*0 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/24/2015 3:41:17 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk THIRD COURT OF APPEALS 3/24/2015 3:41:17 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE 03-15-00141-CV AUSTIN, TEXAS *1 ACCEPTED ^[4624767] CLERK NO. 03-15-00141-CV

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

JOHN GREEN, Appellant v.

MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL CENTER, INC.

Appellee

Appealed from 126th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas

APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

Oral Arguments Requested Frederick F. Hoelke

Attorney at Law

State Bar No. 09775600 26545 IH-10 West

Boerne Texas 78006

fredhoelke@aol.com (210)-444-0999 Telephone

(210)-787-3881 Facsimile Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.3a of

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Comes Now, Appellee, Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc., and asks the Court to dismiss Appellant John Green's appeal or, in the alternative, to affirm the trial court's judgment.

RELIEF REQUESTED Dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 42.3 a of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure.

INTRODUCTION 1. Appellant's name is John Green; Appellee's name is Memorial Park Medical

Center, Inc.

2. The 126th Court of Travis County, Texas signed the final judgment in the underlying case: Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc. v. John Green, Cause No. D-1-GN-14-000373 on March 13, 2014 in favor of Appellee and against Appellant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 3. 126th District Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order against John

Green and his counsel on the 7th day of February, 2014. 4. A hearing was set by Appellant challenging the Temporary Restraining Order and setting Appellants motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Request for Sanctions, and Motion to Transfer Venue for the 18th day of February 2014. Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.Ja of

tlie Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

5. All the appellant's motions were heard and vigorously disputed by the court; however, no order denying the motions was entered. The trial court extended the

injunction to the hearing set on the 4th of March, 2014. 6. On the 4th day of March, 2014 the trial court heard the Appellant Green's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Request for Sanctions, Motion to Transfer Venue and Motion to Reconsider.

7. After a full hearing, inclusive of exhaustive arguments of counsel, the 126th District Court denied appellant Green's motions.

8. The trial court entered a final judgment on the 13th day of March, 2014 in the form of a permanent injunction. A copy is attached as Exhibit 1. The trial

court's final judgment thereby resulted in preventing Defendant Green from executing on its Abstract of Judgment. 9. On the 18th day of March, 2014 Appellee and Appellant both received a fax

from the office of the District Judges, 126 ^[1] h District Court, which was a copy of the final order entered on the 13th day of March, 2014.

10. On the 14th day of April 2014, Appellee, by oversight, filed an amended petition urging a new cause of action; tortious interference with contract. This was

done without leave of court and 31 days after final judgment was entered.

11. In addition, the Appellee raised a claim under§ 12.02 of the Property Code. However, this section is not a separate cause of action but is only a remedy Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.3a of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

associated with Trespass To Try Title cases, Suits to Quiet Title and I or Slander of Title. No cause of action had been filed by the Appellant herein while the trial

court still had jurisdiction. If Appellant had filed a Motion for a New Trial during the first thirty (30)

12. days after the March 13th final judgment, the trial court would have maintained jurisdiction for an additional 75 days. As no Motion was filed by the Appellant

during the thirty day period of time after final judgment, the remedy of filing a motion for a new trial, had it been exercised, would have expired on the 27th of May, 2014, when the court would have lost plenary power 75 days after the March

13, 2014 Final Judgment. Appellant did nothing until July 16, 2014 when appellant filed a motion for summary judgment.

13. The trial court lost plenary power on the 27th of May, 2014.

14. Assuming for arguendo' s sake that the appellant was not notified of the entry of the final order, his last date to file a motion for new trial or give notice of

appeal was July 11, 2014.

15. The appellant lost his ability to appeal this matter 30 days from the 90 ^[1] h day following the entry of the final appealable order March 13th 2014, pursuant to Rule

306 a (4) which was July 11, 2014.

16. Appellant Green failed to file a motion for new trial and/or notice of appeal by the 11th day of July, 2014. Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.Ja of

tlie Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

17. On the 19th day of September 2014, Appellant Green, recognizing that a final judgment had been entered, filed a motion to clarify order(s) or Defendant's Motion For Judgment, Nunc Pro Tune. This was denied by the trial court on the

9th day of October and entered on the 30th day of October, 2014. A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 2.

18. The effect being the trial court's recognition that March 13 ^[1] h, 2014 was in fact the final judgment.

19. Yet another motion was filed by the Appellant on November. 10th, 2014 which was amended on the 22nd day of November 2014 and heard on the 9th day

of December. The relief requested was for an early appeal which was a

disingenuous way of asking the trial court to extend its plenary jurisdiction and requesting a trial setting on the remaining issues in the case. The motion was denied as to the early appeal. 20. Appellee, looking at its pleadings and the prior rulings of the trial court,

determined there was nothing left to try but in essence a remedy motion pursuant to the Property Code § 12.00 et seq and decided to dismiss the pending remedy,

which it did February 2nd 2015.

21. Appellant, having never filed a request for affirmative relief and/or a cause

of action in the form of a counter claim during the time allotted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, did not have a justiciable cause for the trial court to determine. Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.3a of

tlte Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

22. On the 3rd day of February, 2015, Appellant Green, through his counsel,

sent a letter to the trial court requesting that the court clarify the order of dismissal. See a true and correct copy which is attached as Exhibit 3 23. The trial court responded to Appellant Green's letter with a letter of its own,

dated February 18th, 2015; a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 4. The trial court's letter states very clearly, because of the prior orders, that the court cannot do anything and therefore reinforces the trial court's prior ruling that there was a judgment rendered on the 13th of March, 2014 which has become final

and has never been timely challenged. Accordingly, any issues of contention brought to the trial court after the court has lost its plenary powers become res judicata.

24. Appellant, this year, has filed yet another two pleadings with the trial court;

one to modify a judgment and two to request findings of fact and conclusions of

law from this Court . These were not ruled on because the trial court had no plenary jurisdiction. 25. Appellee attaches as Exhibit 5 an affidavit which authenticates the trial

court documents used to demonstrate the procedural history of this appeal.

ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES 26. The Court has the authority under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.3

(a) to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.Ja of tlie Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

27. The court should dismiss the appeal because Appellant filed the notice of the appeal after the deadline. See Eddins v. Borders,71 S.W.3d 368 371 (Tex. App.- Tyler 2001, pet. Denied). It is now too late for Appellant to ask for an extension under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.3 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a);

Verburg v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). 28. The court rendered a "final judgment" on March 13, 2014 in favor of Appellee and against Appellant. The hearing on the permanent injunction is a full trial of the issues in applicant's petition. Citizens State Bank v. Caney Investments,

746 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex. 1988). See Exhibit 1. 29. The court reaffirmed that a "final judgment" was rendered on March 13, 2014 pursuant to its October 30, 2014 Order Denying Defendant's Motion to

Clarify Orders or Defendant's Motion for Nunc Pro Tune. See Exhibit 2. 30. An untimely request for finding of fact and conclusions of law was filed by Appellant on February 24, 2015.

31. The notice of appeal was due on April 14, 2014. A request to extend the time to file the notice of appeal was not requested at any time by Appellant. This

Court should dismiss Appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In re K.A.F., 160

S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction over untimely appeal, and dismissal is proper remedy); Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care System,

160 S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. 2005) (accord); see also, In re Estate of Padilla, 103 Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.Ja of

tlie Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure *8 S.W.3d 563, 566 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (untimely appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction despite late notice of final judgment). It is now too late for Appellant to ask for an extension under Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 26.3. TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(a); Verburg! v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

32. Appellant filed the notice of appeal on March 3, 2015, almost a year after the deadline to file it and no request to extend the deadline was ever filed by

Appellant. 33. Anticipating the arguments of appellant to claim no notice with respect to the final judgment, Appellee submits that even Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,

Rule 306a (4) bars the appeal. 34. This court should dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant cannot confer jurisdiction upon this court nor can he survive the constraints of Rule 329 b and 306a ( 4) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 35. Appellee is entitled to damages for frivolous appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 45. The Court may assume that Appellant brought this appeal

solely for delay if it finds that Appellant prosecuted this appeal without observing the minimal procedural requirements for an appeal. See Hennigan v. Hennigan,

677 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 1984); Compass Exploration, Inc. v. B-E Drilling, Co., 60 S.W.3d 273, 279-80 (Tex. App.-Waco 2001, no. pet). Appe/lee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.3a of

tlie Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

CONCLUSION 36. Appellant has been informed repeatedly that a final judgment was rendered

on or about March 13, 2014, and as evident, all of Appellant's subsequent motions have been denied with the trial court continuing to inform Appellant that a final judgment had been rendered. Appellant has now continued his vexatious litigation

on appeal despite the fact that Appellant is attempting to file his appeal almost a year past the deadline.

PRAYER

For these reasons, Appellee, Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc., prays that

this Court grant its motion to dismiss Appellant's appeal or, in the alternative, to

affirm the trial court's judgment and grant Appellee damages for a frivolous appeal and grant Appellee judgment for costs. Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.3a of *10 the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

Respectfully submitted, 26545 IH 10 West, Suite 100 Boerne, Texas 78006 (210) 444-0999 Telephone (210) 444-0996 Facsimile fredhoelke@aol.com Attorney for Appellee ~ff~h'~ William W. Ruth ' 1406 E. Main, Suite 200 Fredericksburg, TX 78624 325-642-9802 - Phone 325-641-0527 - Fax Attorney for Appellee *11 the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

Certificate of Conference I ce11ify that I have conferred with Appellant's counsel, Robert Reich, by

phone and have attempted in good faith to reach an agreement about the subject

matter of this motion. We have been unable to reach an agreement because Mr. Reich believes that this court has jurisdiction over Mr. Green's appeal

Certificate of Service I ce11ify that on the 24 111 day of March, 2015, that I served, pursuant to rule

9.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, a true and correct copy of this motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on Mr. Robert Reich, Counsel for John

Green the appellant via electronic mail and by facsimile. *12 Appel/ee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.3a of 11

tlze Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 3256410527

William Ruth p.3 p.2 William Ruth BK~Al13 PG139 Notice sent: Dlsp Parties~ -----r;--

Dtsp code: CVD I CLS

Redact pgs}r;-~ff-_:_-;;:;-:-7~ CAUSE NO. IJ..1-0N .. 14-000373 ~" Cldk Judle-~;;;-....-.-

.MEMORJAL PARK MEDICAL CENTER, INC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

§ § vs. § ll6TH JUDICIAL COURT § JOHN GREEN § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS 4 ^[111]

On the came 2014, Ma.rob, of day be to considered Plaintiff's motion for pe~ ORDER :s m ~ 0 )( ·r:2' "1ii c injunction and Defendant~s motioos to dismiss for Jack of jurisdiction, request for sanctdii cuO s::. Cl» transfer of venue, and mationfor reconsideration. The court after hearing arguments of counsel~~ ""CS ...... considering the pleadings and 1he evidence was of the opinion that Plainti~s motion for permm:ii"P injunction should be ~ted, and denied Defendant's mctions ..

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DESCRIBED that Plaintifrs motion for pennanenc injunction be granted, accordingly, and Dcf endant .. s motions be denied. -41v

SIGNED this f S day of March, 2014~

Exhibit 1 William Ruth 3256410527 p.2 w1111am t<uth 3256410527 Fi"fr"' • _p.2 DC BKt4309 PG430 1 ..u In The District Coun of Travis County, Texa OCT 3 0 2014 NIL 3 / l.f~ P.M At Amalla Rodrlguez-Mendoza?Cierk CAUSE NO. D·l .. GN-14-000373 MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL CENTER. INC § IN THE DISTRICT CO'L"RT

§ § vs. § 126TH .JUDICIAL COURT § § JOHN GREEN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS _ORDER DE~"YING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CLARIFY ORDERS OR DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NUC PRO TUNC = ·On the 9th day of October, 2014: came to be considered Defendant's Motion to Clarify Orders;or Defendant's Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tune as to the court's March 13, 2014 Order which pennanen.tly enjoined Defendant from enforcing a writ of execution more fully described in the Februaiy 7, 2014 injunction order. The court after hearing arguments of counsel and considering

the pl~ings and the evidence was of the opinion that Defendant's motion should be: Denied.

