Case Information

*1

(lenk Of The Cound

RECEIVED

Court of Appeals APR 0 C 2015 (1 pq) Lisa Matz Clerk, 5th District 1) Motion For Lene To File 2) Notice of Inability To Pay 3) Request for Records (1pq) 4) Application For Wait as Mandator (3pqs) 5) Brief in Support (11 pqs) 6) Appendice (At or about 25 total stects of paper) of which (17 pages of Document)

Please File

*2 Writ No. $$

In Re Charles Hensley Mitchell Crucet of Appeals of Relator Baltus, Terms

Motion For Leave To File To The Honorable Judge Of Said Court:

COMES NOW, Charles Hensley Mitchell, Relator, in the above-styled, and numbered cause to file the enclosed Application, Petition, and Appendice in support of Writ of Manitamus, WHEREFORE, ALL CONSIDERED, Relator prays this Court grant leave to File,

Helator

Having heand the Motion, Leuve To File Manitamus and atfuctucus is hereby! Corated, $$ Deried: Signed On: $$ $\frac{X}{\text{Judge Presi.}}$

*3 With No. $$ IInRe Chandes Housley Mitehall Countr Of Appenls A Relative Drallins County, Texas

Mettiee Of Ennability To Pay Cours Cost, Provide Copies Of Files Due To Indigency Or Pecuide Extrus Copies Of Original ( $t_1.R_{\mathrm{.9}}$ ) Filing To The Honourable Sudge Of Said Cours; COMES Now, Chandes Housley Mitehall, the Relator, in the above-styled, and numbered course to give Mottiee to this Honorable Court that he is Unable to pay Cours Cost and related expenses, Prcwide more than One Original copy of Petitions and Athechments, or Pecuide Copies of files (eg. Reportakeend, Cenckkecond, Appetlatic Record) due to indigency, and in support show as follow;

Mottiee Of Ennable To Pay $$ $P_{n\text{q}\in 1}$ of 2

*4 Relator is prisoner, at the James V. Allred Unit of Tbej-clb, and have no access to copy machines to make these copies, nor does he have access to adequate supplies of paper to make written copies. Relator has no bank accounts, Cb's, Money Markets, Property, or other sources of income or access to money to pay for Court cost and related matters, nor to pay for Records in this course.

Relator seeks leave in all these matters by wavien of the Court and he be allowed to proceed. In term Pauper's, and above Records and copies required for Original fling be paid for by the Court, for later billing.

Unsurem heclonation I. Chrakes Mielell, Tbej*1851936, being presently in consecrated in the James V. Allred Unit of Tbej-clb, declares under Penalty of Penyury the above is true And Cannet, Executed in: $4/1/5$

$$\&\text{V. Allred Miesly}\backslash \&\text{Declarant}$$

Notice of Enability To Pay — Page 2 of 2

*5

Writ No.

In Re Charles Hensley, Mitchell 'Court Of Appeals At Relator Is The Homorable Judge of Sind Court! COMES NOU, the Relator, requesting the Court summons the following records and documents in its review, if deemed necessary:

1) Clerk Records in Cause No. 88-11-19752 68THDistrict Court-Dallins 2) Reporter Records (Supra) 3) Direct Appeal Opinions And Appelland Records (All already on Record with 5THDistrictCourted Appents Clerk underCause $\#05-13-00618-\mathrm{C}\mathrm{V}$ )

Request For Records - Payel of!

*6

Writ No.

Trial Court Cause No. be-11-14792

In Re
Charles Hensley Mitchell
ReIartor
Count of Appeals At
$n$ Dallas County, Texas

Retition For Wait Of Mandamus
(Application, legal Brief and Appendixes)

To The Honorable Judge(s) of Sind Court: COMES NOW, CharlesHensleyMitchell, ReIator, in, the above-styled And numbered cause to issue Wait of Mandamus to trial court judge of the ${68}^{\text{th}}$ District Court of Dallas County, Texas to-wit: "Honorable Judge, Marting Hoffman". And in support show as to how: Surisdiction ad 1) Judgment was entered in the ${68}^{\text{th}}$ District Court ofDallas County, Texas on March 18, 2013. See App. Bpage $2,3$ also See C.R. Vol. 1 of 1 p. 110-111). A timely Motion For Rehearsing was made to Trial Court Judge seeking correction of Court failure to follow mandate of Texas Statute Tex. Rech Code 482 of Duerable Power of Afterway Act, filled on March 27,2013. (See AppC. pgs 4-8; also See RechReach Vol. 1 of 1 pgs 112-117). Page 1

