Alan Nelson Crotts v. Jessalyn Elizabeth Cole

ACCEPTED
14-14-00094-CV
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
1/4/2015 9:25:17 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK

NO. l4-14-00094-CV

FILED IN
IN THE 14THCOURTOF APPEALSOF TEXAS 14th COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
1/4/2015 9:25:17 PM
AT HOUSTON
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk

$

Alan Nelson Crotts,Appellant S Cause No. 73363
$
Vs. In the l4ghDistrict Court of
$
JessalynElizabeth Cole, Brczoria County, Texas
Appellee $

On appealfrom the I49thJudicial District Court of BrazoriaCounty,Texas

REPLYBRIEF OF APPELLANTTO AMENDED BKIEF OF APPELLEE

Alan NelsonCrotts.Pro Se

19910GrandBluffGrove

Richmond"Texas 77407
 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT TO AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLEE

TheAPPELLANT,Alan NelsonCrotts, respondsasfollows to the AMENDED BRIEF

OF APPELLEE:

l. TheAMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLEEfails, in r,vhole,to adequatelyrespondto

the issuespresented
by the Appellantin the lsr AMENDED BRIEFOF APPELLANT. It

containsirrelevantinformationand,in someparts,falseinformation. The formatitself seemsto

be intendedto confusethis Courtasto the logical sequences
of eventsin termsof their

on the outcomeof prior events.
dependency

the Appelleecontendsthatthe NOTICE OF APPEAL wasfiled late
To demonstrate,

it wasn'tfiled within 30 daysof the October14th,201,3
because dismissal.This assertions

disregardsthe combinedeffectof the lsr AMENDED MOTION TO REINSTATEAND

MOTION TO QUASHandthe ORDERON MOTION TO REINSTATE. The lsr aIWENDED

MOTION TO REINSTATEAND MOTION TO QUASHeffectivelyextendedtheplenary

powerof the trial court,pursuantto Rule329b(S)of the TexasRulesof Civil Procedure,andthe

ORDERON MOTION TO REINSTATEeffectivelyput the casebackon the docket.

2. To clarify the actualsissuesat handandeliminatethe confusioncausedby the

AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLEE,the actualtimelineandthe effectof filings which the

Appellantcontendsis appropriatearelistedbelow. Only filings relevantto AMENDED BRIEF

OF APPELLEEareincluded.

l) ORIGINAL PETITION- Initiatedlawsuit.
07112/2013,

Page2 of 9
 2) DEFENDANT'SRULE 9lA MOTION TO DISMISS- set
0911812013,

hearingfor a dismissalpursuantto Rule9l a of the TexasRulesof Civil Procedure.

3) OBJECTIONTO MOTIONTO DISMISS* setforthclear
rc10712013,

andlogicalobjections
to DEFENDANT'SRULE 91A MOTIONTO DISMISS,which

included,but werenot limited to, validity of causesof actionsanddeficienciesin the

serviceof this motion.

4) ORDEROF DISMISSAL- Dismissedthe suitpursuantto
1011412013,

Rule9Ia of the TexasRulesof Civil Procedure,andonly that rule, which affecteda final

dispositionon the case.

5) l0ll4l20l3, MOTIONTO REINSTATE- Requested
thecaseto be

reinstatedunderRule l65a ofthe TexasRulesof Civil Procedure.Exceptfor settinga

hearingdate,this motionwaswithout effectbecausethe casewasnot dismissedunder

Rule 165a.Theplenarypowerof the trial courtwasnot affectedby this motion.

6) llll2l20l3, lsr AMENDED MOTION TO REINSTATEAND MOTION

TO QUASH- Effectivelyextendedthe plenarypowerof the trial courtthrough

December12th,2013.This motionstatedon page2 (C.R.54) andpage3 (C.R.55)that

this suit wasnot eligiblefor dismissalunderRule 9la. On page4 (C.R.56),the

Appellantstatedthat Rule 91arequiredthe trial courtto denyDEFENDANT'SRULE

91A MOTIONTO DISMISS.ThClSTAMENDEDMOTIONTO REINSTATEAND

MOTION TO QUASHalsorequested
the ORDEROF DISMISSALsignedon October

null andvoid on page5 (C.R.57).
l4'h,2013,toberendered

Page3 of 9
 7) 1210612013,
ORDER ON MOTION TO REINSTATE - Placedthe case

back on the docket as to the causesof action for Breach of Contract and Defamation of

Characterpursuantto Rule 9la.

