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