at the current efforts of Johnson Development Corporation (developers for Sienna Plantation, Silverlake, Riverstone, etc...) and the inability of their very expensive lawyers to finish off this small insignificant Sienna family they are targeting. You would think such a well connected business and political network could easily squash the remaining resistance to their corporate goals in Missouri City, TX. After all isn't free speech just an illusion that only the very rich corporations have a right to? Well see. . .
See the JDC lawyers Howrey LLP (of Houston) latest court room manuevers/tactics against the last remaining Sienna family holding out against them:
Case Event Schedule
Event Date/Time Room Location Judge
MOTION HEARING 13-SEP-2005
09:45 AM COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
MOTION TO QUASH 11-OCT-2005
09:45 AM COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
MOTION HEARING
COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
HEARING
COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
HEARING
COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
HEARING
COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
Case Parties
Seq # Assoc Expn Date Type ID Name
1 JUDGE 240JDG JUDGE, 240TH COURT
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
2 ATTORNEY 00794085 KEVILLE, JOHN
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
3 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER @3129 SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP
Address: unavailable Aliases: AFG JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LLC
4 7 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT @132813 CALVIN, CHRIS
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
5 6 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT @132814 FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
6 5 ATTORNEY 24010098 HERMER, LAURA
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
7 4 ATTORNEY V18433900 SINGER, JEFFREY R.
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
8 7 MOVANT @132813 CALVIN, CHRIS
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
9 ASSOCIATE JUDGE V17386820 RUIZ, PEDRO P.
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
10 ATTORNEY 03054500 BROILES, DAVID
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
Alias/Alternative Name
Current Name Alias/Alternative Name
SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP AFG JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LLC
Docket Entries
Filing Date Description Name Monetary
03-AUG-2005
01:22 PM NEW DISTRICT CIVIL CASE FILED KEVILLE, JOHN
Entry: none.
03-AUG-2005
01:22 PM ORIGINAL CIVIL PETITION KEVILLE, JOHN
Entry: PETITIONER SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT'S VERIFIED PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITION BEFORE SUIT
03-AUG-2005
01:22 PM ISSUE PROCESS
Entry: none.
03-AUG-2005
01:22 PM CONSTABLE PCT 1 SERVICE
Entry: none.
03-AUG-2005
01:34 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$248.00 was made on receipt DCHC120079.
03-AUG-2005
02:12 PM FAX FORM PRODUCED
Entry: FAXED CIVIL PROCESS FORM TO OFFICE OF ATTORNEY JOHN KEVILLE ATTN BELINDA B MCMAHAN
05-AUG-2005
01:26 PM HEARING REQUESTED
Entry: M/ TO TAKE DEPOSITION
08-AUG-2005
04:13 PM COURT'S DOCKET SHEET GENERATED
Entry: Docket entry for the DOCKET SHEET produced from CDADOCT on 08-AUG-2005 by COKERKIM.
19-AUG-2005
03:59 PM ISSUE PROCESS/2
Entry: none.
19-AUG-2005
03:59 PM NOTICE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITIONER'S SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT'S PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS BEFORE SUIT
19-AUG-2005
03:59 PM NOTICE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITIONER SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT'S PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS BEFORE SUIT.
19-AUG-2005
04:10 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$16.00 was made on receipt DCHC122230.
23-AUG-2005
10:27 AM ISSUED PROCESS CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: Docket entry for the 03-GCIT-039478 produced from CDADOCT on 23-AUG-2005 by SALINROS. ROOM 100
23-AUG-2005
10:30 AM ISSUED PROCESS FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: Docket entry for the 05-GCIT-039479 produced from CDADOCT on 23-AUG-2005 by SALINROS. ROOM 100
23-AUG-2005
10:33 AM LETTER PRODUCED
Entry: Docket entry for the ATTACHMENT letter produced from CDADOCT on 23-AUG-2005 by SALINROS.
29-AUG-2005
02:23 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$8.00 was made on receipt DCHC122966.
01-SEP-2005
12:44 PM PROCESS RETURNED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: SERVED:08-26-05
01-SEP-2005
12:45 PM PROCESS RETURNED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: SERVED:08-26-05
02-SEP-2005
10:56 AM RESET REQUESTED-CASE PENDING
Entry: none.
02-SEP-2005
10:59 AM HEARING REQUESTED
Entry: none.
