NO. 01-14-00917-CV ^jedm
1ST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
MAR 2 4 2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
CHRIST*01- f - "
FOR THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS CLERKj^Jd. —
AT HOUSTON
ARDELL HUDSON,
Appellant.
Vs.
LEROY H. SIMMS / CHARTONI, INC. DBA THE
CARING CIRCLE ADULT DAY CARE CENTER
Appellees.
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
Ardell Hudson, Pro Se
307 Coen Rd.
Areola, Texas 77583
Telephone: (281) 431- 2247
Telecopy: (281) 431-2247
ardellhudson@netzero.com
PRO SE FOR APPELLANT
ARDELL HUDSON
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
I. Appellants:
Ardell Hudson
II. Counsel for Appellant
Ardell Hudson, Pro Se
307 Coen Rd.
Areola, Texas 77583
III. Appellees:
Leroy H. Simms, Registered Agent Chartoni Inc. DBA
The Caring Circle Adult Day Care Center
IV. Counsel for Appellees:
Leroy H. Simms
6001 Savoy Drive, Suite 208
Houston, Texas 77036
-l-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................... vi
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT viii
ISSUE(S) Presented ....,......„.....,........^......,......,.. viii
INTRODUCTION 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS 1
AFFIDAVIT WITH EVIDENCE 5-7, 8-11,12-14
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 4
ARGUMENT 6
Standard ofReview .........„...,.,.,.. -. :. 6
2. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, OR INSUFFICIENT AND MERE
SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE, THAT LEROY SIMMS / THE CHARTONI
INC. HAD A CAUSE OF ACTION TO DENY THE THIRD PARTY
BENEFICIARY BY THE APPELLANT ................. 7
3. APPELLEES FAILED TO MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF
REGARDING THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO BRING A CAUSE OF
ACTION UNDER THE THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY SECTION
RESULTING IN DAMAGES DUE TO DERELICTION OF DUTY. THEY
MERELY INTRODUCED SOME SPECULATIVE, ALTERNATIVE THEORY OF
AGREED JUDGMENT WHICH APPELLANT HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF. THE
APPELLEES JUDGMENT OF THE FACTS WAS PURE SPECULATION, NOT
BASED ON THE THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY ........................ 8
4. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY PRECLUDED JUDGEMENT
AGAINST APPELLANT WITHOUT HEARING THE FULL EXTENT.
TO APPELLANT'S CAUSE OF ACTION ALLOWING THE THIRD PARTY
BENEFICIARY TO BE ENTERED AS EVIDENCE..................... 10
-ii-
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER 13
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. .................................. fe 14
APPENDIX 15
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Bond v. Home Furniture Company, 516 S.W.2d 224, 224 (Tex, Civ. App.-Waco 1974, no
writ).
Burke v. Scott, 237 S.W.2d 655, 656 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1951, writ ref d.
n.r.e.)
Castanon v. Monsevais, 703 S.W.2d 295,297 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1985, no
writ)
Corpus Christi Bank and Trust v. Smith, 525 S.W.2d 501, 503-504 (Tex. 1975).
Keller v Wilson, 168 S. W.3d 802, 810 (Tex.2005)
Whitaker v Rose, 218 S.W.3d 216,221 (Tex. App. 2007)
STATUTES AND RULES
Third party beneficiary
RECORD REFERENCES
Ardell Hudson (Appellant) will cite the record as follows:
Court Reporter's Record - [TR: page]
Exhibits - [EX: number]
Appendix - [APP: letter]
-iv-
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the case: Appellees refused to pay damages order by the JP
Court to the Appellant. The Appellees then filed to
the Civil Court of Appeal.
Course of proceeding The Court refused to allow the Appellant to
stipulate the evidence to show cause of action for
seeking damages. The Appellant refused to comment
due to respect for the Court.
The case proceeded to a non jury trial with the
Judgment being awarded to the Appellees on the
° agreed judgment. That was the judgment from the
court ordering that I get no money because I had no
contract to have cause of action to sue the Appellees.