IT IS. THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DESCRIBED that Defendant,s Moti~ to Clarify Orders or -~.anes Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tune be denied. :SIGNED this 3 0 day of 0 ct-

2014. *14 Exhibit 2 From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) To: Page 3 of 23 ROBERT E. REICH ATTORNEY AT LAW 309 N. Fisk Avenue Brownwood: Texas 76801 Tele: 325-643-1569 Email: rereich@harrisbb.com Fax: 325-643-3105

February 4, 2015 Honorable Tim Sulak

Fax No. (512)854-9332

Re:·· Cause No. D-1-GN-14-000373, 126th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas

Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc. v. John Green Dear Judge Sulak:

The above styled and mentioned cause came on to be heard on the merits on Monday, February 2, 2015. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Texas Civil Practices &

Remedies Code §12.02 Remedy and Oaim For Tortious Interference at 11:22:07 a.m. on

February 2, 2015 and presented a copy to Defendant's counsel at the 2:00 p.m. hearing

that date. Upon the case being called, the court did not consider this motion and Plaintiff announced "non-suit". The court accepted Plaintiff's announcement of non

suit and dismissed the suit "as to all claims" as the record will bear out.

Plaintiff in its proposed order has misstated the facts and asked the court to include erroneous findings. The order signed March 13, 2014 merely granted a

permanent injunction without any further specific detail which makes the order void for failure to meet the requirements of TRCP 683 as pointed out to the court in the

hearing on the Motion to Clarify. A copy of the record of the March 4, 2014, hearing is attached to show the order pronounced from the bench was not for a permanent

injunction but rather the injunction is extended. It would be an error for the order of dismissal to have a finding that the March 13, 2014, order was a final judgment. It would be inappropriate for the court to make findings as to the effect of the March 13,

2014 order as to timetables since there has been no trial on the merits in this case.

Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 12.02 Remedy and Oaim for Tortious Interference, though not considered by the court, must be addressed to expose the attempt by Plaintiff to mislead the court by stating patently false facts and facts which are not in evidence. The judgment of the 35th Judicial District

Court in Cause No. CV0904121 was not reversed by the Eastland Court of Appeals as

shown by the Mandate affirming the judgment as modified and attached as an exhibit

to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and hereto.

Exhibit 3 To: Page 4 of 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firrn/ Reich Law Office The $19,000.00 payment of the judgment was not deposited into the escrow account of Robert Reich and no court has ordered the funds to be returned to Plaintiff as

alleged, which are facts, outside the record, well known to William Ruth and Frederick Hoelke as attorney for Plaintiff.

As stated earlier the order of March 13, 2014 does not restrain Defendant, John Green, from executing on its abstract of judgment or any other act and could not have been based on a non-existent reversal of the underlying judgment. All of these

assertions are a clear violation of the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 13.

The ultimate question presented in this suit was the validity of the Mechanic's and Material Lien and the abstract of the final judgment in Cause No. CV0904121 in the 35u, District Court which are filed in the Real Property Records of Brown County, Texas.

This ultimate issue was not resolved by a trial on the merits and the court has accepted

Plaintiff's non-suit as to all claims, including the challenge to the validity of the encumbrances on the 1.816 acre tract of land in the Taylor Smith Survey 600, Abstract

No. 821, City of Brownwood, Brown County, Texas, made the subject of this suit. Defendant, John Green, submits the enclosed order of non-suit for entrv bv the " -

court, a copy of which has been given to Plaintiff's counsel along with this letter.

I would welcome a telephone conference between the Court and Fred Hoelke and myself if the Cowi desires to discuss the order.

Yours truly, Robert E. Reich RER/jm

cc: Fred Hoelke

Via Fax (210)444-0996 *16 . . . . . ..

· ......... . , ........... . To: Page 5 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office

NO. D-t .. GN-14-000373 MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT § CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, §

v. 126th JUDICIAL DISTRICT § § OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS § § JOHN GREEN, Defendant ORDER FOR NON-SUIT The Court considered the announcement for Non-Suit and Dismissal of all Claims

made in open court by Plaintiff, MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL CENTER, INC. and finds

that the Non-Suit should be GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the. Motion for Non-Suit as to all claims, including the challenge to the validity of the Mechanic and Materialmen' s Lien and

Abstract of Judgment filed in Brown County, Texas, as they relate to that 1.816 acre tract

of land in the Taylor Smith Survey No. 600, Abstract No. 821, City of BroV\'llWood, Brown County, Texas, is GRANTED. The above-numbered and styled cause of action is dismissed (with/without) prejudice to the rights of either party.

Signed on: __ ___ ___ _

JUDGE PRESIDING APPROVED AS TO FORM

Frederick Hoelke

Attorney for Plaintiff . . . . ~ ~ :·· .· ... · ·.. . . . ··.·."·.··~ . ' . . ... =. - ' •. ·.': .. . . .. \ .. '· . . .. . >. Robert E. Reich Attorney for Defendant Page I of l Green, John: Order for Non-Suit

·-

......... ·.······ To: Page 6 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Finni Reich Law Office

VA ' • Jt1 ^[1] Court of Appears /\1andale • THE STATE OF TEXAS

To THE 35TH DISTRICT COURT OF BROWN COUNTY, GREETINGS:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District of Texas, on June 27. 2013 and JuJy 25, 2013, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc. 11th Court of Appeals No. 11-11-00159-CV and 35th District Court Case No. CV0904121 John Green .

