Perry D. Felix D/B/A Han's Laser Technology Co. v. Prosperity Bank

Summarize Case

Related Cases

ACCEPTED 01-14-00997-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/25/2015 4:37:34 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK N O . 01–14–00997–CV FILED IN In the First Court of Appeals 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS Houston, Texas 3/25/2015 4:37:34 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk Perry D. Felix d/b/a Han’s Laser Technology Co., Appellant v. Prosperity Bank, Appellee From the 164th District Court, Harris County, Texas Cause No. 2013–50191 PROSPERITY BANK’S CROSS–APPELLANT’S BRIEF Hirsch & Westheimer, P.C. Michael D. Conner State Bar No. 04688650 mconner@hirschwest.com William “Pat” Huttenbach State Bar No. 24002330 phuttenbach@hirschwest.com Jacob M. Stephens State Bar No. 24066143 jstephens@hirschwest.com 1415 Louisiana, 36th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 220–9162 Facsimile: (713) 223–9319 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE/CROSS–APPELLANT, PROSPERITY BANK 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL Appellant: Attorneys: Perry D. Felix d/b/a Han’s Laser J. Steven Stewart Technology Co. State Bar No: 19210500 jss@jstevenstewart.com 5353 West Alabama, Suite 605 Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (713) 977–3447 Fax: (832) 201– 9117 Appellee/Cross–Appellant: Attorneys: Prosperity Bank Michael D. Conner State Bar No. 04688650 mconner@hirschwest.com William “Pat” Huttenbach State Bar No. 24002330 phuttenbach@hirschwest.com Jacob M. Stephens State Bar No. 24066143 jstephens@hirschwest.com 1415 Louisiana, 36th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 220–9162 Facsimile: (713) 223–9319 i 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Identity of Parties and Counsel ..................................................................... i Table of Contents........................................................................................ ii Table of Authorities ................................................................................... iv Statement of the Case .................................................................................. 1 Cross Issue Presented .................................................................................. 2 The trial court erred by failing to award attorneys’ fees to Prosperity for Felix’s breach of the written deposit agreement. ............ 2 Preliminary Statement ................................................................................. 2 Statement of Facts Pertinent to Prosperity’s Cross Issue ............................... 2 Summary of the Argument .......................................................................... 6 Argument & Authorities & Standard of Review .......................................... 7 Standard of Review ............................................................................ 7 Felix failed to comply with the written agreement................................ 8 The deposit agreement is treated like any contract. .............................. 9 Attorneys’ fees are recoverable. ......................................................... 10 Prosperity is entitled to its fees under Chapter 38. .............................. 12 Prosperity complied with Chapter 38. ................................................ 13 Prosperity conclusively proved its fees. .............................................. 14 ii 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 Conclusion & Prayer..................................................................................16 Certificate of Compliance ...........................................................................17 Certificate of Service ..................................................................................17 Appendix ...................................................................................................18 iii 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases 1/2 Price Checks Cashed v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 344 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. 2011) ................................................................ 12 Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat'l Dev. & Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. 2009) ................................................................ 11 Albataineh v. Eshtehardi, 2013 WL 1858864 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] May 2, 2013, no pet.) .......................... 12 Anderson v. McCormick, 2013 WL 5884931 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 31, 2013, no pet.) ........................ 15 Berg v. Wilson, 353 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2011, pet. denied) ................... 13 Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998).................................................................. 15 Boyaki v. John M. O’Quinn & Associates, PLLC, 2014 WL 4855021 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 30, 2014, pet. filed) .............. 12, 13 Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 216 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2006) ................................................................ 14 Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human, Res., 532 U.S. 598, 121 S. Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001)......................... 10 Flavor Finish Resurfacing, L.L.C. v. Ellerkamp, 2012 WL 3776345 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2012, no pet.) .........................9 iv 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 87 S. Ct. 1404, 18 L.Ed.2d 475 (1967) ............................ 10 G.R.A.V.I.T.Y. Enters., Inc. v. Reece Supply Co., 177 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, no pet.) ............................... 10 Helping Hands Home Care, Inc. v. Home Health of Tarrant County, Inc., 393 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2013, pet. denied) ......................... 11 Honeycutt v. Billingsley, 992 S.W.2d 570 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied ....... 