I would also like to make mention that I did not have
any agreement with Appellees or the Court to
dismiss my cause of action for money damages.
I want to emphasize that this is an error on part of the
court. The court records will support my claim.
Trial Court's Disposition: The Court entereda judgment stating that the
Appellant had no cause of action to sue because there
was no contract between the Appellant and the
Appellees.The court also introduced an Agreed
Judgment Notice as the judgment where the court has
no records or account of that decision. From this,
Appellant filed notice of appeal and this appeal
resulted.
vi
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellant Ardell Hudson, respectfully request oral argument.This appeal
involves The Third Party Beneficiary giving the Appellant the right to
sue the Appellee without being a part of the contract. Oral argument will
assist the court in resolving this appeal.
ISSUE(S) PRESENTED
1. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, OR INSUFFICIENT AND MERE
SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE, THAT ARDELL HUDSON
(APPELLANT) COULD NOT SUE UNDER "THE THIRD PARTY
BENEFICIARY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TITLE IV.
2. APPELLEES FAILED TO MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF
REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH "THE THIRD PARTY
BENEFICIARY" SHOULD NOT APPLY. INSTEAD, THEY MERELY
INTRODUCED SOME SPECULATIVE, ALTERNATIVE THEORIES
ABOUT WHAT ERRORS MIGHT HAVE BEEN "POSSIBLE ", IN
CONTRAST TO MULTIPLE SOURCES OF UNCONTRADICTED
EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTEDAPPELLANT.
3. THE TESTIMONY AND COURT RECORD OF APPELLEES WERE
IN
ADMISSIBLE AS TO THE APPELLEES ULTIMATE OPINIONS OF
INVOLVEMENT OF APPELLANT TO BRING A CAUSE OF
ACTION
UNDER "THE THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY" IN THE ALLEGED
TESTIMONY, AS THEY WERE PURE SPECULATION, NOT BASE
ON
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, AND IN TOTAL DISREGARD TO THE
APPELLEES LACK OF "THE THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY".
4. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY PRECLUDED IMPEACHMENT
OF "THE THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY" WITH ERROR.
vin
INTRODUCTION
Appellant is Plaintiff, Ardell Hudson, sued Appellate are Defendants, Leroy H.
Simms /Agent, and Chartoni Inc. D/B/A the Caring Circle Adult Day Care Center for
money damages after Appellees refused to pick up his brother daily as required by the
services Appellees were to provide under the laws of
State of Texas. The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) cited
the Appellate for violating their contractAs a result, Appellant expended expenses from
Appellees Unwillingness to follow the terms of the responsibilities to Appellant and his
brother, their clients. The Appellantby law has the right to sue for damages as the Third
Party Beneficiary. He won a judgment in the Justice of the Peace Court which was
appealed by Appellees. He was denied this right in the trial court in an appeal de novo
and was not allowed to present any evidence and what documentary evidence he gave,
the court failed to put it in the record. This was an error.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellant is Plaintiff, Ardell Hudson. Appellate are Defendants,
Leroy H. Sirnms /Agent, and Chartoni Inc. D/B/A the Caring Circle Adult
Day Care Center.Appellant sued Appellees for money damages after
Appellees refused to pick up his brother daily as required by the services
Appellees were to provide under the laws of State of Texas. The Texas
Department ofAging and Disability Services investigated my complaint
against the Appellate, and cited the Appellate for violating their contract.
As a result, Appellant expended expenses from Appellees unwillingness to
follow the terms of the responsibilities to Appellees clients. The Civil trial
Courts in a de novo appeals made a cause of action for the Defendant in
error. The Attorney/Agent made no comments in behalf for the Chartoni
Inc. during the course of the civil court trial. The court records will
1
support my claim to this statement. The court was conducted in a J P
setting and there are no questions on record of the Appellate having any
say of the Appeal that he file.The Appellant witness stated before the court
that "because of the high cost of gas and the fees that we are reimbursed
by Medicaid we just cannot go 19 miles to pick up his brother." [Cr.P.5
L.5-7]. When the evidence was presented to the court showing that the
Chartoni Inc. was liable for their actions. The Court asked the Chartoni
Inc. why The State DADS say they violated the law the response was pure
speculation and Chartoni Inc. will attempt to again misstate the law and
cherry picked words out of context. The comments were speculation, and
not of knowledge. For example a witness for the Appellate (Defendant)
stated "your Honor the other thing, we cannot pay him. It would be fraud."
