in Re Paula Tomasi

ACCEPTED
01-15-00276-CV
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
3/26/2015 2:58:58 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
01-15-00276-CV
No. _ _ _ _ __

FILED IN
1st COURT OF APPEALS
In the Court of Appeals HOUSTON, TEXAS
3/26/2015 2:58:58 PM
for the Judicial District CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Houston, Texas Clerk

In re PAULA TOMASI, Relator

Original Proceeding Arising from the
245th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2012-03438
The Honorable Roy Moore

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

SCHLANGER, SILVER, BARG & PAINE, LLP
Patricia A. Wicoff
State Bar No. 21422500
109 North Post Oak Lane, Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77024
(713) 735-8514
(713) 351-4514 Facsimile
pwicoff@ssbplaw.com (non-service emails)
famlawservice@ssbplaw .com (email service
only)
Attorney for Paula Tomasi, Relator

1
 IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

The following is a list of all parties and all counsel who have appeared in
this matter:

Relator Paula Tomasi

Trial & Appellate SCHLANGER, SILVER, BARG & PAINE, LLP
Counsel for Relator Patricia A. Wicoff
State Bar No. 21422500
109 North Post Oak Lane, Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77024
(713) 735-8514
(713) 351-4514 Facsimile
pwicoff@ssbplaw.com (non-service emails)
famlawservice@ssbplaw.com (email service only)
Attorney for Paula Tomasi, Relator

Respondent The Honorable Roy Moore
245th Judicial District Court
20 1 Caroline, 15th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002

Real Party in Interest Diego David Tomasi

Counsel for Real Party BURGOWER & RAINWATER, LLP
in Interest Wendy S. Burgower
State Bar No. 03383600
service@brfamilylaw.com
3355 W. Alabama, Suite 825
Houston, Texas 77098
(713) 529-3982
(713) 522-5045 Facsimile

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL.............•...............•........... 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . 4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......•.........•..•....•..................... 6

ISSUE PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . 6

sTATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . • . • . • 7-8

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. Standard of Review: Availability of Mandamus Relief. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

B. A Trial Court Has No Discretion to Fail and Refuse to
Consider a Motion and Make a Ruling Upon that Motion ......... 9-11

C. IssuE: The Trial Court Clearly Abused Its Discretion by
Failing and Refusing to Rule on Relator's Motion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-13

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER..........•..................................•.• 13

CERTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • . . • . . • . . . . . • • • • 15

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE......•...........................•.•...•..•• 15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.............................................•... 16

APPENDIX A ............................................................ 17

APPENDIX B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAW
Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig.
proceeding); ........................................................................................................... 9
Erbs v. Bedard, 160 S.W.2d 750, 755 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1988, orig. proceeding)
....................................... ..... ........... ..... ...... .... ..... ................. ...... .. .......... ................ 12
Eli Lilly & Co v. Marshall, 829 S. W.2d 157 (Tex.1992)(per curiam) ........... 8, 9, 10
In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008, orig.
proceeding) ................................................................................................ 8, 10, 11
In re Cash, 99 S.W.3d 286, 288 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, orig. proceeding). 11
In re Chavez, 62 S.W. 3d 225,228 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding)
.................................................................................................................. 10, 11,13
In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, orig.
proceeding) ............................................................................................................ 9
In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 253 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, orig.
proceeding) ........................................................................................................... 11
In re Layton, 251 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2008, orig.
proceeding) ............................................................................................................ 9
In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, orig.
proceeding) ............................................................................................................ 9
In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, orig.
proceeding) .......................................................................................................... 11
In re Rodriguez, 77 S.W.3d 459, 460 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, orig.
proceeding) .......................................................................................................... 10
In re Shredder Co., L.L.C., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2006, orig.
proceeding). ......................................................................................................... 10
Kissam v. Williamson, 545 S.W.2d 265 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1976, orig. proceeding)
(per curiam).......................................................................................................... 11
Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.-San Antonio
1997, orig. proceeding) ....................................................................................... 8-9

APPENDICES: The following documents are attached to this petition and
incorporated in it for all purposes.