14 Jim Maddox Properties, LLC v. WEM Equity Capital Investments, Ltd., 446 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) ..............7 Lofton v. Texas Brine Corp., 777 S.W.2d 384 (Tex.1989) ................................................................. 14 M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2000) .....................................................................8 Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844 (Tex.2009) ...................................................................7 Pala v. Maxim, 2002 WL 188567 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 7, 2002, no pet.) ......................... 15 Rasmusson v. LBC PetroUnited, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) ... 12 Rayon v. Energy Specialties, Inc., 121 SW.3d 7(Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2002, no pet. ...............................8 SAS Inst., Inc. v. Breitenfeld, 167 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. 2005) ..................................................................7 Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. 2006) ..................................................................9 v 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 Sherrick v. Wyland, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 299, 37 S.W. 345 (1896).......................................... 11 Smith v. Garrett, 29 Tex. 48 (1867) ................................................................................ 11 Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) ................................................................ 10 Williams v. Compressor Eng’g Corp., 704 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) ...................... 13 Wm. Cameron & Co. v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y., 55 S.W.2d 1032 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1932, judgm’t adopted) .............. 10 Woody v. J. Black’s, L.P., 2013 WL 5744359 (Tex. App.–Amarillo Oct. 13, 2013, pet. denied) ... 12 Statutes Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 9.001, et seq... .........................................6 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 10.001, et seq. .........................................6 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001. .................................................. 12 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.002 ............................................. 14, 15 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.005 ................................................... 12 Tex. Fin. Code § 34.301 ...........................................................................9 Rules Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(e) ............................................................................ 18 Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i) ............................................................................. 18 vi 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 Tex. R. Civ. P. 13 ....................................................................................6 Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a ................................................................................ 18 Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c) .............................................................................7 vii 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Nature of Case Breach of bank deposit agreement. Trial Court The 164th District Court in Harris County, Texas, the Hon. Alexandra Smoots–Hogan Course of Proceedings Perry D. Felix d/b/a Han’s Laser Technology Co. (“Felix”) sued Prosperity Bank (“Prosperity”) alleging unauthorized wire transfers from his account. CR.5– 17. Prosperity counterclaimed alleging untimely notice and resulting breach of the deposit contract’s covenant not to sue. SuppCR.183–86. Prosperity moved for summary judgment on Felix’s claims and the counterclaim. CR.84, et seq.; SuppCR.77, et seq.; 103, et seq.; SuppCR.225, et seq. 133, et seq.; SuppCR.3, et seq. Trial Court’s Disposition The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Prosperity on all Felix’s claims against Prosperity and all Prosperity’s claims against Felix but declined to award attorneys’ fees to Prosperity. CR.172–73. 1 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 CROSS ISSUE PRESENTED The trial court erred by failing to award attorneys’ fees to Prosperity for Felix’s breach of the written deposit agreement. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This cross–appellant’s brief focuses on Prosperity’s counterclaim for attorneys’ fees. The record conclusively shows (i) the contract includes a conditioned covenant not to sue; (ii) without satisfying the condition precedent, suit was filed; and (iii) despite notice and opportunity to stand down, Felix elected to continue prosecuting the claims in violation of his agreement not to sue. Prosperity reserves for its appellee’s brief arguments responsive to such issues as Felix, as appellant, may present. STATEMENT OF FACTS PERTINENT TO PROSPERITY’S CROSS ISSUE Felix had a deposit account at Prosperity. See SuppCR.87–91, 93, 94–100. The account was governed by a written deposit agreement. See id. The written agreement provides, in part: STATEMENTS – You must examine your statement of account with “reasonable promptness.” If you discover (or reasonably should have discovered) any unauthorized payments or alterations, you must promptly notify us of the relevant facts. * * * 2 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 You agree that the time you have to examine your statement and report to us will depend on the circumstances, but will not, in any circumstance, exceed a total of 30 days from when the statement is first made available to you. You further agree that if you fail to report any unauthorized signatures, alterations, forgeries or any other errors in your account within 60 days of when we make the statement available, you cannot assert a claim against us on any items in