[Cr. P.8 L.4-5]. The Court stopped the witness from testifying and stated
that it "wOuld not be fraud because you all weren't doing what you were
supposed to do". [CR. P.8 L.12-13]. Ardell Hudson (Appellant) had
mention that he was involved With a complaint filed with Texas (DADS)
that he had the right to sue for damages. The Attorney for the (Appellate)
Chartoni Inc. asked no questions of why I should sue for damages.
However the Court took charge and conducted the trial in a JP Court
setting in error not allowing my evidence, and my reason for suing. For
example: [CR. L.18 - 22]. States when Plaintiff was asked by the Court
"Well why are they were going to pay you?" [CR. P.3 L.18 - 19]. The
Appellant answered [CR. P.3 L. 20 - 22] "I'm a Third Party. He was
staying with me at the time and I was taking him up there. I was
interrupted by the court before I could finish my answer about the Third
Party Beneficiary and the contract between the Chartoni Inc. and The
1
Texas (DADS) which allows me the right for a cause of action. I would like to
stipulate that I didn't respond to the court for its way of court proceeding out of
respect to the court. The Appellant continues to make statements that support my
cause of action. It was alleged by the court that, Ardell Hudson had no contract
with the Appellate to be entitled to damages from them. The court stated "Unless
you show me a contract that says that you have a contract for it. [Cr: P6, L24 -
L25 and P7, LI - 5]r The Third Party Beneficiary has intended beneficiary status
as to a promise between two others (Ardell Hudson) and the (Chartoni Inc)
without any "intent" that the beneficiary is an intended beneficiary it only requires
the promisee satisfy an obligation to pay money to the beneficiary; or the
circumstances indicate that the promisee (Chartoni Inc.) intends to give the
beneficiary the benefit of the promised performance. This is so straight forward.
Again here is evidence of the Appellate uncontradicted evidence that will support
Appellants right to sue as a Third Party Beneficiary. The Affidavit submitted will
support that evidence taken on the date of the trial on October 22,2014. will
support the Appellee had admission of a promise to make good of their wrong for
not picking up Jerome Hudson after my complaint filed against them with The
(DADS) citations, and violations of their contract. This admission from the
Appellees' in a document mention is a confession. When the Appellee admitted
guilt all is left is the judgment of the law. The court over looked this evidence
without adequate basis, and the evidence was misplaced in error and unable to be
an exhibit for court records. There are other documents of evidence that will
follow this page and have affidavits to support the evidence to submit which will
show cause of action against the Appellee's. The court did not allow any evidence
pertaining to the Appellants' case inerror. The court asked the question of "well,
1
why are they going to pay you? [CR: P.3, LI8-19]. The court interrupted me, and
stated "Get to the part where they owe you money" [ CR: P.3, L23-24].
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
There is no evidence and/or insufficient evidence and/or the verdict
is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence which
proves conclusively, as a matter of law, that Ardell Hudson was given the
right to answer the question of why he could sue without having a contract
with the Appellee. Thus there are answers supportable under any standard
of evidence, uncontradicted evidence that support the Appellants cause of
action, and favorable judgment. There is evidence of a document written
to Ardell Hudson (Appellant) admitting that they were wrong after having
citations and other sanctions as appropriate. The Appellee admitted that
they would start paying to get Jerome transported to their daycare center.