*7 Notice of Appenl was filled on March 232013 (SeepipE) Challenging failure to rule according to mandale on April 2, 2013, Plainfiff filed Motion to Arrest Judgment. Motion For Rehecring and Motion to Arrest Judgment were Denied by Teial Court via Sileace. 2) Direct Appenl in $5^{\text{th}}$ District was "Affiem" stating Plainfiff did not argue at teial whether or not Power Of Attorney was siqn before Notary See $5^{\text{th}}$ District Opinion of Direct Appenl), and there sace could not be argued on birect Appenl. 3) Evidence was solicited by Teial Court Judge concerning the siyning of Power of Atbavey twice during teial, and both times beteubant presented testimonial evidence that Document was not signed by Reincipol in the presence of a Notary Public. See App D - pgs 7-11; also see R.R.Vol. 2 of 3 pq 57 lines 8-15, Supra pgs 5 lines 20-25 then Page 60 lines 1-3, Supra Page 60 lines 17-25 then Page 61 lines 1-3). 4) Trial Judge had Ministerial Buty to rule on Document in question as to its legality by guidelines mandated in the Taxas Statute, setting out clene and concise requirements for Document Page 2

*8 to be ruled as Durable Power of Attorney that is legally ensforcable in the State of tems (See App. A p. 1), as evidence presented to him of trial showed the Document did not fulfill the $4^{\text{th}}$ Requirement of Durable Power of Attorney (See App. A (all) and App. D (all)) as mandated by Tue Prostate Code 482. 5) Trial Judge fail to perform Ministerial Duty of finding Document in question as being Durable Power of Attorney, to be legally unenforceable where evidence at Trial that was unconfundie ted or challenged, that the Document was not signed by Principal before a Notary Public (See App. D (all)) and mandated by the State (See App. A). 6) Issue is brared for relief on DirectApper and no other legal remedy is available other than this Honorable Fifth District Court of Apprais under the Plug of Mandamus for Trial Judge failure to perfoom ministerial duty.

*9 Relator charlensed legality of Document as being legally enforceable due to not being sign on back by Perineipol. During terial the Judge solicited evidence that revented Document had been signed by Prineipol, but it was not signed in front of a Notary Subtle Person authorized to take ackuouledyments (see App. A-AII). Trial Judge ruled Document was legally enforceable in a because it was signed before a "Disinterested Witness".

Relator filed Motionfor Rehearsing sivenc notice to Trial Judge of error, that by proof in the Records the "Disinterested Person was not a Person who fulfilled the 471 Requirement of the Mandate of the Donable towar of Attersey. Yet, that Mandate Document must be signed by Prineipol before a person authorized to take ackuouledyments (see App C-Motionfor Rehearsing CR Vol 101 Pp.112-117). Relator also filed Motion To Arrest Judgment based on Issue started in Motion for Rehearsing (see C.R. 101.1 of 1 p.121-123). Both Motions were denied, Rerator made Diligent and timely, respect attempt at remedy with Trial Court Judge and remedy was denied.

Page 4

*10 Relator is entitled to a ruling in his cause based on the Mandates of how as provided in the Durable Power of Attorney BoZ where the evidence supports it, and in this cause the evidence support the fact that the 4th Requirement was usefulfiled (See App A, then App B (all), and as such Relator was entitled to a CourtRuling that House of Attorney was legally unenvirosable where it was supported by the evidence it, and Court Judgment started fact he examined the legal requirements of the document (See App B). Trial Judge stated in his Judgment: "No evidence was presented before the Court indicating that the fact power of attrance looked the legal requirements". (SeeAppB and CRVL.1d1g.110.) Fact is evidence was presented before the Court indicating that the power of attrance looked the legal requirement, and this evidence was solicited by questions of the Trial Judge himself of the Defendant (See App B - Testimony of Defendant), and as such Relator was entitled to ruling based on this evidence. Even with overette by the Trial Judge once Relator filed Motion for Rehearsing sterling Trial Judge he was required to rule by show of evidence, and Relator was entitled to rulay of document being legally unenvirosable document, and replet

Pray 5

*11 Trial Sudge had no discretion where low was elenely and coneisely laid out in Mandatory language (Sec App. A). Trial Sudge had a Ministerial buty to find the Document in question as Pouch of Atterncy, to be legally unenforcable based on evidence presented at Trial indirating by unconteovered evidence that the document did not fulfill and lacked the legal requirements of a Durable Pouch of Atterncy to -xit; Requirement #4 (Sec App A) wher e defendant gave evidence in hen testimony twice before the Court during trial that she got Document, initial by Principal then left and went to Notary, taken no withouts with here, to get document Notarized. Principal was left behind at Nursing Home and Mts Houston, states she left to go to Notary (See App. D-AII), Based on this evidence Trial Sudge had Ministerial Duty to find Document did not include all the requirements mandated by the State of Texas for Durable Pouch of Atterncy and theeclone was legally Unenforcable.

Page 6

*12

VI.

Relator has no other legal remedy except by Mandamus in this Covert.