08-SEP-2005
04:27 PM ORIGINAL ANSWER FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RESPONSE TO SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENTS VERIFIED PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITION BEFORE SUIT MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE AND SERVICE
09-SEP-2005
08:09 AM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: CORRECTION
13-SEP-2005
11:34 AM RESPONSE FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: CHRIS CALVIN'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER SIENNE/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT'S VERIFIED PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITION BEFORE SUIT WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
14-SEP-2005
10:27 AM OTHER DISPOSITIONS SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: ORDER ON PETITIONER SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT'S VERIFIED PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITION BEFORE SUIT 1 PAGE
21-SEP-2005
10:24 AM RESPONSE FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: TO PETITIONERS OBJECTION TO PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
29-SEP-2005
04:25 PM MOTION FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
07-OCT-2005
12:43 PM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: FIRST AMENDED MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
07-OCT-2005
12:43 PM NOTICE FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: NOTICE OF ORAL HEARING WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
11-OCT-2005
10:27 AM MOTION GRANTED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 PAGES
11-OCT-2005
10:27 AM MOTION GRANTED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: ORDER 1 PAGE ON MOTON TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
13-OCT-2005
10:29 AM RESPONSE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PETITIONER'S REPLY TO RESPONDENT CHRIS CALVIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
13-OCT-2005
10:29 AM OBJECTION FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO RESPONDENT MATTHEW FEINBERG'S PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER
13-OCT-2005
02:34 PM JDG ORDER/NO ACCOMPANYING MTN SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PROPOSED ORDER ON RESPONDENT MATTHEW FEINBERG'S MOTION TO QUASH 1 PAGE ORDER DENYING MATTHEW FEINBERG'S MOTION TO QUASH
13-OCT-2005
02:40 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$.50 was made on receipt DCHC126648.
17-OCT-2005
08:01 AM APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
17-OCT-2005
08:03 AM MOTION FILED HERMER, LAURA
Entry: PETITION TO TAKE LATE APPEAL
17-OCT-2005
08:03 AM NOTICE OF APPEAL/DC HERMER, LAURA
Entry: RESPONDENT MATTHEW FEINBERG'S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING, AND EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR STAY OF ORDERS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DEPOSITIONS
17-OCT-2005
08:04 AM MOTION FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RECORD
17-OCT-2005
08:05 AM MOTION FILED HERMER, LAURA
Entry: MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DECISION
17-OCT-2005
09:43 AM HEARING REQUESTED
Entry: none.
17-OCT-2005
09:56 AM OBJECTION FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PETITIONER'S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT MATTHEW FEINBERG'S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING, EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR STAY OF ORDERS, AND PETITION TO TAKE LATE APPEAL WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
17-OCT-2005
11:46 AM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING RUIZ, PEDRO P.
Entry: ASSOCIATE JUDGE REPORT OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISTRICT COURT WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
19-OCT-2005
10:22 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$1.00 was made on receipt DCHC126986.
19-OCT-2005
03:51 PM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING HERMER, LAURA
Entry: RESPONDENT FEINBERG'S APPEAL FORM ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISTRICT COURT, AND REQUEST FOR TRIAL DE NOVO SUPPLEMENT TO OCTOBER 17, 2005, NOTICE OF APPEAL
20-OCT-2005
08:22 AM RESPONSE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: TO RESPONDENT MATTHEW FEINBERGS SUPPLEMENT TO OBTOBER 17, 2005 NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
20-OCT-2005
09:47 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$3.00 was made on receipt DCHC127049.
20-OCT-2005
12:26 PM JDG ORDER/NO ACCOMPANYING MTN SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: ORDER (TO RESPONDENTS NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING, AND EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR STAY OF ORDERS) 1 PAGE
21-OCT-2005
12:13 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$25.00 was made on receipt DCHC127274.
24-OCT-2005
11:21 AM HEARING PASSED
Entry: none.
25-OCT-2005
01:53 PM NEW FOLDER CREATED
Entry: FOLDER NUMBER: "3" BEGINS ON: "12-27-05". (YELLOW EXPANDABLE) FOLDER NUMBER: "2" BEGINS ON: "10-17-05".