To further stipulate by Texas law whenever a party admits they are guilty,
the caseis closed. The court fail to rule on the document and the county
clerk of the civil court misplaced the document. (The Appellant submitted
a second copy with an Affidavit as evidence.) Appellees' entire case was
argued by the court against the Appellant saying he had no contract to sue
them. There was no mention of a contract in any of their motions arguing
of contract. They merely introduced some speculative, alternative theories
about it Would be fraud if they paid me for my suit against them. In
contrast to multiple sources of uncontradicted evidence that supports the
Appellants cause of action to sue as a third party beneficiary. The
Appellees' testimony was ofpure speculation, not based on personal
knowledge, and total disregard to the Appellees' lack of the third party
beneficiary. The evidence was Appellant was an intended third-party
4-
beneficiary. Thus, the Appellate had no evidence to deny Appellant the
right by law as an intended third party beneficiary. A third-party
beneficiary, in the law of contracts, is a person who may have the right to
sue on a contract, despite not having originally been an active party to the
contract. Leroy H. Simms Agent/ChartOni Inc., had a contract with the
Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services to provide care for my
disable brother (Jerome Hudson). Chartoni Inc. breached the contract by
not picking up my brother. I then filed a complaint with the Texas
(DADS). The complaint caused an investigation resulting in the Chartoni
Inc. breaking rules, or laws violated. Texas (DADS) issued citations and
other sanctions, as appropriate. A copy of the letter supporting this can he
viewed on [P.10-11] from the Affidavit of evidence. Thus by Chartoni Inc.
result of being guilty of their actions and fined by the Texas (DADS).
Appellees' entire case was based on the courts testimony to conduct
the trial in a JP court setting and introduce speculative and inconsistent
questions about a contract without knowledge of the third party
beneficiary right to sue without being a part of a contract. Therefore,
Appellees failed to meet their burden of proof. Appellant were precluded
from impeaching the third party beneficiary as
evidence
ARGUMENT
1. Standard of Review.
As was stated by the Supreme Court:
"We will sustain a legal sufficiency or "no evidence" challenge
if the record shows one of the following: (1) a complete absence
of a vital fact; (2) rules of law or evidence bar the court from giving
weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (3) the
evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a scintilla; or (4)
the evidence establishes conclusively the opposite of the vital fact.
City of Keller v Wilson, 168 S. W.3d 802, 810 (Tex.2005). We
consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and
indulge every reasonable inference that supports it. Id. AT 821-22.
The evidence is legally sufficient if it would enable reasonable and
fair minded people to reach the verdict under review. Id. At 827. We
credit favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could, and disregard
contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. See id. In
reviewing a factual sufficiency challenge, we examine all the
evidence. Castanon v Monsevais, 703 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex.App.-
San Antonio 1985, no writ). We will reverse only if the finding is
against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Id."
Whitaker v Rose, 218 S.W.3d 216,221 (Tex. App. 2007)
1. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, OR INSUFFICIENT AND MERE SPECULATIVE
EVIDENCE, THAT ARDELL HUDSON (APPELLANT) COULD NOT SUE
UNDER "THE THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE TITLE IV.
2. APPELLEES FAILED TO MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF REGARDING
THE MANNER IN WHICH "THE THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY"
SHOULD NOT APPLY. INSTEAD, THEY MERELY INTRODUCED SOME
SPECULATIVE, ALTERNATIVE THEORIES ABOUT WHAT ERRORS
MIGHT HAVE BEEN "POSSIBLE ", IN CONTRAST TO MULTIPLE
SOURCES OF UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTED
APPELLANT.
3. THE TESTIMONY AND COURT RECORD OF APPELLEES WERE IN
ADMISSIBLE AS TO THE APPELLEES ULTIMATE OPINIONS OF
INVOLVEMENT OF APPELLANT TO BRING A CAUSE OF ACTION
UNDER "THE THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY" IN THE ALLEGED
TESTIMONY, AS THEY WERE PURE SPECULATION, NOT BASE ON
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, AND IN TOTAL DISREGARD TO THE
APPELLEES LACK OF "THE THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY".
4. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY PRECLUDED IMPEACHMENT OF
"THE THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY" WITH ERROR.