that statement, and the loss will be entirely yours. This 60 day limitation is without regard to whether we exercised ordinary care. The limitation in this paragraph is in addition to that contained in the first paragraph of this section. SuppCR.93; see also SuppCR.97. Prosperity sent statements of the account monthly. SuppCR.89; see also SuppCR.101–20. Felix contends he promptly examined the account statements. SuppCR.156 (resp. to req. for adm’n #18). Each of the wire transfers for which Felix sued is disclosed on a statement of the account (see SuppCR.101–20); the last two transactions appear on the statement dated December 31, 2010. See SuppCR.115–17. Felix claims to have requested additional documentation – at the earliest between December 16, 2010 and March 29, 2011 – regarding unspecified wire transfers. The first indication that Felix actually identified particular wire transfers he considered problematic, i.e., notified Prosperity of relevant facts (see SuppCR.93, 97), is his purported July 12, 3 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 2011 telephone call and follow–up e–mail. See SuppCR.208. Of four transactions identified – “[t]he other wire transfers and amounts can be dismissed . . .” (id.), Felix admitted in discovery that two were authorized. SuppCR.149. As to his authorization of a third wire transfer identified in the email (8/9/10; $5,832.00), Felix answered “unable to either admit or deny.” SuppCR.153. And, the fourth (8/26/2010; $21,770.00) Felix responded, “denied”; but, he expounded that the transfer appeared to duplicate a previous transfer and that Prosperity failed to “combine[] or consolidate[]” transfers to the same vendor “to avoid duplicate transaction fees as was customary for wire transfers submitted and authorized by Plaintiff.” SuppCR.150. Felix sent a letter to Prosperity’s Mr. Gonzales (in Houston) dated September 23, 2011. SuppCR.210–11. The letter requests documents regarding wire transfers for the period “March 2010 through 2011.” Id. Despite his July statement that “[t]he other wire transfers and amounts can be dismissed . . .” (SuppCR.208), Felix included a list of 23 transactions. SuppCR.211. Neither the letter nor the list describes any transaction as unauthorized. SuppCR.210–11. 4 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 Felix sent another letter, also dated September 23, 2011, to Prosperity’s Mr. Zalman at the Corporate Office in El Campo. See SuppCR.121–22. Felix listed eleven transfers and described two “faxed wire transfer requests” as “fraudulent.” SuppCR.121. One of the so–called “fraudulent” transactions is the same 8/26/2010, $21,770.00 transaction mentioned above.1 See SuppCR.150. Regarding the other so–called “fraudulent” transaction (10/19/2010), Felix had previously described his “investigat[ion].” See SuppCR.208. The July 12, 2011 email did not challenge authorization for the transfer. Rather, Felix wrote, “I have a record of this transfer however the vendor claimed they did not receive payment . . ..” Id. In any event, Felix’s report was more than 60 days after all related statements. Prosperity’s October 3, 2011 response specifically addressed the two so–called “fraudulent” transactions – August 26, 2010 ($21,770.00); October 19, 2010 ($31,146.00) – including how each was initiated and to whom each was sent. SuppCR.44. Prosperity’s letter specifically referred to the deposit agreement provision requiring notice of any claimed errors within 60 days and Felix’s failure to have provided such notice. Id. 1 There also was a $38,849.00 wire on 8/26/2010. Felix gave a similar interrogatory response claiming supposed duplication of transaction fees, not a lack of authorization to wire funds. SuppCR.151. 5 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 Almost two years later Felix sued. CR.5. In a letter dated October 7, 2013, counsel for Prosperity requested dismissal of the suit referencing Texas Rule of Procedure 13, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapters 9 and 10 and terms of the account agreement. SuppCR.166–68. As above, the account agreement includes that Felix had 30 days to examine statements and report problems. SuppCR.93; SuppCR.97. The contract includes Felix’s “further agree[ment]” that if he failed to report errors within 60 days of statement availability, he “cannot assert a claim … on any item in that statement . . ..” Id. With demand and the opportunity to do so, Felix declined to dismiss his claims against Prosperity. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT An agreement not to assert a claim should be treated as any other contractual obligation. In a relationship governed by a written contract, Felix failed to comply with a condition precedent by failing to review statements and report relevant facts within 30 days. Felix also failed to honor his agreement that he cannot assert a claim without first having reported allegedly “unauthorized signatures, alterations, forgeries or any other errors” within 60 days of when a statement containing a supposed error was made available. Felix’s failure to comply with the agreement injured 6 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 Prosperity including the costs and fees incurred to respond to claims Felix agreed he “cannot assert.” Prosperity is entitled to enforce the contract as written and recover the foreseeable damages caused by Felix’s breach. Having granted summary judgment in Prosperity’s favor on all of its claims against Felix (CR.173), the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award damages supported by the pleadings, the motion and the summary judgment evidence. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES & STANDARD OF REVIEW Standard of Review To show itself entitled to relief through a traditional motion for summary judgment, Prosperity must have established that no issue of material fact exists on its counterclaim and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); SAS Inst., Inc. v. Breitenfeld, 167 S.W.3d 840, 841 (Tex. 2005). The Court’s review is de novo. Jim Maddox Properties, LLC v. WEM Equity Capital Investments, Ltd., 446 S.W.3d 126, 131 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (citing Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844, 848 (Tex. 2009)). Where the motion and summary judgment evidence facially establish the movant’s right to judgment as a matter of law, the burden 7 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 shifts to the non–movant to raise a genuine, material fact issue sufficient to defeat summary judgment. See M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22, 23–24 (Tex. 2000). A material fact issue is “genuine” only if the evidence is such that “a reasonable jury could find the fact in favor of the nonmoving party.” Rayon v. Energy Specialties, Inc., 121 SW.3d 7, 11 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). Felix failed to comply with the written agreement. Prosperity counterclaimed for breach of the written deposit agreement. SuppCR.183–86. The contract was conclusively proved to exist. See SuppCR.87–91, 93, 94–100. The contract includes Felix’s agreement that he cannot assert the claims he asserted without first having complied with his duty to timely report. SuppCR.93, 97. Felix’s failure to comply with his contractual obligation to report any problems appearing on an account statement within 30 days or 60 days after any specific account statement was made available was conclusively established. See, e.g., SuppCR.89. Nevertheless, Felix sued. Prosperity’s injury was foreseeable; it was required to appear, defend the claims and assert its right to enforce the contract as written. Prosperity conclusively established the injury and the amount of fees it incurred. See SuppCR.74–76, 124–26. 8 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 Because Prosperity conclusively established its injury that would not have occurred but for Felix’s breach, Prosperity was entitled to recover its fees and the trial court erred by failing to award them. The deposit agreement is treated like any contract. “A deposit contract between a bank and an account holder is considered a contract in writing for all purposes ….” Tex. Fin. Code § 34.301. When interpreting a contract the court endeavors “to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the parties as that intent is expressed in the contract.” See, e.g., Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 342, 345 (Tex. 2006); Flavor Finish Resurfacing, L.L.C. v. Ellerkamp, 01–11–00099–CV, 2012 WL 3776345, at *4 (Tex. App.– Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.). The trial court properly construed the plain language to the effect that Felix “further agree[d] that if [he] fail[ed] to report any unauthorized signatures, alterations, forgeries or any other errors in [the] account within 60 days of when we make the statement available, you cannot assert a claim against [Prosperity] on any items in that statement” (see SuppCR.93, 97) and determined that Felix breached that agreement. CR.172–73. However, the trial court erred by failing to award attorneys’ fees, the fees and expenses necessarily incurred in responding to a suit Felix promised not to bring. 9 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 The Court reviews decisions regarding the award of attorneys’ fees de novo. See G.R.A.V.I.T.Y. Enters., Inc. v. Reece Supply Co., 177 S.W.3d 537, 546 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, no pet.). Attorneys’ fees are recoverable. The general rule in Texas is that attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting or defending a lawsuit are not recoverable in that suit absent a statute or contract allowing the recovery. See Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299, 310–11 (Tex. 2006) (“Absent a contract or statute, trial courts do not have inherent authority to require a losing party to pay the prevailing party’s fees.”); Wm. Cameron & Co. v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y., 55 S.W.2d 1032, 1035 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1932, judgm’t adopted) (“It is settled law in this state that, unless provided for by statute or by contract between the parties, attorneys’ fees incurred by a party to litigation are not recoverable against his adversary either in an action in tort or a suit upon a contract.”). The rule is known as the American Rule. See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 602, 121 S. Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (“[P]arties are ordinarily required to bear their own attorney’s fees—the prevailing party is not entitled to collect from the loser.”); Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718, 87 S. Ct. 1404, 10 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 18 L.Ed.2d 475 (1967). The rationale was succinctly stated well over a century ago in Sherrick v. Wyland, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 299, 37 S.W. 345, 345 (1896): “It has often been ruled, in this state and elsewhere, that fees of counsel, incurred in prosecuting a suit for or defending against a wrong, are not ordinarily recoverable as actual damages, because they are not considered proximate results of such wrong.” See Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat’l Dev. & Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106, 120 (Tex. 2009). Here the fees incurred are the proximate result of Felix’s breach; but for his non–compliance, there would have been no suit to defend and no counterclaim to pursue. Both the contract and a statute afford Prosperity the right to recover the fees for which it counterclaimed. The contract includes Felix’s express agreement not to make a claim without first having timely reported the problem underlying the suit. SuppCR.93, 97. Texas law has been clear for over 100 years: A covenant not to sue may be plead in suspension of action by the debtor whenever broken, and its observance will be enforced, and damages for breach may be recovered. Smith v. Garrett, 29 Tex. 48, 52 (1867). Further, the contract itself need not provide for attorneys’ fees. See Helping Hands Home Care, Inc. v. Home Health of Tarrant County, Inc., 393 S.W.3d 492, 516 (Tex. App.– Dallas 2013, pet. denied). 