App. B, Exhibit A, Agreed Final Decree of Divorce ................................................ 7
App. B, Exhibit B, Motion for Enforcement of Property Division .......................... 7
App. B, Exhibit C, Motion for the Court to Render Judgment ................................. 8

4
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Case: This is a mandamus action brought by Paula J.
Tomasi, Relator.

Underlying Case: The underlying case arises out of Cause No.
2012-03438, entitled "In the Matter of the
Marriage of Diego David Tomasi and Paula J.
Tomasi," in the 245th Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas.

Respondent: The Honorable Roy Moore, Judge of the 245th
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas,
whose address is 201 Caroline, 15th Floor,
Houston, Texas 77002.

Course ofProceedings: Relator filed a Motion for Enforcement of
Property Division on April 25, 2013.

A hearing on Relator's motion for enforcement
commenced May 28, 2014, and at the close of
the day, the hearing was recessed until the
following morning. The hearing was concluded
on May 29, 2014.

Relator filed a Motion for the Court to Render
Judgment on October 9, 2014. A hearing was
held to consider the motion on January 16,
2015.

Action for Which Relief is Respondent has failed to rule on the Motion for
Sought: Enforcement of Property Division in a
reasonable amount of time.

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus under Section 6 of
Article V of the Texas Constitution and Section 22.221(a) of the Texas
Government Code.

ISSUE PRESENTED

ISSUE N0.1: The trial court clearly abused its discretion by failing and
refusing to rule on Relator's motion.

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

On or about March 20, 2013 the 245th Judicial District Court of Harris

County, Texas, entered a Final Decree of Divorce dissolving the marriage of the

Petitioner, Diego David Tomasi (Diego), and Respondent, Paula J. Tomasi (Paula).

App. B, Exhibit A. The Respondent, Diego Tomasi failed to comply with several

terms of the agreement. It was out of necessity that on April25, 2013, Paula filed a

Motion for Enforcement of Property Division seeking relief from the court to

intervene in the facilitation of the terms of the settlement agreement. App. B,

Exhibit B.

On February 27, 2014, almost a year after Paula's motion for enforcement

was filed, the trial court commenced the final trial on the motion. At the close of

the day, the trial court recessed the trial to reconvene on May 28, 2014. The trial on

Paula's motion for enforcement concluded the next day, May 29,2014.

On October 9, 2014, more than four months after the trial on the motion,

Paula filed a Motion for the Court to Render Judgment. App. B, Exhibit C.

A hearing on Paula's Motion for the Court to Render Judgment was heard on

January 16, 2015. At that hearing, Judge Moore orally assured counsel that a ruling

on the motion would be made within one weeks time. It has now been nearly ten

months since the motion was heard, and to date, the trial court has not made a

ruling on Paula's Motion for Enforcement of Property Division.

7
 Relator now brings forth this Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking relief

from this Court commanding the trial court to issue its ruling on Relator's motion.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. Standard of Review: Availability of Mandamus Relief.

Mandamus relief is proper only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when

there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Columbia Med. Ctr. Of Las Colinas,

290 S.W. 3d 204, 207 {Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). A court may abuse its

discretion by failing to execute a ministerial task for which no discretion attaches.

See Eli Lilly & Co v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 {Tex.1992)(per curiam); In re

Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding).

When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, considering and

ruling on that motion is a ministerial act, and mandamus may issue to compel the

trial court to act. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 {Tex. App.-

San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426

(Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); see also Eli Lilly & Co. v.

Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158, {Tex. 1992) (holding trial court abused its

discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion).