There is no evidence and/or insufficient evidence and/or the verdict is against
the great weight and preponderance of the evidence which proves conclusively, as a
matter of law, that Ardell Hudson was given the right to answer the question ofwhy
he could sue without having a contract with the Appellee. Thus there are answers
supportable under any standard of evidence, uncontradicted evidence that support the
Appellants cause of action, and favorable judgment. There is evidence of a document
written to Ardell Hudson (Appellant) admitting that they were wrong after having
citations and other sanctions as appropriate. The Appellee admitted that they would
start paying to get Jerome transported to their daycare center. To further stipulate by
Texas law whenever a party admits they are guilty, the case is closed. The court fail
to rule on the document and the county clerk of the civil court misplaced the
document. (The Appellant submitted a second copy with an Affidavit as evidence.)
Appellees' entire case was argued by the court against the Appellant saying he had
no contract to sue them. There was no mention of a contract in any of their motions
7
issuing sanctions, and citations for the rules and laws beingviolated in the careof
Jerome Hudson by the Appellate Tex. Civ. App. 19 "Sec. 2.607(e)(1), which states:
(e) Where Ardell Hudson has filed a suit for breach of contract or otherobligation for
which Chartoni, Inc. is answerable over (1) he may give Chartoni Inc. written notice of
the litigation. If the notice states that Chartoni Inc. may come in and defend and that the
Chartoni Inc. does not do so they will be bound in any action against them by
Ardell Hudson by any determination of fact commonto the two litigations, then
unless Chartoni Inc. after reasonable receipt of notice does come and so defend they
are so bound." An example: The Chartoni Inc. failed to answer a demand letter, and
failed to appear for the Default JudgmentHearing. The law states that if a Defendant
fails to appear he has no means for an appeal. He simply has no evidence to argue to
over throw the lower court's decision. There is no evidence and/or insufficient
evidence and/or the verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the
evidence which proves conclusively, as a matter of law, that Ardell Hudsonwas given
the right to answer the question of Why he could sue without having a contract with
the Appellee. Thus there are answerssupportable under any standardof evidence. In
contrast to multiple sources of uncontradicted evidence that support the Appellants
cause of action, and favorable judgment. There is evidence of a document written to
Ardell Hudson (Appellant) admitting that they were wrong after having citations and
other sanctions as appropriate. The Appellee admitted that they would start paying to
get Jerome transported to their daycare center. To further stipulate by Texas law
whenever a party admits they are guilty the case is close. The court fail to rule on the
document and the county clerk of the civil court misplaced the document. The
Appellant submitteda second copy with an Affidavit as evidence. Appellees' entire
case was arguedby the court of the Appellant not having a Contract to sue them.. There
was no mention of a contract in any of their motions arguing of contract. They merely
evidence, uncontradicted evidence that support the Appellants cause of action, and
favorable judgment. There is evidence of a document written to Ardell Hudson
(Appellant) admitting that they were wrong after having citations and other sanctions as
appropriate. The Appellee admittedthat they would start payingto get Jerome
transported to their daycare center. To further stipulate by Texas law whenever a party
admits they are guilty, the case is closed. The court fail to rule on the document and the
county clerk of the civil court misplaced the document. (The Appellant submitted a
second copy with an Affidavit as evidence.) Appellees' entire case was argued by the
court against the Appellant saying he had no contract to sue them. There was no mention
of a contract in any of their motions arguing of contract. They merely introduced some
speculative, alternative theories about it would be fraud if they paid me for my suit
against them. In contrast to multiple sources of uncontradicted evidence that supports the
Appellants cause of action to sue as a third party beneficiary. The Appellees' testimony
was of pure speculation, not based on personal knowledge, and total disregard to the
Appellees' lack of the third party beneficiary. The evidence was Appellant was an
intended third-party beneficiary. Thus, the Appellate had no evidence to deny Appellant
the right by law as an intended third party beneficiary. A third-party beneficiary, in the
law of contracts, is a person who may have the right to sue oh a contract, despite not
having originally been an active party to the contract. Leroy H. Simms Agent/Chartoni
Inc., had a contract with the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services to
provide care for my disable brother (Jerome Hudson). Chartoni Inc. breached the contract
by not picking up my brother. I then filed a complaint with the Texas (DADS). The
complaint caused an investigation resulting in the Chartoni Inc. breaking rules, or laws
violated. Texas (DADS) issued citations and other sanctions, as appropriate. A copy of
the letter supporting this can be viewed on [P. 10-11] from the Affidavit of evidence. Thus
by Chartoni Inc. result of being guilty of their actions and fined by the Texas (DADS).