. .'was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words: ...... .._··

"John Green has filed a remittitur in compliance with this court's opinion dated June 2 7, 2013. In accordance with this court's opinion, we modify the trial court's judgment to reduce the award of damages for vvork performed by $700, making the

amount of damages due to Green for Vlork pe1formed equal $9, 020. As modified,

the judgment of the trial court is o.ffirmed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc. ,,

WHEREFORE WE COMMAND YOU To observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized. obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the HON. JIM R. WRIGHT. Chief Justice of our said Court. with the seal thereof annexed at the City of Eastland, on January 3. 2014. ~~"-•· .. ,14 ~

o~ff~ SHERRY W1U~!AMSON 1 CLERK By: Cheryl Busk, Deputy *18 EXHIBIT "C''

To: Page 7 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firrn/ Reich Law Office

M~R-18-2014 10:69 P.OU~UU:& V\'ll•t~rtl r.u"'

MIMORIAL PA.RI( MRDICAL CENTER, IMC I IN TlfE DlsraJCT COURT

I I TRAvlsCOt)l•fO',.UXAS u I I vs. f l26Tll IUDICW.. CODllT JOHNGRIEN

~ Clo . u Oa the 4<1; ~ of March, 2.014, clnle to be @mideRMI Pltiiiililrs tQOlil;n: for ~~~ 'OF

il\junctiOo and Derendsnt,s · moti()O$ • dlsmb:s ·for lack of jurisau:liun., · £~~- for saned~~ tram!cr ofvoauo, and mocioa for icconsid.cndion. The: eourt after heating qumersb of counteland

contlderjqg d\e-pleeclinp and the mdm\ce WU of tU opiDioll tJULt Plaintift'I motion fot plft\W!et\I

injunction should be patr:d. aad daitd Dcfi:adant'• modom.

1T IS, THF.REFOR.E;OltDERED, AD1000£I>AND DESCJUBED that Plaiatitra motion for pamanem illj'111ttioA be lflllted. KCOrdingly, aasd. Dcnndlat's motions be denied. . r"l~ .

SIGNED this~ day of Marcb, 2014.

~ .... - . . . -·. ·. RJDGE PRESIDING~ . *19 TOTAL P.002 To: Page 8 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firrlll Reich Law Office

NO. D-1-GN-14-000373 MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT §

CENTER, INC. §

Plaintiff, § § v .. § 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§ § JOHN GREEN Defendant. § OFTRAVISCOUNTY,TEXAS

DEFENDANf.$.;MOTION~TffCLARIFV~:ORDERS OR DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES Defendant, John Green, Movant herein, and brings this Motion to Clarify In support hereof, Movant shows the Orders or Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tune. following:

I. ~n·x~~b.ru-ary: .. :·:l•s?f:9:l4:.ei~i.niire~~M?#~il.$f<?t-·:~ .. n;~~:~w?l,~?~~~.~~w~.ipn, ... ~4.,p~f~tt9J~nt's

.¥9tirirFtc>;hi~mis~''le>rXfaat1t6id{il:i~<ii~tii>"ri'aila·1V101ibNt~l'.;sajctio~/f<?r.the;·S._iWiing~and~:f:iling

-of;j~~fi~Jfa\i~f'.tfud.s:orO.Wid.!~~-s.::R~~~Iigs,*ere;:fierirdJ,.y::Jtj9g~.;9r:~t~:4~D:f)Natiu:Jjo~·:A.t·91.~\nistrict .. J.pdge. The Court announced its deqision to grant Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction

and denied Defendant's motions. Upon Defendant's oral motion .for the Court to take the ~~,~ti#4.i:i~&l2£,9:~rJ9r}t~9,:W~~,1',~,~A·:~~-~Jh~:ma.:tt~rifobhci.rr~~s.:M~sll~~}:2P.:'.~'.1,;::,~~~ho~}?:_¥._:Jllc

l~tter:and_'-~:r~4~r.::p~~p~~.d .and .submitted_ by Trent Hightower, Staff Attorney to Judge Orlinda L . . ... . - ... _; ..... ·:,. .. . ·-· ' .... ~.' Naranjo, a#hcliea:·Yas:<:Ex~~if~~'l:·';~svl1.i_ch'.-cp~~in¢<l\Al~';{Q.ll:QWiJ1$::.:Pf.9:''f~J8~(:~P~<~~~~::i~:{~~f::~br

h~r,~g,_()n:·a;:~~T.¢r.nw.rary:Jnjtinction::,~.ff~ctive.lJ1}1il'finalli~.~ilJ:g:ipJh:~ .. ~~P-~~·~''. :::..:·~~:-~~. :-:"·.::. -·~~ ' ....... ::·:· -.. ·.~. ····· ...... '. ' ' .... · .:::..... . .... . . . . . ''. ' ' ' ......... : -·:·· '' ,_ · .. ::. ', .. ·_ ::·.·· :· ::'::. ·~· ~ ... : ·:' :·~··:·': ; .. >.'.·.:-:;· ;-: .. ·-::;::.-: ...... ;: : .. :.· .: . .: : :~. ·_,. :.::·_:· .. :-.:~: :::.· ·... . . . . · .. *20 To: Page 9 of 23 2015-02-0416:59:32 (GMn From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office

Ramsey that the relief sougpt was to extend the ii:ijunction and stated on pag~·~'.~.HJ::~:;:Jtl.:d2.:::~.~~at

M~m1Q~~~xgar.K~t!W:.~~~'.9..P:b~;~=@:i.~sK!9/~~9.Jg.4h~-~~P~i:yf::!t(~f:99~£Uk~:2R-*-.f9,~P~Wf.Hµnt}J.J1tlE:w;·~,,.gm

h"a~#\~¥S#i~1t~fS(!tigated''. r~.¢j~~9tirt~¥~~~~~C.~~fih~~;::JP.tm&:~t~~h¢.)~pjWf.~l~gµ~~J.~,~;~.'.t..1~114~4!!::;:;and

ITJ:~~*-:~th~-~·~q~kgK~li~~f·:~~rifi;x~:~6·i<l~¥;ext~~4.i.hs\m~,mP9:r~~/J.&~~~r~In:mJ~.::;9.r4:~r.~:$..gp!~:~~~~· .. ~ 3 i~-~~wn on4h~:iitta2lieclLExhlbff~'3". ::.:~:.:." . .: .. ::·::·:··-··.: :·.~. ~ ...... '.' ' ' : .. '.·;.•, ... :·: . . ' .