11 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 Prosperity is entitled to its fees under Chapter 38. The statute, chapter 38 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, 2 has been applied by this Court and others to afford the relief to which Prosperity is entitled. See, e.g., Boyaki v. John M. O’Quinn & Associates, PLLC, 01–12–00984–CV, 2014 WL 4855021, at *13–14 (Tex. App.– Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 30, 2014, pet. filed) (mem. op.); Woody v. J. Black’s, L.P., 07–12–00192–CV, 2013 WL 5744359, at *6 (Tex. App.– Amarillo Oct. 13, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“injunction enforcing specific performance of a contract is something of value” sufficient to support Chapter 38 attorneys’ fees and rejecting argument that an award of monetary damages were required); Albataineh v. Eshtehardi, 01–12– 00671–CV, 2013 WL 1858864, at *1–2 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] May 2, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“judgment requiring specific performance of a material contract right can support an award of attorney’s fees”); Rasmusson v. LBC PetroUnited, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 283, 287 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (holding that award of specific performance of arbitration agreement permitted recovery 2 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001, et seq. “The Legislature instructs us to construe section 38.001 ‘liberally ... to promote its underlying purposes.’” 1/2 Price Checks Cashed v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 344 S.W.3d 378, 382 (Tex. 2011) (quoting Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.005). 12 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 of Chapter 38 attorneys’ fees and rejecting argument that monetary damages were required); Williams v. Compressor Eng’g Corp., 704 S.W.2d 469, 474 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (interpreting Chapter 38 to authorize an award of attorneys’ fees when a party “successfully prosecutes a claim founded on ... written contracts.”).3 Thus, as the Court held in Boyaki, if the evidence supports a finding that such relief – there a promise to end litigation; here a promise not to sue in the first place – is of more than nominal economic value, section 38.001 affords the claimant its attorneys’ fees, provided that all other conditions to a right to recovery under that chapter are met. Boyaki, 2014 WL 4855021, at *14. Prosperity complied with Chapter 38. Prosperity satisfied “all other conditions” to its right to recover under Chapter 38. Prosperity was represented by counsel; it presented the counterclaim to Felix by letter (SuppCR.45–47); and Felix failed to “pay” by failing to dismiss his unfounded suit within thirty days of presentment. 3 But see, e.g., Haubold v. Medical Carbon Research Inst., 2014 WL 1018008 at *5–6 (Tex. App.–Austin March 14, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (specific performance to enforce Rule 11 agreement was not a recovery of actual damages; thus fees incurred in enforcing the agreement were not recoverable); Berg v. Wilson, 353 S.W.3d 166, 182 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2011, pet. denied) (concluding, “because Wilson did not recover actual damages, she was not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees on her [Rule 11] breach of contract claim,” but affirming award on alternative basis). 13 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.002; see Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 216 S.W.3d 809, 817 (Tex. 2006); see also Honeycutt v. Billingsley, 992 S.W.2d 570, 581 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied). Prosperity conclusively proved its fees. Prosperity proved the reasonableness, necessity and amount of its fees. SuppCR.74–76, 90, 124–26. Felix did not controvert and did not object to the affidavit testimony of attorneys William Huttenbach and Charles Pignuolo. See Lofton v. Texas Brine Corp., 777 S.W.2d 384, 386 (Tex. 1989) (Testimony of an interested witness may establish a fact as a matter of law only if: (1) the testimony could be readily contradicted if untrue; (2) it is clear, direct, and positive; and (3) there are no circumstances tending to discredit or impeach it.). Attorney Huttenbach testified that reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees comprised his firm’s calculated charges of $8,500.00 as of the date of his affidavit (October 17, 2014; SuppCR.76), plus anticipated additional fees for twelve hours at the rate of $345.00 per hour, plus fees previously incurred for services rendered by Mr. Pignuolo. SuppCR.74–75. Attorney Pignuolo testified that his firm’s reasonable and necessary fees and out–of–pocket expenses through the date of his affidavit (April 17, 2014; SuppCR.126) totaled 14 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 $8,539.52 and would likely increase at the rate of $300.00 per hour thereafter. SuppCR.125. Based on the testimony, Prosperity conclusively proved reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees in at least the amount of $21,197.52. Having conclusively proved Felix’s failure to comply with his agreement not to assert the claims he asserted; having established the elements of section 38.002; and, having presented clear, direct, positive and uncontroverted evidence of the amount of its reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees, award of such fees was mandatory. See Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Tex. 1998); Anderson v. McCormick, 01– 12–00856–CV, 2013 WL 5884931, at *5 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 31, 2013, no pet.). On this record, the trial court had no discretion to award $0.00. See Pala v. Maxim, 01–01–00618–CV, 2002 WL 188567, at *6 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 7, 2002, no pet.) (citing Bocquet, supra). Prosperity, therefore, is entitled to reversal and rendition as to the portion of the judgment omitting an award of Prosperity’s fees. [In the alternative, only, should the Court determine that Prosperity’s