VII

Relator demands relief by way of Wrif of Mandamus, to ORDBR trial Judge perfoam his Ministerial Duty, in the ruling concerning the legality of the becomem in question, as not being Durable Power of Attenney, not legally enforceable in the state of Taxes, and grimit relief,

Asepece

Lhansos Houslay Mrtetel, TBCJ# 1851936, beeng peesantly insurecated in the Tames V.Med Unit of TMEs 2011, in

Wichito Conrty, Taxes, decline under family of Reigory the borgeous is Tence and Egreget E'ceated On! 1915

Becham

Page 7

*13

ORBER

Having bound the Mandonus, the Conr Pheedy issuer ORBER For the Mandonus to be Grenited: $$ Denied: $$ Sigmedin: $x$ Judge Peesting

*14

Writ No.

In The Court Of Appents

For The Fifth District Of Texas At Dallas, Texas $\frac{I}{N}{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}}_{\text{,}}$ Charles Hensley Mitchell Relator's Brief In Support of Writ Of Mundamus Respondent, is Honorable Martin Hoffman 68th District Court Dallas, County Texas * Oral Argument Wrived

$$\text{by: Charles Hensley}\underset{―}{\text{Mithell}}\backslash \text{Relator,}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{a}$$

Page i

*15

Idenstity of Mntes And Couset

Relator (Mandif At Triat) Chardes Hensley Mitchell, Pro Se $\#1851936$ 2101 FM 369 N . Iowa Park, Texas 76367 Respondent (Trial Sudqe) Honorable Sudqe Marlin Hoffman 6000 Commerce St. 6870 District Court Bathes, Texas 75202 Rend Parties And Defendants In The Case

1) Ruth Houston, Pro Se

4640 Kushla Ave. Dallns, Texas 75216 2) Christopher Houston, Pro Se

4640 Kushla Ave Dallns, Texas 75216

*16 Table Of Contents Tepic Page Coverage Table I density of Poeties And Counsel. ..... i Table Of Contents ..... 11 Table Of Adhesities ..... 11 Statement Of The Case ..... V Statement of Jurisdiction ..... V Issue Presented ..... VI Statement Of Facts ..... vii-ix Argument ..... 1-2 Trial Judge Bill to Perform Ministerial Duty ByNot Finding Durable Power Of Attorney Legally Unenforable Where Evidence of Trial Shown The Fourth Requirement of Terms Redate Code 482-Durable Power Of Attorney Act) was hacking and Unfulfilled. Prayers ..... 2 Signature/Date ..... 2 Coefficients ..... 2

*17

Table Of Authorities

Authority Page Burehus y M.S supply Inc. 993 SW 2d 655 . . . . . . I

In The Estite of Dennis M. Hacker deceased, 345 SW 3d 588,576; 2011 exis 1689. . Walker v Packer, 827 S.W. 2d 833,840 (T. 1992). . I

Statutes Trans. Probité Code 982 . . . . . . .

*18

Statement of the Case

This is a CivilAation Suit challenging the legality of a Document alleged to be Durable Power of AtDinary. CivilAationSuit in this instant cause also suetfor damages and property tarn from Plaintiff and sold or given away and/or tended by betendants using the Document claimed to be legally enibecable Power of AtDinary.

Respondent, is the Honourable Martin Hoffman (Judge). He presides over the $68{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{H}}^2$ District Court-baltas, Terns, Dallas County. Respondent ruled that the document allege to be Durable Power of Afforney was legally enibecable, where evidence at trial, present proof document fail to meet legal requirements for Durable Power of AtDinary in the State Of Texas. And even after Judgment was entered and Kefator Elad Motton for Rehearing beinging couets atfiontion to feat, court refuse to hemor cor coreet error when it was MinisterialDuty to do so, and rule according to clam and concise manufate of law governing the requirements for Durable Power of Afforney in State of Texas.

*19 Statement Of Jurisdiction

This Action is for Judge failure to perform Ministerial Duty in the 68th District Court in Dallas County, Texas which is in the Jurisdiction of the 5th District. 5th District advised Relator in its "Action" of his Direct Appent to this 5th District concerning this matter, issue was banned from Relief by Direct Appent (See 5th Opinion-Cause 05-13-20618-CV) leaving No other remedy other than the Mandamus Court of the 5th District, making this Court the proper venue and jurisdiction

Issue Measured

Trial Judge fail to perform Ministerial Duty by Not Finding Durable Power of Attorney Legally Unenforceable Where Evidence Of Trial Shown The Fourth Requirement Of Texas Debate Code 482—(Doable Power of Attorney Act) was lacking and unfulfilled.