¥:~?~~1;::~!r%~~~:~Bt~:~~~~~~9:P.~~J\~~.~.;~:~~1.Rm~x;2¥U.l!AA1}R!!~ .. i'~FJ¥.?.,'.:~1~ff;}:m~g~?:~(~~~~~~l err6i{Hh/prepaj;J.P.~~;~~~n<6tdei\iliai~~gi@~~~?;.t:J~~nn~.P.;~~!ri.~jµp£~i9.n.:::~!$P.~t·:-~l~ffiU~;~.~g\~~ljiaj}ied

Judge Ramsey's signature on the order on March 15, 2014. The proposed order was not submitted to opposing counsel in violation of the Local Rules of Travis County. The order

contained an obvious clerical error in that contrary to the Court's ruling the relief purportedly

granted permanently enjoined Defendant from enforcing a Writ of Execution on a valid

Mechanic and Materialman's Lien filed against real property in Brown County, Texas without first conducting a trial on the merits and somehow invalidating the Mechanic and Materialman' s

Lien as Memorial Park had prayed for in its petition.

The action of the parties clearly established their knowledge and appreciation of the fact that only a temporary injunction had been granted in that Memorial Park filed an amended petition on April 14, 2014 Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on July 16, 2014 which are filed of record and are incorporated herein as if set out verbatim.

Contrary to the Local Rules of Travis County shown as Exhibit "4", Mr. Ruth did not comply with the mandatory requirement and filed three documents in hard copy format and did

not file the documents electronically shown by the District Clerk letter of August 29, 2014 *21 To: Page 10 of 23 2015-02-0416:59:32 (GMD From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that this Court will GRANT this request and will enter an order authorizing the clerk to enter, on the minutes of this

Court a court order granting a Temporary Injunction or, a Judgment Nunc Pro Tune, and that the record of the Court be corrected as set forth herein, and for such other and further relief that may be awarded at law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted, ROBERT E. REICH Attorney at Law 309 N. Fisk Brownwood, Texas 76801 Tel. (325) 643-1569 Fax.(3~0~ Robert E. Reich Texas Bar No. 16741300 Attorney for Defendant, John Green NOTICE OF HEARING The above and foregoing Defendant's Motion to Clarify Orders or Defendant's Motion

for Judgment Nunc Pro Tune is set for hearing on October 9, 2014 at 2:00 p.m., before Judge Charles Ramsey.

~.£, Robert '?Rcicl;. . . . ..

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September Li, 2014, a true and correct copy of Defendant's Motion for

Judgment Nunc Pro Tune was served by mail on Bill Ruth at 1406 E. Main, Suite 200,

Fredericksburg Texas. *22 ~.v

Robert E. Reich To: Page 11 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office TRENT HIGHTOWER

ORLINDA NARANJO StaH AttornC)· (512) 854-4029 Judge (512) 85-H02~ DORA CANIZALFS 419TH DISTRICT COURT Official Court Reporter DIANA CAPUCHINO (512) 854·9329 Court Opcratior.s Officer (512) 854-402.'\ HEMAN MARJON SWEAITTRAVlS COUNTY COURTHOUSE ~'1.t\NlE WILi.IAMS P. 0. BOX 1748 Filed in The Distric ~1Jrt0erk AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767 ofTravis Coun~ X3.$12)B54·5a54 FAX: c.s12)8.S4-2224 FEB 2'<Zl014 February 24 2014 ~s--~. I" M. l uez.-M.endoza,· Clerk Via Facsimile (325) 641-0527 Robert E. If 1 .

William W. Ruth Attorney for Plaintiff Aitome~D"cfendant

Two Creekwood 309~*~isk

Brownwood, Texas, 76801 Brq~ood; Texas, 7680 I

·~ff

-~· Re: Cause No. D-1-GN-14-000373; M~~ial Park Medical Center, Inc., v. John

Green, [n the 126'h Judicial District C~Travis County, Texas • (r: Dcilr Ccfo~1~1;· ·~ The Ord~r·_nrep~red by JyfF R.11.tb ~ri:ot confonn to the Court's rulings at .the hearing conducted m the above-reference()11attet on February 18, 2014. Enclosed lS an Order

Extending Temporary Restrain~~Order that reflects the ruling of the Court. The Order has been stamped and filed with tltpistrict Clerk's Office.

lf you have any questions~farding this matter, please contact our Court Operations Officer.

Diana Capuchino, at ~~54-4023. . .