fees were not conclusively established below, based on the foregoing arguments and record references (see, e.g., SuppCR.74–76, 124– 26), there is some evidence of the reasonableness, necessity and an amount 15 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 of fees. Consequently, Prosperity is entitled – at minimum – to remand for a determination of the correct amount to be awarded.] CONCLUSION & PRAYER For at least the foregoing reasons, Prosperity asks the Court to reverse the trial court’s judgment, in part, and to render judgment in Prosperity’s favor as to all liability issues and to render judgment that Prosperity recover the amount of $21,179.52 from Felix and for all additional or alternative relief to which it may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, HIRSCH & WESTHEIMER, P.C. By: /s/ Michael D. Conner Michael D. Conner State Bar No. 04688650 mconner@hirschwest.com William “Pat” Huttenbach State Bar No. 24002330 phuttenbach@hirschwest.com Jacob M. Stephens State Bar No. 24066143 jstephens@hirschwest.com 1415 Louisiana, 36th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 220–9162 Facsimile: (713) 223–9319 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT, PROSPERITY BANK 16 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I do hereby certify that the relevant contents of this document consist of 3,279 words, in compliance with Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i) and this document complies with the typeface requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(e) because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2013 in 14 point Goudy Old Style font. /s/ Michael D. Conner Michael D. Conner CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 25th day of March, 2015, the foregoing document was served pursuant to Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as indicated below: J. Steven Stewart 5353 West Alabama, Suite 605 Houston, Texas 77056 E–mail: jss@jstevenstewart.com Via E–Service /s/ Michael D. Conner Michael D. Conner 17 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 N O . 01–14–00997–CV In the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas Perry D. Felix d/b/a Han’s Laser Technology Co., Appellant v. Prosperity Bank, Appellee From the 164th District Court, Harris County, Texas Cause No. 2013–50191 APPENDIX Final Judgment signed November 14, 2014 ........................................ Tab 1 Deposit Account Terms and Conditions (Royal Oaks Bank) (for legibility: CR.32–33 as attached to Felix’s Original Petition; SuppCR.92–93 as attached to Prosperity’s Motion for Summary Judgment) ........................................................................................ Tab 2 Deposit Account Terms and Conditions (Prosperity Bank) (for legibility: CR.35–40 as attached to Felix’s Original Petition; SuppCR.95–100 as attached to Prosperity’s Motion for Summary Judgment) ........................................................................................ Tab 3 18 20090252.20140460/2125761.1 Tab 1 ,(I) /3-5öt ql (1) NO.20r3-50191 PERRY D. FELIX DIB/A HAN'S LASER s IN THE DIS'I'RICT COURT OF TECHNOI-OCY CO. s $ $ FIARRIS COLINTY. TEXAS V $ $ /b,/41 PROSPERITY BANK ANd PROSPERJTY $ I 64'TH JUDIcIAL DISTRICT BANCSHA,RES,INC SUMMARY JITDGMENT On th¡s day came on to be heard Defendant Prospenty Bank's onginal Motion for Summary Judgment and Supplement to its previously fìled Motron for Summary Judgment on all claims by and bchveen Plaintiff and Prosperity Bank For the rea.sons stated in sard Motion and Supplement, thrs Court grants a sumrnary ludgrnent in favor of Prosperity Bank on all of PlainnfPs clarms agarnst Prosperity Bank and on all of Prosperity Bank's claims against Plaintiff. Pla¡nttffhas produced no evldence to the contrary. IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED thAt PIAiNtiff, PETry D Felix d/b/a Han's Laser Technology Co ("Plaintiff' and/or "Felix"), shall take nothtng on PlalntifPs clarms against Prosperity Bank. -Ì?rs-A-bso'oRDE@ jrrd enrY -Þetlars ($2 l, 5 00.00), fs+-Prespc+t -Êxp€n€ets I@DJUn/.IE f and any FHE,EÐ Chns Daniel 20090252 201 404601tt29592 2 Distnct Clerk Nov I q 2u4 Bv Deputy --+rcsænty Be-k is award@O00 in additlonal renqnnå,ble anrl necessaryt . atto¡a^eys.feesJosts- ard-expensesr-and-@@ fro All relref not expressly granted herein by and betwesn Plaintlff and Prospcrity Bank is denied. Thrs ludgment finally disposes of all claims by and between Plarntiff and Prosperiry Bank and is appealable This rs meant to be a frnal judgment pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court's decision inLehmannv Har-ConCorp ,39 S W 3d l9l (Tex 2001). srgned ontl," J 4aay or Nove)/nfu/f ,2014. PRESIDING JUDGE APPROVED AS TO FORM: Hlnscr & WpsrHEruen, P.C. By /¡/ Wtllmm P Wrlliam P. Huttenbach State Bar No. 24002330 Jaoob M Stephens State Bar No 24066143 141 5 Louisiana, 3óth Floor Houston, Texas 77002 (7 t3) 220-9 184 WPH Direct (7 13) 220-9 125 JMS Direct (713)223-5181 Matn (713>223-9319 Fax ohuttenbach@h trschrvest co¡rt rstcnhen sâh ¡ rsch rvest.cotrr ATTORNEYS FOR DEI'ENDANT, PROSPERITY BA¡IK 2 173 Tab 7 101281201311:53:33 AM 713-755-1451 Pagel I 2 .... ACCOUNT ROYÀT¿OÀXS BÂNK, gEb-M'AIN OFFICE NUMBÍB T2OOO I{ESTHETMER RD SUITE lOC ÂccÕuNT owt\tÉfi(sl NAI*E Ë AODnESS Hof¡sfÐN, Tx 71t17 PERRY D FEIJIN -olnfÏExrF õF ÃC-EOUHI - CONs.ult¡ER ¡s¿?€tt onË bv stlaclng Íour lnållôlt DBà [t"AHtS I¡ASER TECHNOLOCY CO nrrt fû ocdóunl faioÖlÐrl.l T2455 WÐSTPÀ.RK DTI STE G5 trNtFoFM stN{lrg-FAFIY MuLl¡PtE"PÀqTY ofl sEtÊCfiOr'¡ ÊOR*4 NOltCE; ÎlE TYFÉ OF /qCCOUNI YOU SËLECT ^C60UNÍ MAV ÐETEflMlNE Oil YOIJR OEAIH. YOUfi WILL P¡¡1 IÚT HOUSTС¡ TX 17492 HOW PROPERTY PASSES coNlRoL THÉ orsPostTtoN oF Fuf.¡os ¡lELo lN soME oÊ THÉ FOTLO\¡r/t¡rc ACCOU NÏ6, tr--.- $tNcte-PAÂTY Af,couN'l wlrHouilF'o,o,' lþaysbls on Oëorhl OESIGNAîON DATE OPET-¿CO 8Y CI{ERYL CR.ãI^¡IJEY n .*-- srNGLt.PAtlTY ÂccouNl wtrH "P,o,o,' lPåvâbla ên INITTÀL O€PO slT I 25, 000.00 Otsrhl OESr6,'lÀTIGN Ë clsn cHEfl( wlrHouf Blglll aÍ CHECK t].--.- MUITTPLE-PABIy ACCOUNT HOME TELEPHONË ' suflvlvoñsx¡P ORrVF-trS LlCENSE I Ë-.