Page VI

*20

Statement Of Feels

Relator Charles Hensley Midel, MoSe also representative hic elderly mother, Mrs. Albert Louis Midel, Fled Civil Action Suit against the defendant Ruth Houston, PooSe, and who claim to have Power Of Attorney over the Home and Property of Charles Mitebll and his Mother, named above, Suit was also against "Peet," in Power Ruth Houston actions Chrestopher Lee Houston. Mr. Mietell Charles Hensley Mitebll (heeein after Mr. Mitebll) sought damages for himself and his elderly Mother seeking compensation for damages, finances of property, and capital lost and potential earnings in the future, physical injuries and emotional trauma sutbaced by the actions of the Defendants Ruth Loretha Houston and Christopher Lee Houston. (See CR Vol 1 of 1-Organd Petition, Document 4 in C.R). Mr. Mitchell claimed in his Original Petition to the Teint Covert that the document to-wit: Power of Attorney was Pendulent (See CR Vol 1 of 1 does 4; RiR. Vol. 2 of 3 pg 13 state at Line 23 theup ropg. 14 (entire); Also See Super-Closing Argument Pg 83 Lines 23-25 theup Pg 84 Lines I theull; Super-Pg 92 all theup Pg 93 Lines 1-6). Ruth Houston entered testimony into evidence at trial, dueing questioning by the Teint Judge to her that she got the Document, initiated by my Mother and left, taking document to Notmay Public to get signed alone, and without witnesses (See AppA Pgs 9-11; Also See RiR. Vol. 2 of 3 Pg 59 Line 8-15; Pg 59 Lines 20-25theup Pg 60 Lines 13; Pg 60 LL 17-25theup Pg 61 LL 1-12).

*21 Statement Of The Fats (cont.)

The Honorable Martin Hottman, Trial Judge announced the standard he would be using in deciding the matter of whether or not, the Document met the requirements of a Duerable Power of Ashtommy based on the Durable Power of Ashtommy, but of The Taxas Rehabide Code 482, a held in "The Estate of Dennis Vaeher. The site is 945 SW 3d 588." then the Honorable Judge advised Mr. Mitchell if, power of Attorney was not legally enforceble, then I'll have to make determination of what remedy". (See R.R. Vol. 2023 pg 94 then 95). On March 18, 2013, Trial Judge entered judgment ruling Power of Attorney to be legally enforceable due to it was "witness by a disinterest witness" and as such Plaintiff was entitle to no relief (See CR Vol. 1001 pg 110-111; Also See App B). Relator filed Motion for Rehearsing stating the "Disinterest Witness" at trial was a interested party and that "The Document was not signed by Genitor before Notary..." (See App C App 4; Also See C.R. Vol. 1 of 1, doc. 28 pg 1129 then 118 (or at 113) On March 27, 2013, Relator filed Notice of Appent (See CR Vol 1001 pg 118-120). On Apr. 2, 2013, Relator filed Motion to Arrest Judgment (SeeCR Vol 1001 pg 121-123. On or about, February 11, 2015, STADistrict

Page-4111

*22 "Affirmed" due to according to Gwet's Opinion Relator at Trial, Never missed issue of documeut not being signed before Notargy and therefore could not be revised on Diteet Appent. On Fehrumay 17TH Relator Fled Motion For Reheming based on fact I did preserve issue in Motion For Reheming to Trial Gwet, and Fundamentat Gieror. On March 18, 2015, 5th District Denied Reheming. Now on April 1, 2015, Relator files his Original Wait of Mandamus sitting Judge failure to perform Ministerial Duty in ruling of evidence concerning documenl which was subjeet of terial,

*23 Aequmen't Relative chathengol Power of Attrenoy which was by show of the evidence not signed before a person authorized to take aeknolvledgments in this instance, to-wit; Notary Public(See AppDentire; Also see RR Vol. 2 of 3 pq 13 tive 23 thre 14 pq 59 Lk 815; Pq. 59 Lk 20-25 then Pq 60 Lk 1-3; Pq 60 Lk 17-25 then 61 Lk 12).

• Requirement of a Duenble Power Of Attrenoy means a written instrument that's (Texas Redacte Code 1482) (4) is aeknowledged by the principal betore an Otfican authorized to take aeknowledgments to deeds of conveyance. And to administer on ths undor the laws of this state, or any other state" In The Estate of Dounis M.Veakee, deceased 345 S.W. $3d588,596;2011$ Tex. Lexis 16841 The Power of Attrenoy was not signed betore a person, authorized to take aeknowledgments (RR Vol 2of 3, Supra) And by mandate of the statute to wot does not meet the fouret requirement and is therefore not a Duanble Power of Atbarney, nor is it legally entoremble. "With respect to question of law, teint couret has no discretion, and otone failure by teint couret to analyze, or apply law correctly will constitute abuse of discretion, unetmuting Reversol" Bukehus y M.S. 8 apply Tue. 993 S.W. 2 d 635 (Ovoting Walker vs. Deakee, 827 S.W. 2 d 833,840 (Tue 1992). The Statute was/is Mandatory, Triat Judge has no discretion, And as such had/has a Ministerial Duty to rule on the

*24 evidence showing document was not signed by Principal before a Notary (See RR, Supra) by duling the Document legally unenforceable, for failure to meet the 474 legal requirement by law is dictated in the Statute (See App A) for a document to be legally enforceable but not to be a state of Taxes.

Relator is entitled to refer by way of Unit of Mandamus, to Taxi Court Judge to correct error, by adhering to and doing his Ministerial Duty in the ruling of this cause. Relator request Mandamus be issued in this cause, Dearyer WHEREFORE, AND CONSIDERED, the Relator, pervers this Court will issue Mandamus to the Most Honorable Mention Host Name for reasons stated above.