Sincerely, ~~;_ Trent Hightower Staff Attorney to Judge Orlinda L. Naranjo 4 l 9 ^[1] " District Court, Travis County Enclosures ( l ) *23 xc: Mi;. Amalia Rodrigutt-Mcndoza. District Ck'Tk

EXHIBIT I 1

To: Page 12 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office Dlsp Parties: ----_,.,.__ __

Notice sent Anal Interlocutory None l:Ki4351 PG256 l:'C j Dfsp code: CVO / CLS . ......,.,~----- Redactp l Judge. 1j ~ ~ ~ ----..""--- Clerk01._ M CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-14-000373 81 c ·~~ __.~ INTHEDISTRICTCOURT:~,! ~ ~ s l § MEMORIALPARKMEDICAL :S ~ ~ , :. ! § CENTER, INC. .. ~d 8 ~ ;. § i J 126th JUDICIAL DISTRl<6vi.·~ : vs. 1 § § ~l:f :~·s; ~ ~ := TRAVIS COUNTY, 'E..0~.g ~~ § JOHN GREEN I :.__~ .S'S ., -<·.l a: ~-·

·# l ORDER F.JCTEJ'llDlNG TEMPORARY RESTRAlNI~RDER On February 18, 2014, Memorial Park Medical Center, #s (hereafter

... ~ "Plaintiff's") Motion for Temporary Injunction came to ~ ~. and after reading the

§ motion, bearing the arguments presented by counsel, ~Dsiderlng the same, the Court,

sua sponte, GRANTS an extension of the Tempor"' ~eStraining Order issued on February I ~

7, 2014, to enable service on Defendant John~n. ·~· IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thi~rney Robert Reich continue to obey all t: provisions of the T cmporary lteStra,~Order issued on February 7, 2014, until further o•

Order of the Court. 0 The parties and theil~nts are further ordered to appear before this court on r March 4, 2014, at 2:0~., to show cause why a tempo~ injunction, effective until I

final judgment in tb~use·should not be granted as prayed for. The Bor#the amount of $250 ordered in the initial Temporary Restraining Order I ~ remains~~·

.\ ~~ioNED on this the ~ l-J. day ofFebruary, 2014.

*24 To: Page 13 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office

1 REPORTER'S RECORD

VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUME TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-14-000373 MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL CENTER, IN THE DISTRICT COURT ) INC. I )

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) 126th JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. )

) ) JOHN GREEN, ) ) ) ) TRAVIS COUNTY I TEXAS Defendant. •M-----~----------~-------~--- MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS TO TRANSFER OF VENUE, MOTION TO RECONSIDER 17

18 19

20 On the 4th day of March, 2014, the following proceedings

22 came on to be heard in the above-entitled and numbered cause 23 before the Honorable Judge Charles Ramsey, Judge presiding,

24 held in Austin, Travis, Texas;

25 Proceedings reported by machine shorthand. EXHIBIT

I J.

To: Page 14 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office

2 A P P E A R A N C E S 1

2 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Mr. William Ruth 3 SBOT: #00788334 ATTORNEY AT LAW 4 1406 East Main Street s Suite 200 78624 Fredericksburg, Texas Phone: (325) 642-9802 6 7 FOR THE DEFENDANT: 8 Mr. Robert Reich 9 SBOT: #16741300

HAYNES LAW FIRM P.C. 309 North Fisk 10

Brownwood, Texas 76801 Phone: (325) 643-1569

Fax:(325) 643-3105 *26 24 25

To: Page 15 of 23 2015-02-0416:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law FinT\/ Reich Law Office

3 (Proceedings at 3:32 p.m.) 1 MR. RUTH: Your Honor, this is -- we have a

2 3 request to extend the injunction and according to the prior 4 court, they have already denied the motion for jurisdiction 5 dismiss for jurisdiction and they have already denied motion to transfer venue.

6 THE COURT: You've already had a motion to 7 8 transfer? MR. REICH: No, Your Honor, I have just now

9 10 filed it. It has not been ruled on. MR. RUTH: But the Court indicated this when we

11 12 came over here that she has already ruled on those issues. THE COURT: That's his pleadings in issue, and

13 14 you have not filed a motion to transfer, this is the first time?

15 MR. REICH: Yes -- no, I filed a plea of 16 jurisdiction. 17 THE COURT: And that was denied? 18 MR. RUTH: Yes, Your Honor, that's what the 19 20 Court just said before we came over here. Because she had

21 asked the question, she said she denied all the motions. And the only motion we have before you, Your Honor, is the motion . 23 to extend the injunction hearing. *27 MR. REICH: Your Honor, I would ask the Court to

24 25 reconsider. That's the appropriate motion to transfer,

To: Page 16 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office

4 1 otherwise it would be a matter of mandamus to -·

2 THE COURT: That's what you are going to have to 3 do. MR. REICH: Well, the Court could reconsider.

4 5 Please, read my motion, Your Honor --

6 THE COURT: All right. MR. REICH:

7 -- please. 8 THE COURT: And you said the motion to transfer

9 has already been heard? MR. RUTH: Yes -- or she said that she denied 10 11 all motions before her is what she had indicated. And she said 12 that the only 1ssue before the Court was to extend the 13 injunction. That was -- that was her exact words. MR. REICH: Your Honor, it was late in the day 14 15 . last week on, I believe, Thursday. And we only -- the Court

16 :had allotted us 15 minutes. We had requested 45 and in 17 fairness to the judge, I don't think she had opportunity to 18 consider the -· the facts before her. (Indicating.)

19 20 THE COURT: Do you have copy of this? MR. RUTH: No, Your Honor, this is the first I

22 heard, and I wasn't prepared for this, because the Court had

23 already ruled. And she said the only thing that we would be

24 having before her would be the injunction hearing to extend the injunction. 25 To: Page 17 of 23 2015-02-0416:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Finni Reich Law Office

5 MR. REICH: A copy was e-mailed to his office 1

2 two days ago, Your Honor. MR. RUTH: I have not received a copy of it.

3 4 Your Honor. That's the first I even knew about it. THE COURT: And who is requesting the extension 5 6 of the injunction?

7 MR. RUTH: Memorial Park Medical Center. 8 THE COURT: What do you have on that? MR. RUTH: Your Honor, the Court at the last

9 10 hearing had indicated that she wanted to show cause as to why she should not continue the injunction. And she had requested 11 12 that we just serve Mr. Green at his last known address, and,

13 Your Honor, we -- we did exactly as the Court said. We -· we

14 employed Assured Civil Process serving here in Austin, which is 15 one of the leading process servers, and they have provided an 16 affidavit. If you would, I would approach the bench? 17 THE COURT: Okay. MR. REICH: We are going to object to it as

18 19 ·being hearsay, Your Honor. no response from the witness. MR. RUTH: And my understanding is that they

20 filed that directly with the court when they attempted to serve 21 22 the defendants. THE COURT: Anything further?