To obtain mandamus relief for such a refusal, a realtor must establish that:

(1) the trial court had a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act, (2) a demand

for performance was made, and (3) the trial court failed or refused to rule within a

8
reasonable amount of time. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426-27 (Tex.App.-

Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). That is, the movant is required to show

that the motion was brought to the attention of the trial court and the trial court

failed or refused to rule on the motion with a reasonable time. In re Layton, 257

S.W.3d 794, 795 {Tex. App.-Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Molina, 94

S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Hearn,

137 S.W.3d 681, 685 {Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding).

B. A Trial Court Has No Discretion to Fail and Refuse to Consider a
Motion and Make a Ruling Upon That Motion.

When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of

considering and resolving it is ministerial. Barnes v. Texas, 832 S. W.2d 424, 426

(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (citing Eli Lilly & Co. v.

Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157 {Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). A ministerial act is one

that, according to law, must be performed with such certainty it does not require

the exercise of judicial discretion. In re Rodriguez, 77 S.W.3d 459, 460

{Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding). A court may abuse its

discretion by failing to execute a ministerial task for which no discretion attaches,

such as refusing to conduct a hearing or rule on a properly-pending motion. See Eli

Lilly & Co v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 {Tex.l992)(per curiam); In re

Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659,661 {Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding).

9
 A trial judge is required to perform the ministerial duty of considering and

ruling on a properly filed and pending motion within a "reasonable time." In re

Chavez, 62 S.W. 3d 225, 228 {Tex. App.-Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); In re

Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). A

trial court's refusal to rule on a pending motion within a reasonable amount of time

constitutes a clear abuse of discretion. In re Shredder Co., L.L.C., 225 S.W.3d 676,

679 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding). Mandamus relief is available to

compel a trial court to make a ruling within a reasonable time. /d. This rule does

not intrude upon the trial court's discretion because a trial court has no discretion

to refuse to act. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 {Tex.App.-Houston [1st

Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). The trial court's judicial discretion extends only to

its decision how to rule after it considers a motion properly before it. /d.

Whether a reasonable time has lapsed depends on the circumstances of each

case. In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 {Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008, orig.

proceeding). In considering what constitutes a reasonable amount of time, courts

have examined a "myriad" of criteria including: (1) the trial court's actual

knowledge of the motion, (2) its overt refusal to act on the same, (3) the state of the

court's docket, (4) the existence of other judicial and administrative matters which

must be addressed first, and (5) the trial court's inherent power to control its own

10
docket. In re Chavez, 62 S.W. 3d 225, 228-29 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2001, orig.

proceeding).

No specific amount of time has been established as to what separates a

reasonable time period from an unreasonable one. See In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d

250, 253 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, orig. proceeding). However, periods of thirteen-

months, five-months, and three-months have been held too long for a trial court not

to rule. In re Ramirez, 994 S. W.2d 682, 684 {Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, orig.

proceeding); In re Cash, 99 S.W.3d 286, 288 {Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, orig.

proceeding); Kissam v. Williamson, 545 S. W.2d 265 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1976, orig.

proceeding)(per curiam).

C. Issue No. 1: The Trial Court Clearly Abused Its Discretion by Failing
and Refusing to Rule on Relator's Motion.

Mandamus is appropriate in this case, as Relator can demonstrate that all

requisites have been met for mandamus relief. First, the trial court has a

nondiscretionary legal duty to consider and rule upon Relator's Motion for

Enforcement of Property Division. Second, Relator demanded performance of this

nondiscretionary act when she properly filed and was heard on her Motion for

Enforcement of Property Division. Third, Relator has established that the trial

court has failed and refused to perform its ministerial duty to enter a ruling within a

reasonable time after Relator requested that it be performed. Relator has shown

II
that this petition is an appropriate request for mandamus relief, as all three

requisites for mandamus relief have been met. See Erbs v. Bedard, 760 S.W.2d 750,

755 {Tex. App.-Dallas 1988, orig. proceeding).

Relator has shown that the trial court has a legal duty to consider and rule on

her properly filed Motion for Enforcement of Property Division, and that such an

act is considered a ministerial task, for which no discretion attaches.