Respectfully Submitted Certifications I, Charles Housley Mitchell, TDEJE1851936, certify that I have reviewed this petition and concluded that every foetion statement in this petition is supported by com- included in the appendix or record.

*25 Appe. P. i

*26

Appendice Table Of Contents

Appendix

A - Holding Case for Requirements Of Durable Power Of Attorney: The The Estote Of M. Wacker

345 SMi. 2 d 588,576 And Tavars Proborate Code 482 (Bwemble Power of AttorneyAt) B - Judgment . . . . . . . 2,3 C - Motion For Rehearsing. . . . . . . 4-8 b- Testimony At Trial (R.R. insents). . . . . . 9-11 E- STH District Socket Sheet . . . . . 12-14 E- Power Of Afterno: . . . . . . . . 15,16 G - Contitionte Of Authenticity . . . . . 17

*27 $\star$ The Estate of Bunis Mi. VWERER, decened, 3055031588,556 $\star$ Burable Power of Attorney Att.(Tov. Prob. Bode, Ait 482)

*28 In The Estate of Dennis M. VACKER, deceased, 345 S.W. $24588,596,201$ Tex. Louis 1684 "Requirement of a Durable Power Of Attorney- Section 1482 of the Texas Probate Code (the Durable Power of Attorney Act) provides that a 'durable power of attorney' means a written instrument that: (4) is acknowledged by the principal before an Officer authorized to take acknowledgements to deeds of conveyance and to submission onths under the laws of this state on my other state."

*29

*30

(ause No. SC-11-14792

Charles Hemsley Mitchell Albert kenn Mitchell
Plinitiffs,
68*Judicial Court
Ruth Lorentz Huns

Chair of the Court, and Chastispher Hestow, and Chastispher Hestow, and Chastispher Hestow, Announced Remedy, Re-Trial.

The court determined that it had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this case.

The parties waived trial by jury and submitted all matters in evidecversy both fectual and legal, to the court.

The court, after herring the evidence and arguments presented is of the opinion that Plinitiff should take nothing by this suit.

No evidence was presented before the Court indirating that the power of attorney lncked the legal requirements, specifically, Plinitiff agnued that the power of attorney was not enforceable because it lncked Albert Mitchell (Garnstor*) signature. The Court disgraces and finds that Grmstor signed the power of attorney.

*31 Under Texas Government Code $\$311.005$ (6), the term "signed" included any symbol executed or adopted by a person with present instruction to authenticate a document See Type Estate of Vnekur 345.5W 593,577 (Tchapp.Smahansie) (Finding that the generator signed the power of attorney by placing his thouppeint on the document in front of a notary). Here, Crmutor's initialed subdivision (A) through (0) on the power of attorney in front of disinterested witnesses. Crmutor's initials gave defendant Ruth Houston authority over all matters as indicated by the power of attorney. By initiating the subdivision, Crmutor authenticated the power of attorney. There were, Crmutor signed the document and thus, the power of attorney was legally undereentable.

IT IS THEREFORE ORBRED by the eavet that Plaintiff take nothing by this suit and that all costs of eavet are taxed against Plaintiff, for which let execution issue. All other relief not expressly geanted in this judgment is denied,

SUONED on the 18TH Day of March 2813 (Suffers Signatice) Martin Hoffman Judge Presiding

*32 $$\text{Appandie}e\backslash \text{E}O\backslash \text{(Motion For Rehearsing)}$$

(Retticirn wable to altrad to pay for copies and priose selus to nlow us copy machine)

*33 Dnases Mitebll, etial. S In The District Count vs Ruth Houston, etial S Dallas County, Texas

MOTION FOR REHEARING (Section 482 of the Texas Probate Code) To The Honourable Judge of Said Count: Comes Now, the Plaintiff, the Se in the above-styled, and numbered cause moves this Count to Rehear this cause, and in support show as Ellow: Ruth Houston specifically started that here Daughters got the One of Albert hean Mitchell, Plaintiff thus making Christal Houston, an allege mistress to the initating an "Interested Rnaty" as she predicted them the allege Power of Atteancy.

Ruth Houston, also testified "We" indicating her and her two children (Anistopher Houston, and Christal Houston sold everything, thus making all who allegedly witness

Page 1055 App. 84

*34

Signed proflifted

Ruth Houston also stated wo Notingy wans presenutl at the atlege initinting of the Documenit.

Also Ruth Houston stated she sold all the property in the House and such property belonging? the Plaintiff Chantes Mitchell is not subject to the taking and selling by Ruth Houston.

The Couret has stated the Power Of Attorney was sign in Eeout of "disinterested witness" yet Ruth Houston, Chaistphon Houston, and Cayetal Hoastom all were interested praties, as indicated by the Recends they gain proft From the selling of both Plaintiffs pexperty as well as, took preperety, such as Cun.