3. In referenceto the effect of the filings cited above, the AMENDED BRIEF OF

APPELLEE questionswhether lsr AMENDED MOTION TO REINSTATE AND MOTION TO

QUASH constitutesa motion to correct, modify, or otherwise reform a judgment. Upon

examining the definitions of ocorrect'and 'reform' againstthe definition of oquash',there is clear

congruency. To demonstrate,correctmeans"...to changeso that it is right, true, proper, etc...".

Reform is defined as "...to improve (someoneor something)by removing or correctingfaults,

problems,etc.. .". And quashmeansto 'otonulliff especiallyby judicial action.. .'0. To further

assistthis Court, the term nulliff is synonymouswith abrogate,rescind, void, or vacate. Based

on thesedefinitions, it would be contrary to English languageto assertthat a motion to quash

does not constitute a motion to correct. To wit, the quashing of an order that is entirely invalid

absolutely constitutesa correction or reform of that order.

Furthermore,a motion is to be determinedby its substanca,not title (.Rashv. Barrios,56

S.W. 3d, 88, 93 (Tex. App.- Houston[4tr Dist.] 200l, pet. denied). The ISTAMENDED

MOTION TO REINSTATE AND MOTION TO QUASH is clearly intended, in part, to show the

trial court that the dismissal under Rule 91a was improper and that this effor neededto be

corrected.

Pursuantto the above and Rule 329b(g),the filing the lsr AMENDED MOTION TO

REINSTATE AND MOTION TO QUASH effectively extendedthe trial courtosplenary power

Page4 of 9
for 30 days. Thetrial courthasconcurredwith this assertion,asit interpretedthe motionasa

requestto corrector refofin an improperjudgmentandactedaccordingly.

4. In referenceto the effect of the filings cited above, the AMENDED BRIEF OF

on page15that".,.two of theoriginalcausesof actionthatwere
APPELLEEacknowledges

undertheRuleglamotion..." werereinstated.As asserted
dismissedon October14ft.,2013 in

the l sr AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLANT' regardless
of any citationof Rule 165a,the case

wasproperlyreinstatedunderthe authorityof Rule 9l a becausethat is the Rulethe casewas

improperlydismissedunder. Justasthe natureof a motionis determinedby its substance,
the

Appellantassertsthatthis rule appliesto courtordersaswell. It is throughthe substance
thatthe

trial courtspecificallymadesureto includein the ORDERON MOTION TO REINSTATEthat

the intentof that courtis madeclear- o'onlyasto the Causesof Action allegingDefamationand

Breachof Contract". It is uncontestable
thatthe trial courtincludedthesewordsin responseto

the Rule9la issuespresented
by the Appellate.

5. On page14of theAMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLEE,the Appelleestatesthe

DEFENDANT'SRULE 9lA MOTION TO DISMISSwasappropriately
granted.Thetrail court

this to be untruethroughthe ORDERON MOTION TO
hasalreadyacknowledged

REINSTATE.

6. The AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLEEalsocontendsthat theNOTICE OF

APPEAL was not filed in a timely manner. Pursuantto the timeline and effect of the filings

presentin item 2 above,this Court can clearly seethis to be false.

7. In severalplacesthe Appellee attemptsto import motive to the Appellant's

filings, This is improper. The Appellant assertsthat the motive for each filing is clear within the

Page5 of 9
 of the filing. It shouldalsobe notedthat the effectof certainfilings is separatefrom
substance

the motivefor the filings. For example,a party doesnot needto intendfor a motionto corrector

modiff ajudgmentto extendthe plenarypowerof the court,that is simplythe effectof the

motion.

8. Item 14on page37 of the AMENDED BRIEFOF APPELLEEis irrelevant

becausethe trial courthasalreadyacknowledged
that the dismissalunderRule 9la was

improper.