Relator has demonstrated that the trial court has knowledge, as she has

demanded performance through repeated attempts to secure a ruling from the trial

judge on her motion for enforcement. Relator properly pled and filed her motion

for enforcement with the trial court. Nearly one year later, a hearing on the motion

was held before the trial judge. More than ten months have now elapsed since the

trial court considered Relator's motion for enforcement.

Additionally, Relator went a step further in attempting to call the trial court's

attention to the pending status of a ruling when she properly filed and urged her

Motion for the Court to Render Judgment. Despite the trial judge pledging to

deliver its ruling within a weeks time from that hearing, to date -some four

months later-there has been no ruling on Relator's Motion for Enforcement of

Property Division.

Relator has also shown that the trial court is outside of the reasonable time in

which to make a ruling. Considering the factors set forth above, ( 1) the trial court

12
has knowledge of Relator's motion, as a hearing on her motion was held on May

28 and May 29, 2014, (2) the trial court has refused to rule on her motion despite

assurances that a ruling would be made some four months prior to the filing of this

petition, (3) the trial court's docket was of such a state that it was able to hold a

hearing on Relator's motions and a number of other matters, (4) no judicial and

administrative matters remain that must be addressed before the trial court's ruling,

and (5) the trial court has the power to make a ruling on this motion. See In re

Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225,228-29 {Tex.App.-Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).

Relator's Motion for Enforcement of Property Division was properly filed

with and has been heard by the trial court. The trial court has refused and failed to

rule on Relator's Motion for Enforcement of Property Division, though almost ten

months have elapsed since the trial court heard Relator's motion. The trial court

has a ministerial duty to rule on this properly filed and pending motion for

enforcement. The trial court's failure to issue its ruling within a reasonable amount

of time constitutes a clear abuse of discretion.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

For the reasons set forth above, Relator respectfully prays that this Court

issue its writ of mandamus commanding the Honorable Roy Moore, Judge of the

245th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, to rule on Relator's Motion

for Enforcement of Property Division.

13
Respectfully Submitted,

SCHLANGER, SILVER, BARG & PAINE, LLP

atricia A. Wic
tate Bar No. 21422500
109 North Post Oak Lane, Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77024
Tel: (713) 735-8514
Fax: (713) 351-4514
pwicoff@ssbplaw.com (non-service emails)
famlawservice@ssbplaw .com (email service only)
Attorney for Paula Tomasi, Relator

14
 CERTIFICATION

I certify that I have reviewed the above Petition for Writ of Mandamus and I
have concluded that every factual statement in said petition is supported by
competent evidence included in the ap nd· or ecord filed with this Court.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that the number of words continued in this document is
1,888 and that I am relying upon the p ogra used to prepare this document for
such word count.

15
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true copy of this Petition for Writ of Mandamus was served
on all parties in accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.3 and
9.5(b), (d) and (e) on March 26, 2015 as follows:

Via: Hand Delivery

THE HONORABLE ROY MOORE, Respondent Trial Judge
245 1h Judicial District Court
201 Caroline, 151h Floor, Houston, Texas 77002

Via: Electronic Delivery

WENDY S. BURGOWER, Burgower & Rainwater L.L.P.
3355 W. Alabama, Suite 825 Houston, Texas 77098

Patricia A. Wico
Attorney for Relator

A copy of this notice is being filed wit the appellate clerk in accordance
with rule 25.1(e) of the Texas Rules of pe e Procedure.

Patricia A. Wico
Attorney for Relator

16
APPENDIX A:

AFFIDAVIT OF PATRIClA A. WICOFF

STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF HARRIS §

BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Patricia A.
Wicoff, who, after being duly sworn, stated under oath:

"My name is Patricia A. Wicoff. I am above the age of eighteen years of age,
and I am fully competent to make this affidavit. I am the attorney of record for
Relator, Paula J. Tomasi, in this Petition for Writ of Mandamus. I am licensed to
practice law in the state of Texas. I have thoroughly reviewed the Court's file in
this matter. The facts stated in this affidavit are within my personal knowledge and
are true and correct.