The Document was, not signed by the Cormetor betere Notingy, and all pensens who testified to witnessing signing whiel Reponter Recend will show which was Ruth and Cayetal Hoastor both

*35

testify to receiving property and/or money from the selling of property. Buth also indicated "We" boing the Planwfills sold property. Essie Stoken allege inilinte belong to Camator but testily she did not witness'initinting.

VII

Section 482 of the Texas Probate Code provides that a "durable power of attonney" memis a winithow instanemel that: " (1) designates another porson as Attorney in Fuct or Agent)" This instan't fowen of Attonney ctoys not indicate by signature on Pnge 2 may such Attonney In Fuct.

And

Sub-section (4) says "is acknowledged by the peineipal before an Oficien authorized to take aeknowledgments to deeds of conveyance and to administer onths undere low of this state or other state."

Ruth Houston testified that no such aeknowledge ment took place thus making the Fween of

*36

Attorney under Terms. Prob. Code Anm: 982 (West 2003) back the legal requirements under this code via Sub-section (1)(2) and (9) ns, in all actuality there was no adult principle signature under Subsections (2) either MHEREFDRE, ALL CONSIDERED, the Plaintle pangs the Coat will rehem this cause and comply with Tov. Prob. Code Anm: 982 (West 2003) and find Power of Attorney invalid. And also permit compensation for the belonging took by Defendants and sold, transhad, and given away, without his, to-wit: Chades Mistetell permission.

Respectfully Submitted, x Chades Mistell 3/25/3

Certificate Of Service

$\int$ certify a Tane and Correct copy of the Ten! has been served to Ruth and Chistophen Houtsom by U.S. Mail. Maited Out 3/25/15 $x$ Chades Mistetell

4015

App. 14 &; 7

*37

OENER

Having heand the Motions Ease Re hanning the Gowat henchy issucs Oeder in the Motions to be:

$$\frac{x}{\text{Tute heanding}}$$

*38

Appendix

${\sum }_{\text{Niserh}}$ EROH?

Vol. 2 of 3 Reporter Records $A+\frac{\text{TRIAL}}{\text{TRIAL}}$ (Petitioner could not afford actual copy to send Bourf and has handwritten exnet words from (Original)

*39 Reporter Reemed Vol. 2 of 3 ${\rho }_2\le 9$ ( 7 He (C.K.T) 9 The cover: Alk right. That concludes that the 9 Plaintiffs presunatation. 10 Defendants, would like to make may II presentation? The main thing I want to hene about is, it 12 doesn't appear that this power of attorney was signed by 13 your mother, so kind of explain to me what happen with 14 this power of attorney and then whatever else you want to 15 present

*40 Reporter Record Vol. 2 of 3

Page 59

| 20 | (Ruth Houston) | |------|------| | 21 | (Ruth Houston) | | 22 | (Ruth Houston) | | 23 | (Ruth Houston) | | 24 | (Ruth Houston) | | 25 | (Ruth Houston) |

20 them I don't have anything. So that's when the social 21 weaken said, okay, we're going to give you this medical 22 power of attorney. And I just followed the instructions of 23 the social worker. She said just go and—she told me 24 where to sign, and then my mother she—and everybody else 25 they witnessed my mother's—those are my mother's marks

End Page 59

(Ruth Houston, event.)

• I think. So she said take it and get it—which is
• 2 this notmized. And so I took it and got it notmized,
• 3 And then when I brought it back they said it was good.

*41 Vol. 2 of 3

Page 60

17 The court: A theory A A are all your 18 Mother's?

19 Ms. Houston; Yes Uh-huh. And if was 20 witnessed by the social workers.

21 The court: I also says H through O 22 Ms. Houston! That's all my mothers. 23 The court: Your Mother's. And then there's two witnesses. 24 Who are the witnesses? 25 Ms. Houston; Okay. When I took it to get

Page 61

1 it motmized, it was the motmays husband mubson, They 2 were the witnesses. I didn't know to take a witness with 3

11

2

3

12

14

26

28

29

30

3

14 notmized, it was the motmays husband mubson, They were the witnesses. I didn't know to take a witness with me. I mown, you know, I mown, I'm just—I was in so much