24 MR. RUTH: Just. Your Honor, the fact that that

25 we have complied with the court order on getting processed

To: Page 18 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office

6 1 attempted on Mr. Green, and that we did exactly as the Court and that

2 ordered in order to extend the injunction. And they did exactly as the Court had stated and my understanding 3 4 is that they filed with the court their attempts to have Mr.

5 Green served. And if we need to serve him any further, Your

6 ·Honor, under 120 (a), the counsel is representing Mr. Green

7 and, you know, I think he waived service on the fact that he is 8 here to represent Mr. Green under 120 (a). And so, Your Honor, the tact that we've 9 10 attempted to serve Mr. Green. Counsel is here to represent Mr. 11 Green. We're ... we're only trying to hold this money in

12 counsel's escrow account until we can have this matter 1 3 1 i ti gated . I believe the temporary restraining order has

14 15 been thoroughly looked at. We've had the Court grant our

16 motions to dismiss opposing counsel's motions, and and the 17 only matter before the Court is just to extend the injunction.

18 And that's all we are asking for, Your Honor, is to extend this 19 injunction until Mr. Green can be served or through a posting

20 or -- or have that adequately indicate to the Court that we followed the Court's order in trying to get him served through 22 a proper -- a means of a process server here in this town. *30 THE COURT: All right. 23 MR. REICH: Your Honor, we filed a plea of 24 jurisdiction that this is not the proper court to hear this 25 To: Page 19 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office

7 1 case. It's a matter of venue, and -- and I am going to ask

2 we are not waiving service. We are not conceding that this 3 court has jurisdiction to hear this matter. It is an in rem 4 proceeding. To clear -- if I have a real property in Brown

5 County, Texas, it is mandatory that it be heard in Brown

6 •· County. We are not pleading - - MR. RUTH: Objection, Your Honor, these matters 7 8 have already been argued last week, and -- and we have

9 already -- and the ruling has already been made by the Court 10 concerning all these arguments he is making now. 11 THE COURT: He filed a motion to reconsider. I

12 wil 1 1 et him 13 MR. RUTH: Okay. THE COURT: -- give his reply.

14 MR. REICH: Your Honor, very clearly his 15 this is the clear title to land in Brown 16 petition states 17 County, Texas. Under Rule -- Civil Practice and Remedies Code 18 · 15.011, i t is mandatory that it be heard in that county. It's 19 an in rem proceeding. That's -- that's -- I don't say it's

20 elementary, but certainly it's a mandatory provision. And an identical suit was filed in Brown County 22 on January 29th, Your Honor. The -- Stephen Ellis, Judge *31 23 Stephen Ellis, the 35th District Court, denied this identical

24 motion, a request for application for temporary restraining

25 order. The Court denied it --

To: ^[23] of Page 20 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMn From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office

8 MR. RUTH: Objection, Your Honor, this is 1

2 mischaracterization and disingenuous. And, again, Your Honor, 3 I've -- this ~- these entire arguments were made before the

4 Court before and they have been -- they have already been ruled 5 upon, and I just don't appreciate the disingenuity in ~- in the

6 arguments he is making, because these are the same arguments

7 ·that were made before the Court previously and his motion was 8 :_ c1 early denied and it's just ingenious to state that this is

9 the same matter. 10 This is to hold money to -- to in the escrow 11 account. It's not to clear up title, and if there is

12 anything -- any wording to that effect that will be corrected

13 if that's the case, but this case is about -- about holding

14 some funds and that's all it's about. 15 MR. REICH: Your Honor, his petition says it's to clear title and it had -- it's Exhibit A to his petition is 16 17 the mechanics and materials lien on property in Brown County, 18 Texas. For him to say it's anything other than a clear title.

19 His petition belies that and the Court has to rely on his

20 :_pleadings. And the exhibit's there, Your Honor, you -- his

22 petition is attached to his exhibits, my motion to transfer a *32 23 venue. I believe, if you will look at his petition which is ...

24 THE COURT: But you agree that it's already been

25 ruled on and you're asking a request that I reconsider -- file

To: Page 21of23 2015-02-0416:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Finni Reich Law Office

9 1 a motion to reconsider? Is that what you are doing?

2 MR. REICH: Yes, Your Honor, and the fact that I 3 do not think the Court understood the -- the true facts that 4 day. 5 THE COURT: You better go tell the Court that.

6 The motion to reconsider is denied, and the injunction is

7 extended. MR. RUTH: Thank you, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT:· Okay. You need to prepare and order 10 and submit it.

MR. RUTH: Yes, I will. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Court is in recess. (End of proceedings at 3:42 p.m.) *33 22

23 24

To: Page 22 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office

10 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 1

2 THE STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF TRAVIS 3

4 I, Carissa Crocker, Official Court Reporter in and for the 5 250th District Court of Travis County, State of Texas, do

6 hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true and

7 correct transcription of all portions of evidence and other

8 proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the parties to 9 be included in this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the 10 ·above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred in open

11 court or in chambers and were reported by me. 12 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the 13 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any,

14 -admitted by the respective parties. 15 I further certify that the total cost for the preparation

16 of this Reporter's Record is $60.00 and was paid by Mr. Robert 17 E. Reich.

18 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 8th day of September,

19 2014.