25-OCT-2005
02:00 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION
Entry: ORDER CONCERNING DEPOSITIONS 1 PAGE
25-OCT-2005
02:01 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION
Entry: ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION 1 PAGE
25-OCT-2005
02:01 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION
Entry: ORDER 1 PAGE
25-OCT-2005
02:05 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION
Entry: PROPOSED ORDER 1 PAGE
25-OCT-2005
02:05 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION
Entry: ORDER ON APPEAL FROM ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISTRICT COURT 2 PAGES
31-OCT-2005
09:12 AM MOTION FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
02-NOV-2005
11:00 AM RESPONSE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S RESPONSE TO RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
04-NOV-2005
02:44 PM RESPONSE FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RELATOR'S REPLY TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST SJD'S RESPONSE TO RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
09-NOV-2005
02:46 PM RESPONSE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S RESPONSE TO RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
14-NOV-2005
02:07 PM RESPONSE FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RELATOR'S REPLY TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST SJD'S RESPONSE TO RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
27-DEC-2005
08:11 AM APPLICATION FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: COURTESY COPY OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (ORIGINAL FILED IN TRAVIS COUNTY)
27-DEC-2005
08:11 AM REPORT FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: COURTESY COPY OF RECORD FILED WITH PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDAMUS (ORIGINAL FILED IN TRAVIS COUNTY)
28-DEC-2005
10:38 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$2.50 was made on receipt DCHC133812.
18-JAN-2006
11:28 AM MOTION FILED
Entry: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 52.11 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 05-1054
18-JAN-2006
11:28 AM RESPONSE FILED
Entry: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 05-1054
25-JAN-2006
01:11 PM RESPONSE FILED BROILES, DAVID
Entry: DAVID BROILES' RESPONSE TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S MOTION FOR SANCTION PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULE OF APPELLANT PROCEDURE 52.11 WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
25-JAN-2006
02:06 PM RESPONSE FILED HERMER, LAURA
Entry: LAURA HERMER'S RESPONSE TO REAL PARTY IN INTERST'S [SIC] MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 52.11 WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
30-JAN-2006
11:20 AM COPIES MADE
Entry: ONE COPY OF PETITION MAILED TO GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP DCHC133814 35.00 DONE BY CHRYL
07-JUN-2006
08:45 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$10.00 was made on receipt DCHC149986.
Case Event Schedule
Event Date/Time Room Location Judge
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 18-JAN-2006
09:45 AM COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
MOTION HEARING 26-APR-2006
09:45 AM COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
MOTION TO COMPEL 13-JUN-2006
09:45 AM COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
MOTION TO COMPEL 08-AUG-2006
09:45 AM COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
HEARING
COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
HEARING
COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
MOTION TO QUASH
COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
Case Parties
Seq # Assoc Expn Date Type ID Name
1 JUDGE 240JDG JUDGE, 240TH COURT
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
2 3 ATTORNEY 00794085 KEVILLE, JOHN
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
3 2 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER @3129 SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP
Address: unavailable Aliases: AFG JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LLC
4 2 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER V00068006 GOFF, DOUGLAS
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
5 7 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT @132813 CALVIN, CHRIS
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
6 25-JUL-2006 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT @146911 THE COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
7 5 ATTORNEY V18433900 SINGER, JEFFREY R.
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
8 DEFT/RESP AS COUNTER PLTF/PET @132813 CALVIN, CHRIS
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
9 PLTF/PET AS COUNTER DEFT/RESP @3129 SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP
Address: unavailable Aliases: AFG JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LLC
10 PLTF/PET AS COUNTER DEFT/RESP V00068006 GOFF, DOUGLAS
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
11 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER/THIRD PAR @132813 CALVIN, CHRIS
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
12 DEFT./RESPONDANT/THIRD PARTY V00116265 SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT GP, L.L.C.
Address: unavailable Aliases: AFG JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LLC
13 DEFT./RESPONDANT/THIRD PARTY @153991 SIENNA/JOHNSON NORTH LP
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
14 DEFT./RESPONDANT/THIRD PARTY @154005 SIENNA/JOHNSON NORTH GP LLC
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
15 2 MOVANT @167442 CALVIN, AMY
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
16 WITNESS @171654 MCCLURE, MARY
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
Alias/Alternative Name
Current Name Alias/Alternative Name
SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT GP, L.L.C. AFG JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LLC
SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP AFG JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LLC
Docket Entries
Filing Date Description Name Monetary
13-DEC-2005
12:58 PM NEW DISTRICT CIVIL CASE FILED KEVILLE, JOHN
Entry: none.
13-DEC-2005
12:58 PM ORIGINAL CIVIL PETITION KEVILLE, JOHN
Entry: PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION
13-DEC-2005
12:58 PM ISSUE PROCESS
Entry: none.