pa
complaint caused an investigation resulting in the Chartoni Inc. breaking rules, or laws
violated. Texas (DADS) issued citations and other sanctions, as appropriate. A copy of
the letter supporting this can be viewed on [P.10-11] from the Affidavit of evidence. Thus
by Chartoni Inc. result of being guilty of their actions and fined by the Texas (DADS).
Appellees' entire case was based on the courts testimony to conduct the trial in a JP court
setting and introduce speculative and inconsistent questions about a contract without
knowledge of the third party beneficiary right to sue Without being a part of a contract.
Therefore, Appellees failed to meet their burden of proof. Appellant were precluded from
impeaching the third party beneficiary as evidence. A third party for whose benefit a
contract was made may enforce the contract even though he or she is a stranger both to
the contract and the consideration Burke v. Scott, 237 S.W.2d 655, 656 (Tex. Civ. App.-
Austin 1951, writ refd. nwr.e.). In order to be entitled to enforce a contract, a third party
beneficiary must show that the contracting parties "intended" to benefit him or her. A
stranger to the contract is an intended third party beneficiary if there is clear evidence that
such was the intention of the contracting parties. Corpus Christi Bank and Trust v.
Smith, 525 S.W.2d 501, 503-504 (Tex. 1975). For example, the third party need not be
expressly named if he or she is clearly described or designated in the express terms of the
contract Bond v. Home Furniture Company, 516 S.W.2d 224, 224 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco
1974, no writ).
-12-
PRAYER
Appellant requests this Court Reverse and Remand for a new trial to
correct the errors that were made by the trial court and for costs of appeal.
Respectfully submitted
Ardell Hudson
307 Coen RD.
Areola, Texas 77583
Facsimile No. 832-728-0163
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(3)
I hereby certify that this Brief of Appellants contains less than the
maximum Words allowed, but I do not have the computer ability to give an exact
count, excludingthe parts of the brief exemptedunder Tex. R. App, P. 9.4(i)(l),
as verified by Word Perfect X4. This Brief of Appellant is there for in
compliance with Tex. R. App. P. 9.4 (I)(B).
Dated: March 23,2015
ARDELL HUDSON
APPELLANT
-13-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the Brief of Appellants has been
served on the Appellee's counsel in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure on this 23rd day of March, 2015.
Leroy H. Simms
6001 Savoy Drive, #208
Houston, Texas 77036
simms.associateslaw@gmail.eom
ARDELL HUDSON
-14-
APPENDIX
AFFIDAVIT-Tab-A-1-3 P.16-18 see evidence P. 4-5 and P. 7-8
AFFIDAVIT- Tab-B-1-4 P.19-22— see evidence P.5 and P.8-9
AFFIDAVIT- Tab-C-1-3 P.23-25—see evidence P.23-25
AFFIDAVIT OF
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF HARRIS §
For-V 6c<)
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this daypersonally appeared the
undersigned affiant who, being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes andsays:
1. My name is Ardell Hudson. I am over 18yearsof age and I am
fully competent to make this Affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the
facts stated herein and they are true and correct.
2. The document following thisAffidavit is due to The Civil County
Court at Law No.3 misplacing it in error. I requested it twice in a formal court
setting. Both the county clerk at law no.3, and court reporter had no knowledge
of thedocument taken on the day of thetrial. The document will prove thegreat
weight and preponderance of the evidence will show the (Appellate) Chartoni
Inc. admittedtheir wrong after my complaintfiled prove them in violation of the
laws of Iheircontract. This document will show my evidence to an intended third
party beneficiary. Thus, theAppellate had no evidence to deny Appellant the
right by law as an intendedthird party.