-- ÍvtuLTtPrË-PAñTv AçÇOUNT IYIIH ÍìISI.IT OF E.MAIL suåvlvofisHtP EMPLOYÉF Cl-.- M.rLr''LE-PARTY ÀcgQUNT trrrH êl€Hr oË EUSÌNÉSS PHO¡IE # (281 l 496-0606 svRvlvoÊsHÌF aNo "F.Û.o.' lPâY¡rblÊ on ocörhl NsG6 nãd [d&6îs ôl torñrûnô whö 9¡ll ålwáy3 tiow youl liëtlrôn] OESIGNÂT¡O¡I -* n--- cor'lvÉNurucE accouNT Ü-*- TßUSIACCOUNT lFañå bBnEl¡ciå¡ioe betÒwl f.---*- tnusr accouNT suoJtcr ro stFA*aTE ÂGHf EMEi'+l Numbe¡ of s'rgnaturag ¡equtrsd lor wí¡hçfrswtt I * _ o^fEo: FACSrMjrr STOHATURÉrSI ALTOWEOT Ü vrs El ruo ú---*- ot,,nn EÃ-EiFõÊ_-ÃMES ffi à ËI'¡ÉFi öIA Ê¡ ËS : [. I6rm f; ontctruAL of tô û tffi corlgtrtad cs9í. ï .ulhori ro tù t¡ôrity crudl¡ çffd I t ol thÉ tàrm¡ 1¡¿n¡frn Av¡llâbiliry F¡ivacv il ûuth tn El sor.¡ PnoFfl¡fi roñsHtp LIMITÊO LIABILI?Y COMPAilY IF pnor¡r Ü f"ASER fJ roa PROPISRTÓR n¡or Fon FnoFrr ü f,x E TE lù-3e¡-Õt l Lg. Ë orhc' HåRRTS T)C ._ - ía l3a Í 06 AUTHONIZATION QATEO: Emw ËJ(ISTING [- l ¡.Ð, Oth+t TYPE oF 51ç¡16çrrNG D seun¡cs T Àccoutsr ü moxrv t',iÂßHËT F eeRrrrcÁrE oF DEPtstr ü 13l il- .I ACCÖUHT Small Buslnese Chech t.0. I Othq{ f] r'¡¡" is o Tønporory acoourìr sËrs€mant, SACX UF WIÎHHôLÐIN6 CÉ.BTIF'CATIONS f 4li [- l Tll'l: t.o. I Othor EI fnXpnvra ¡,o. ¡¡uMBER - The lar¡rnyer ld¿nlificâtlon Ntrmb€r ñ ¡¡" psrscfllsl nnmad b¿to*'sta Convml*nce Si0rã3 onlY lnol ûwilè!1[ ihÈwn ãbovi lTlNt ir my 6Ðr!üct lâxpllyst ¡ddol¡?¡cstaon numÞor' ' I nol $ubþ€l lo Þa¿krtp l WIrHHOLOIF¡6 Ðm uvi(hholdnÙ 6 ¡ hålt nor bran Dolltl€d lluil I r"n [o r suô16êl á .6slllt of F fålhrs Îf} töÞorl åll rnrorûil d ClvldëfiÚl' or ãuãciili Sn¡vi+e r¡r¡ noltltat'me rhãl t åÐ nã ù)ñBt? !ub¡Bël iìhdd¡nÐ, þãckup t p fJ exglvÞt RSclFlEErc - I ern sn oxEmP! roslplãnl undsr lho lnleletl t.Þ, Olher f, svsr¡e S+rulca ßaouhtk¿n¡. ¡ tlri¡r!stþfl ¡rd I -30 -$ h"__ t x J X LO, ¿ órhor I tÐrqê I ú ZI S I ggl è.rttr{ !7rilm¡, hÉ., Clûil, Â,|il ¡Glir Ml'9c'l^t'1r( 4rts1ÏoD.l I I ñ¡. I Ëxhihit A 32 1012812013 1 l:53:33 AM 713-755-1451 Page2l 2 tho t(åtoFr6nl hut olhc? hems tor46d Dr ållçrqd by lhe 3åml wrûflgftool, vou a0re8 thå¡ ti¡$ rime yru hrve {Ô Gxemho vout 3låtsment tnd fcÐo¿t to uB wiü d8Fsnd on lhe ckium*r¡nsqÉ, bul wiff ñtt, In a¡Y qitq¡meunce, o:cs¡d e ratã ol 30 d¡v¡ lrom wh¡n thc itatomsnt ie f*¡t msde sv¡ilcbtr tfi to Anic¡È 4A Ot the sd€r lhs n¡JlÊ. E'ffi# ötgtc,r9c0. llgt cäftkü$Er$üüs¡|rc,,s:,ülouc.ti.lN Éom¡t¡sg{^z-l¡l ûiru2û0ô 33 å{.}'Yåi", ñÀlttì 1}À}f¡{, x*b-MÀIif oFffC¡ì r?000 wEsTt.tlJr¡4tER lttl *uït'Ð ].üfl ÂçüOUNT t"T¡JE*ls! r¡Jtttl[ e Af¡nlìqg{i t-ir)(I$Tô}ü, rx ?T0?? PEñRY D ,f8I¡t-X sq n8À ¡tÀ¡¡'S LÀ'gÊR TÊCXNÕÏ,rJôY Ct) tfèx acccu*l i¿l¿ufld,l å2d55 Í9E6TPÃNK ÐR STÊ Gfj b 5lN{ì!€-ÊA^TT Oll MtlTlflÊ.P¡l-tll"f ACËtU,{iT -r7 TilÉ 1YP6 CìF /.CËÙU'!'? YËU 5Í16TT Ñ{AY }$IJfi ITILL MÂY 4QT btc.rus'tü¡ì TX *82 FROF€FTV YOÛF C}ËÀT}{. ÜO¡'],RôT TH{ aF Ëil¡r.¡fj$ HtL$ lñ 5oMä rJF fr-!E Éc LL,üwr'lo Àct0[Jff Ts, tl *iN6LE.r¡Àßl'T Aci:*t¡È¡r \41trf($tJl''Ê,t1.(),- (Pfv.3lxl( --..-......-.- çsath rr I OEä1tr,¡.dTtÇFl ì Vtr î3Y ü - -..",-^,-- .,-- srNçrÈ.pasT? Åic#riNï wrTx 'r'.() û.' rfalaÞlo on û61rht tËsiGr.lAf tÔtû il C¡\fií,{ r:riìit:{ f,rrjrïr1E.¡'aRTY F'cf lJUf.;T WiÍritluT llliliï ¡iil?.fE à åi.|Fl/iVoñ.$H¡f n---.. MUtTiptE"Få&Tv ÁccÐuul wtTH lì'i}HY l)É SUSViVfJH0Hrf, ÉMrLüv€ÍÌ *-.* l]-----" Mtri.Tti'LË.FÁfiTT Ár:csLrNT v{rÏi{ . rtintir os gdsrflEss PilüruÉ r i2€t) 4st*G$ri6 $uflvtví)¡isr'ltp 4N0 '1r.$-D.' lPúl¡rblð on N¡¡r¡¡ onqi åCdrø,y,t t l vì¡in6\!Éi wfLo w:lt 3iwats tñow Yürìt tocliicn: .- cjË Stß¡,¡Aì]flñ tJ----* ücrtevËNlgtl i Accou¡IT lilljt!'t À f.CÐ (iil Y hìnir) r ï,ùßÀlld ¡rlù$ ¡ Þ¿\r rryl n..-......*... YSU{ì'r rc.d{rtJ¡rf suBJriçT Ti} sjfiûAÌlÁTÍ ;\ôfltfrtvlgþ)r fdr+r.rbÈrÊ {ìl }ì$rrÐrrJ¡ðs rtqrri¡ed fot rçìthfr¿w¿rt*å ü -*=* OATftD; fliñËli stsNÂrusftsr ¡rtrr¡wtr¡? fJ vg* HJ ruc, ü cnimth¡&U Tl PrìYsÕ? r-l [-ìü es¡.e PsäsRrETo*sHrP itñtlT€p E lål1f!-ìrY {ìljtai,Ai4v pn..¡tr fJ ruar tsìl pRcF¡T ir fJ conpoR¡T¡o. , f] ren g f, llt: [,x i{åRRÏS 1,D, t Qihår 'tr r;¡: [, x t.t. t ' ùther TYPE cgrcgtf-¡a if s¿vr¡lcs oË fil Ácçñt¡¡¿l LJ t*iclruev MÅn"{¿r fJ crnlir¡c¿¡E ÕF BÊpÕGìr a*,, ,il'' i-.1 rur.rw tl Á cc0rjfì¡ Í r'Jå fr!€ : - l.ü. î (}rhû, f3 r'¡ri" il * Taæpor.sly sccú3rr¡t Eçr€emûn{' {4r: t ¡- x r t,ú. t üti'rsr 8j rgxp¿vea ì.0. NUiAËËâ Thô Ta:tpayo, ldg¡'rilidûtl+r l+!¡îlér il Tho,Þs,sû,ìls¡ rl*rnßd $ôir¡'ð âlt te¡'rú¡llsnrt 94Hlr¡ gnf"¿ Inoì cwntrll ÌiìÐsË ì!tÌúv¡l lTÌNl laspåyÈrÍ5 my r:sird{l nulÐbå.. 'dùnqit¡ëù?iarl Ërr nbf subiôûl tù httËl(ll 'rllhh0ldlrt'¿ rrDtlllÉd rhÂt I ßm rubþìl rÈ bëilup /e 1â mnôrl åiì ii¡lürdrì ùt ijrvldeÊCi, or ñ¡tiilcd ñ,! !h,tr I n.n s¿ t¿^gur Sub¡ecl ¡il irâêr*pf lôülþiii.rl uld(il rlts lni4tûhi t.û, fr 0tfi¿r AovÉ$ûö ilùrvld$ Êr ÍuflglÍ$ns, lr. X r.Þ" # örhô, retÉé T 4t 2l ç13'àl{trÈùtáß'l4iÍñ:r,¡irÊ,rSl,åláll.t-'lt{ F#iri}rP.gc't-À¡'lì{ å¡f¡r{1r4.1 92 YiiUÑ Wå mni ..¿¡,¡Ad !cD:df Aícilrinf rt0 îic, üt'!d nEt{qt lil Êl llllJt€ tD N(lnf'6 bþdü ül ÌàÌv A \t tv thå hc.lÊ CÐ rf!¡ll$tì ì..úAtå¡:11 Èrll I cìrârjB5isflçe¿ shlsh ilìù lÈ(r dFàth ot evcÍrE Ar ltsrlv,\êt?q5$ whlr)h ."h3 lùv¡ álleddv '!v I r)tf!ê 'rjitru lglc*¡n6nt, but aay èrt í&r 3l$rüiutn rard fot ËËüÞutlt A form. fl!{y ;rri Õn Tfie ,tt6Élh o¡ üusfd{, 5A{rfr(lflt Cr¡lìh tû 3i1t uil thr nrmlet, th,: riirt dd¡tíÞrvíl Ir6ùrdù, or 8r1y rrs+nsll$ n{i¡à ¡'à!ó*j gr¡ot Nt it 1(J Jtiq r{aDt l/r' iì$ ËorcË rrg srf,È.èd â !111. rhr! tt iü r*Éurl lú thöt l0 îcmF-lv cêi oíl 1¿ ã tt3t *È9.mglt!, dûÈs'tu¡l Îe Thi( tì'rtl lor lÈlge. ¿:al el ËëF.èIi ùlt$3, ttitt$, TFgl iñÕt{,3 Sv¡-lltm-lrÉ.. {Ít".clerr$; istlÉ Fürrn{t{è5È-Lâ3'lx 93 T a b3 1012812013 11:53:39 AM 713-755-1451 Page2lT tiå+ .å' '¡. ¡ ú PROSPERITY BANK' b ú *,¡.+Ï .l Impn rtant In to rmarìon Regrrdin g F[)IC ! nsu rance Co'r"erage I Nocicc oËFiegarivc Infirrm*tton. - Fi\STl.tNE Gnidc t Blccr¡oníc FLrndT¡ansfer.t; Ytrur Rlghrs and Responsibilitia 4 Schedule oíFces . 2 Your Al¡iliry to sWithdraw Funds , Norice of Your l;inaocial Prìvacy Righrs. 