13-DEC-2005
01:06 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$225.00 was made on receipt DCHC132885.
13-DEC-2005
01:08 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$.50 was made on receipt DCHC132886.
13-DEC-2005
03:48 PM ISSUED PROCESS CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: Docket entry for the 05-GCIT-042567 produced from CDADOCT on 13-DEC-2005 by RUIZMAR. ROOM 100
13-DEC-2005
03:48 PM LETTER PRODUCED
Entry: Docket entry for the ATTACHMENT letter produced from CDADOCT on 13-DEC-2005 by RUIZMAR.
14-DEC-2005
09:59 AM COURT'S DOCKET SHEET GENERATED
Entry: Docket entry for the DOCKET SHEET produced from CDADOCT on 14-DEC-2005 by RUIZMAR.
15-DEC-2005
08:36 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$9.00 was made on receipt DCHC133021.
15-DEC-2005
11:06 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$9.00 was made on receipt DCHC133063.
22-DEC-2005
02:28 PM PROCESS RETURNED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: SERVED:12-14-05
28-DEC-2005
10:42 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$35.00 was made on receipt DCHC133814.
09-JAN-2006
03:36 PM CERTIFICATE CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
09-JAN-2006
03:36 PM ORIGINAL ANSWER FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
09-JAN-2006
03:36 PM CERTIFICATE CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
11-JAN-2006
12:21 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$1.00 was made on receipt DCHC135041.
30-JAN-2006
11:26 AM COPIES MADE
Entry: ONE COPY OF PETITION MAILED TO GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP DCHC133814 35.00 DONE BY CHRYL
08-FEB-2006
04:59 PM X ACTION/COUNTER CLAIM/CIVIL
Entry: none.
08-FEB-2006
04:59 PM THIRD PARTY ACTION SINGER, JEFFREY R.
Entry: COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
08-FEB-2006
05:03 PM ISSUE PROCESS/3
Entry: none.
08-FEB-2006
05:05 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$94.00 was made on receipt DCHC137656.
10-FEB-2006
04:02 PM ISSUED PROCESS SIENNA/JOHNSON NORTH GP LLC,
Entry: Docket entry for the 06-GCIT-044087 produced from CDADOCT on 10-FEB-2006 by HARGRTER. ROOM 100
10-FEB-2006
04:06 PM ISSUED PROCESS SIENNA/JOHNSON NORTH LP,
Entry: Docket entry for the 06-GCIT-044086 produced from CDADOCT on 10-FEB-2006 by HARGRTER. ROOM 100
10-FEB-2006
04:09 PM ISSUED PROCESS SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT GP, L.L.C.,
Entry: Docket entry for the 06-GCIT-044085 produced from CDADOCT on 10-FEB-2006 by HARGRTER. ROOM 100
10-FEB-2006
04:10 PM LETTER PRODUCED
Entry: Docket entry for the ATTACHMENT letter produced from CDADOCT on 10-FEB-2006 by HARGRTER.
15-FEB-2006
08:34 AM PROCESS RETURNED SIENNA/JOHNSON NORTH LP,
Entry: SERVED:02-14-06
15-FEB-2006
08:35 AM PROCESS RETURNED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: SERVED:02-14-06
23-FEB-2006
11:04 AM CERTIFICATE CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
03-MAR-2006
04:51 PM ORIGINAL ANSWER FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: ORIGINAL ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
03-MAR-2006
04:51 PM SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: THE SIENNA / JOHNSON DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
09-MAR-2006
03:39 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: ORDER SUSTAINING THE SIENNA/JOHNSON DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION 3 PAGES
20-MAR-2006
12:07 PM PROCESS RETURNED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: SERVED:03-02-06
12-APR-2006
02:04 PM HEARING REQUESTED
Entry: TEMPORY INJUNCTION
12-APR-2006
02:07 PM HEARING REQUESTED
Entry: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
13-APR-2006
04:23 PM CERTIFICATE CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
13-APR-2006
04:23 PM CERTIFICATE CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
13-APR-2006
04:37 PM NOTICE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT GP, L.L.C.,
Entry: NOTICE OF HEARING ON THE SIENNA/JOHNSON DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24-APR-2006
03:23 PM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 PAGES
24-APR-2006
04:29 PM RESPONSE FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: RESPONSE TO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
26-APR-2006
09:13 AM JDG ORDER/NO ACCOMPANYING MTN
Entry: ORDER ON MOTION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1 PAGE
27-APR-2006
11:21 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$2.00 was made on receipt DCHC145789.