9. Item l5 on page38 of the AMENDED BRIEFOF APPELLEEis falseand

irrelevant. The Appellant has the right to presenttwo argumentsbefore the court. The Appellate

made argumentsrelated to Rule l65aand Rule 91a becausethe Appellate was confused as to the

basis for the dismissal. The Appellate knew that the casecould not be dismissedunder either

rule, but yet it was. At the hearing on November l2h,z}l3,the arguedonly those reasons

related to Rule 9la becauseno notice of hearing for a dismissal under Rule l65awas ever issued.

As to the attachedorder, the Appellate is aware the trial court has the authority to amend

a proposedorder and designedit to allow the trial court to easily remove or cross-outany

citations to the irrelevantruleoRule 91a versusRule 165a,

10. Item 16 on page 39 of the AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLEE is also without

merit.TheAppellant's
lsr AMENDEDMorIoN To REINSTATE
AND MoTIoN To

QUASH assertedthat the ORDER OF DISMISSAL signedon October l4th, 2013, should be

wholly voided. After hearing the argumentsat the hearing, the trial court determinedthat only

two of the causesof action were valid, so the order could not be wholl,y voided. The Appellant

Page6 of 9
did not contestthat decision,but that would not logically constitutea waiverof withdrawalof

thatmotion. In short,havinga motiondenieddoesnot constitutea withdrawalof that motion.

Theabovenotwithstanding,
the motionto quashwaseffectivelygrantedin part by the

trial court.

I l. In Item 17on page40 of the AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLEEthe appellee

contendsthe ls AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLANT containsan argumentthat wasnot

presented
to the trial court. Specifically,the argumentthat a time extendingmotion,otherthan

the MOTION TO REINSTATE,wasfiled wasnot presented
to the trial court. This contentionis

moot becausethe Appellantdid not presentthis argumentin the lst AMENDED BRIEF OF

APPELLANT.

t2. In Item 18on page40 of theAMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLEEthe Appellee

contendsthat the lst AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLANT doesnot conformto Rule 35.1(h)

andRule 38.I (i) of the TexasRulesof AppellateProcedure.This Courtknowsthis to be false

becausethe ls AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLANT hasalreadybeenmeasuredagainstthe

standards
setforth in Rule38.1in response
to the APPELLEE'SSECONDMOTION FOR

INVOLI.INTARYDISMISSAL.

13. In Item 19on page40 of theAMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLEEcomplainsthat

the I't AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLANT did not challengeany of the trial court'sfinding of

fact. This is entirelyirrelevant. The Appellantagreeswith the factspresented
by the trial court

in the FINDINGSOF FACT AND CONCLUSIONSOF LAW, with thepossibleexceptionof

Items3 and4, but hascontestedthe basisfor the trial court'sconclusionsandits decisionto sign

theORDEROF DISMISSALon Januarv27th.2014.

Page7 of9
 PRAYER

TheAPPELLANT praysthe Courtacknowledgethe counter-points
arguedin this

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT TO AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLEEandgrantthe relief

in the BRIEF OF APPELLANT andany otherrelief to which the Appellantmay be
requested

entitled.

RespectfullySubmitted,

Alan N. Crotts, Pro Se
19910GrandBluff Grove
Richmond,Texas 77407
Telephone:(281)384-0350

Page8 of 9
 CERTIFICATE OF SERWCE

This certifiesthat the undersignedservedthis REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT TO

AMENDED BzuEFOF APPELLEEonJESSALYNELIZABETH COLE,Appellee,by sending

it to leadcounselfor Appellee,RAYMOND COLE,at P.O.BOX 375,BAY CITY, TEXAS

77404by CERTIFIEDRETURNRECEIPTMAIL on

Month/ Dayl Year

Alan N. Crotts, Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF',COMPLIAFICEWITH APPELLATE RULE 9.4(i)

I certifuthatthis documentcontains11695words,asindicatedby the word-countfunction

usedto prepareit, andexcludingthe caption,signature,proof of
of the computerprogrerm

service,certification,andcertificateof complianceasprovidedby AppellateRule 9.4(i).

Alan N. Crotts.Pro Se

Page9 of 9