- TAB-A- I \
\£t£ P. M-S Af/r> p. 1-8 i
P, If.
Further affiant sayeth naught.
(Mmm 14^A^
(NAME OF AFFIANT)
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ^3 ^ 0ffrW^ 2015.
IU j % 0-
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
My Commission Expireson:
TA5-A-X
P.n
I The Caring Circle Adult Daycare I
Fam%oftexome Hudson
Aim: m, ArtJelJ Hudson and Ms. Mary Anderson
324 Rosen Read,
Rosharcn, Texas 77S83
Sept 5,2013
jte Coordination ofTranspcvta^ . in refers teC»miUatrrt#S36SSS
wwnHM» fnfercemen? Coordinator . San M. Gotsdiner.
Dear Mr. Hudson andMa, Anderson,
The Coring Orefe strive to keep femlHes together by providing professtentf daytime services in asafe
raring environment, we believeWe for senior* and those with disebJlid© must toenjoyed end not
emtoreaourfaHcyser^to-f^ We are greteftii to haw yoor loved
oneJerome Hudson as aparticipant mour Program and do consider hSm one ofourmost valued clients.
We are sorry for anyinconveniences, but as discussed v^ you on merethan one occasion Storing
Circle Adult Daycare" is stW ifs beby stage, sM s&m^iiMmmrtth&etonMvm^^is
presently unable togo twice dairy out ofthe facility's agreed (15) mile fadiu* as stated in our
• "C^parr/sTramportatSonPotees-wWchmakesita^
to *Besf»ro«r* the tc*a«onofJerome ^
famtfi. however, we have been cor^uou^acarnmodatfng Jerome withone-waydaily transfers
and thought you were pleased that we've been Improwiang totransport Jero^
for you. " w
However as aresult ofyour complaint as per Oon^tehit# €2^86 we hi^ madeailemattwe
w^to provfdetlaifc transportation*^ fertsemi
Transit wftt starttransportation onasuitable given date to beIndicated byyou
•The Cartr*arde" wiJI cover the expenses ofFort BendTransit's da%fi»forJe«iiiewlikiiismln&naf.
• !S?*JZcheos"« 9mBma**"& «* «»**»«ey »fve our Facultyon aea% basisand are
reputably sate and reBabfo. Please inform us on your most suftabte start-date and time, so we can
InstruttRMrtBefidtiaasftto beginservices.
Thank youso much for your co-operation in*W$ matter.
•Owner/Mansger
Ttehana Raffinston - faculty Adrnirustrator
TA8-A-3
AFFIDAVIT OF
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
n
COUNTY OF«ARRfS §
fort- fled
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared the
undersigned affiant who, being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
1. My name is Ardell Hudson. I am over 18 years of age and am fully
competent to make this Affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the facts
stated herein and they are true and correct.
2. I have evidence supporting my action to file a suit as a third party
beneficiary that was not allowed by me to have entered as an exhibit by
the court. The court reporters records will support this. The document will
be attached with my affidavit. This document was presented to the court
but fail to accept it as evidence.
-TA6-B-/
See P. 5>*"<*• p- 8-^
fin
Further affiant sayeth naught.
UaMxI f e w
(NAME OF AFFIANT)
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 33 day off%th_, 2015.
JU <]• % 4-
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
My Commission Expires on:
fiusw* K 3q'"r
-TAB-B-A
P. 20
vli/.
•£w£TEXAS
yfflf.DepartmentofAging
and Disability Services
commissioner
Jon w«zenteum
August 26,2013
CONFTOENTIAL
ARDELL HUDSON
307COENRD.