"Attached to this affidavit are true and correct copies of the following
pleadings:

Lj{
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this .;2 t d ay of March,
2015, to certify which witness my hand and official seal.

ELIZABETH M. RODRIGUEZ Nota
Notary Public
STATE OF TEXAS
My Comm Exp. 01·19·2017

eliukH< j.l. ~t&r~ vQk
Notary's Printed Name

17
APPENDIXB:

This appendix contains the following:

EXHmiT

A. Agreed Final Decree of Divorce Court 3/20/ 13

B. Motion for Enforcement of Property Wicoff 4/25/ 13
Division

c. Motion for Court to Render Judgment Wicoff 10/9/ 14

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this ~~ay of March,
2015 , to certify which witness my hand and official seal.

ELIZABETH M. RODRIGUEZ
Notary Public
STATE OF TEXAS
MyComm Exp. 01 ·19-20 17
fllt.tt: (713) 521-5045

492Bbi-r ·Page4 of5

aar-
DDT
 State B.~r 'No. 214;2.2500
AMY R. HARRIS
State B.ar No. ,24041057
AttQr·neys for Respondent
109 North Post ·oak Lane; Suite 300
Houston,. T¢xas 77024
Telephone: (713) 735-8514
Telefax-~ -(7i3.) .351-4514

APPROVED AND CONSENTED· TO AS TO BOTI-J FORM AND SUBSTANCE:

DII:G DAVID TOMASI, Pet1t1oner

) £!11~.~4-N--
PAULA TOM - I, Respondent

4928.02~1

o.o.r
DDT
 FAX Nc. P. 018
JUij/.03/:~13/~0X J3:4J PM

r-:1 ... •• r n
.h."' '. •.• iJ1
t.. •. ~, .. : '•d
,.,--.~,I
J.' ' : ••-'~

((AUSJ NO.. 2012.-03438
.,....
,. . . Ai'l} ~147
IN THE MAntR OF IN.THI,OI$TI.IICT COURr Of ""
TME MARRIAG£0~ §
P,)
.§
DIEfiO DAV.1D TOMASI § HAaRIS COUNTY., T E JC AS(/($()
AND . §
PAULA JOMA.SI § 2~1t JUDICIAL DISTRJCT
C\)
.QRD~RTO·A~~R.ON PEJJTJQN fo.t\.~JIFO~M-T
Of-fit9''-"' -~~,.,~Pi'
~t¢M9.qerf PiS.iO DAVJP ~~'-is D-~ to: app~ar ·•~ ~~~4 to th1s PetlttotJ
for·ErtfOrce~&P.t ~ PJP.~·Dlv(slon ~ ~.· • li!Jitlji~~Uir.~~ C~ft:lacated at
tbe llttflirre; t:IQ!IStOO,.i'l!!CaS~on t.he · ·. ·· · 4av. !11
at d~~ .~. ~e purP.*. Qrthb.h4!arlnf. &tQ. ••·~tber ~lle :r.tlef reqUested 1n
01
J (J~ ·• ~(113,
·this:.m9.tlottShpt;t{j'l be gr.af)ted~ ·

't:·ls· ~~·Om~ th-.: any: atrt.harized· person ei~'n Ytfr$ of. a~«i! Q.r older who !s
not a party .to ·ot iAte~'d ·1n. ~~ tllit~me of tfiis s~" -may .~ any cit;atfon, ~lce.,lQr,..... . •.· •.
process:inthi.S·~ · · ::~.: ·'····
) f.:·.:-.. ...
. • • "'-'
~.:·,~
,
SIG~ on .~
~

