CIVIL APPEALS - CERTIFICATE
To Be Filed with Court of Appeals
TRIAL COURT NO. 14209B
FILED IN
STRUCTURAL INSULATED PANEL 4th COURT
IN THE DISTRICT OF APPEALS
COURT
TEXAS, LP AND MATTAM ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
11/16/2015 2:40:40 PM
VS 198TH JUDICIALKEITH E. HOTTLE
DISTRICT
Clerk
STEVEN M. CHAPMAN AND CYNTHIA C. CHAPMAN KERR COUNTY, TEXAS
Date Notice of Appeal Filed: November li\ 2015
1. Has a motion for new trial been filed: X Yes SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2015
Will a motion for new trial be filed: - - -Yes No
TH
2. Date of Judgment signed: AUGUST 26 , 2015
3. The Honorable M. Rex Emerson presided at trial.
4. The Appellant is represented by: VERNON HARRISON SBN 09132000
11645 Hwy 6 S #53, Sugar Land, Tx 77498 (830)329-2658
5. The Appellee is represented by: ALBERT D PATTILLO SBN 15623350
280 Thompson Drive, Kerrville, Tx 78028830-257-8080
6. Supersedeas Bond -----was or X was not filed. Amt.$--------------
7. Name & Address of Court Reporter: Paula Beaver, 830-537-4724
PO Box 233, Comfort, Tx 78013
8. Type of Case: Other Injury or Damages
4-\-..
Witness my hand this the 'l.J? day of November, 2015
Robbin Burlew
Kerr County District Clerk
.,
Case No. 14209B
STRUCfURAL INSULATED ) IN THE DISTRICI' COURT
PANELS TEXAS, LP AND (
MA'ITAM ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. )
( 198TB JUDICIAL DISTRICI'
V. )
(
STEVEN M. CHAPMAN AND ) FILED~/~d 2O/S
CYNTHIA C. CHAPMAN ( KERR COUNTY, TEXAS @ : S'l5 .1£M
NOTICE OF APPEAL
This Notice ofAppeal is filed by STRUCTURAL INSULATED Pr>c."..:.--.
AND MATTAM ENTERPRISES, L.L. C., hereafter called APPELLANTS, Plaintiffs in this
cause and they seek to alter the trial court's ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT and the order ofthe trial court denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance and would show the court as follows:
L
1.1 The Trial Court. cause number, and style of the case are listed in the caption of
this case as shown above.
n.
2.1 The Order described above is a final and appealable order and was signed on
August 26, 2015, and the PlaintiftlAppellant's Motion for New Trial having been over
ruled by operation of law on November 9,2015.
Ill.
3.1 The Appellants named above, acting through their attorney of record, desire to
appeal all portions of the order and the trial court's denial of Plaintiff/Appellant's
•
motion for continuance, and does hereby file this notice of appeal with the clerk of the
trial court., the District Clerk of Kerr County, Texas.
IV.
4.1 This appeal is being taken to the Fourth (4TH) Court of Appeals, in San Antonio,
Texas.
v.
5.1 The names of the parties filing this notice of appeal are Structural Insulated
Panels Texas, LP and Mattam Enterprises, L.L.C.
VERNON SON
ATTORNEY FOR
PLAINTIFFIAPPELLANTS
11645 Hwy 6 S #53
Sugar Land, Texas 77498
830-329-2652
SBN 09132000
Email: vlharrisonjr@yahoo.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Vernon Harrison, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
Notice of Appeal was furnished to all parti~,l!ndlor their counsel as required by the Texas Rules
ofCivil and Appellate Procedure on the ~\l'day of ovember,2015.
Case No. 141098
STRUCTURAL INSULATED ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
PAMELS TEXAS, LP AND (
MATTAM ENTERPRlSES,LLC. )
( 198TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
V. )
(
STEVEN M. CHAPMAN AND )
CYNmIA c. CHAPMAN ( KERR COUNlY, TEXAS
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
STRUCTURAL INSULATED PANELS TEXAS, LP AND MATTAM
ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., hereafter called PLAINTIFFIMOVANT, moves this Court to set
aside the summary judgment rendered against them on August 26,2015, and grant them a
new trial in this cause.
L
1.1 This Motion is presented within the time limits prescribed by the Texas Rules
ofCivil Procedure for a Motion for New Trial.
IL
2.1 The Court erred in failing to grant the motion for continuance filed by
PlaintifflMovant prior to the hearing. The Defendants provided no notice to
PlaintiffIMovant ofthe date and time of the hearing set to hear the motion for summary
judgment. Actual notice was not received by PlaintiffIMovant until 20 days prior to the
hearing instead of the 21 days required by Rule 166a. The PlaintifflMovant did not
have adequate time to prepare and the motion for continuance should have been granted.
2.2 The Court's sustaining of Defendants' objections to documents 1,2,3,4, & 5 was
not justified by the filets or argument of counsel. The said documents were llroperly
attached to valid affidavit~ and went to show that the PlaintiffIMovant had a valid claim
against the Defendants.
2.3 The Court erred in Granting Defendants' objection to the affidavit of Vernon
Harrison.
2.4· The Court erred in sustaining Defendants' objection to the affidavit of Matt
Moser.
2.5 The Court erred in sustaining Defendants' objection to the affidavit of Tom
Moser.
m.
3.1 The Court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion For Final Summary Judgment is
not supported by the law or the facts in light of the Court's error in 1) failing to grant
PlaintiffIMovant's Motion for Continuance, and 2) granting objections to all of
PlaintiffIMovant' s proffered summary judgment evidence.
3.2 There is evidence to sustain and support PlaintiffIMovant's causes of action, and
the Court should have denied the motion for summary judgment and allowed the case to
proceed to trial.
IV.
4.1 PlaintiffIMovant bas meritorious claims against the Defendants.•
4.2 The granting ofa new trial will not prejudice the other party to this cause.
4.3 PlaintiffIMovant is ready, able and willing to go to trial immediately and no
delay, harm or prejudice will occur to the other party as a result of PlaintifflMovant's
motion.
PRAYER.
PlaintifflMovant prays that after notice that the Court bold a hearing, and after such
hearing the summary judgment rendered in this cause be set aside and that
PlaintiffIMovant be granted a new trial.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Vernon Harrison, do h e Yr¥bify that a true and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing
Motion for New Trial was furnis to all parties and/or their counsel as required by the Texas
Rules ofCivil Procedure on y of September,-.. 2015.
~~
, .
;'''--.;/ '" .
VERN~~'~