ARCOLA,TX. 77583
Subject: Complaint # 626986
Dear Mr. Hudson:
On 08/13/13, a surveyor from the Texas Department ofAging and Disability Services (DADS) made an
unannounced visit toThe Caring Circle Adult Daycare Center to investigate your complaint regarding
Adrninistration: the facility administration failed to assure the development and maintenence of Client
Hudson's individual plan ofcare and to assure that the cloent receives all the services he issupposed to
receive. Client Hudson isnot provided transportation to and from the facility. The surveyor conducted
an investigation by inspecting the building, observing staffproviding care and treatment, interviewing
residents/consumers and employees, and reviewing records. Specifically the surveyor observed clients
arriving atthe facility via transport van. The surveyor reviewed Client records, facility advertisement
ofservices offerred, facility contracts for community care services through DAHS (Day Activity/Health
Services) and contract/records from client's other insurance plans. The surveyor interviewed staffand
DAHS representatives. The surveyor reviewed the The Caring Circle Adult Daycare Center
compliance with rules or laws relatedto your concerns.
The surveyor determined that rules orlaws were violated atthe time ofthe on-site visit; therefore,
DADS intends toissue citations and may impose other sanctions, as appropriate.
Ifyou would like additional information, please contact Neira Roman, Program Manager at
713-767-2303 orby e-mail at neira.romah@dads.state.tx.us. Ifyou would like a copy ofthe
investigation report, submit your request inwriting to DADS Open Records Department either by fax at
(512) 438-2738, by e-mail atRS.RecordsMgmt@dads.state.tx.us. orbymail to the following address:
Open Records Department
Mail Code E-349
Texas Department ofAging and Disability Services
701 W.5ist street
Austin, Texas 78714
701 W. 51stSt * P.O. Box149030 * Austin, Tews78714-9030 * (512)438-3011 * wwwdad$,staiB.tx.us
An Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider
-TA8-83
P.ai
MR. ARDELL HUDSON
08/26/2013
Page 2
Please list the complaint number on your correspondence to DADS. The complaint number can be
found in the subject line at the beginning ofthis letter. Please allow 10 business days from the date of
your request for aresponse from DADS Open Records Department indicating the estimated date when
the requested information will be provided.
Sincerely,
^^uuL^dmiA (MO
Catherine Palmer, LBSW
Surveyor
cp
701 W.SIstSt. * P.O.Box149030 * Austin, Tews 78714-9030 * (512)438-3011 * mm&dsstaiBJx.us
AnEqual Opportunity Employer andProvider
-TAQ-B^
P.U
AFFTDAVTF OF
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OPJiARRIfr- §
Fof4 fte-x*
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared the
undersigned affiantwho, being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
1. My name is Ardell Hudson. I am over 18 years of age and am
fully competent to make this Affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the
facts stated herein and they are true and correct.
2. I have evidence of a document attached to this Affidavit why I was
taking care of my brother in transporting him to the adult day care center
due to the neglect of the Chartoni Inc. failure to do so. Again the courts
errors interrupting me while I was giving testimony hinder me from
presenting the evidence as an exhibit for court records.
-TA6-C-I u_0
P. 23
Further affiant sayeth naught.
(MaUa^ pJt^vx
(NAME OF AFFIANT)
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO BEFORE ME this o?^ day ofP^ch ,2015.
& i% &
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
My Commission Expires on:
324 Rosen Avenue
Areola, TX 77583
October 21, 2014
To whom it may concern;
My name is Mary Etta Anderson;; am the guardian for Jerome Hudson. Ardell Hudson is our
brother. After Caring Circle went back on their promise to pick Jerome up and bring Jerome
home, 1g=ve A.-rdeH permission oo take jererne to Caring CIrde Adun Day Center every morning.
i . i
itfip vv3b aupreuatea uccause i also have tu care fot out mother who has dementia.
it you nave any surtuer Questions oiease Eive me a caii. 713-26S-6150
iviai v /-uiuciiuii
T/)6-C-3
P. 55
APPENDIX
AFFIDAVIT-Tab-A-1-3 P.16-18 see evidence P. 4-5 and P. 7-8
AFFIDAVIT- Tab-B-1-4 P.19-22— see evidence P.5 and P.8-9
AFFIDAVIT- Tab-C-1-3 P.23-25—see evidence P.23-25