2,6tcJ.13. t,;,J(· :·. ·'-
•!·· :·.· . . . • ••
.. . ~~/
-r:-":·~
~-·:&~~.·.·.·
:.:.:·
ASSOCJATE JUDG.liJooe ·PastP~G. ·· t · ·

APPROVED:

~.BDrg'&l'Ome UP

·~.A il~h \
P.ATR-ioA.A. WJtOFF
State ·a~ tto.. 21422500
A)lt"{A fifAt\N$
State. iJJl" N~~:i4El4i0.S7
-Attotlie.y'S tcrr Pt1~~~ to..,.
109 Nortb PQSt oa~ La"~' Suite soa
ffpustoo., T.-a& 77014
T:efepqone: .fllBj 7~~8.514
FacSimile: (113.}"~85..2091

_)
49El413-1 Pap1~f1
 EXHIBITC
Motion for the Court to Render Judgment

21
 10/9/2014 4:05:16 PM
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Hanis County
Envelope No. 2783027
By: Maria Arroyo
Filed: 10/9/2014 4:05:16 PM
.--- ~
I

CAUSE NO. 2012-03438

IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE MARRIAGE OF §
§
DIEGO DAVID TOMASI § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
AND §
PAULA J. TOMASI § 245TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

MOVANT'S MOTION FOR THE COURT TO RENDER JUDGMENT

COMES NOW, Movant, PAULA J. TOMASI and files this Motion for the Court to Render
Judgment and who would respectfully show in support of such motion as follows:

Chronological and Procedural Background

On or about March 20, 2013, this Court entered a Final Decree of Divorce in the above
referenced matter dissolving the parties' marriage and, on or about the same time, the parties
executed an Agreement Incident to Divorce providing for the terms of the settlement of the
marital estate.
)
On or about April 25, 2013, Movant filed a Motion for Enforcement of Property Division
seeking relief from the Court to intervene in the facilitation of the terms of the settlement
agreement.

Thereafter, on or about May 28, 2014, the Court commenced the final trial on Movant's
motion for enforcement, and at the close of the day, recessed the trial to the following
morning, that being May 29, 2014, and the trial concluded that same day.

Effects of a Ruling from the Court

It was out of necessity that Movant filed a motion for enforcement and asked the Court
to order that the parties comply with the terms of their settlement agreement. Movant's
motion did not get heard until more than a year after it was filed, and it has now been more
than four (4) months since the trial concluded, and there has not been a ruling.

Additionally, the parties are on the Court's trial docket on a separate post-trial issue.
Movant respectfully requests that the Court render in the enforcement matter so that the
enforcement is brought to a conclusion, but additionally, so that the current trial setting is not
delayed.

As of the date of the filing of this Motion, Movant is unaware of a ruling in the
enforcement matter.

627243.1 Page 1 of2
 Movant prays that the Court render a ruling on Movant's Motion for Enforcement and
for all further relief authorized by law.

Respectfully Submitted,
Schlanger, Silver, Barg & Paine, LLP

By:_ _ ___./..;;.s'-/.;;....;Pa:;.;:t~ri=ci.;:;.a.;..;A~.W~ic=o.:..:.ff_._ __
Patricia A. Wicoff
State Bar No. 21422500
Amy R. Harris
State Bar No. 21422500
Attorneys for Petitioner, Paula Tomasi
109 North Post Oak Lane, Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77024
Telephone: (713} 735-8514
Facsimile: (713} 351-4514
pwicoff@ssbplaw.com (Non-service emails)
aharris@ssbplaw.com (Non-service emails)
famlawservice@ssbplaw.com (Email service only)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true copy of the above was served on each attorney of record or party in
accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on the 9th day of October, 2014.

Wendy S. Burgower
BURGOWER & RAINWATER, LLP via electronic delivery
3355 W. Alabama, Suite 825
Houston, Texas 77098

Is/ Patricia A. Wicoff
Patricia A. Wicoff
Amy R. Harris
Attorneys for Petitioner, Paula Tomasi

627243.1 Page 2 of2