2 Sr¡l¡stitute Ch¿cla a"d You. Righrs 6 Terms rnd CcnrJi¡ion¡ o[Yr¡sr Aecoun.. . ' ;t Btnking Ccntc¡s 6 nccessrry CDs from rh e assurncd t¡nnk arc rçirrarely ' Frcss 3 f¡i¡ Funrlc Trnnsfr'r I A{PORTÁNT INF O RtvfAIt ON i¡rru¡cd i¡ntil ¡he carliesc m¡turiq¡ drte aftcr the cnd (crrl lrrrn Paynrents) FT}IC INSURANCE COIæ,RÁGE uf rhe .six*monrh gnce ptriod' CDs chat rnnturc . Pr¿,is 4 to l:intl'liau*¡ctiuns FÞ[C Gcncr¿l f]ryosit tntur*,¡¡cç The staldord riuring the six'urcn¡h period urrl a¡e ¡enewcd for þ chack numtm¡ or atnauu) insurance 0rnsu¡lt currcnily ir rtz5o,ooo per the s¡¡nc te¡ln and in thc srmc doll¡r anuun¡ . Prus f for More Optiorx (Þrlance, Inrøesr, Clungc PIN) deposiror. 'Ihe szto,ool¡ linrir is pennanenr for (ei¿hcr srith or rvilhout acc.¡uod inrcrcst) continue ceftaìn rcrÍrcm¿nt åËËôur!$ (includel lRfu) ¡nd it - Savings Mrsu çsmpürary fcr all oth¿r de¡rsit accourtts throtrgh (promptr arc smc as $reclring Mcnu) Decc¡nbs jr, 2orj, C)n Jnnu+ry l, :ot4, thc srend¡rd inÏt¡n¡nse ãlnQunr wili rqrr¡n to $l{:o,ooo - CÐ Mcnu . pcr deposiror fr:r atl depxir iccounts txccPl ccrtairt rhc eod of+hç ri:t'nronrh grrcc peria¿J. Prts: I for tsla¡¡c-e rccircmc¡',t accourrrs, which rvill rrmàin ¡ß$2tô'our) tiyvirt;&r5f{ãLi¿ar!sr:#lTFl:iñãT,r,+3'li1iRl\a.rri}r:f;:1]:-¡qE . Prcss 2 for lntc¡cst lnforln¿ritrn FÁSTTJNECUIÐE o Pre¡s 3 m ChenE I'lN - IRÀ Mens (prompts rrc samc aE CD Mcnu) - [¡a¡sMcnu dcr¡ils on tltc rcqttircntcnrs, ga to rvuvldicgoi . Iåæs-. I for Advances drlosir/dep+çirç.) yonr locel bonking tentcr, . Prrçs 2lur Erymcns p.(rtütion, $e u¡c ¡ltc Lst 4 of ¡our . Press ã for Find ïl¡¡¡cciun¡ TÀ{J Progrcrrr: .{ddiilonaÌ!¡l Prospcriry Eurk is (sca¡cù for Åd.nnces or Firyments pr,rticiprthrg in tlre FDIC Traroaciion Account by amount) Çuar¿nræ Progrun. U¡xlcr thut progr'r*r, rhnurgh . PraEs 4 for More Oprion: Jttne 1o, zoro, aÜ non-ùrtertst-hcríng tra¡s¡ction (Balanec, lnrcie¡r' (}¡ngc PIN) îc=uunts rre fully guanntacd b¡ dre FDIC ñr úre cn¡ire t¡tr¡unr irr r¡te accolhi. Non"inrcresr-hcaring F¡¡nd.r liansfer Menu checkíng ncmrtnts indud: Dcrnand Deposit ' Pronrpt forT¡pe to Trursfir Frorrrl onril yotr httt selærc¡ì rlrc qpc of infounlrion yuu Arr-r¡u¡¡!ç (DD^s) u4J imy truroaaiun au.ount ¡vhh a¡rrl have cnrerecl your ¡,r¡unt nutnlrc ' F;æ I ¡o ¡r¡nsfcr Ësm Chc:lting thrt h¡r¡ .Jnlimited withdtaçrn!¡ rnd 'Jrct cann(tt o Pras 2 rur trunsfe¡ l"rom S*'ings c¡l interesi, ,ìJso inducled '¡¡t lolv-i¡tenrt NÖtlü Plcæc ltavc your aÉcounr numþcn read¡ $pon + Eore¡ rhe [:rcm f,{Ê¡¡uflt nurnber} accrx¡nm 0rJüW æcr:u¡ts dtat c¿nnot cifn füùrt enrerìng thcF4$TLINE .rystem. ¡'au rvill be rhu o.5oYo inrcr*r) ard IOLTR accounts, Corcragc pronrptci{ at follows under rhe TÉrsacdon Account Gurnntce Progrunr is l. Tq c,Jnrinue in F.nglirh prts l, ar stay on in rddirion tourtl s+an¡r fror¡¡ rhe curæraË,e avdlsblc u Prc¡r 2 ro :ransfer To Savinç rhe line to c¡rntin(re in S¡tranish' u Pre¡ 3 ro ¡nnsler To Lorns undç rJrc ËDlC ginerlJ dcPosit insunnct n:l*. If 2. Prcss I fu¡ 'Acccunt ln{brm*tiari'; Íls¡s 2 funtls ía r rron-ìnteics¡.hg,rring uattsarrioa lr-rcunt for "fund¡ Tt¿nslci'. Çlrher no¡es about rrsing FÁ.5ftlNE: Pte*ing the' kelt reluotsyou mùË prliolls ' Âruou¡rts t#or¡n¡tio n Mcnr¡ mcßu, . F¡rss I f+rChccking , Pr*sing thc É key tal*er ¡'ou ro dtc m¡în ' Fers ? for S:rvings mânu" artl the b'¡¡ic deposir imnr.rnce.linrÌr applìes, '. Prr*ç 5 lirrCD . l(/trcn lirteninB Èo trânsacliùn hriloÐ'. )1st Press 4 ior !Ri{. can press 7 ro plry rhe prwiot$ (lilrlsÊti(ir1' Suppitnr*ntal Cowrage for Banlr: Mtrg;rsr \Vhcn . Press i for Loens I nvr r¿ uro¡c in¡r¡rel b,rnks rncrgo dcpos.ia fiotn thc r.tr repcnr fhe curmni t¡¡l¡lc¡ion, or 9 to alúuftl - Chø,:t*iugMenu ;kip io rhc retr tranmctìon, nt the . P¡a$ I f,¡r Vithd¡arv:rl the m (Ðehir ¡ncl Chr:ck iuflormation) l{W l'LH tl?/?3/lû Sr\Iìnb)ic [nfonnnrir¡r\C]$¿tsttor¡r oflPor . Prc¡s 2 for Deposir lnfo¡mation Ër:rm¡ erul Irttrcrdu'cs\F$tiiru\Frrlìnc\Guidr- P*dinc-¡*r 35 101281201311:53:39 AM 713-755-1451 Page3lT .i t:J:4ä,:;:Êir'EÀ.riaTfr4:4i:{Cr?\:,4: i'rrÞ'.J#tJ'v:fj+{s'r$7¡l4qn\:ld¡ ^¡,j:irÄ..j,..rí-ì-if SCHEDULE OF FEES The fullou'irg fc+ m:y bc.r:.t*d rg,u¡nrI Fû[r ntcount irtd thc follnrvin6tnrrraecion limitrtíanr, if ¡¡* rÞulv rq þu¡ !<Ër)urt' ATiVf /L)cbirl¡¡r¿aionr off p,tttti:cr . ' , $1,00 .. , ..$l.00rnonthlyro+iccchrgr ^TMGrd M*rcrCgrd ,{Th'Í/Dcbir (!.d . $ t,50 rrun thly ¡cñiÊc n to ur' 'Unu¡lurlnd uC rfttruns¡. r um*nr írom ur for Yeur ¡q ¡on¡ftr¡ in a Fr¡irul¡i rJoni l¡¡qu r*lÉn ur$ õlcrArf.t i\ lce qußqlf. bclæ ¡ ran¡lo hrr lon mrle urlag thc irt6ulrtìøt lrucr ¡:ut dr6*. r+iÈ;ùur )'fl ¡r pGrmi*k!tr ¿irr¡ .-jr;-*r, ¡itn a r lt - rrr . ?r: r r- J. L-n'¡ :-- VOT JR ÂBilITY TO IfTTHÐ FÂ\F } UNDS urirbr rbi¡ mli+. ôur ¡Jisris æ rl ¡uurodr ld ¡h..d drrnsii. Durì w rlç lùn.i¡ in eh ¡'n)i ri1 :g Fknrjs rrt ¡r¡r¡lrrrrbvr. Ytrit wrll i'¿r:. +rtr:r yûùi l:tJ*-i rr¡v¡ll¡tt *ì,reckjrrg il{¿irtìàrìi irrchdt fül¡ro¡¿d i.-:ttt¡rii urrril yoil h¡v* ;<,l¿r:rrd th:: r.;,.pe oi ir'li.urn:tti*n ¡ut; ' lr¡¡.ur'¡Írt fçr Tiil:g ta'llat',sftt f'ror¡tl ,i'sci,çrtu (3ûA¡i md ln¡ rürrs'rtiic,n ;ri'ccr*r:r u Fcrs,r I ro ts.¡¡stàr fruur-C[*xkin¿1 *rjsÌ¡ ¡rnc lrtrc ellt$irl ;urrtrr lcir,rr:fi i rlis:ritxr, * rl".* lill¡ t¡nlL'r¡ìr,cl rtidrdi¡wair ¡¡ii úrt ç¡*r¡ot lrcsr J te tr¡¡r.rlir Fruni j:virtç,1 a¡rn i¡rtr¡¡st. ¡r,Lt: i¡iriu4ed i:a k¡¡v ìn¡¿¡.¡si N$$V ì11¡rr Lrre )'our ¡f,(oulrr aumh::: r"-ld¡,. Lþon " ån¡¿v rhç Frirlrr âc¿¡it¡,t numbe'.. itri-..-ri¡ñfs Iì\TCì\V :rr:crltlnr¡ ilti( c;¡lrt*:¡ (atìl r':lriì{ {rìi.i"ìi¡S ihc ¡ASTLIì\[ .í].1aeri'1) IL'u'ril[ bc íullor:erir í¡isur¿nct llnrit 'ipplie;, ' [¡r*+r..", f'<:r {]Þ . Vi¡e¡l li*ê¡irìiì r<¡ tûrrriiáiir,n¡\ i¡istorr', yrru a jl'c$s 4 lirr i ill cl* prrr;7 Sr¡rpltnrc*tal Crr?r:reü. fìrr Sürrk]vl+rgtrs: l$hcn t,: plry rhe preriör$-rrc.flsâçrí{tû, fr+t: ctr trtorv i¡¡.qr¡rtd banirs nrctg*, tlrprr;*t frlm thr ' i\cys J lirr Lo¿ns S tu icpc< ¡l¡ rufrcnr t*nt¿*íoo, or 1l !r¡ ,lrr'it$ ,lsl¡nd fitl¡rl ojcitllir: - Ç!r:+king1Çfu:rllr sl¿iit to thc ¡¡ctt rt¿ns¡':Îi¡rr, .1r rhÊ Èèr¡ ilr f¡tÐntl* r¡l.L'ì v Pnts\ ! forXr'ilhr:inrrvll rhr r¡, öives * ci¿Fr:ri;r.r tå¡e ii-irrilil srd (lhr":k inl'rrrrn¡r'ir*) Jtþlrt'lì.i; Aìlf if l!l 5;ìiqhiiç lnft rm¡lìoni*prr¡tio'rs ðppùîturrl?. lo tcrt¡uRr:r¿ his t:s l¡er n{to¡ltlr, iT' o Frss I íbr ür¡tr.ir ir{Þrareri** I,ots¡r o'ol f¡cc¡iu¡r'slhr¡iirpìÀ?¡rii¡i:1f""ti¿l - &¡di*+ Jrc I 95 frwtr¡' tht worcjs'¡'ou" i¡'uy ¡ur*raria6 . I)cpniit arrruni . Lctrr ¡ci*t¡t " Srte