*42 $$\text{Appendix}\backslash E\backslash \text{(SMnlisted Booklet Sheet)}$$

*43 Style: Appellant Charles Mitchell v.Appellee Ruth Houston

| False | False | True | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Original Proceeding: No | | | | Case Description: Miscellaneous/other civil | | | | Remarks: | | | | Contents: | | | | Trial Court Information | | | | County | Court Name | Case # | Judge | Court Reporter | Remarks | | Dallas | 68th Judicial District Court | DC-11-14792 | Martin Hoffman | Reagor, Antoinette | | | Dallas | 68th Judicial District Court | DC-11-14792 | The Honorable | Martin Hoffman | Reagor, Antoinette | | Parties and Attorneys | | | | | | | Party | Party Name | Remarks | Counsel Code | Person Name | Date On | Date Off | | Appellant | Mitchell, Charles | | Pro Se | Charles Mitchell | 05/03/2013 | | | Appellee | Houston, Ruth | | Pro Se | Ruth Houston | 05/03/2013 | | | Interested Entities | | | | | | | | Entity Name | Interested Entity Type | Notice | Date On | Date Off | Remarks | | | Fitzsimmons, Gary | DT CLK | No | 05/03/2013
1:43PM | | | | | Hoffman, Martin | TC JDG | No | 05/03/2013
1:43PM | | | | | Houston, Ruth | PRO SE | Yes | 05/03/2013
1:47PM | | | | | Mitchell, Charles | PRO SE | Yes | 05/03/2013
1:46PM | | | | | Ovard, John D. | ADMJUD | No | 05/03/2013
1:43PM | | | | | Reagor, Antoinette | RPT | No | 05/03/2013
1:43PM | | | | | Vation, Bridgette | DT CLK | No | 05/17/2013
1:59PM | | | | | Events and Opinions | | | | | | | | Event Date | Stage | Event | Event Description | Disposition | Grouping | Order
Type | Submis
sion | Remarks | | 08/26/2013 | FILING | LTR RECD | | | 01 | | | sent copy of docket sheet | | 08/01/2013 | FILING | LTR RECD | | | 01 | | | concerning reporter records | | 07/22/2013 | FILING | LTR ISSD | | | 01 | | | | | 07/11/2013 | FILING | LTR RECD | | | 01 | | | | | 06/28/2013 | FILING | ESUPP CLK RECORD FLD | | | 01 | | | 1 vol | | 06/14/2013 | FILING | ORDER
ENTERED | PRO SE | GRANT | 01 | | | request free copy of clk rec
(6/14/2013 8:46:30 AM) 1306180E.pdf | | 06/12/2013 | FILING | MT FLD | PRO SE | | 01 | | | free copy of transcript |

Report Prepared By: sandra.johnson, on 8/27/2013 9:29:58 AM 1 of 3

*44 Style: Appellant Charles Mitchell v.Appellee Ruth Houston

| False | | False | | True | | | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Events and Opinions | | | | | | | | | Event Date | Stage | Event | Event Description | Disposition | Grouping | Order
Type | Submis sion | | 05/28/2013 | FILING | SUPP CLK RECORD DUE | | | 01 | | per 5/17/13 letter | | 05/24/2013 | FILING | NO RPT
RECORD CV | CV | | 01 | | | | 05/20/2013
9:56AM | | ESUPP CLK RECORD FLD | | | 01 | | 1 vol | | 05/17/2013 | FILING | LTR ISSD | | | 01 | | $\&\text{supp rec with plaintiff}\&\text{orig petition due}\&5/28/13\&\text{(5/17/2013 2:01:20 PM)}\&1300618.\text{lr.pdf}$ | | 05/17/2013 | FILING | RECORD DUE | | | 01 | | | | 05/16/2013 | FILING | ECLK
RECORD FLD | | | 01 | | | | 05/03/2013 | FILING | DS DUE | CV | | 01 | | | | 05/03/2013 | FILING | FEE
REQUEST | | | 01 | | $\$175$ | | 05/03/2013 | FILING | NOA FLD/COA | | | 01 | | | | 03/27/2013 | FILING | NOA FLD/TC | | | 01 | | | | 03/18/2013 | FILING | JMNT SIGNED | | | 01 | | | | Document Summary | | | | | | | | | Stage | Location | File Date | Event | File Description | | Index | Volume Page | | FILING | Event | 08/26/2013 | LTR RECD | letter recvd | | | | | FILING | Event | 08/01/2013 | LTR RECD | Pro Se Letter Received | | | | | FILING | Event | 07/22/2013 | LTR ISSD | letter sent | | | | | FILING | Event | 07/11/2013 | LTR RECD | letter recvd | | | | | FILING | Event | 06/28/2013
4:19PM | ESUPP CLK RECORD FLD | Supplemental Clerk's Record #2 | | | | | FILING | Event | 06/14/2013 | ORDER
ENTERED
PRO SE
GRANT | Order Entered | | | | | FILING | Event | 06/12/2013 | MT FLD PRO SE | ProSe Motion Filed | | | | | FILING | Event | 05/20/2013
9:56AM | ESUPP CLK RECORD FLD | Supplemental Clerk's Record | | | | | FILING | Event | 05/17/2013 | LTR ISSD | Letter requesting supplemental clerks record containing plaintiff's original petition | | | | | FILING | Event | 05/16/2013 | ECLK RECORD FLD | Clerk Record | | | | | FILING | Event | 05/03/2013 | NOA FLD/COA | Notice of Appeal | | | | | Calendars | | | | | | | | | Stage | Set Date | Calendar Name | | Reason Set | | Remarks | | | FILING | 06/23/2013 | STAT | | COMPLIANCE RESP
DUE | | | |

*45 Style: Appellant Charles Mitchell v.Appellee Ruth Houston

| False | False | True | | | | | | | | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | | Fees | | | | | | | | | | Fee Date | Fee Type | Amount | Payment
Status | Noticed Date | Payment Type | Party Type | Received From | Check Number | | 05/03/2013 | INDIGENT | $\$175.00$ | INDIGENT | | | | | |

