ADD THIS AS Exhibit (B) to Motion For New Hearing. p ;
The Orderto Deny transferring Merritt v.^ Davis Backto where
Mandatory Venue lies in McLennan County.. .lias notation to
imply there was a Hearing... there was no Hearing...
The Court Reporters Transcript
Page 6...Line 16 to 18 is where Judge Wooten did not want me
saying much so she could hear his argument on summary
judgment Page 9 Line 21.. .(yet this was the last hearing)
My Case of Merritt v. Davis
Mr. Davis violations of Law were never heard.. .in any court
including Collin County Court that lacked subject matter
jurisdiction due to Statutory La>ytpf Ciy.Prac.&Rem.Cbde -: ,„
Chapter 15 Section 15.011 gave exclusive Jurisdiction to the
County where my real property was located....Attached in Page 6
to prove this.. .yet I was trying my best to force my Case to be
heard..but was pretty much ignored.. .because Judge Wooten
KNEW her court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and already
knew what she was going to do.. .and saying we were not on the
last Hearing in this case Page 9 line 21.. .BUT this was it.. .there
were no more Hearings.. .My Case was NEVER HEARD.. .and
was riot the major point here...since no Court in Collin County
Had the Authority to act as a Court over Merritt v. Davis.. .see
Language in Mandatory Venue Statute known as Section
15.011.. .Actions to remove encumbrance SHALL be brought in
the county where all or part ofthe property is located.. .(this is
called Subject Matter Jurisdiction ) and something that COULD
NOT be waived...according to Texas Case Law.
^tfl&irO>) \-(Lw-r ^ <&?
9/11/09
REPORTER'S RECORD
VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUMES
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 3 80-07387-2009
COA NO. 05-090123-CV
LOWELL MERRITT IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff
VS COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
ROBERT DAVIS
Defendant 380th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
******************************************
HEARING
******************************************
s -f:
J
On the 11th day of September, 2009, the following
proceedings came on to be heard in the above-captioned and
numbered cause before the Honorable Suzanne Wooten, Judge
presiding, held in -McKinney, Collin County, Texas.
Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype
Machine; Reporter's Record produced by Computer-Assisted
Transcription.
SUSAN JANE LINDLEY, Texas CSR #1202
Deputy Court Reporter - 3 8 0th Judicial District Court
2100 Bloomdale Road, McKinney; Texas 75071
>•*•—aj£| 214-505-5834
e-msnCs) /^3
JANIE LINDLEY, DEPUTY COURT REPORTER, 380TH DISTRICT .COURT
9/11/09
me or - -
2 MR. MERRITT: No, no, no.
3 THE COURT: -- this was the other?
4 MR. MERRITT: No, no. This pertains to why
5 the document that Mr. Davis filed back in October of ' 08
6 is an invalid document and this case law proves it.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 MR. MERRITT: If you look on page --
9 MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, it appears to me
10 he's going into -
11 MR. MERRITT: Object.. Let me speak and then
12 let him speak •
-
13 THE COURT: Okay, first off I'm the one who
14 controls who' s sp making, not you, Mr. Merritt.
15 MR. MERRITT: Okay.
_T>16 THE COURT: Yes. To the extent you can make
_^17 whatever you' re trying to tell me short, because I want to
^i hear his argu ment on summary judgment.
19 MR. MERRITT: I am going to make it short.
20 As it states righ t here in this case law on Page 3, "As we
21 noted in our ' 95 opinion regarding the instant case i f a
22 trial court f ails to comply with the strictures provi ied
23 in Rule 18a a 11 actions taken by the judge subsequent to
24 such vio lation are void."
25 In other words, all of the rulings that this
£xt±tsrt R 2 of 3
JANIE LINDLEY, DEPUTY COURT- REPORTER, 380TH DISTRICT COURT
9/11/09
1 understood what your position was and I do and I thank you
2 for explaining it.
3 So I understand what your position is. So
4 your basic position is anything that happened after that
5 • whether it' s an abstract of judgment or whatever may have
6 come out of that is not, valid, correct?
7 ,
MR. MERRITT: Well, not only, not only --
8 THE COURT: Hang on. So that's why you
9 believe Mr Davis' abstracting of the judgment is invalid.
10 correct?
11 MR. MERRITT: Well, I.know it is but --
12 THE COURT: Sir, please answer my question.
13 MR. MERRITT: Okay.
14 THE COURT: So that's why you believe that
15 anything that may have happened out of .that is not valid.
16 correct?
17 MR. MERRITT: That is correct;
18 THE COURT: Okay.
19 MR. MERRITT: That is mostly correct but.
20 that's not all.
21 THE COURT: Okay, but we're not on the final -
22 hearing on this case.
23 MR. MERRITT: I understand.
24 THE COURT: We're on.summary judgment
25 hearing so -'-
gytfibrr K 3*6'%
JANIE LINDLEY, DEPUTY COURT- REPORTER, 380TH DISTRICT COURT