20 Isl Carissa Crocker *34 Carissa Crocker, Texas CSR 8808 Expiration Date: 12/31/14

Deputy Court Reporter 250th District Court 23

Travis County, Texas 4404 East Oltorf 24

Unit 5104 Austin, Texas 78741 Phone: (214)326-3414 To: Page 23 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMD From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office Judges Notes Cause #0·1 ·GN-14-000373

MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL CENTER INC vs. GREEN JOHN Notes· Note Type. Date LasLEdited Last Edltecr°By Atty Ruth for Pltf. Atty Reich for Deft. 3/4/2014 314/2014 RosenS D.oeket Defendant's motion to reconsider denied. Sheet Entry Order extending TRO granted. Mr. Ruth to submit order. Record taken by visiting

court reporter Carissa Crocker. CR/sr Ruth appeared for Pltf and Reich appeared Docket 912/2014 TRIANAG 9/2/2014 for Deft on Oeft's MSJ. Record made. Ct Sheet Entry did not reach MSJ because the parties dispute the finality of Judge Ramsey's order from 3/4/14 hearing. Upon reading

the docket notes and the TRO that sets the Tl hearing on 3/4/14, this Ct is of the impression that the order was a Tl and not a permanent injunction. However, since the order singed states that a permanent Injunction Is granted and the docket notes made state a TRO extended, the Ct ordered the parties to obtain a transcript from the 3/4/14 hearing and set the matter before Judge Ramsey. If Judge Ramsey is

not available, the matter can be set on the central docket after the parties obtain the transcript. GOT Called both attorneys and left message for Docket 9/4/2014 9/4/2Q14 ParsonJ Sheet Entry Mr. Ruth that Judge Ramsey is currently schedufed to sit in Travis County during the week of Oct. 6-10, and that Lorraine would be the person they need to schedule a hearing on motion for clarification for his order from March 2014. Called Mr. Relch•s office and talked to his assistant to convey the same Information, explaining that they need to confirm a time with Judge Ramsey through Lorraine, but also actually get It set with the Court Administrator's office. They were instructed to consult with the Court Reporter from March 2014 to determine if she can provide the transcript by whatever date is set with Ramsey. *35 EXHIBIT

Fifed In The District Court of Travis County, Texas FEB 18 2015 // '-tJa M. At Velva L Price, District Clerk 353RD DISTRICT COURT TIMSULAK Judge HEMAN MARION SWEATI TRAVIS COUNI'Y COURTHOUSE RHONDA WATSON (512) 854-9380 P. 0. BOX 1748 OfficiaJ Court Reporter AUSI'IN, TEXAS 78767 (512) 854-9356

MEGAN HONEY JOHNSON FAX (512) 854-9'332 Staff Attorney ELIZABETH GAROA (512) 854-4281 CourtCerlc (512) 854-5852 PAMELA SEGER Court Operations Officer February 18, 2015 (512) 854-9179 VIAE-MAIL Mr. Fred Hoelke Mr. Robert E. Reich

fredhoelke@aol.com rereich@harrisbb.com

Re: Cause No. D-1-GN-14-000373; Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc. v. John

Green; in the 126th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas Dear Counsel:

I am in receipt of Mr. Reich's letter of February 5, 2015 requesting clarification or amendment of the February 3, 2015 Order of Dismissal.

Upon review, I regret my ability to take further action in this case at this time. It appears that perhaps further legal research by, or direct communication between, counsel could resolve any confusion or uncertainty regarding the effects of the various orders and the parties' future actions.

I trust that your responsibilities to your clients, the court, and each other will allow you to finally conclude this dispute fairly and in compliance with the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Lawyer's Creed.

orig: Ms. Velva Price, District Oerk

Exhibit 4 NO. 03-15-00141-CV

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

JOHN GREEN, Appellant v.

MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL CENTER, INC.

Appellee

AFFIDAVIT OF FREDERICK F. HOELKE STATE OF TEXAS §

§KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS COUNTY OF BEXAR §

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Frederick F. Hoelke, who being by me duly sworn, deposed as follows:

1. My name is Frederick F. Hoelke, I am counsel for Memorial Park

Medical Center, Inc. in all capacities in the 126 ^[1] h District Court of Travis County Texas in Cause No. D-1-GN-14-000374, styled

Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc. v. John Green. Exhibit 5 I Affidavit of Frederick F. Hoelke 2. I am of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, all of which

are true correct, and within my personal knowledge. 3. I am a custodian of records of the Law Offices of Frederick F.

Boelke. Attached to Appellee's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as Exhibits 1-4 are 24 pages of records from the Law

Office of Frederick F. Boelke reflecting the following documents

filed of record in the trial court cause:

a. Exhibit 1. March 13th 2014 Final Judgment; b. Exhibit 2. October 30th 2014 Order Denying Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tune.

c. Exhibit 3. February 3, 2015 Letter from Reich counsel for Appellant Requesting Court Clarifying Order of Dismissal;

d. Exhibit 4. February 18, 2015, Letter from Trial Court in Response to counsel for Appellant. These 24 pages of records are kept by the Law Offices of Frederick

4. F. Hoelke in the regular course of business, and it was the regular

course of business of the Law Offices of Frederick F. Hoelke for an employee or representative of the Law Offices of Frederick F. Hoelke with knowledge of the act, event, condition, opinion or

diagnosis recorded to make the record or to transmit information thereof to be included in such record; and the record was made at Affidavit of Frederick F. Hoelke or near the time or reasonably soon thereafter. The records attached hereto are the original or exact duplicates of the originals FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETH NOT.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME by Frederick F. Hoelke on

this the 24 ^[1] h day of Marc 2015

Notary Public State of Texas

Expires _ __ __ _ _ ,,_. .. ,,, i$.•!! ~/;;,,_ LINDA J. KILLIAN h~f'~ Notary Public. Slate of Texas 'to>J·,~/~j My Commission Expires "'~t:?:.:f~~,, December 26, 2016 *39 Affidavit of Frederick F. Hoe/ke

- -

··--~. .::.;--:~--- .. _;___ ... --~ . ------~- -~,~--··~ .. ~- ..)' -- - ... ~· ---~-~ ... , .. ::._·····--...... . .. ·. •. •-. ... I· ) · ... J.

[1] Signed by permission Appe/lee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.Ja of