Report Prepared By: sandra.johnson, on 8/27/2013 9:29:58 AM 3 of 3 $\underset{―}{App}14$

*46

*47

GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

(With Durable Provision) NOTICE: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT BEFORE SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT, YOU SHOULD KNOW THESE IMPORTANT FACTS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS TO GIVE THE PERSON WHOM YOU DESIGNATE (YOUR "AGENT") BROAD POWERS TO HANDLE YOUR PROPERTY, WHICH MAY INCLUDE POWERS TO PLEDGE, SELL OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF ANY REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHOUT ADVANCE NOTICE TO YOU OR APPROVAL BY YOU. YOU MAY SPECIFY THAT THESE POWERS WILL EXIST EVEN AFTER YOU BECOME DISABLED, INCAPACITATED OR INCOMPETENT. THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANYONE TO MAKE MEDICAL OR OTHER HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FOR YOU. IF THERE IS ANYTHING ABOUT THIS FORM THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND, YOU SHOULD ASK A LAWYER TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. YOU MAY REVOKE THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IF YOU LATER WISH TO DO SO.

TO ALL PERSONS, be it known that 1. Albert L. Mitchell of Dallas County the undersigned Grantor, do hereby make and grant a general power of attomey to Butt L. Housetort of 4640 Kicstila Ave, Dallas, TX 75216 and do thereupon constitute and appoint said individual as my attorney-in-fact/agent.

My attomey-in-fact/agent shall act in my name, place and stead in any way which I myself could do, if I were personally present, with respect to the following matters, to the extent that I am permitted by law to act through an agent: (NOTICE: The granor must write his or her initials in the corresponding blank space of a box below with respect to each of the subdivisions (A) through (O) below for which the Grantor wants to give the agent authority. If the blank space within a box for any particular subdivision is NOT initialed, NO AUTHORITY WILL BE GRANTED for matters that are included in that subdivision. Cross out each power withheld.)

(A) Real estate transactions (B) Tangible personal property transactions (C) Bond, share and commodity transactions (D) Banking transactions (E) Business operating transactions (F) Insurance transactions (G) Gifts to charities and individuals other than Attorney-in-Fact/Agent (If trust distributions are involved or tax consequences are anticipated, consult an attomey.)

*48

(H) Claims and litigation (l) Personal relationships and affairs (J) Benefits from military service (E) Records, reports and statements (L) Full and unqualified authority to my attorney-in-fact/agent to delegate any or all of the foregoing powers to any person or persons whom my atomey-in-fact/agent shall select (M) Access to safe deposit box(es) (N) To authorize medical and surgical procedures (Pennsylvania only) (O) All other matters

Durable Provision: (P) If the blank space in the block to the left is intitaled by the Grantor, this power of attorney shall not be affected by the subsequent disability or incompetence of the Grantor. Other Terms:

My attorncy-in-fact/agent hereby accepts this appointment subject to its terms and agrees to act and perform in said fiduciary capacity consistent with my best interests as he/she in his/her best discretion deems advisable, and I affirm and ratify all acts so undertaken. TO INDUCE ANY THIRD PARTY TO ACT HEREUNDER, I HEREBY AGREE THAT ANY THIRD PARTY RECEIVING A DULY EXECUTED COPY OR FACSIMILE OF THIS INSTRUMENT MAY ACT HEREUNDER, AND THAT REVOCATION OR TERMINATION HEREOF SHALL BE INEFVECTIVE AS TO SUCH THIRD PARTY UNLESS AND UNTIL ACTUAL NOTICE OR KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH REVOCATION OR TERMINATION SHALL HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY SUCH THIRD PARTY, AND I FOR MYSELF AND FOR MY HEIRS, EXECUTORS, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ASSIGNS, HEREBY AGREE TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS ANY SUCH THIRD PARTY FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS THAT MAY ARISE AGAINST SUCH THIRD PARTY BY REASON OF SUCH THIRD PARTY HAVING RELIED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THIS INSTRUMENT.

State of Texas County of Oaths On September before mc.

$ABB$ Houston appeared
personally known

to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) were subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ics), and that by his/her/their signatture(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the casily upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

Aiflant Known $L$ Produced ID Type of ID 00409404 TX Dl (Seal)

*49 Certifications of Butheuristic I., Chandes Hensley Mitebll, Retarke, TDES#1851936, hereby, certify under Peratly of Perjury, that the meets in the Application, and Brief, and Documents in this Appendice are as is in actual Original Documents, or are the Original Copies of those Documents that they are said to be,

Unsuewn Deelomation I., Chandes Hensley Mitebll, TDES#1851936, beirg presently insuremented in the James V. Allred Unit of TEC 8IO, dectare under Peratly of Perjury the Eerogating is Ture and Conrect

Excordolle: 4/1/15

App. Page 1517