04-MAY-2006
04:32 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: ORDER ON MOTION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
09-MAY-2006
03:30 PM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24-MAY-2006
03:25 PM CERTIFICATE GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24-MAY-2006
03:26 PM CERTIFICATE GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24-MAY-2006
03:26 PM CERTIFICATE GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24-MAY-2006
03:27 PM CERTIFICATE GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24-MAY-2006
03:27 PM CERTIFICATE GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24-MAY-2006
03:50 PM CERTIFICATE CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
26-MAY-2006
12:50 PM MOTION FILED CALVIN, AMY
Entry: MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE AND SERVICE
30-MAY-2006
12:19 PM CERTIFICATE SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
30-MAY-2006
03:19 PM MOTION FILED CALVIN, AMY
Entry: MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
30-MAY-2006
03:19 PM MOTION FILED CALVIN, AMY
Entry: MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, AND EXHIBITS
31-MAY-2006
07:58 AM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
31-MAY-2006
08:00 AM NOTICE FILED GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: NOTICE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
01-JUN-2006
09:22 AM RESPONSE FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
02-JUN-2006
11:33 AM HEARING PASSED
Entry: none.
02-JUN-2006
02:12 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION CALVIN, AMY
Entry: ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
02-JUN-2006
02:16 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION CALVIN, AMY
Entry: ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
05-JUN-2006
01:42 PM HEARING PASSED
Entry: none.
06-JUN-2006
10:27 AM NOTICE FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: NOTICE OF ORAL HEARING WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
06-JUN-2006
01:00 PM MOTION FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: AND DOUGLAS GOFF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF COUNTER-PLAINTFF AMY CALVIN WITH CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, AND EXHIBITS
06-JUN-2006
03:21 PM NOTICE FILED GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: NOTICE OF ORAL HEARING WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
07-JUN-2006
10:06 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$2.00 was made on receipt DCHC150045.
08-JUN-2006
01:51 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION
Entry: [PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF COUNTER-PLAINTIFF AMY CALVIN 1 PAGE
09-JUN-2006
04:18 PM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: FIRST NOTICE OF ORAL HEARING WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
09-JUN-2006
05:06 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$6.00 was made on receipt DCHC150678.
12-JUN-2006
02:07 PM RESET REQUESTED-CASE PENDING
Entry: none.
12-JUN-2006
04:32 PM RESPONSE FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
13-JUN-2006
02:16 PM MOTION GRANTED
Entry: ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH 2 PAGES
30-JUN-2006
02:22 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION
Entry: ORDER 2 PAGES
03-JUL-2006
03:45 PM PROCESS RETURNED MCCLURE, MARY
Entry: SUBPOENA ISSUED: 06-29-06 SUBPOENA SERVED: 06-29-06 NOT ISSUED BY DISTRICT CLERK
20-JUL-2006
12:04 PM MOTION FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF PARTIAL NONSUIT WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
25-JUL-2006
01:40 PM DISM BY PLTF/NON FINAL GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF PARTIAL NONSUIT WITHOUT PREJUDICE A PAGE AS TO THE COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT ONLY
26-JUL-2006
10:12 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$2.00 was made on receipt DCHC153974.
26-JUL-2006
10:13 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$2.00 was made on receipt DCHC153975.
27-JUL-2006
03:04 PM MOTION FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT GP, L.L.C.,
Entry: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
28-JUL-2006
10:03 AM NOTICE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT GP, L.L.C.,
Entry: NOTICE OF ORAL HEARING WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
28-JUL-2006
04:12 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$2.00 was made on receipt DCHC154293.
28-JUL-2006
04:13 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$2.00 was made on receipt DCHC154294.
28-JUL-2006
05:22 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$2.00 was made on receipt DCHC154307.
---and the soap opera goes on. Oh BTW here is a lawyer joke for Keville and his cohort:
That's a real bargain
A Dublin lawyer died in poverty, and many people donated to a fund for his funeral. The Lord Chief Justice of Orbury was asked to donate a shilling. "Only a shilling?" said the Justice, "Only a shilling to bury an attorney? Here's a guinea; go and bury twenty more of them."
. . . ;-)
Kind of reminds you of the keystone cops from those old silent films.
Post a Comment
<< Home